Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''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. | | '''Meta-Wikipedia''' is http://meta.wikipedia.org |
|
| |
|
| 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.
| | See [[m:Main_Page_Neutral]] for a good structural breakdown of meta-issues with wikis. Our [[Consumerium Governance Main Page Neutral]] should be based on it. |
| | |
| 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 [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.
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |
| | |
| 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".
| |