GodKing: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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 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. The [[Wikipedia]] has such a person - his name is [[Jimbo Wales]]. | 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. The [[Wikipedia]] has such a person - his name is [[Jimbo Wales]]. | ||
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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 21:19, 14 August 2004
The GodKing is the owner of the site, or its administrator, or any sysop that finally got ultimate power. He uses his authority a lot. Some people thinks 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. The Wikipedia has such a person - his name is Jimbo Wales.
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.