NationStates Jolt Archive

or Wikocracy. To be fair, I am not the first to propose this idea, but the specifics are mine.

I think that people falsly associate elections with democracy. Any politician knows that in America, people don't have absolute control over the government, political machines have an incredible amount of power. Now one of my favorite forms of democracy without elections is demarchy, rule by lot. People are selected randomly to serve on legislative juries. But this system proves chaotic, as seen in Athens.

It has been suggested on numerous occasions (about twice) that the highly successful wiki structure could be applied to government. A sort of Wikicracy of Wikocracy, depending on what you think sounds better. The problem I forsee with a direct application of the wiki ideology is the immediate, and possibly retroactive, application of harmful laws. I think that the idea could work if there was an enactment period in which the law change could be vetoed or ammended. But there is also a problem with this, do the ammendments themselves have this period? If not, why not drastically change the law right before it comes into effect. Maybe a shorter period. Other problems arise, such as managing such an immense legal system. And banning abusive people. I can tell I've said way too much already.

Any thoughts? Especially on problems and their possible solutions.

You're going to have to define your jargon.

"wiki ideology"

?

It has been suggested on numerous occasions (about twice) that the highly successful wiki structure could be applied to government. A sort of Wikicracy of Wikocracy, depending on what you think sounds better. The problem I forsee with a direct application of the wiki ideology is the immediate, and possibly retroactive, application of harmful laws. I think that the idea could work if there was an enactment period in which the law change could be vetoed or ammended. But there is also a problem with this, do the ammendments themselves have this period? If not, why not drastically change the law right before it comes into effect. Maybe a shorter period. Other problems arise, such as managing such an immense legal system. And banning abusive people. I can tell I've said way too much already.

Sounds more like a game of nomic (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set) than a way to run a country.

hmmmm....why don't I tweak that definition a bit?

Wikicracry - Government by online encyclopedias.
Isn't that just dandy?

Like I said, America's Republic is riddled from corruption on all sides. Just like the Roman Empire and its senate.

We should have a direct democracy for our executive branch, but still have a strong power base in the judicial branch. The legislation should be the people, and not a bunch of power hungry, 2 party - bi-polar goons.

or Wikocracy. To be fair, I am not the first to propose this idea, but the specifics are mine.

I think that people falsly associate elections with democracy. Any politician knows that in America, people don't have absolute control over the government, political machines have an incredible amount of power. Now one of my favorite forms of democracy without elections is demarchy, rule by lot. People are selected randomly to serve on legislative juries. But this system proves chaotic, as seen in Athens.

It has been suggested on numerous occasions (about twice) that the highly successful wiki structure could be applied to government. A sort of Wikicracy of Wikocracy, depending on what you think sounds better. The problem I forsee with a direct application of the wiki ideology is the immediate, and possibly retroactive, application of harmful laws. I think that the idea could work if there was an enactment period in which the law change could be vetoed or ammended. But there is also a problem with this, do the ammendments themselves have this period? If not, why not drastically change the law right before it comes into effect. Maybe a shorter period. Other problems arise, such as managing such an immense legal system. And banning abusive people. I can tell I've said way too much already.

Any thoughts? Especially on problems and their possible solutions.

1. WTF?

2. when did democracy become the ideal?

or Wikocracy. To be fair, I am not the first to propose this idea, but the specifics are mine.

I think that people falsly associate elections with democracy. Any politician knows that in America, people don't have absolute control over the government, political machines have an incredible amount of power. Now one of my favorite forms of democracy without elections is demarchy, rule by lot. People are selected randomly to serve on legislative juries. But this system proves chaotic, as seen in Athens.

It has been suggested on numerous occasions (about twice) that the highly successful wiki structure could be applied to government. A sort of Wikicracy of Wikocracy, depending on what you think sounds better. The problem I forsee with a direct application of the wiki ideology is the immediate, and possibly retroactive, application of harmful laws. I think that the idea could work if there was an enactment period in which the law change could be vetoed or ammended. But there is also a problem with this, do the ammendments themselves have this period? If not, why not drastically change the law right before it comes into effect. Maybe a shorter period. Other problems arise, such as managing such an immense legal system. And banning abusive people. I can tell I've said way too much already.

Any thoughts? Especially on problems and their possible solutions.
One of the problems with the Wiki system as it would apply to laws is that people will always disagree too much. When it comes to something as relatively unimportant as an online encyclopedia, most people are mature enough to agree to disagree. In such a setting, there will be few enough situations in which controversy arises that an independant and unbiased group might be expected to successfully sort out such controversies. In the case of something as vital as laws, people are often not willing to make such compromises. It was difficult enough to convince people to make the compromise of majority vote. Convincing people to accept the fact that any law can be changed by anyone at any time will not be possible. Obviously, regulating the situation in the method of the Wikipedia might aleviate the chaotic nature of the system. The system, imho, is so chaotic that such regulation would not be possible without assigning so much power to the regulators as to amount to an oligarchy.

One of the problems with the Wiki system as it would apply to laws is that people will always disagree too much. When it comes to something as relatively unimportant as an online encyclopedia, most people are mature enough to agree to disagree. In such a setting, there will be few enough situations in which controversy arises that an independant and unbiased group might be expected to successfully sort out such controversies. In the case of something as vital as laws, people are often not willing to make such compromises. It was difficult enough to convince people to make the compromise of majority vote. Convincing people to accept the fact that any law can be changed by anyone at any time will not be possible. Obviously, regulating the situation in the method of the Wikipedia might aleviate the chaotic nature of the system. The system, imho, is so chaotic that such regulation would not be possible without assigning so much power to the regulators as to amount to an oligarchy.
True. I don't really think it can work. Its just a novel idea.

Sounds more like a game of nomic (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set) than a way to run a country.

i can think of worse ways to run one. some of them have been tried, even.

One of the cool things about Wikipedia is that it isn't supposed to work, all the cynical theories of human nature decree that it can't work, but stubbornly, it for most part works anyway.

The largest problem is that people would spend time creating and destroying and repealing laws constantly. Where one moment it might be illegal to smoke pot, the next it wouldn't (imagine the confusion for police). The entire system would be unstable.

Besides which, it undermines democracy.

That did give me an hour's worth of fun, though, since I read through the revised constitution that the wikicrats created.

or Wikocracy. To be fair, I am not the first to propose this idea, but the specifics are mine.

I think that people falsly associate elections with democracy. Any politician knows that in America, people don't have absolute control over the government, political machines have an incredible amount of power. Now one of my favorite forms of democracy without elections is demarchy, rule by lot. People are selected randomly to serve on legislative juries. But this system proves chaotic, as seen in Athens.

It has been suggested on numerous occasions (about twice) that the highly successful wiki structure could be applied to government. A sort of Wikicracy of Wikocracy, depending on what you think sounds better. The problem I forsee with a direct application of the wiki ideology is the immediate, and possibly retroactive, application of harmful laws. I think that the idea could work if there was an enactment period in which the law change could be vetoed or ammended. But there is also a problem with this, do the ammendments themselves have this period? If not, why not drastically change the law right before it comes into effect. Maybe a shorter period. Other problems arise, such as managing such an immense legal system. And banning abusive people. I can tell I've said way too much already.

Any thoughts? Especially on problems and their possible solutions.

I like the idea. The problems right now would be that the software, internet laws, and people just aren't ready for it.
The solution is to give things a decade and see where things are at.
I'm starting to think that there will be more and more wiki around.

Just to make it clear, America is a republic, not a democracy.

Silly fools. :D

Just to make it clear, America is a republic, not a democracy.

Silly fools. :D

a republic running a representative democracy

a republic running a representative democracy

Representive democracy=Republic.

Unfourtunatly, alot of people don't know that, so they use the terms interchangably.

Revert Vandalism???? :D

Category: Proposed War

database errors could bring down the entire government!!!

One of the problems with the Wiki system as it would apply to laws is that people will always disagree too much. When it comes to something as relatively unimportant as an online encyclopedia, most people are mature enough to agree to disagree. In such a setting, there will be few enough situations in which controversy arises that an independant and unbiased group might be expected to successfully sort out such controversies. In the case of something as vital as laws, people are often not willing to make such compromises. It was difficult enough to convince people to make the compromise of majority vote. Convincing people to accept the fact that any law can be changed by anyone at any time will not be possible. Obviously, regulating the situation in the method of the Wikipedia might aleviate the chaotic nature of the system. The system, imho, is so chaotic that such regulation would not be possible without assigning so much power to the regulators as to amount to an oligarchy.

Precisely. Wikipedia works as an encyclopedia because, ultimately, everyone knows it's just a read source and it won't have any direct effect one anyone's lives. Applied to government, it would doom to fail. The laws would change too much and too frequently- leading to immense confusion on all levels- and the "regulators" would simply have too much power. In a way, an argument could be made that such a system is already in place in that our legislatures can change laws quite frequently and that the Supreme Court are the regulators, but leglislatures are confined to a few hundred people while in this case it would involve millions, if not billions.

One of the cool things about Wikipedia is that it isn't supposed to work, all the cynical theories of human nature decree that it can't work, but stubbornly, it for most part works anyway.

It's one of the few things that gives me hope for anarchism.

One of the cool things about Wikipedia is that it isn't supposed to work, all the cynical theories of human nature decree that it can't work, but stubbornly, it for most part works anyway.

All three depend a lot on what you mean by "work"

Representive democracy=Republic.

including the people's republic of china?

or Wikocracy. To be fair, I am not the first to propose this idea, but the specifics are mine.

I think that people falsly associate elections with democracy. Any politician knows that in America, people don't have absolute control over the government, political machines have an incredible amount of power. Now one of my favorite forms of democracy without elections is demarchy, rule by lot. People are selected randomly to serve on legislative juries. But this system proves chaotic, as seen in Athens.

It has been suggested on numerous occasions (about twice) that the highly successful wiki structure could be applied to government. A sort of Wikicracy of Wikocracy, depending on what you think sounds better. The problem I forsee with a direct application of the wiki ideology is the immediate, and possibly retroactive, application of harmful laws. I think that the idea could work if there was an enactment period in which the law change could be vetoed or ammended. But there is also a problem with this, do the ammendments themselves have this period? If not, why not drastically change the law right before it comes into effect. Maybe a shorter period. Other problems arise, such as managing such an immense legal system. And banning abusive people. I can tell I've said way too much already.

Any thoughts? Especially on problems and their possible solutions.

Well, for one thing, it seems to me that the people who's idea you apprea to be claiming at least had a clearer idea of what they were doing....

This is a test...

To see what happens when everyone can write and revise the law. It may sound like a free-for-all. But that's exactly the point-- to make the process of law-making free for all.

On this platform, you can freely edit the USA PATRIOT Act, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, your State's law on gay marriage, your city's zoning ordinances. If you'd like to change a law that is not yet on this platform, you can easily create a page and import the text you want to change. You can also write your own laws, post blogs, collaborate and spar with other users. Check out our FAQ if you have specific questions.

Although there are some suggested guidelines and tips that will facilitate this experiment, there are no rules. Nothing on this platform is legally binding. One person's changes can be revised or reversed by the next. Over time, this platform could reflect a collaborative statement of what we think the law should be. Or it could reflect a moment-by-moment statement of the most recent editor's views. This will be as bloody or as civil as you make it...

This is only a test
http://wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

To give a better idea of what would happen, here's the re-write of the Controlled Substances Act:
21 U.S.C. (Title 21, Chapter 13 of the United States Code) is also known as the Controlled Substances Act is hereby repealed. Furthermore the controls on the consumption and sale of alcohol are to be relaxed allowing those aged 13 and over to buy their own alcohol and those aged 12 and under to buy and consume alcohol with permission from the parent/guardian. This law shall not be construed to restrict private establishments from following their own policies for the sale of alcohol.
http://wikocracy.com/wiki/index.php/Controlled_Substances_Act

While I agree with ending prohibition, I would have a serious problem allowing a 13 year old child free access to any intoxicants...