Faction - Revision history

Rev 22: Undo revision 20232 by 202.84.17.42 (Talk)

2008-01-22T21:24:02Z

Undo revision 20232 by 202.84.17.42 (Talk)

202.84.17.42: pasacelm

2008-01-21T14:31:07Z

pasacelm

Rev 22: Faction on wheels moved to Faction: undo paga-move vandalism

2007-03-13T05:49:10Z

Faction on wheels moved to Faction: undo paga-move vandalism

Willy on Wheels: Faction moved to Faction on wheels: Anarchy Rules!!!

2007-03-13T02:20:00Z

Faction moved to Faction on wheels: Anarchy Rules!!!

71.240.99.24: /* Feedback */

2006-09-23T12:04:26Z

‎Feedback

FETuriousness: WTF?

2006-01-09T23:18:37Z

WTF?

FETuriousness: spelling.

2006-01-09T23:18:17Z

spelling.

142.177.77.108: link Wikipedia red faction which now has its own article

2005-05-15T20:05:49Z

link Wikipedia red faction which now has its own article

atotland: Revert

2005-01-05T06:34:34Z

Revert

Can't load revision 4564

130.13.187.9 at 04:01, 5 January 2005

2005-01-05T04:01:59Z

Can't load revision 4563

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 22 January 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~letobocvir~~
	One good [[user-land]] definition of a '''faction''' is "those who disagree violently with others, but only non-violently with each other."		One good [[user-land]] definition of a '''faction''' is "those who disagree violently with others, but only non-violently with each other."

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 21 January 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	letobocvir
	One good [[user-land]] definition of a '''faction''' is "those who disagree violently with others, but only non-violently with each other."		One good [[user-land]] definition of a '''faction''' is "those who disagree violently with others, but only non-violently with each other."

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 23 September 2006
Line 36:		Line 36:

	''Are there other options? If there is no formal faction recognition, what is the check on the power of [[Anarchopedia:Sysops]]? Does failure to support factions imply that there must be a [[GodKing]]?''		''Are there other options? If there is no formal faction recognition, what is the check on the power of [[Anarchopedia:Sysops]]? Does failure to support factions imply that there must be a [[GodKing]]?''
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	I think that institutionalizing factions would perpetuate conflict based on faction loyalty, rather than promoting debate and understanding of the subject of disagreement. Some factions would dominate and others would be marginalized. This is similar to the way that a couple of parties in many countries bicker about trivia, while ignoring important issues.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 9 January 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~:''"I'll find a day to massacre them all, and raze their '''faction''' and their family..."'' - William Shakespeare, in Titus Andronicus~~
−
	One good [[user-land]] definition of a '''faction''' is "those who disagree violently with others, but only non-violently with each other."		One good [[user-land]] definition of a '''faction''' is "those who disagree violently with others, but only non-violently with each other."

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 * A [[GodKing]] who simply serves as the court of last resort, "master of truth and justice" ([[Michel Foucault]]'s term for the role of the Western academic), and is probably trusted by, or is, "the owner of" a [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. This is used at [[Wikipedia]]. It has had some success in getting a lot of text contributed. It seems to be less successful in getting rid of [[systemic bias]] or removing irreponsible sysops. Also, few GodKings speak every natural language! Some suggest that a GodKing doing nothing is one of the best models, called lazy tyranny, and that it is inaction rather than action that has led to the success of Wikipedia so far.
-* A [[faction system]] modelled on [[representative democracy]] as carried out in all democracies, where an edit stands or falls based on the willingness of some substantial faction of like-minded users to support it. These compete with other factions in a [[power structure]] to contain the more bureaucratic and police-like [[sysop power structure]]. This seems to have potential to simplify debate on extremely contentious issues in the same way that parties do so in countries.
+* A [[faction system]] modeled on [[representative democracy]] as carried out in all democracies, where an edit stands or falls based on the willingness of some substantial faction of like-minded users to support it. These compete with other factions in a [[power structure]] to contain the more bureaucratic and police-like [[sysop power structure]]. This seems to have potential to simplify debate on extremely contentious issues in the same way that parties do so in countries.
 ::'''''This is the proposal that probably most suits [[Anarchopedia:Itself]].'''''

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:49, 13 March 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:20, 13 March 2007
(No difference)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 One good [[user-land]] definition of a '''faction''' is "those who disagree violently with others, but only non-violently with each other."
-In [[wiki management]], a '''faction''' is a '''mandatory clique''' to deal with [[alleged and collective identity]] problems that can't otherwise be sorted out without serious [[privacy]] problems, e.g. authorizing [[outing]].  The Wikipedia Red Faction is the most obvious declared public example.
+In [[wiki management]], a '''faction''' is a '''mandatory clique''' to deal with [[alleged and collective identity]] problems that can't otherwise be sorted out without serious [[privacy]] problems, e.g. authorizing [[outing]].  The [[Wikipedia red faction]] is the most obvious declared public example.
 A faction system may extend an [[interwiki link standard]] but deals with assertions of common cause or common identity among many users who are not necessarily declaring themselves as allied, and not sharing one [[IP number]] or [[login]], or who may avoid logins entirely, e.g. [[troll organizations]].