CommunityWikiGovernmentIrcConversation

Last edit

Summary: raw post; full transcript found; summarizing in progress (1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5..!) Summary complete! :)

Deleted:

< (summarization in progress...)

Changed:

< '''a family:''' A group of people who live, eat, and drink, together, under one roof, and in regular presence with one another. Barriers to entry into families are high: People don't just stop by your door, and, bingo, there you are: A member of the family. Even very nice and certifiably good people are not just immediately granted access, into a family.

to

> '''a family:''' A group of people who live, eat, and drink, together, under one roof, and in regular presence with one another. Barriers to entry into families are high: People don't just stop by your door, and, bingo, there you are: A member of the family. Even very nice and certifiably good people are not just immediately granted access, into a family. Membership in the family remains, even if people are away for a long time. People leave their marks in each other, and those marks persist across years, decades even. Entry is hard, but membership lasts a very long time.

Added:

> '''DoOcracy:''' Things are made by the people who are making them. Wiki was compared to a DoOcracy. And since wiki is like a DoOcracy, doesn't that imply that the rules of the wiki are determined by the people who happen to be present, at any given moment, whoever they are?
> '''The Nitpickers:''' The concern is that writing down rules attracts nitpickers. But we're not concerned with enforcing rules ''internally;'' We are only concerned with justifying ourselves before ''outsiders.'' Outsiders can be told: "The DM is always right. Do not argue with a CommunityMember." Nitpickers are thus not a concern.
> '''DM:''' From DungeonsAndDragons. The "DM" is the "DungeonMaster," a person who hosts a game. When players start playing RulesLawyer, telling the DM what can and cannot be done, and what the player is owed, the general rule is: "The DM is always right," and it says this explicitely and repeatedly through all D&D rule-books. Similary, community members do not need to worry about nitpicking outsiders, because: The CommunityMember is always right. It is only when CommunityDoesNotAgree, that there is a problem.

Added:

> * "Can, or will, a mob of newcomers, respect the wishes of 1 or 2 people, if there are pages stating what the wiki is for, and what it's rules are, and what it's processes are?"
> * "If ''Government'' is not the right name, for what we want to make, what ''is'' the right name?"

Changed:

< * sheep: "In a DoOcracy, you can't be gone for 6 months, and still be a CommunityMember."

to

> * sheep: "In a DoOcracy, you can't be gone for 6 months, and still be a CommunityMember." lion: "That may be the case, but in a family, it's not like that. Bayle hasn't posted in ages, but we still talk on the phone, and he talks by email, and in IRC, and so on. He's still very much a member of the family. He's still there in the PageDatabase, saying things, that are still CW policy. He left his mark in us, and it's still there." sheep: "In families, sometimes things happen, and people who were away, don't feel so much a part of it." lion: "Granted."
> * lion: "Regardless, if 2 CW members are on the post, and suddenly 7 new people come in, it doesn't change a thing. You seem to be arguing that, whoeveris at a wiki, should rule the wiki." sheep: "I think that ''whoever'' is on the wiki, regardless of whether or not there's a government, the ones on the wiki effectively rule the wiki. A government only means there's something to overthrow or move on." lion: "I don't think that's really true..."
> * lion: "First, I have the admin codes, AlexSchroeder has the admin codes, MattisManzel and BayleShanks have the admin codes. We can make the wiki into: ''must have admin codes to write.'' Revert a mess, then carry on our conversation." sheep: "But you wanted SoftSecurity?" lion: "We want a semi-permeable membrane. HardSecurity is all-or-nothing, but we want to meet new people."
> * lion: "But second, people are respectful. If you have clear basis of authority, people tend to respect that. If there is a document that says, ''this is what we're building, these are our rules, these are our members.''" Then people look and say, ''This is what you are building. Those are your rules. I see that you are a member.''" sheep: "Well, theres's the MissionStatement." lion: "Yes, but it doesn't say anything about rules." sheep: "Because rules are enforced by members, and might change." lion: "Further, as a jam session, it even implies that there are no rules."
> * sheep: "Writing down rules will bring nitpickers, and interpret them against your willing." lion: "But this is not a problem, because we do not have problems ''within our community.'' For outsiders, we need only say: The DM is always right."
> * sheep: "So this is more of a PoliceForce or Embassy. ForeignAffairs." lion: "More like, the legal backing behind all three. Because, we believe people are respectful, for the most part, and don't want to trespass your rules. The people who ''don't'' care about your rules are the easiest to take care of."
> * sheep: "Ok, I think I begin to see what you want to do. And it's quite different from what I imagined from the name of "government." At least here in Poland, we mainly connect "Government" with stupid people doing politics, struggle for power."
> * lion: "What should we call it? CommunityWikiConstitution? CommunityWikiBody?" bpt: "CommunityWikiMinistryOfImmigrantAbsorption." sheep: "More like a representative assembly." (''humor:'' lion: "What's that?" sheep: "It was popular in these parts of the globe.'' ;) )
> * sheep: "Do you want CommunityMembers to feel more responsible for "maintaining peace" on the wiki?" lion: "Well, always, but the purpose here, is to avoid contradiction, when someones enforcing. And for it to be more consistent." sheep: "By the name of CommunityWikiGovernment: be gone!" lion: "Yes, basically, but I'd prefer: By the name of CommunityWikiGovernment, Welcome! And here's how your entry to CW works..."
> From there, conversation is more about individuals.


On 2006-11-29, in IRC, there was a conversation involving LionKimbro, DanielMacKay, RadomirDopieralski, and BrianTempleton?.

Metaphores

IRC: A place where you talk with just anybody, anonymous, not anonymous, it doesn’t matter; Everyone speaks with each other like old friends. Nobody minds if you butt in on a conversation or not. An open forum, and idea exchange.

registration: Registration here refers not necessarily to a “hard” registration process, where you fill in forms, and reply with mail. Rather, SoftSecurity registration is counted as well: “Welcome! These are our policies, these are our rules, please UseRealNames, and in the VisitorRole, we refrain from making new pages, …”

OpenSource software development: CVS access is secured, the community is building a product (ContentOverCommunity,) discriminations are made, you aren’t automatically admitted. Registration is required to join a particular community, even though anybody who wants to can copy the codebase, and to do their own thing elsewhere with it.

conversations, like the wind, the river, versus like houses, like temples: We are talking about things that are built. The wind or the river, always passing. They are “constructions,” things that are built, but they just flow on by. Words in IRC. Whereas some things that people build are like houses, or like temples, and must be cared for. A ScratchWiki is like the wind or a river; A CommunalWiki may be more like houses and temples, and require care. WikiIsDocumentBased, IRC is message based.

wind-like fora: – liking the feeling of talking with a super-mind, not a single person

4ch: Based on 2ch, Japanese. Anonyminity is required, but people manage to build conversations. No registration. But again, it does not build LinkLanguage. People are constructing relationships, people are constructing conversations, but they are not constructing documents like temples. Examples: [1] [2]

object: The “object” (substance, thing,) in a relationship: What people are talking about, what their concerns are, why they are talking, and so on. The object is described as projecting a field, that attracts and repels both people and ideas. Some things are appropriate, some things inappropriate, and there’s a range of things in between.

strangers meeting: When strangers meet, and think they might talk, they send out “probes” to one another, to see if interest, worldview, is shared, and whether communication will continue. Depending on how these probes are answered, people will decide whether to continue to open up to one another, sharing questions, projects, the relationship, or not. If the relationship builds, it includes, and it excludes, by an object.

management & overhead: Needless registration (as described above,) unnecessary rules, processes, and soon. See: ProcessOverhead.

a family: A group of people who live, eat, and drink, together, under one roof, and in regular presence with one another. Barriers to entry into families are high: People don’t just stop by your door, and, bingo, there you are: A member of the family. Even very nice and certifiably good people are not just immediately granted access, into a family. Membership in the family remains, even if people are away for a long time. People leave their marks in each other, and those marks persist across years, decades even. Entry is hard, but membership lasts a very long time.

the drag queens: Dan’s wiki (on gay subjects) had a bunch of drag queens come in. They wrote hundreds ofpages. The “good” part of the wiki was only maybe 1000 pages. But Dan was okay to have them there. Sometimes they write nasty gossip about each other, but the wiki still holds together- despite the internal contradiction. Dan tried once to issue edicts, but it didn’t work. If a bunch of drag queens show up, it becomes… …a drag queen wiki!

coherence: Does the wiki have coherent ideas in it? Do they “fit together?” Or is there contradiction? How coherent is it? Are there acceptable parameters of debate, and is some stuff inacceptable? (See also: SelectivelyOpenMinded.)

Free Speech: We all agree that free speech is a good thing. But for a group of people to be able to put together a coherent message, they need to be able to exclude some other messages. The extent of required coherence is not the world, merely: the wiki. If groups cannot put together their words, then the promise of Free Speech is negated for groups. (see also: AreGroupsReal?, and CollectiveSpeech.)

Walt Whitman: He contains multitudes: People, even collective people, do not require coherence. Lion asks, “But can we go interject our own voice, into his voice?” Lion proposes that we alter his words, and sarcastically suggests that you might prefer Lion’s new revised text-of-Walt-Whitman. Lion is, in essence, saying that Walt Whitman has more coherence than we are crediting him for.

Vedic Math: A group claims that they have discovered “lost scriptures” from the Vedas. No one who studies the Vedas seriously believes this, but in the public mind, the Vedas now say what this group says it says. It subtracts integrity from the Vedas.

The Famous Book Author: A famous book author is surrounded by people who know every intimate last detail of his or her life. They’ve read everything he or she has written, and thus feels a deep, personal connection, with the book author. But the book author themself has absolutely no basis of relationship with the reader, other than, “That person likes how I think.” Further, the author is swarmed by these people, vastly more than the 8-12 that fit within a creative network (“clique.”) People can feel a bit betrayed, when they deeply admire and follow someone, but can’t get close. Is the writer elitist? See: AdoringFan.

DoOcracy: Things are made by the people who are making them. Wiki was compared to a DoOcracy. And since wiki is like a DoOcracy, doesn’t that imply that the rules of the wiki are determined by the people who happen to be present, at any given moment, whoever they are?

The Nitpickers: The concern is that writing down rules attracts nitpickers. But we’re not concerned with enforcing rules internally; We are only concerned with justifying ourselves before outsiders. Outsiders can be told: “The DM is always right. Do not argue with a CommunityMember.” Nitpickers are thus not a concern.

DM: From DungeonsAndDragons?. The “DM” is the “DungeonMaster?,” a person who hosts a game. When players start playing RulesLawyer?, telling the DM what can and cannot be done, and what the player is owed, the general rule is: “The DM is always right,” and it says this explicitely and repeatedly through all D&D rule-books. Similary, community members do not need to worry about nitpicking outsiders, because: The CommunityMember is always right. It is only when CommunityDoesNotAgree, that there is a problem.

Situations

Key Questions

Sequence

From there, conversation is more about individuals.

Raw

Sadly, I’ve lost the first half of the log.

I’m summarizing now, so you don’t have to read the whole thing.

 17:08 *** kensanata QUIT "foo"
 17:17 <lion> oh, shoot
 17:17 <lion> I was just away. :(
 17:17 <lion> Well, howdy all. :)
 17:18 <TheSheep> hello lion!
 17:19 <lion> Hey sheep :)
 17:19 <lion> Radomir?
 17:19 <TheSheep> lion: yes
 17:20 <lion> ok :)
 17:20 <lion> just wanted to be sure
 17:20 <TheSheep> you never know on irc :)
 17:20 <lion> yep ;)
 17:20 <lion> You could be the pancakes guy, after all.
 17:20 <lion> I'm reading CommunityWikiGovernment...
 17:20 <lion> catching up
 17:20 <TheSheep> actually, for me it feels awkward to know people I
                  talk to on irc...
 17:21 <lion> ?
 17:21 <lion> I think part of this whole "thing" is the meshing
              together of the material with the Internet.
 17:21 <TheSheep> yes, but it's a little different
 17:21 <lion> My feeling is that, as a society, we are doing this, even
              those of us who are epxperienced net-philes.
 17:21 <lion> TheSheep: ?
 17:21 <lion> A personal thing?
 17:22 <TheSheep> on irc you normally talk to someone who just joined,
                  as if it was an old friend, and you don't care who he
                  is
 17:22 <lion> Interesting.
 17:22 <TheSheep> something about anonymity that's actually freeing
 17:23 <lion> Well, I defienitely agree with that.
 17:23 <Lapper> TheSheep: Indeed. That's the difference between IRC
                and, say, AIM.
 17:23 <TheSheep> I still remember the first time when I spoke to
                  ThomasWaldmann or Sunir :)
 17:23 <TheSheep> that was intimidating :)
 17:23 <Lapper> How often do you talk to someone you don't know on an
                IM program? Like, once a month?
 17:23 <lion> just a sec,
 17:24 <TheSheep> because I knew them from somewhere else
 17:24 <lion> Sakura needs help putting in the Ordos disk
 17:25 <TheSheep> Lapper: when I was icq gateway enabled, I had about
                  2-3 random chats per day
 17:25 <lion> ok back
 17:25 <TheSheep> Lapper: then got tired of it and disabled
 17:25 <TheSheep> s/was/had
 17:25 <Lapper> Yeah, same with me on Skype.
 17:26 <Lapper> SkypeMe mode is used by like 11 people worldwide at any
                given time, so everyone calls you all over the place.
 17:27 <Lapper> I got calls from France, Germany, Denmark, China,
                California....
 17:27 <TheSheep> but irc has unique culture
 17:27 <Lapper> True.
 17:27 <TheSheep> nobody minds when you butt in into a discussion
 17:27 <TheSheep> nobody ever introducec himself
 17:27 <Lapper> Because it's an open forum and idea exchange. :P That's
                the best part.
 17:27 <Lapper> You can tell someone's a noob if they ask to ask. ;)
 17:27 <TheSheep> I like wikis that are like this too
 17:28 *** CapnDan JOIN
 17:28 <TheSheep> but recently more and more require registering
 17:29 <TheSheep> and I don't really think it's just for spam
                  protection
 17:29 <TheSheep> hi CapnDan
 17:30 <bpt> wb CapnDan
 17:32 <TheSheep> ... or you can just sit quiet some time :)
 17:33 <TheSheep> lion: Ordos disk? Something connected to Dune?
 17:33 <lion> Well, allow me to speak in favor of "registration,"
 17:33 <lion> whether it's a hard registration, (yes :) )
 17:34 <lion> where you have to fill out some fields and do a return
              mail thingie,
 17:34 <lion> or whether it's a soft registration,
 17:34 <lion> where it's purely in the communities head:
 17:34 <lion> "UseRealNames, introduce yourself, refrain from doing
              this when you're just visiting."
 17:34 <lion> I'll take OpenSource Software development as a metaphor.
 17:34 <CapnDan> Gooood evening all
 17:34 <lion> It almost universally requires registration.
 17:34 <lion> Good evening, CapnDan :)
 17:35 <lion> In OSS, you are writing something, you are making
              something.
 17:35 <CapnDan> Hello Lion!
 17:35 <lion> It requires organization, and so on;
 17:35 <lion> :)
 17:35 <CapnDan>  <--- DanielMacKay if you hadn't figured it out
                 already :-)
 17:35 <lion> Oh, I figured it must be. :)
 17:35 <CapnDan> Or been told by mattis :-)
 17:35 <lion> Because you said you talked with Alex in IRC.
 17:35 <lion> It must have been here.;)
 17:35 <lion> Or #emacs.
 17:35 <TheSheep> lion: actuoally it's on #oddmuse
 17:36 <lion> heh
 17:36 <bpt> <--- Zombie Ronald Reagan (UseFakeNames!)
 17:36 <TheSheep> <-- Pirate Ninja Bunny
 17:36 <lion> TheSheep: So, it makes sense to me, that if a group of
              people decides that they're building something, that they
              can require registration.
 17:36 <lion> Just free idea exchange is one thing.
 17:36 <lion> But are you building a TrustedLinkLanugage?  Or are they
              just temporary links?
 17:36 <bpt> lion: how does free software development require
             "registration"?
 17:37 <lion> bpt:  Almost all of it does:
 17:37 <CapnDan> Well, mattis said we did, yes. Usually on Oddmuse
                 where the converation ranges from the syntax of
                 NearHosts notation, to the nature of the universe as
                 perceived by 19th century writers, to whether a large
                 x-line of a face improves readability.
 17:37 <lion> We call it "CVS access."
 17:37 <CapnDan> And once in a while we talk about Oddmuse :-)
 17:37 <TheSheep> lion: well, I think that's the difference -- you
                  don't always need to require responsibility, trust,
                  etc.
 17:37 <bpt> ah. most projects I contribute to are using distributed VC
             these days
 17:37 <lion> bpt:  Most every Free Software project requires special
              access to make use of CVS, to be considered a major part
              of the dev team, and so on.
 17:37 <bpt> becoming a contributor is just a "darcs send" (or
             whatever) away
 17:38 <lion> TheSheep:  Yes: So, when do you need it, and when do you
              not?
 17:38 <lion> bpt:  Heh {;)}=  But, somebody has to accept it, no?
 17:38 <lion> bpt:  I love the DARCS model,
 17:38 <TheSheep> lion: you don't need it on irc
 17:38 <lion> and anyone is free to copy CommunityWiki content.
 17:38 <lion> TheSheep:  Not unless you're holding a private meeting,
              no.
 17:38 <lion> (nod)
 17:39 <lion> We see the affordances of the medium-
 17:39 <lion> IRC servers like FreeNode (the only one I'm really
              familiar with,)
 17:39 <lion> affords open conferences, free idea exchanges.
 17:39 <lion> But IRC words are like the wind or the river;
 17:39 <TheSheep> lion: it's a fact that when you create something
                  complicated, you need people responsible for parts of
                  it, you need trusts
 17:39 <lion> They are not like houses or temples.
 17:39 <lion> TheSheep:  Exactly.
 17:39 <lion> Is a PageDatabase something complicated?
 17:40 <lion> On ScratchWiki, no.
              http://www.communitywiki.org/en/DegreesOfEditorialControl#ScratchWiki
 17:40 <TheSheep> lion: but I like that wind-like fora, I like this
                  feeling of talking with some sort of super mind, not
                  single person
 17:40 <lion> (nod)
 17:40 <lion> Agreed.
 17:40 <lion> TheSheep: Are you talking about following the network of
              pages?
 17:40 <TheSheep> 4ch brings it to an extreme
 17:41 <lion> Written by different people?
 17:41 <lion> I don't know that 4ch has a LinkLanguage.
 17:41 <lion> It's a posting board, right?
 17:41 <TheSheep> lion: it doesn't
 17:41 <lion> Wiki is somewhat unique,
 17:41 <lion> in that it is document based.
 17:41 <TheSheep> lion: it's just an anonymous message board
 17:41 <lion> <nod>
 17:41 <lion> http://www.communitywiki.org/en/WikiIsDocumentBased
 17:41 <TheSheep> lion: but people write poems in it, or make jokes, or
                  tell stories
 17:42 <TheSheep> lion: and it's amazing how every new post improves on
                  the ideas of the previous one
 17:42 <lion> I believe that it's document basis affords
              wiki-sectarianism:
              http://www.communitywiki.org/en/WikiSectarianism
 17:42 <lion> TheSheep: Yes, yes :)
 17:42 <lion> When you have people making poems, telling stories, and
              so on;
 17:42 <lion> Whenever people gather and are talking about things that
              care to them,
 17:43 <lion> then they have an "object" in their conversation,
 17:43 <lion> ( http://www.communitywiki.org/en/SocialNetwork describes
              the "object" language )
 17:43 <lion> It necessarily excludes some things, and attracts others.
 17:43 <lion> When people who are strangers talk,
 17:43 <lion> they send out little "probes"
 17:44 <lion> ("Do you agree with subject X?")
 17:44 <lion> ("What might you think about Y?")
 17:44 <lion> Depending on how these probes are answered,
 17:44 <lion> the person decides how much they will open up to the
              other person,
 17:44 <lion> and how  much they are interested in sharing time and
              development with that person.
 17:44 <lion> If a relationship builds,
 17:44 <lion> it excludes and includes.
 17:44 <TheSheep> lion: it doesn't need to be person-centered
 17:45 <TheSheep> lion: look at this thread:
                  http://4-ch.net/dqn/kareha.pl/1156478826/l50
 17:45 <lion> People can't just join your family, wanting to be a
              member of your "thing."
 17:45 <lion> (looking)
 17:45 <lion> I... don't know how to read that..?
 17:46 <TheSheep> ignore the language ;)
 17:46 <TheSheep> it's kind of abstract humor
 17:46 [CapnDan shouts out >>33 !!!!!]
 17:47 <CapnDan> nobody laughs
 17:47 <CapnDan> damnit, I guess I just don't have the ability to tell
                 jokes.
 17:47 <lion> I'm sorry; I still don't understand it;
 17:47 <TheSheep> ok, something less confusing then, a thread about
                  books:  http://4-ch.net/dqn/kareha.pl/1156478826/l50
 17:47 <TheSheep> some posts are signed there
 17:47 <TheSheep> but most are anonymous
 17:48 [CapnDan obediently clicks on the identical link]
 17:48 <TheSheep> argh, sorry
 17:48 <TheSheep> http://4-ch.net/book/kareha.pl/1138675240/
 17:48 <lion> I've heard that joke many times, (#495,)
 17:48 <TheSheep> frames are confusing me
 17:48 <lion> but I don't see the relationship with the conversation we
              are having?
 17:49 <TheSheep> anyways, the persons signed as 'Bookworm' are
                  anonymous users
 17:49 <lion> Yes;2ch has mandatory anonyminity
 17:49 <TheSheep> I'm trying to point that you don't need to know each
                  other to build something valuable
 17:49 <lion> Sure.
 17:49 <lion> Well, ...
 17:49 <lion> SerialIdentity.
 17:49 <TheSheep> even if you *claimed* you're tha same person who
                  posted 3 posts ago, it doesn't matter
 17:50 <lion> http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SerialIdentity
 17:50 <TheSheep> it removes a lot of management and overhead
 17:50 <TheSheep> I like it, probably because of my poor social skills
 17:50 <lion> What is our question?
 17:50 <lion> What are we talking about?
 17:50 <TheSheep> I think that irc is similar in this regard
 17:50 <lion> Are we talking about UseRealNames, or are we talking
              about registration required?
 17:50 <lion> (different things)
 17:51 <lion> And whether groups shouldn't require registration, the
              world over.
 17:51 <lion> Whether it's okay for a family to not just accept anyone
              who stops by at the doorstop, but rather, say, "No; To
              join our family, we have to have a series of
              conversations." ..?
 17:51 <lion> Or perhaps the question is: "Can anonymous people, or
              people using code-names, work together?"
 17:52 <lion> I wil happily concede that people who are anonymous can
              build things together.
 17:53 <lion> Especially ifthose things are as uncomplicated as
              conversations.
 17:53 <TheSheep> lion: I'm trying to point out that... peole often try
                  to build such groups of trust, such "families" in
                  situations, when it's not really required or even
                  advantageus
 17:54 <lion> TheSheep: Advantageous, to what end?
 17:54 <lion> Are there any ends, to which forming families is
              advantageous?
 17:54 <TheSheep> lion: socializing, managing the identities and taking
                  care of the relationships and trust requires certain
                  (often substantial) overhead
 17:54 <lion> And more specifically, are OpenSource development
              communities misguided to have a development process?
 17:56 <TheSheep> lion: I don't really know about the OpenSource you're
                  talking about, for me it's just a licence you can use
                  when releasing your program.
 17:56 <lion> ?
 17:56 <lion> I mean like projects working on FreshMeat,
 17:56 <lion> or Linus Torvalds, making Linux,
 17:56 <lion> or the Inkscape guys, making Inkscape,
 17:56 <lion> GNOME developers, working out the GNOME desktop, and so
              on;
 17:57 <TheSheep> well, they need a web of trust to efficiently manage
                  resources
 17:57 <TheSheep> in this case, the overhead is justified
 17:57 <lion> Yes:  They are building something,
 17:57 <lion> yes, and so on.
 17:57 <lion> Why is it justified?
 17:57 <TheSheep> because it gives you more than it takes
 17:57 <lion> Maybe the wrong question: It may be too complicated to
              answer briefly.
 17:57 <TheSheep> (in terms of energy)
 17:58 <lion> Okay, that answer works for a view. OK.
 17:58 <lion> What is our question?
 17:58 <lion> We are attempting to answer something...
 17:58 <lion> "Should wiki communities all have no registration
              process?"
 17:58 <TheSheep> Where is the border, what projects benefit from such
                  a web of trust, and in which cases it's not needed?
                  And why do people try to build it anyways?
 17:58 <lion> . o O ( What should we be asking right now? )
 17:59 <lion> What are people trying to get rid of them, anyways?
              (from my angle,)
 17:59 <lion> Perhaps our question is:
 17:59 <lion> "Does CommunityWiki need a CommunityWikiGovernment?"
 18:00 <TheSheep> lion: well, I try to minimize unneeded work --
                  managing relationships is hard for me
 18:00 <lion> Which, is the first question on the page.
 18:00 <lion> TheSheep: agreed
 18:00 <lion> Here is my answer to why CW needs a CWG:
 18:00 <lion> Because we're building a PageDatabase.
 18:00 <CapnDan> I am still not clear about what problem precipitated
                 this- is the problem, that people are changing good
                 content or the meaning of pages?
 18:00 <lion> There is a family, that has developed over 3 years.
 18:00 <TheSheep> .oO( where did CW came from suddenly? ;) )
 18:01 <bpt> I don't understand what problems lead to the CWG proposal,
             either
 18:01 <lion> TheSheep: I hope that's fecitious. ;)
 18:01 <CapnDan> Because presumably the problem of people creating
                 irrelevant pages is not much of a problem.
 18:01 <lion> Fair enough.
 18:01 <TheSheep> lion: yes, sorry, but I was really trying to move
                  this conversation away, the trick didn't work ;)
 18:01 <lion> CapnDan: Well, it can easily become one-
 18:01 <lion> What happens is tht, someone makes a bunch of pages,
 18:02 [CapnDan listens]
 18:02 <lion> nd then starts attracting people who are very different,
 18:02 <lion> and then they all start having conversations,
 18:02 <lion> and then your friends and you, who want to write and say
              X,
 18:02 <lion> you suddenly have a swarm of people who either don't
              understand X,
 18:02 <lion> or who understand it and don't like it at all,
 18:02 <TheSheep> the old c2 had this rule: deal with real problems as
                  they happen, not with problems that might happen
 18:02 <CapnDan> lion: what resource are the new people using up?
 18:02 <lion> YES, it would be really nice if people didn't-
 18:03 <lion> CapnDan: It's not a question of resources,
 18:03 <lion> it's a question of who is present at the wiki and
              considers it their place,
 18:03 <lion> and what are the pages in the PageDatabase going to say.
 18:03 <CapnDan> well - you are hinting that the new people are
                 crowding out the old people. My question is, where are
                 they crowding them out of?
 18:03 <lion> No; no;
 18:03 <lion> It's not "crowding out,"
 18:03 <lion> it's "mobbing."
 18:03 <CapnDan> My thought is that the wiki is big and has enough room
                 for many people and many conversations.
 18:03 <lion> CapnDan: Yes, and that's true,
 18:04 <CapnDan> For instance, I had a lot of concerns about drag
                 queens taking over my encyclopedia.  They wrote
                 hundreds of pages.
 18:04 <lion> But you're still thinking of this in terms of "How many
              people and pages can we pack in an infinite space?"
 18:04 <CapnDan> ANd the "good" content of the 'pedia is only maybe
                 1000 pages.
 18:04 <lion> Yes, but are those Drag Queens writing things that
              contradict the messages of the wiki?
 18:05 <TheSheep> hehe
 18:05 <lion> When you write those things,
 18:05 <lion> are they saying, "Oh, that's not true?"
 18:05 <TheSheep> lion: you'd have to see those messages
 18:05 <lion> It's not a laughing matter;
 18:05 <lion> TheSheep: ?
 18:05 <lion> Coherence and integrity are crucial to the Passages of
              Perspective.
 18:05 <lion> http://www.communitywiki.org/en/PassagesOfPerspective
 18:05 <TheSheep> lion: sorry, thy write all sorts of things, including
                  lies and gossips and accusations and stuff
 18:06 <lion> TheSheep: Yeah, just not in your wiki.
 18:06 <CapnDan> Of course, people write things that contradict each
                 other all the time. Specifically the Drag Queens write
                 horribly gossipy nastyness about each other.
 18:06 <TheSheep> lion: I meant the encyclopedia
 18:06 <lion> This is not an attempt to destroy FreeSpeech;
 18:06 <lion> It's an attempt to be able to construct Speech in the
              first place.
 18:06 <lion> To do that requires coherence.
 18:06 <CapnDan> Whitman said, "I contradict myself? Of course I
                 contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes."
 18:06 <lion> CommunityWiki has never issued Global Edicts, after all.
 18:07 <lion> CapnDan:  Yes, and you know what?  We should all be able
              to speak authoritatively for Walt Whitman.
 18:07 <lion> I have some revisions to make to some of the records of
              things he said;
 18:07 <lion> I think my version is much better than what was there
              before;
 18:07 <lion> I'm sure people won't mind.
 18:07 <xorAxAx> ah, lion
 18:07 <lion> If they do, they're facists.
 18:07 <CapnDan> I on the other hand *have* issued Edicts about my
                 'pedia. I have said, "this 'pedia is all about queer
                 issues in this one particular city." And it hasn't
                 helped with the problem of the drag queens taking
                 over.
 18:07 <xorAxAx> the conqueror of the dark side of the world
 18:07 <TheSheep> lion: were there any impersonifications on cw?
 18:07 <xorAxAx> fighting with gay halifax
 18:08 <lion> No; But:
 18:08 <CapnDan> SO - I can guess that making rules about CW's purpose
                 won't help really.
 18:08 <lion> If the wiki has a CollectiveVoice,
 18:08 <lion> and then you allow people to write just whatever,
 18:08 <lion> and those people then attract just whomever,
 18:08 <lion> by the content of their pages,
 18:08 <lion> and it ruins the coherence of the wiki,
 18:08 <lion> then it is like impersonification.
 18:09 <lion> It's like the "Vedic Math" people, pretending that their
              texts were part of the original scriptures, and what not.
 18:09 <CapnDan> lion: Any wiki should be so lucky. You should wait for
                 that to be a problem.  ANd, if I have 50 Drag Queens
                 contributing to my wiki and no lesbians - well, it's a
                 Drag Queen wiki.
 18:09 <TheSheep> lion: you'd like to say "I agree with everything in
                  this wiki"?
 18:09 <lion> CapnDan: wha?  We have no problem recruiting people.
 18:09 <lion> TheSheep: No, of course not;
 18:09 <lion> TheSheep: But there is a range from acceptable, to
              margianally acceptable, to not acceptable.
 18:10 <lion> And this, friends,
 18:10 <lion> naturally leads to:
 18:10 <lion> CommunityWikiGovernment.
 18:10 <TheSheep> \o/
 18:10 <lion> Because when CommunityDoesNotAgree, there can be no
              enforcement.
 18:10 <lion> http://www.communitywiki.org/en/CommunityDoesNotAgree
 18:10 <lion> That was written ages ago.
 18:11 <CapnDan> lion: it's all going to be OK :-)  don't worry, be
                 happy.  That being said - really nasty stuff should be
                 deleted.
 18:11 <lion> Well, it's not so much a question of moral content for
              us,
 18:11 <CapnDan> If someone calls TheSheep a yellow-bellied sap sucker
                 and he isn't - TheSheep or soemone else should delete
                 that.
 18:11 <lion> as it is relevence to our community, and so on-
 18:11 <lion> For example,
 18:11 <lion> Even if someone is perfectly nice and kind,
 18:11 <lion> it doesn't mean that you'll therefore make them a part of
              your family.
 18:11 <lion> You know, living on the couch,
 18:12 <lion> even offering pay,
 18:12 <lion> having dinner with you at yourtable,
 18:12 <xorAxAx> The force may be with you, but only if you use
                 CamelCase to glorify your OwnHumbleWords!
 18:12 <lion> total stranger, but guaranteed to be nice.
 18:12 <TheSheep> CapnDan: yellow-belled?
 18:12 <CapnDan> TheSheep:
                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-bellied_Sapsucker
 18:13 <TheSheep> CapnDan: looks familiar
 18:13 <CapnDan> Not like a mirror, I hope.
 18:14 <TheSheep> least concern, that's not nice :(
 18:14 <CapnDan> lion: you seem to want to ahahah
 18:14 <CapnDan> wups
 18:14 <lion> Should CommunityWiki have a CommunityWikiGovernment?
 18:14 <TheSheep> lion: you seem to be pretty much sure it should
 18:14 <CapnDan> lion: you seem to want to make the contributors into a
                 family of some kind - they aren't. At the very best
                 they're a big and dysfunctional family, some of whom
                 don't like others, some of whom are crazy, and some of
                 whom are only heard from once every ten years.
 18:15 <lion> CapnDan: I disagree strongly;
 18:15 <lion> When we go to conferences, we stay pcked, 6 people to a
              room.
 18:15 <lion> We have met each other several times in person.
 18:15 <lion> We spend years thinking each others names.
 18:15 <lion> There are several cliques within CommunityWiki,
 18:15 <lion> but it IS a family, and people DO get upset when people
              just walk in,
 18:16 <CapnDan> Well, I don't know about *your* wiki but on *my* wiki
                 I've met less than 10% of the regular contributors.
 18:16 <lion> as if it's a space for anything and anyone.
 18:16 <lion> CapnDan: MeatballWiki and CommunityWiki are a little
              different than most wiki.
 18:16 <lion> C2 is totally unique, Wikipedia is totally unique,
 18:16 <lion> MB & CW are similar but different.
 18:16 <TheSheep> every wiki is unique :)
 18:16 <lion> Ok, but some are more like others than others;
 18:16 <CapnDan> I still don't understand what "thing" or "space" these
                 new people are contending for.  Help me with it
                 please.
 18:16 <lion> And I'm prepared to back that up.
 18:17 <xorAxAx> TheSheep: except if all are filled up with the same
                 spam
 18:17 <lion> CapnDan:  With the relationships, and the share of
              attention.
 18:17 <lion> I have a good diagram to explain...
 18:17 <TheSheep> xorAxAx: ok, there is one exception -- all the wikis
                  are unique, except mine
 18:17 <TheSheep> xorAxAx: and that makes it unique
 18:17 <CapnDan> You and your 9 friends have been bulding a cool wiki
                 for the last five years. Suddenly two hundred drag
                 queens start creating pages, five a day each, TOTALLY
                 unrelated to you and your friends' topics. What's the
                 problem?
 18:17 <lion> locating...
 18:17 <xorAxAx> TheSheep: thats an invalid proof
 18:17 <lion> CapnDan: Oh, that's easy to answer:
 18:18 <lion> CapnDan: You guys now have to read all that stuff you
              don't care about.
 18:18 <TheSheep> xorAxAx: induction without a base, yup
 18:18 <TheSheep> xorAxAx: gotta love them
 18:18 <lion> CapnDan: And if you told people for 2 years,  "This is
              our places, this is who we are, this is what we do,"
 18:18 <lion> and then they tell people, "This is their place, this is
              who they are, this is what they do,"
 18:18 <lion> "What's on that wiki represents them,"
 18:18 <lion> And then people start coming to see what you think,
 18:18 <lion> and they find the 200 drag queens, and what they say,
 18:18 <CapnDan> lion: no one is forcing you to read about drag queens
                 :-)
 18:19 <CapnDan> God knows I don't, I'd lose my mind.
 18:19 <lion> CapnDan: Oh, most defnitely they are-
 18:19 <lion> You see it on RC.
 18:19 <lion> RecentChanges.
 18:19 <CapnDan> Wikipedia. Is there someone who reads every article?
 18:19 *** ekim- JOIN
 18:19 <lion> WikipediaIsNotTypical.
 18:19 <ekim-> Does anyone know anything about mediawiki
 18:19 <lion> But you better believe people care who's in the community
              of particular pages!
 18:19 <ekim-> They are clueless in the mediawiki channel ?
 18:19 <TheSheep> ekim-: yeah, I know something, it has it's channel on
                  #mediawiki :)
 18:20 <CapnDan> I care what's in http://gay.hfxns.org/HistoryProject
 18:20 <lion> ekim-: Good to see you. :)
 18:20 <TheSheep> ekim-: ah, sorry about htat
 18:20 <CapnDan> but I don't give a damn about what's in
                 http://gay.hfxns.org/DragQueens
 18:20 <lion> CapnDan: Is it just one page
 18:20 <lion> ?
 18:20 <TheSheep> ekim-: you might try #wikipedia maybe?
 18:20 <lion> We don't care about what happens in the OddWiki.
 18:20 <lion> There are bajillions of them.
 18:20 <lion> We don't even read them.
 18:20 <CapnDan> UNTIL -- UNTIL - someone complains to me about abuse,
                 and my phone rings at 3:00am because someone's upset
                 that someone else has posted something about her
                 boyfriend. Then I care.
 18:20 <lion> So, is the concept of a wiki,
 18:21 <lion> where the people want whats on the wiki to represent
              THEIR ideas,
 18:21 <lion> is that just-
 18:21 <lion> totally invalid.
 18:21 <lion> Off the wall.
 18:21 <CapnDan> lion: no - HistoryProject is hundreds of pages.
 18:21 <lion> Nobody should *ever* want that.
 18:21 <lion> Not-sensical to think about.
 18:21 [TheSheep pats lion]
 18:21 <CapnDan> Right. So I excersise control *only* at that level -
                 that the police don't come to my door, and my phone
                 doesn't ring at 3:00am.
 18:21 <TheSheep> lion: if you take 2 people, there are 3 opinions
 18:22 <lion> I mean,
 18:22 <lion> if you're making a space for 200 people,
 18:22 <lion> great!
 18:22 <lion> I'm not saying you shouldn't!
 18:22 <lion> If your whole aim is to make conversations,
 18:22 <lion> generally pro-queer, or whatever,
 18:22 <TheSheep> lion: maybe you should just discourage any bad people
                  that get attracted?
 18:22 <lion> then:  That's a wonderful thing.
 18:23 <CapnDan> You discourage bad people by erasing the bad things
                 they do, promptly.
 18:23 <lion> Well, it's not that we don't want any strangers, either:
 18:23 <lion> We want to meet new people.
 18:23 <lion> We like a lot of these people.
 18:23 <lion> Again, the model of-
 18:23 <lion> You meet a person, and you don't just start telling them
              everything you think about,
 18:23 <lion> but you don't run away, either.
 18:23 <lion> You send probing notes:
 18:23 <lion> "What do you think about X?"
 18:24 <lion> "Oh, I was looking at Y, the other day, ..."
 18:24 <lion> You see how people respond,
 18:24 <lion> and so on.
 18:24 <lion> In this case, it's a wee different,
 18:24 <TheSheep> lion: is wiki a good place to do this kind of
                  chit-chat?
 18:24 <lion> because:
 18:24 <lion> One person is totally transparent.
 18:24 <lion> TheSheep:  IRC is a great place for it.
 18:24 <lion> Internally,
 18:24 <TheSheep> lion: agreed
 18:24 <lion> in your mind, you are not engaged in Chit-Chat.
 18:24 <lion> Similarly,
 18:24 <lion> the members of the wiki,
 18:24 <lion> they have already passed a threshold.
 18:25 <lion> And they are talking about very specific things, nd so
              on.
 18:25 <lion> TheSheep:  I don't know, I wonder about a related
              question:
 18:25 <TheSheep> but this threshold is different for everyone
 18:25 <lion> TheSheep: Eh, ... Somewhat yes, somewhat no, ....
 18:25 <lion> I can argument multiple angles on that statement, ...
 18:25 <CapnDan> I would like to stay and chat , guys, but I have an
                 appointment ... maybe I can be around for the next
                 "ting".
 18:26 <lion> CapnDan: Take care, that'd be awesome :)
 18:26 <TheSheep> you can be very familiar with a wiki, because you
                  just read every page on it, and want to make a
                  contribution, and the you're surprised that people
                  say "wait, who are you, you're a stranger!"
 18:26 <CapnDan> lion: you're doing a great job as deputy moderator of
                 CW. Keep up the good work.
 18:26 *** CapnDan PART #wiki 
 18:26 <lion> TheSheep: Heh;  Yes, Meatball has a page on that,
              somewhere;
 18:26 <lion> It's common with writers, too:
 18:26 <lion> Heartbreaking, even:
 18:26 <lion> A fan of a writer has read EVERYTHING an author has
              written,
 18:27 <lion> and feels in their mind that they have a personal
              relationship with the writer.
 18:27 [TheSheep nods]
 18:27 <lion> They meet, the writer is busy,
 18:27 <lion> and SURROUNDED by people just like this, ...
 18:27 <lion> Is the writer elitist, all of a sudden?
 18:27 <lion> It can look like that, from the outside.
 18:27 <TheSheep> ok, but the fans want and can do a lot in the wiki
 18:28 <lion> And it can really hurt, to feel that betrayal.
 18:28 <lion> TheSheep: Mechanically, yes.
 18:28 <TheSheep> it's not that they don't know what th wiki is about
 18:28 <lion> Because we rely on SoftSecurity.
 18:28 <lion> (nod)
 18:28 <TheSheep> they can be very familiar with it and its rules
 18:28 <lion> Well, I wish, ...
 18:28 <lion> ;)
 18:28 <lion> TheSheep: To telll the truth,
 18:28 <lion> the wording of rules on CW is very poor.
 18:28 <lion> Further,
 18:28 *** tink044 QUIT "Leaving"
 18:28 <lion> New-Person-A comes, and makes a mistake,
 18:29 <TheSheep> that's why I don't view myself even as a occasional
                  contributor -- I haven't read even 20% of cw
 18:29 <lion> but nobody enforces the rule,because:
 18:29 <lion> We're probing the new person, and being more forgiving,
 18:29 <lion> New-Person-B sees this,
 18:29 <lion> sees the contradiction,
 18:29 <lion> figures that the rule is not real, ...
 18:29 <lion> Someone punishes an infraction (in a nice way,)
 18:29 <lion> "Why is he a special case?"
 18:29 <lion> ...so on, so forth...
 18:29 <lion> It gets worse:
 18:29 <lion> Even communitymembers may not think the rules are the
              same.
 18:30 <lion> "Why are you doing that?"
 18:30 <lion> Newbies see community members disagreeing,
 18:30 <TheSheep> yes, I think this kind of things should be corrected
                  always, as soon as possible, possibly with an
                  explanation
 18:30 <lion> think that CM-A is a facist, CM-B is the nice guy,...
 18:30 <TheSheep> even at the risk of scaring that person off
 18:30 <lion> TheSheep: Yes.
 18:30 <lion> And there should be agreement,
 18:30 <lion> among the community members,
 18:30 <lion> about what the rules are, shouldn't there.
 18:31 <lion> Regular enforcement of agreed upon rules.
 18:31 <TheSheep> lion: yes, but this agreement is usually made by
                  making changes/reverting them
 18:31 <lion> Now, let's see... What shall we call this thing...?
 18:31 <TheSheep> it's doocracy
 18:31 <lion> Well,in a Doocracy,
 18:31 <lion> I think that's a bit different:
 18:31 <lion> Do-Ocracy is a question of: "How do we build it?"
 18:31 <lion> It's not a question of: "What are the rules? How are they
              enforced?"
 18:31 <lion> Question:
 18:32 <lion> In the Do-Ocracy, how does a person who's been away for 6
              months, but is very much a member, know that the rules
              are the same as the people who were there the last 6
              months?
 18:32 <lion> Are the rules written down anywhere?
 18:32 <lion> Because there were changes to the rules, ...
 18:32 <lion> But if they're not written down anywhere,...
 18:32 <TheSheep> in doocaracy you can't be away for 6 months and stay
                  a member
 18:32 <lion> Well, that may be the case,
 18:32 <lion> but in a family, it's not like that.
 18:33 [TheSheep nods]
 18:33 <TheSheep> it's one fundamental difference
 18:33 <TheSheep> there are much more
 18:33 <lion> Bayle may not have posted in a year, but he still calls
              on the phone, and we still talk with him in Email, and in
              IRC, and so on,
 18:33 <lion> and he is still very much a member.
 18:33 <lion> He's still there in the PageDatabase,
 18:33 <lion> saying things, that are still CW policy.
 18:34 <lion> He has left his mark in us.
 18:34 <lion> And it's still there.
 18:34 <TheSheep> lion: this thng happens in families too
 18:35 <TheSheep> lion: there are sometimes very dramatic changes, and
                  the members of family who were away at that time feel
                  out of place for some time
 18:35 <lion> Ah, that's true.
 18:35 <lion> Yes, very true.
 18:35 <TheSheep> lion: but they become part of the life of family
                  quick, and both them and the family change to
                  accomodate them
 18:35 <lion> Regardless, we haven't gotten there with BShanks yet.
 18:36 <lion> And further,
 18:36 <lion> more relevantly,
 18:36 <lion> If there's only 2 CW members on the post for 4 months,
 18:36 <lion> and suddenly 7 new people come in,
 18:36 <TheSheep> lion: and sometimes a member of family goes out of
                  touch, leaves the country, and becomes merely a
                  family legend, never to be heard from again
 18:36 <lion> it doesn't change a thing.
 18:36 <lion> TheSheep: True, true.
 18:36 <lion> But, these are all particulars;
 18:36 <lion> I'd rather keep it on CommunityWiki.
 18:37 <lion> You seem to be arguing that, whoever is present at the
              wiki, should rule the wiki.
 18:37 <lion> Are you arguing that?
 18:37 <TheSheep> lion: there are also dramatic changes in families,
                  like mariage, that can bring in a whole new bunch of
                  members, with totally conflicting view
 18:37 <lion> Yep, yep yep yep yep.
 18:37 <TheSheep> lion: that's how it works in practice
 18:37 <lion> So, what are we arguing?
 18:37 <lion> I think my metaphor still works, to whatever purpose we
              are touching...
 18:38 <lion> What are we asking?
 18:38 <TheSheep> lion: no matter if there will be government or not,
                  the ones that are on the wiki effectively rule the
                  wiki
 18:38 <lion> I don't think that's really true.
 18:38 <TheSheep> existence of government only means there is something
                  to overthrow to move on
 18:38 <lion> Negatory;
 18:38 <lion> I have the admin codes to the wiki.
 18:38 <lion> Alex hs them.
 18:39 <lion> Mattis has them.
 18:39 <lion> Bayle has them.
 18:39 <TheSheep> all you can do is to destroy it
 18:39 <lion> Several others have them.
 18:39 <lion> No, not at all;
 18:39 <lion> We can turn it into "must have the codes to write."
 18:39 <lion> We erase the mess the anti-respectful party'ers make,
 18:39 <lion> then carry on our conversations.
 18:39 <lion> Decide what to do.
 18:39 <TheSheep> lion: you already want to make it this way, only
                  without technical enforcement
 18:40 <TheSheep> ors it seems to me
 18:40 <lion> No, there's a difference:
 18:40 <lion> We want a semi-permeable membrane.
 18:40 <TheSheep> of course it is one possible solution
 18:40 <lion> HardSecurity is: "All or nothing."
 18:40 <lion> Further,
 18:40 <TheSheep> and probably a good one for what you're arguing about
 18:40 <lion> you miss something:  People are respectful.
 18:40 <lion> If you have a clear basis of authority,
 18:40 <lion> people tend to respect that.
 18:40 <lion> If there is a document that says,
 18:40 <lion> "This is what we are building.  These are our rules.
              These are our members,"
 18:41 <lion> then when the people come, they say,
 18:41 <lion> "This is what you are building.  These are your rules.  I
              see that you are a member."
 18:41 <TheSheep> well, there is the mission statement
 18:41 <lion> And they are respectful.
 18:41 <lion> Well, the mission statement doesn't say anything about
              rules, though.
 18:41 <TheSheep> because the rules are enforced by the members -- and
                  might change
 18:41 <lion> Further, as a jam session, it can even imply the
              opposite.
 18:42 <lion> Yes.
 18:42 <TheSheep> writing down the rules will bring you many nitpickers
                  who will interpret them against your willing
 18:42 <lion> Fortunately:
 18:42 <lion> We do nothave that problem *within our community,*
 18:42 <lion> and we can say:
 18:43 <lion> "The DM is always right."
 18:43 <TheSheep> :)
 18:43 <TheSheep> "In case he's not, see point 1"
 18:43 <lion> Yes;
 18:43 <lion> The purpose of the Government is not to govern
              CommunityMembers,
 18:43 <lion> or OccasionalContributors,
 18:43 <lion> who don't need governing.
 18:43 <lion> It's just for relationships with outsiders, mainly.
 18:43 <TheSheep> so it's more of a PoliceForce
 18:44 <TheSheep> or Embassy
 18:44 <lion> Well, the **backing** for a police force.
 18:44 <lion> Yes.
 18:44 <TheSheep> ForeignAffairs
 18:44 <lion> The "legal" backing, for both.
 18:44 <lion> Yes.
 18:44 <lion> All 3.
 18:44 <lion> Because:
 18:44 <lion> We believe people are respectful, for the most part.
 18:44 <lion> People don't want to trespass your rules.
 18:44 <lion> (And so on.)
 18:45 <lion> People who don't, are the easiest to take care of.
 18:45 <TheSheep> ok, I think I begin to see what you want to do
 18:45 <TheSheep> and it's quite different from what I imagined from
                  the name of "government"
 18:45 <lion> Oh!
 18:45 <lion> How interesting!
 18:45 <lion> What does "government" project?
 18:46 <lion> Perhaps I just need a better name for this.
 18:46 <lion> Maybe "Constitution"?
 18:46 <lion> CommunityWikiConstitution?
 18:46 <TheSheep> lion: well, in Poland we mainly connect it with
                  stupid people doing politics :)
 18:46 <lion> CommunityWikiBody?
 18:46 <lion> TheSheep: ah; ok ;)
 18:46 <TheSheep> lion: and struggling for power
 18:46 <lion> Yes,yes.
 18:46 <lion> Quite right.
 18:48 <TheSheep> lion: am I right that you want the members to feel
                  more responsible for "maintaining peace" on the wiki?
 18:48 <bpt> CommunityWikiMinistryOfImmigrantAbsorption
 18:48 <lion> Well, I would always like that, but that's not the
              purpose of it--
 18:48 <lion> rather, whoever happens to be enforcing,
 18:48 <lion> to not contradict it.
 18:48 <lion> And for it to be consistent.
 18:49 <lion> (Agreed upon.)
 18:49 <TheSheep> "By the name of CommunityWikiGovernment: be gone!" ;)
 18:49 <lion> Yes, basically.  {;)}=
 18:49 <lion> And a clear explanation behind that authority.
 18:49 <lion> Yes.  Very nicely put.
 18:49 <lion> ;)
 18:49 <lion> Or, rather:
 18:49 <lion> In most cases,
 18:49 <TheSheep> "Or we will keep saying 'ni'"
 18:50 <lion> "By the name of CommunityWikiGovernment, Welcome!  And
              here's how your entry to CW works."
 18:50 <TheSheep> upon you
 18:51 <TheSheep> so it's really more a representative comitte
 18:51 <lion> :)
 18:51 <lion> ?  I've never heard of that before, but it sounds good.
 18:51 <TheSheep> lion: it was popular in these parts of the globe ;)
 18:52 <lion> TheSheep: Do you mind if I post our transcript to CW?
 18:52 <TheSheep> lion: not at all
 18:52 <TheSheep> lion: but I'm afraid of one little thing
 18:52 <lion> OK?
 18:52 <lion> (what is it?)
 18:53 <TheSheep> I'm hardly connected with cw, but I seem to have a
                  lot to say about it -- too much given my position and
                  knowledge.
 18:53 <TheSheep> it doesn't seem right
 18:53 <lion> OH-
 18:53 <lion> I see.
 18:53 <lion> Well, this is a funny thing about cliques.
 18:53 <lion> Some people just fit.
 18:53 <lion> Others, despite wanting to be part for ages,
 18:53 <lion> will never fit.
 18:53 *** Lapper QUIT Client Quit
 18:53 <lion> I do not know why cliques have the structure that they
              do.
 18:54 <lion> It is like asking, "Is this man, and is this woman-- if
              they get together, will it work?"
 18:54 <lion> We do not really have it down to a science.
 18:54 <lion> If I had to put fetish labels on it,
 18:54 <lion> I would say that you fit because we like people who can
              draw, who are into games, who think critically, and so
              on, and so forth.
 18:55 <lion> So, somehow, you just fit.
 18:55 <TheSheep> well, but I don't really feel the part of cw, I'm
                  glad I'm welcome there, and I want to be part of it,
                  but somehow I don't find the time to read up and do
                  some serious contributions
 18:55 <lion> Here's another funny one; Mattis fits in perfectly.
              Well, he just does.
 18:55 <lion> TheSheep: That's okay.
 18:55 <bpt> lion: is there anywhere mattis *doesn't* fit in perfectly?
             (:
 18:55 <lion> Just be an OccasionalContributor.
 18:56 <lion> bpt: Republican National Convention.
 18:56 <lion> That would be the one.
 18:56 <bpt> haha
 18:56 <lion> ;)
 18:56 <TheSheep> personally I can't imagine Mattis not fitting
                  anywahere :)
 18:56 <lion> Heh. :)
 18:56 <TheSheep> exactly
 18:56 <lion> We are very lucky to "have" him.
 18:56 <TheSheep> yeah
 18:56 <lion> I personally think that the reason that WikiNodes took
              off, is because of Mattis, pretty much single-handedly.
 18:57 <bpt> yes
 18:57 <TheSheep> yes, altrough I still don't "get it" as a whole
 18:57 <lion> ?
 18:58 <bpt> lion: what happened to taoriver.net?
 18:58 <lion> bpt:  Uh... It's in my bedroom.
 18:58 <TheSheep> I mean, there were things like wikibus...
 18:58 <lion> I just have been lazy, haven't plugged it back in...
 18:58 <lion> I need to do that...
 18:58 <TheSheep> lion: please do, local names are important
 18:58 [lion has been bad.]
 18:58 <lion> <nod>
 18:58 <lion> Quite right.  Thank you.
 18:59 <lion> TheSheep: Did you hear the 1.7 idea?
 18:59 <TheSheep> thank you :)
 18:59 <lion> Well, I don't want to sidetrack it.
 18:59 <TheSheep> lion: no, I'm quite behind with reading anything
 18:59 <lion> My task now, I think, is basically to copy this
              discussion to CW,
 18:59 <lion> and then start summarizing it.

Define external redirect: BrianTempleton ForeignAffairs DungeonsAndDragons DungeonMaster WikipediaIsNotTypical CommunityWikiMinistryOfImmigrantAbsorption CommunityWikiBody CommunityMembers RulesLawyer

EditNearLinks: PoliceForce HardSecurity OpenSource SerialIdentity AdoringFan MeatballWiki VisitorRole PageDatabase CommunityMember

Languages: