Support a unified GFDL Corpus at 21:50, 14 August 2004

2004-08-14T21:50:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:50, 14 August 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Rather than apply some "absolute-sounding [[ethic]]" (even such a seemingly open and anarchically benevolent one as "[[troll-friendly]]") to develop any Consumerium policy, it seems advisable to rely mostly or only on what [[Consumerium:itself]], says about its own purpose and mission. Then the items which are very widely shared, or clearly undesirable, can be listed as specific items of standing policy, or, rejected and listed under [[what Consumerium is not]].		Rather than apply some "absolute-sounding [[ethic]]" (even such a seemingly open and anarchically benevolent one as "[[troll-friendly]]") to develop any Consumerium policy, it seems advisable to rely mostly or only on what [[Consumerium:itself]], says about its own purpose and mission. Then the items which are very widely shared, or clearly undesirable, can be listed as specific items of standing policy, or, rejected and listed under [[what Consumerium is not]].

	This method would seem to have [[bottom-up authoritative integrity]] as it does not rely on any pre-existing [[ethical code]] or [[wiki ontology]] that is imposed or defined by anyone other than the ordinary participant.		This method would seem to have [[bottom-up authoritative integrity]] as it does not rely on any pre-existing [[ethical code]] or [[wiki ontology]] that is imposed or defined by anyone other than the ordinary participant. It gains its authority, if any, from the lack of objection or dispute to any '''policy''', as long as there are no inhibitions against offering such objections.

	If successful, this form of policy [[bootstrap]] would prove that it is quite possible to function without a [[GodKing]] or even a [[representative democracy]] model, though some [[sysop power structure]]/[[bureaucracy]] and [[faction]]/[[polity]] should be probably prepared to help any [[users in conflict]] as they work towards developing their progressive fiqh, er, policy. ;-)		If successful, this form of policy [[bootstrap]] would prove that it is quite possible to function without a [[GodKing]] or even a [[representative democracy]] model, though some [[sysop power structure]]/[[bureaucracy]] and [[faction]]/[[polity]] should be probably prepared to help any [[users in conflict]] as they work towards developing their progressive fiqh, er, policy. ;-)

Support a unified GFDL Corpus at 16:26, 3 June 2004

2004-06-03T16:26:07Z

New page

Rather than apply some "absolute-sounding [[ethic]]" (even such a seemingly open and anarchically benevolent one as "[[troll-friendly]]") to develop any Consumerium policy, it seems advisable to rely mostly or only on what [[Consumerium:itself]], says about its own purpose and mission. Then the items which are very widely shared, or clearly undesirable, can be listed as specific items of standing policy, or, rejected and listed under [[what Consumerium is not]].

This method would seem to have [[bottom-up authoritative integrity]] as it does not rely on any pre-existing [[ethical code]] or [[wiki ontology]] that is imposed or defined by anyone other than the ordinary participant.

If successful, this form of policy [[bootstrap]] would prove that it is quite possible to function without a [[GodKing]] or even a [[representative democracy]] model, though some [[sysop power structure]]/[[bureaucracy]] and [[faction]]/[[polity]] should be probably prepared to help any [[users in conflict]] as they work towards developing their progressive fiqh, er, policy. ;-)

Policy - Revision history

Support a unified GFDL Corpus at 21:50, 14 August 2004

Support a unified GFDL Corpus at 16:26, 3 June 2004