Policy: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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. ;-) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:50, 14 August 2004
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. 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. ;-)