GodKing - Revision history

142.177.10.21: noting where POV arises

2005-01-24T15:47:14Z

noting where POV arises

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 24 January 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any [[sysop]] with ultimate power. He uses his authority a lot, but often in subtle ways. See also [[Pointy Haired Boss]] for some of the important attributes of typical GKs.		The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any [[sysop]] with ultimate power. He uses his authority a lot, but often in subtle ways. ''See also [[Pointy Haired Boss]] for some of the important attributes of typical GKs, and [[God's Eye view]] for why PHB and GK are limited views.''

	Some people think this is fair (especially when the GodKing is the creator of the site, or the owner of the server) and good (because he can ensure that certain guidelines ~~stayed no disputed~~). Others think it is oppressive and ~~limit~~ the quality of participation.		== fairness ==

			Some people think this is fair (especially when the GodKing is the "creator of the site", or the "owner of the server" - see [[capitalism]]) and good (because he can ensure that certain guidelines stay undisputed). Others think it is oppressive and limits the quality of participation, since no one wiser than the GodKing will be heeded in its decisions.

			There are also calls for [[representative democracy]] to form a kind of [[constitutional monarchy]] model of [[wiki civics]] ''- see [[faction]] for an initial attempt at this.'' There are also calls to [[anarchize]] most [[large public wiki]]s and have them run simply by whoever shows up, and to [[socialize]] it by having [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] dominate - only those who have technology power run it.

			All of [[politics as usual]] seems to get involved whenever any question arises about the role of the founder/ GodKing.

			== minimizing the damage ==

	To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.		To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.

	GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.		GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.

			== relation to hard security ==

	The GodKing usually owns or has [[infrastructure owners trust\|the trust of those who own]] the [[infrastructural capital]] of the [[web service]] providing access, even if it is to a public resource, e.g. the [[GFDL text corpus]]. This role is essential to any [[hard security]] regime as it provides some cover for a [[sysop power structure]] whose acts would otherwise be [[sysop vigilantiism]].		The GodKing usually owns or has [[infrastructure owners trust\|the trust of those who own]] the [[infrastructural capital]] of the [[web service]] providing access, even if it is to a public resource, e.g. the [[GFDL text corpus]]. This role is essential to any [[hard security]] regime as it provides some cover for a [[sysop power structure]] whose acts would otherwise be [[sysop vigilantiism]].

	Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts. Accordingly to retain power, the GK will almost always advocate the [[Sysop Vandal point of view]].		Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts. Accordingly to retain power, the GK will almost always advocate the [[Sysop Vandal point of view]].

			This [[POV]] is simply hard security masquerading as [[soft security]], using bullying, lies, and [[propaganda]] and the selective use of [[ad hominem delete]]s and so on to control information about [[wiki governance]].

			== challenges ==

	Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s. However, in the case of [[Wikimedia]], a godking clearly controls the project and does damage to it, as a means of demonstrating power to control it.		Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s. However, in the case of [[Wikimedia]], a godking clearly controls the project and does damage to it, as a means of demonstrating power to control it.
Line 15:		Line 29:
	Some direct challenges to GodKing power take the form of [[smear campaign]]s, [[libel suit]]s, [[group vandalism]] and [[troll war]]s. See [[SOLLOG]] for a good Wikipedia example.		Some direct challenges to GodKing power take the form of [[smear campaign]]s, [[libel suit]]s, [[group vandalism]] and [[troll war]]s. See [[SOLLOG]] for a good Wikipedia example.

	''See [[New Troll point of view]] for the most diametrically opposed [[POV]] to that of the '''GodKing''' or his minions.''		See [[New Troll point of view]] for the most diametrically opposed [[POV]] to that of the '''GodKing''' or his minions. This [[mindset]] seems to apply [[dialectic]]s to dealings with [[troll-sysop struggle]] and its implications for wikis.

142.177.10.21: update to note SOLLOG challenge

2005-01-24T15:42:23Z

update to note SOLLOG challenge

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 24 January 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any sysop ~~that finally got~~ ultimate power. He uses his authority a lot. Some people ~~thinks~~ this is fair (especially when the GodKing is the creator of the site, or the owner of the server) and good (because he can ensure that certain guidelines stayed no disputed). Others think it is oppressive and limit the quality of participation.		The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any [[sysop]] with ultimate power. He uses his authority a lot, but often in subtle ways. See also [[Pointy Haired Boss]] for some of the important attributes of typical GKs.

			Some people think this is fair (especially when the GodKing is the creator of the site, or the owner of the server) and good (because he can ensure that certain guidelines stayed no disputed). Others think it is oppressive and limit the quality of participation.

	To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.		To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.
Line 5:		Line 7:
	GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.		GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.

	The GodKing usually owns or has the trust of those who own the [[infrastructural capital]] of the [[web service]] providing access, even if it is to a public resource, e.g. the [[GFDL text corpus]]. This role is essential to any [[hard security]] regime as it provides some cover for a [[sysop power structure]] whose acts would otherwise be [[sysop vigilantiism]].		The GodKing usually owns or has [[infrastructure owners trust\|the trust of those who own]] the [[infrastructural capital]] of the [[web service]] providing access, even if it is to a public resource, e.g. the [[GFDL text corpus]]. This role is essential to any [[hard security]] regime as it provides some cover for a [[sysop power structure]] whose acts would otherwise be [[sysop vigilantiism]].

			Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts. Accordingly to retain power, the GK will almost always advocate the [[Sysop Vandal point of view]].

			Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s. However, in the case of [[Wikimedia]], a godking clearly controls the project and does damage to it, as a means of demonstrating power to control it.

	~~Because even~~ [[~~soft security~~]] ~~schemes rely on~~ [[~~sysop vandalism~~]] ~~to "discourage~~ [[~~trolls~~]]~~, such a ruler is usually considered a~~ [[~~usurper~~]] ~~by such minority authors~~. ~~However the~~ [[~~community point of view~~]] ~~will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts~~.		Some direct challenges to GodKing power take the form of [[smear campaign]]s, [[libel suit]]s, [[group vandalism]] and [[troll war]]s. See [[SOLLOG]] for a good Wikipedia example.

	~~Most~~ [[~~wiki management~~]] ~~ideology, e.g.~~ the [[~~wiki way~~]]~~, considers~~ the '''GodKing''' ~~rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s. However, in the case of [[Wikimedia]], a godking clearly controls the project~~.		''See [[New Troll point of view]] for the most diametrically opposed [[POV]] to that of the '''GodKing''' or his minions.''

Genyphur: However, in the case of Wikimedia, a godking clearly controls the project.

2004-09-30T05:01:22Z

However, in the case of Wikimedia, a godking clearly controls the project.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:01, 30 September 2004
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts.		Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts.

	Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s.		Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s. However, in the case of [[Wikimedia]], a godking clearly controls the project.

Jukeboksi: rm indication that jimbo actually is a "godking"

2004-08-15T11:06:07Z

rm indication that jimbo actually is a "godking"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:06, 15 August 2004
Line 7:		Line 7:
	The GodKing usually owns or has the trust of those who own the [[infrastructural capital]] of the [[web service]] providing access, even if it is to a public resource, e.g. the [[GFDL text corpus]]. This role is essential to any [[hard security]] regime as it provides some cover for a [[sysop power structure]] whose acts would otherwise be [[sysop vigilantiism]].		The GodKing usually owns or has the trust of those who own the [[infrastructural capital]] of the [[web service]] providing access, even if it is to a public resource, e.g. the [[GFDL text corpus]]. This role is essential to any [[hard security]] regime as it provides some cover for a [[sysop power structure]] whose acts would otherwise be [[sysop vigilantiism]].

	Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts~~. The [[Wikipedia]] has such a person - his name is [[Jimbo Wales]]~~.		Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts.

	Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s.		Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s.

Support a unified GFDL Corpus at 21:19, 14 August 2004

2004-08-14T21:19:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 14 August 2004
Line 6:		Line 6:

	The GodKing usually owns or has the trust of those who own the [[infrastructural capital]] of the [[web service]] providing access, even if it is to a public resource, e.g. the [[GFDL text corpus]]. This role is essential to any [[hard security]] regime as it provides some cover for a [[sysop power structure]] whose acts would otherwise be [[sysop vigilantiism]].		The GodKing usually owns or has the trust of those who own the [[infrastructural capital]] of the [[web service]] providing access, even if it is to a public resource, e.g. the [[GFDL text corpus]]. This role is essential to any [[hard security]] regime as it provides some cover for a [[sysop power structure]] whose acts would otherwise be [[sysop vigilantiism]].

	Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts. The [[Wikipedia]] has such a person - his name is [[Jimbo Wales]].		Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts. The [[Wikipedia]] has such a person - his name is [[Jimbo Wales]].

	Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s.		Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s.

Support a unified GFDL Corpus at 21:19, 14 August 2004

2004-08-14T21:19:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 14 August 2004
Line 2:		Line 2:

	To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.		To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.

	GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.		GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.

			The GodKing usually owns or has the trust of those who own the [[infrastructural capital]] of the [[web service]] providing access, even if it is to a public resource, e.g. the [[GFDL text corpus]]. This role is essential to any [[hard security]] regime as it provides some cover for a [[sysop power structure]] whose acts would otherwise be [[sysop vigilantiism]].

			Because even [[soft security]] schemes rely on [[sysop vandalism]] to "discourage [[trolls]], such a ruler is usually considered a [[usurper]] by such minority authors. However the [[community point of view]] will almost always strongly reflect the GodKing view, since members of that [[virtual community]] are selected only from those who the GodKing accepts. The [[Wikipedia]] has such a person - his name is [[Jimbo Wales]].

			Most [[wiki management]] ideology, e.g. the [[wiki way]], considers the '''GodKing''' rulership paradigm to be hopelessly primitive. Indeed, it seems to have gone out with the pagan [[Caesar]]s.

Trolling Consumerium: rv

2004-06-23T12:58:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 23 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~#REDIRECT [[Off-topic]]~~		The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any sysop that finally got ultimate power. He uses his authority a lot. Some people thinks this is fair (especially when the GodKing is the creator of the site, or the owner of the server) and good (because he can ensure that certain guidelines stayed no disputed). Others think it is oppressive and limit the quality of participation.

			To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.
			GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.

Tin Filo: Must... purchase... GodKing...

2004-01-15T06:26:56Z

Must... purchase... GodKing...

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:26, 15 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any sysop that finally got ultimate power. He uses his authority a lot. Some people thinks this is fair (especially when the GodKing is the creator of the site, or the owner of the server) and good (because he can ensure that certain guidelines stayed no disputed). Others think it is oppressive and limit the quality of participation.		#REDIRECT [[Off-topic]]

	~~To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.~~
	~~GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.~~

Chris Roy: insure->ensure

2004-01-11T18:57:20Z

insure->ensure

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 11 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any sysop that finally got ultimate power. He uses his authority a lot. Some people thinks this is fair (especially when the GodKing is the creator of the site, or the owner of the server) and good (because he can ~~insure~~ that certain guidelines stayed no disputed). Others think it is oppressive and limit the quality of participation.		The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any sysop that finally got ultimate power. He uses his authority a lot. Some people thinks this is fair (especially when the GodKing is the creator of the site, or the owner of the server) and good (because he can ensure that certain guidelines stayed no disputed). Others think it is oppressive and limit the quality of participation.

	To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.		To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.
	GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.		GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.

House Elf at 09:05, 10 November 2003

2003-11-10T09:05:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:05, 10 November 2003
Line 2:		Line 2:

	To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.		To avoid becoming oppressive, the GodKing could stay away of his site if possible, be transparent in any of his decisions, and empower others whenever possible.
			GodKings should avoid threatening or scaring away editors, as they would resent it, and perhaps take revenge at worse, or stop contributing.