Talk:Wikicracy

see : http://www.metagovernment.org/ About the creation of a metagovernment.

(Contribution from unknow user)

Interesting link. Technical cooperation could be possible between the 2 projects. Some ideas could be taken from metagovernment way of functioning, we could discuss it (for example about the weigth stuff)

The idea to understand behind wikicracy project is that it is not about new contents, but about an adaptation of wiki to decision making process. So this project is not supposed to say what is good or bad or to make any proposition or to give any knowledge, it is just about the building of a great add-on extention of wiki software that could be used by groups to discuss more efficiently and more democratically their propositions in a cooperative way, and to improve/facilitate elections/votes within organizations/governments.

Therefore, the website of the link is interesting in this sense that the tools it will develop for itself could be very useful for this project, and the tools developped by this project could be later adopted by the metagovernment.

Note (that has nothing to do with this project, but I couldn't write it on the metagovernment website... : The following argument seen on meta government particularly bothers me - quote : Preventing the return of leaders. The use of force or threats of violence in order to establish control over others shall be strictly forbidden [...] Should a leader begin to emerge within an established open source government and be recognized as a threat by the local government's website or any higher government's website, it shall be the duty of every person to stop that leader by any means necessary, not excluding assassination.).

Vmandrilly

about the weighting system, I guess the inspiration comes from the way Google classifies the importance of websites. There is a risk that a community within all the users decide to vote for each another, just like there are websites with high ranking because they created multiple pages relating to each another... how do you address the issue ?

Vmandrilly

The name I choosed (wikicracy) is also open for debate, once a consensus of at least 10 person has been reached, I will register a ___domain name corresponding to our choice. Vmandrilly 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I prefer wikiocracy. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is probably easier to pronounce. This new name is OK for me. 'Vmandrilly 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)'Reply

http://protoforge.org/ is a similar tool but meant for organizing engineering laws (requirements).

Thanks for the link. I first I was a little disapointed because it looked so complicated, and had aparently nothing to do with wikicracy project, but then I looked further. I registered as sample user to test. It is great news indeed that there already exists a similar project working, but why isn't it based on MediaWiki? Don't you think it would have done a great wikiprotoforge? (and protoforge really needs to be more easy to use, with less links.)

What I proposed is a mix between MediaWiki and protoforge, with different terminology:

1) It shall be as easy for users to use and to edit the pages as it is with MediaWiki.
2) It shall have a history with restoration possibility as it is with MediaWiki
3) And basically all special functions of Mediawiki.
4) It could adopt some protoforge innovations in structure (can you help to list main innovations compared to MediaWiki?)
5) It shall adopt specific terminology. For wikicracy, instead of wiki "content page", "discussion", "edit" and "history" tabs or protoforge "project", "Notifications" "Actions" "Requirements" "Solutions" "Resources", we could have "Proposal", "Debate of proposals", "Votes", "elected members" (in charge of implementation of adopted resolutions), "Follow up", and of course the "edit" and "history" tabs.

Since MediaWiki has reached a level of development far advanced compared to protoforge, I propose we shall start from Mediawiki software and add to it the protoforge improvments and innovations. We could this way build a very nice wikiprotoforge for organizing engineering laws, and with other improvments build a very nice wikicracy for organizing ans improving associations/groups/parties/countries democracy.

Vmandrilly 11:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a comment I previously put it in the document, but its place is probably here so I moved it:

The following is an essay on problems of actual representativity of our 'democractic' political systems.

Its analysis is one of the reason I started this wikicracy project, whose goal is to improve democratic process by allowing everyone to directly participate to the proposals and directly vote for those who will take the proposals into action:

A group/a nation is more or less democratic than it is or not a democracy.

The problem is that the democracies are not at all democratic, in the sense that only a very small fraction of the people concerned by the decisions actually have their say: If members who elect people who vote for people who vote for proposals (as it is often the case in modern democraties), you may well in the end have a decising taken by people representing almost nothing. Exemple of a realistic (?) 'democracy' organization for a National vote:

20~30% of population is excluded (young under the age, old people or handicap people who cannot easily go to the place to vote, people who didn't get inrolled on the lists on time, etc).
5~10% of vote casted are refused (white papers, 2 papers, mistakes in filling the form, etc)
For a close election between 2 candidates, with a win by 55% of votes, it means 45% of the votes are lost and are not represented. (ans this only applies when we can choose only between 2 candidates)
Then the people elected may vote for other people (nomination / indirect elections) : again, part of the votes are lost.
Then a small part of elected people work on proposals, and those people may not all agree about how to write the proposal.
Then on the final vote, same : votes of the loosing party are not considered.

In the end, even if the people elected represented exactly the point of view of all issues from those who chossed them, only a very very small part of the population's point of view is respected.(People have no other choice than to go through other channels to have their say: writing articles on newspapers, manifesting, put pressure on representatives, lobbing, engaging in associations and so on)

A little thanks for the little corrections that have been made lately to the page. 219.137.140.151 02:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply