Anti-authoritarianism in practice and Meta-Wiki: Difference between pages

Latest revision as of 16:21, 1 September 2016

Meta-Wikipedia (".org") is a service devoted to discussing, debating, regulating and governing the Wikipedia. It has an ambiguous role relative to the wikipedia mailing list since this also is supposedly for governing the project.

One way to understand the relationship is that the meta seems to support multiple point of view debate that does not easily fit in the neutral point of view straitjacket of Wikipedia itself, but which challenges the current prevailing power structure of the Wikipedia sysop community. This relatively small group makes editorial decisions, most notably, which users shall suffer IP bans, and which IP numbers and identities are claimed to represent which users. At times this can be as complex as a judicial process.

But many decisions are simply too small in scale for any great discussion, and a responsible committees of a few people tend to work those out openly within the wiki process itself. This discussion in the meta may act as a kind of bureaucracy for the Wikipedia, making many routine decisions, proposing means of responsible governance, etc., freeing the mailing list to act as a kind of ruling party, handling exceptions and making "political" appointments.

The Main Page style of the meta seems usually to reflect this current power relationship. Point of view of the Main Page tends to emphasize educating new users more when the 'bureaucrats' are in ascendance, and to recruiting for coding or proselytizing efforts more when the 'party' is in ascendance. These reach a sort of consensus and the Main Page remains stable for fairly long periods, then a new battle seems to break out and it gets substantially changed.

One way to reduce the disinformation potential of this political process would be to have many alternate Main Pages each of which fully expressed one of many points of view, and no one of which would have to be deemed "correct" relative to the others. This would make it quite hard to hide critiques of editorial policy or exposure of bias by either the 'bureaucrats' or the 'ruling party' or indeed any faction.

However, it remains to be seen whether the reflexive use of a meta using the same technology as the main discourse can displace mailing lists or personal email correspondence and cliques as a governance tool. MeatballWiki attempts this transparency and reflexivity, using only an editor communicating via the wiki process itself, but it often simply devolves to a form of pro-technology propaganda or little tin god sysop game. If someone could make the wiki process govern the wiki process itself better, this would have implications for other wiki software users:

While these meta services might appear to be unimportant relative to more "real world" means of altering perception of governance matters, it may be of more than obvious importance if the wiki process catches on more generally. The Disinfopedia and Consumerium projects suggest that it may do so - other groups such as Greenpeace and Global Greens are considering the usefulness of such meta mechanisms for their global Open Campaigning.

Accordingly, the various ways in which such mechanisms can be made more open and neutral may need to be monitored to help these projects evade disinformation campaigns by their many opponents in the military-industrial complex, waste economy, corporate globalization advocacy, and other "camps".

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Anti-authoritarianism in practice''' typically looks like [[crime]] to those who support [[authority]].  A trivial example is [[troll-sysop struggle]]s which are characterized as criminal by [[sysop power structure]] even though most [[trolls]] are harmless.  Serious anti-authority action may follow lines like this, first published as '''how to organize an anarchist group''' at the old [[Recyclopedia]] which was apparently run by a mole for authority who hated it:
+'''Meta-Wikipedia''' ("[http://meta.wikipedia.org .org]") is a service devoted to discussing, debating, regulating and governing the [[Wikipedia]].  It has an ambiguous role relative to the [http://wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l wikipedia mailing list] since this also is supposedly for governing the project.
------------
+One way to understand the relationship is that the '''meta''' seems to support [[multiple point of view]] debate that does not easily fit in the [[neutral point of view]] straitjacket of Wikipedia itself, but which challenges the current prevailing power structure of the [[Wikipedia sysop community]].  This relatively small group makes editorial decisions, most notably, which users shall suffer [[IP bans]], and which IP numbers and identities are claimed to represent which users.  At times this can be as complex as a judicial process.
-'''How to organize an anarchist group'''
-(outline)
+But many decisions are simply too small in scale for any great discussion, and a responsible committees of a few people tend to work those out openly within the [[wiki process]] itself.  This discussion in the '''meta''' may act as a kind of [[bureaucracy]] for the [[Wikipedia]], making many routine decisions, proposing means of responsible governance, etc., freeing the mailing list to act as a kind of [[ruling party]], handling exceptions and making "political" appointments.
-*finding a [[basis for unity]] - [[no confusion with group entity]] itself
+The [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page_style Main Page style] of the '''meta''' seems usually to reflect this current power relationship.  Point of view of the [http://meta.wikipedia.org Main Page] tends to emphasize educating new users more when the 'bureaucrats' are in ascendance, and to recruiting for coding or proselytizing efforts more when the 'party' is in ascendance.  These reach a sort of [[consensus]] and the Main Page remains stable for fairly long periods, then a new battle seems to break out and it gets substantially changed.
-*sharing individual [[personal experience]] and [[declaration of bias]];  [[meeting style]]s appropriate to [[anarchize]]
-*extremely open discourse and exchange of ideas and vocabulary - looking for ideal language to engage and debate others, especially in other [[ethical tradition]]s, to establish rules of [[mutality]] and [[common cause]]s
-*identifying shared concern and [[common cause]]s
-*[[no operational contact]] with any party not completely trusted
-*establishing [[due process]] for [[fairness]] - avoiding [[groupthink]];  when to [[require response to hearsay]]
-*dealing with [[financial capital]] shortages, e.g. [[sustainable trades]], [[how to make small honest money fast]]
-*protecting helpless members, e.g. from [[police]], [[outing]], other abuses.
-*limiting size, i.e. [[rule of 150]], [[eco-village]]
-*growing [[social capital]] via [[empathic integrity]] (trusting each other)
-*[[squat]]s and the [[cockroach ethic]]
-*[[scavenging]] and the [[raccoon ethic]]
-how to explain what you're doing
+One way to reduce the [[disinformation]] potential of this political process would be to have many [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page_alternate alternate Main Pages] each of which fully expressed one of many points of view, and no one of which would have to be deemed "correct" relative to the others.  This would make it quite hard to hide critiques of [[editorial policy]] or exposure of [[bias]] by either the 'bureaucrats' or the 'ruling party' or indeed any faction.
-How [[Four Pillars]] (of [[Green Parties]], [[peace movement]], [[ecology movement]], [[altermondialiste]]s) can help explain what you're doing and why:
+However, it remains to be seen whether the reflexive use of a '''meta''' using the same technology as the main discourse can displace mailing lists or personal email correspondence and cliques as a governance tool.  [[MeatballWiki]] attempts this transparency and reflexivity, using only an editor communicating via the [[wiki process]] itself, but it often simply devolves to a form of [[pro-technology propaganda]] or [[little tin god sysop]] game.  If someone could make the [[wiki process]] govern the [[wiki process]] itself better, this would have implications for other wiki software users:
-*Pillars are generally considered interdependent, reinforcing each other in non-obvious ways - you can usually show in any debate that without one of them, the other three will fall apart.  This validates defensive tactics and builds unity with those who operate within the political system (e.g. seeking [[bourgeois revolution]])
-*[[social justice]] begins with intra-group equality and protecting helpless members
-*[[consensus democracy]] and [[deliberative democracy]] methods may help when the entire group must make a single decision and commit to it completely;  ways [[consensus decision making]] can vary to adapt to different risk levels
-*[[nonviolence]] as rhetoric;  [[satyagraha]];  relevance to [[direct action]] and [[civil disobedience]];  [[how to make bullying you not worth it]]
-*[[terrist]] and [[troll ethics]] - saving your planet by annoying society
-*[[hominid personhood]] and [[animal rights]] - who or what are you most like?
-How [[situationiste]] and [[absurdist]] tactics can help, e.g. with [[distraction]], [[mass media]] attention.  How [[situated ethics]] applies, and can keep you unified even in difficult situations, i.e. [[solidarity]].
+While these '''meta''' services might appear to be unimportant relative to more "real world" means of altering perception of governance matters, it may be of more than obvious importance if the [[wiki process]] catches on more generally.  The [[Disinfopedia]] and [[Consumerium]] projects suggest that it may do so - other groups such as [[Greenpeace]] and [[Global Greens]] are considering the usefulness of such '''meta''' mechanisms for their global [[Open Campaigning]].
-what not to do
+Accordingly, the various ways in which such mechanisms can be made more open and neutral may need to be monitored to help these projects evade disinformation campaigns by their many opponents in the [[military-industrial complex]], [[waste economy]], [[corporate globalization]] advocacy, and other "camps".
-when to break up
-=== References ===
-methods
-*''[[Fight Club]]'' (film, novel) - how to build completely decentralized ops
-*''[[The Great Escape]]'' (film, book) - how to operate under operational pressure
-*''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'' (book) - how language reflects and alters values, ''see also [[Green:greenspeak]] for a modern project of this nature, and [[list of Islamic terms in Arabic]] for one that's over a millenium old.''
-*''[[The Diamond Age]]'' (book) - [[Reformed Distributed Republic]], [[phyle]] mechanics, [[etiquette]] and [[hypocrisy]], easiest [[cryptography]] primer!
-*''[[Loompanics]]'' - best book catalog for anarchists
-society and what's going on
-*''[[Three Days of the Condor]]'' (film) - the current [[oil imperialism]]
-*''[[Rollerball]]'' (film) - [[corporate globalization]] and its consequences
-*''[[Network]]'' (film) - [[mass media]] and how it manipulates your priorities
-See also [[Black bloc:bibliography]] for the above and quite a few more.  Some overlap with [[Green:bibliography]], especially for [[nonviolent anarchism]].