Not made up Joe, actual. I have an issue with something in the system. I would like to change. That's a real issue, not made up. There is no effective method I can persue to effect this change, outside of getting agreement from the upper power structure. There is no effective method by which I can gain admission to the upper power structure. That's a real issue Joe, not theory.
Our Wiki environment, here and elsewhere within the sister projects does *not* work in this manner. Any person has a roadmap / pathway to gain power, effect changes, gain consensus which can actually make changes, etc. That is not a benevolent oligarchy, that is a representative democracy, or as near as we can get to that. Without a method by which persons can gain admission to the corridors of power, you do not have anything close to a democracy. That's why I oppose any involvement with P2PU. These are issues Joe which have actually had a direct effect in an actual situation. Not theory. I have enough problems of that nature that I don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is, suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete issues outside of political theory? -----Original Message----- From: Joe Corneli <[email protected]> To: Mailing list for Wikiversity <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] what is wikiversity for? (Re: US gov't awards $2B in edu.... > I certainly was not aware of, nor made aware of, any place or system within > P2PU where a person could actually cite policy to enact changes. It's true that they are not particularly driven by policy, and don't have a particularly clear roadmap (which I think is more a historical fluke than anything), and so don't have a policy for changing the roadmap. My personal hope is to help get the roadmap in order, but I hope that change in that institution is always going to be about what people *do* and not about policy. > If the meaning and nature of "rough consensus" and the specific issue, is > determined by the existing power structure, and that power structure is not > available to be modified, than what you have really is a oligarchic > benevolence government. I don't reify power structures in the way you appear to do. I prefer to think about things like "what wiki does the organisation use, and what features does that wiki have?" If I don't like something, I either look for a solution or else put up with the problem until I'm totally sick of it. I have enough problems of that nature that I don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is, suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete issues outside of political theory? > This isn't ancient Greece, and any system of "We'll listen to > you as long as we like to but we're not under any requirement to do anything > the public wants" isn't an open governance system. I can't see any more clear illustration of the difference between governance and government. At P2PU, there is no transcendent or royal "we" that has the power to do, or to not do, what "the public" wants. It's true that there is a division between those who have the power to write checks and those who don't have that power, but that doesn't mean that the non-check-writers lack other forms of power. _______________________________________________ Wikiversity-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
_______________________________________________ Wikiversity-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
