Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-30683785-20161004195820/@comment-4041224-20161006165237

Rapmilo wrote:

Keplers wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

GuacamoleCCXR wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

Keplers wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

AmazingPythor wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

Purplebrick333 wrote:

Marshal6000 wrote: So much for democracy. Democracy only works well in certain situations anyway.

This wiki is not an example of a good one. Nah, democracy sucks. Period. Democracy with a well-educated populace is ideal for a nation, but with something like a wiki some oligarchic influence can prove useful. Why do we have to implement a governmental system on a wiki?

We can do without one. that would be anarchy Not quite. an oligarchy would still be a government system We could use feudalism; at least the concept of it, that is. I hate to make you feel like a moron but not only is that somewhat of a governmental concept, it's mostly a societal/economic construct that's not remotely applicable here I meant using the concept of it; not feudalism literally.

We have admins and editors. The editors edit the wiki in exchange for regulation by the admins. Something of that sort. It's similar to how feudalism functions, however remotely.

But I agree it's not really much of a governmental system except editing is voluntary, cannot be demanded by the administration, and isn't even remotely comparable to the mass of all resources extracted from peasants under feudalism.

not to mention that there is no benefit in the system you proposed, even if something along those lines could realistically be installed. Alright, let me make myself more clear:

First off, I don't mean to install a system of literal feudalism, as I have stated before. This means that I am looking toward the concept of feudalism rather than the actual practice of it.

Now let me make myself clear by what I mean by the concept of feudalism and what I mean by the practice of feudalism. What you, Guac, are referring to is the practice of feudalism, that is how it was implemented and practiced in Europe (which, needless to say, was a mess). But what I am referring to is the mutualistic concept of feudalism (the way that it was supposed to be implemented).

Obviously the difference between the concept and practice of a governmental system, is not exclusive to feudalism. Socialism and communism are both examples of governamntel/political constructs that weren't met well when implemented.

So how can the concept of feudalism, which reflected the needs of serfs, lords and vassals, be implemented in a wiki, a virtual community of semi-anonymous users. Well, the answer is quite simple when we eliminate the idea of wealth/land and replace it with the urge to edit (even if voluntary), and relate the concept of feudalism with the relationship between administrators/staff and users.

If we equate users with serfs, and admins with lords, for sake of the argument, we are met with a relationship of admins exploiting editors. Correct? Well, only partially, that is if we are referring to the practice of it as it had been practiced in Europe.

However, if we are referring to the concept of feudalism the reality would be much different. Administrators would exist for the benefit of those who edit on the wiki. What benefit could that be? Well many things such as catering to the needs of the community and general regulation.

So in this manner admins and users have a mutualistic relationship. Is this really feudalism, I then hear you asking? Probably not, but it does draw a fair share of ideas from it.

On any note, I think I'm taking this far too seriously :P ... But I enjoy nothing more than a good argument, even one as aimless as this. Basically you're still asking for the bureaucratic dictatorship I told you earlier: a small oligarchy makes the decisions and in return the users have the reward of using this wiki. It sounds better when you don't use the word dictatorship :P feudalism does not sound better than dictatorship at all