17 ms·
The thing is, events like this have a chilling effect on anyone who could possibly attempt to do that. As he highlights, Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's a bu
by jarcane 12y ago
The thing is, events like this have a chilling effect on anyone who could possibly attempt to do that. As he highlights, Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's a bureaucracy, and it responds to attempts to change its culture exactly the way bureaucracies do. It's this effect in fact that's allowed hate groups like GG (and assorted other kooks and psychos over the years) to get away with stuff like this. Any organized effort perceived as 'external' is often met with surprising backlash from the established editors, who will very often ignore any concerns at best (preferring to argue bureaucratic protocol), or worst, react as they have here, banning the wrong people merely because they're perceived as being insufficiently 'neutral' to be allowed comment.
- pmoriarty 12y agoEven if it was a democracy, the problems with it wouldn't automatically be fixed. People talk about democracy as if it was some magic pixie dust that makes everything better. But democracies have their own problems, and in order for them to work at their best they have to have the participation of an educated, well-informed, engaged elecotrate, among a host of other things. Needless to say, Wikipedia does not have that. And even if it did, its problems still wouldn't automatically be solved because even working democracies can make mistakes. I'm not saying I have the answer or know of a perfect system of government (for Wikipedia or anything else), but democracy isn't automatically the answer.