Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-30683785-20161004195820/@comment-5369341-20161006141304

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. Ya'll are going way too deep with all of this.