GodKing: Difference between revisions
m (However, in the case of Wikimedia, a godking clearly controls the project.) |
(update to note SOLLOG challenge) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any sysop | 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. | |||
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.'' | |||
Revision as of 15:42, 24 January 2005
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.
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. 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 Caesars. 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.
Some direct challenges to GodKing power take the form of smear campaigns, libel suits, group vandalism and troll wars. 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.