Two-party system: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 22:37, 3 March 2004

One theory is that neutral point of view is really a systemic bias (in large public wikis, an editorial bias). This is resisted by a New Troll point of view that refers to it as groupthink or just bogus or a product of individual biases. In other words, they insist that the community point of view deserves no special status as a route to truth.

If a wiki is troll-friendly, the trolls will gain rights and this forces sysop power structure to adhere to some social contract - the (trolling) dissensus has status alongside the (ruling) consensus, and they jockey to influence bystanders. Note that w:consensus decision making is the decision made only by those who are allowed to participate by sysops.

From these roots a civilized two-party system develops. Formal factions in and out of these two parties jockey for control of the consensus and the dissensus within each party. Eventually, when the factionally defined terms are clear and distinct from the core glossary, a true multiple point of view system evolves, and a trusted bureaucracy implements the demands of the ruling party - which only rules for some fixed period of time.

By this theory, Wikinfo is a more advanced Wikipedia, which under this theory is quite early in its evolution.

See w:two-party system for historical examples of this in politics.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 One theory is that [[neutral point of view]] is really a [[systemic bias]] (in [[large public wiki]]s, an [[editorial bias]]).  This is resisted by a [[New Troll point of view]] that refers to it as [[groupthink]] or just [[bogus]] or a product of [[individual bias]]es.  In other words, they insist that the [[community point of view]] deserves no special status as a route to truth.
-If a wiki is [[troll-friendly]], the [[trolls]] will gain rights and this forces [[sysop power structure]] to adhere to some [[social contract]] - the [[dissensus]] has status alongside the [[consensus]], though there is only one of each.
+If a wiki is [[troll-friendly]], the [[trolls]] will gain rights and this forces [[sysop power structure]] to adhere to some [[social contract]] - the (trolling) [[dissensus]] has status alongside the (ruling) [[consensus]], and they jockey to influence bystanders.  ''Note that [[w:consensus decision making]] is the decision made only by those who are allowed to participate by [[sysop]]s.''
-From these roots a '''two-party system''' develops.  Formal [[faction]]s in and out of these two parties jockey for control of the [[consensus]] and the [[dissensus]] within each party.  Eventually, when the [[factionally defined]] terms are clear and distinct from the core [[glossary]], a true [[multiple point of view]] system evolves, and a [[trusted bureaucracy]] implements the demands of the ruling party - which only rules for some fixed period of time.
+From these roots a civilized '''two-party system''' develops.  Formal [[faction]]s in and out of these two parties jockey for control of the [[consensus]] and the [[dissensus]] within each party.  Eventually, when the [[factionally defined]] terms are clear and distinct from the core [[glossary]], a true [[multiple point of view]] system evolves, and a [[trusted bureaucracy]] implements the demands of the ruling party - which only rules for some fixed period of time.
 By this theory, [[Wikinfo]] is a more advanced [[Wikipedia]], which under this theory is quite early in its evolution.
 ''See [[w:two-party system]] for historical examples of this in politics.''