|The contents of the merged into E-democracy on 12 Dec 2014 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.page were|
|This redirect is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Tiaktiv content breaks multiple Wikipedia rules
Re: protection of this page, discussion has already been completed (and is archived) regarding the dispute. There is only one anonymous person who continues to disagree and wreak havoc here. Since this anonymous person wants to place text in the article that breaks the rules of the Wikipedia, there really is no compromise that can be offered. Following are those rules (What Wikipedia is not) that the anonymous person breaks with his "Tiaktiv" version of "Internet democracy":
- What Wikipedia is not
- 3. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (The anonymous one's admission that his concept is "new" proves that he is evangelizing a concept that is not yet encyclopedic)
- 4. Wikipedia is not a means of calling people names or bashing people. (As evidenced in page history and talk, this person is abusing people left and right)
- What Wikipedia entries are not
- 6. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. (The anonymous one is advocating for a unique interpretation of "Internet democracy" as coined by himself alone)
- 9. Personal essays that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. (Read the archived discussion to see how idiosyncratic the anonymous one's views are)
- 10. Primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. (The anonymous one is coining a new term but trying to hijack a term already in existence as evidenced by the proper article)
- 18. A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. (The anonymous one's version contains only one external link pointing to his "Tiaktiv" web site)
I think the evidence clearly shows that the anonymous one has simply become intransigent and is continuing to act in an irrational manner to disrupt a proper Wikipedia article. And this is despite the many options this person has to properly rectify the situation. Many suggestions were indeed provided to him to give him ways of getting his ideas out without disrupting this article. But sadly, these suggestions were ignored and this person has chose instead to berate others and engage in destructive behavior that seems to have no end. -- Stevietheman 13:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Further, since the anonymous one continues to refuse to register, he has decided to not be individually responsible for his work in the Wikipedia, but instead play games with changing IP's and continual article destruction. -- Stevietheman 13:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Responses to rule-breaking
Look Stevie, you pathetic looser. You first did not allow me to create internet democray link, because you said e-democracy fulfills its all demands. Then I said what I have in mind, is a political system, not a bunch of everything.
You said I have no right to create new concepts and started continuigly deleting whatever I wrote, even thought about voting for deleting this concept. But your friend who belongs to the same group of a worthless semi-idiots decided to create a new falsly concept that never existed before he did it. Then you accepted it, even just two hours before you denided possible existance of internet democracy in any way.
Now, you and several more idiots who have no life, decided to "protect" your wikipedia, the small world where you pathetic loosers can be free and where you can dictate whatever your vanities decide to do.
This is a very said thing to the World. The thing normal people let you live and do things that do a harm for our society. But, hey! We have to bring our karmas wherever we go. I know your karma is pretty tough one, you idiot.
One more thing. People who decide to enter this "discussion". First read history of this. I am tired of morons who put their emotions before common sense.
Thank you, Gale, for proving my points. Now, let's move on. -- Stevietheman 12:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your only point is that you have no clue about things you are dealing with. Anyway, as long as semi and complete idiots are in majority on this topic, there is no point of intorducing of the new concepts to the world. So, my suggestion to those who made this place have at least a little bit of decency, is to remove this concept, because what we have there is something that creates confusion.
BTW, write in google search internet democracy. What you will get is definitelly not something that needs to be placed in wikipedia.
PS. Stevie, how much does it hurts to be that stupid?
Time to move on. If you have content to add to the article that actually fits in, that should be considered OK by others. It's time for you to admit that your specialized content is based on concepts that essentially don't exist in the wild. It's time to be intellectually honest so we can all move forward here. -- Stevietheman 04:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You miss the whole point, Stevie.
Internet democracy as a concept you mentioned DOES NOT EXIST! When I say Internet democracy, it is something as if I said blue cotton. Two different words where one gives better aproximation of the second one.
That is not a concept but nothing! And you can check it out very easy by writing down Internet democracy on the google search. And not just that, you can notice that concept I introduced here is mentioned pretty regularly out there.
So, being a honest person as I am, I did let you have your meaning even it makes no sense, unless you let me put there something that actually makes sense. And you did not let me do that, but you keep promoting something you never use! And that is actually normal, considering the FACT e-democracy is the term that people use.
And you could be honest and admit that you did not let me introduce this new concept saying we already have this e-democracy stuff.
So yes. It is time to move on. It is time to let me put what I have in mind, or remove this, becuase this what we have there has LESS right to be written down, than what I did put!
And as long as you keep deleting what I write, not letting it to be at least A PART, at least A MEANING that some people take as, I wont give you the right to mess with this concept, just because you have some attitude problems.
No, the point is not any dispute you have with the current article. The burden is on you to prove the encyclopedic relevance of your content, and you still haven't done that.
By the way, stop vandalizing this article. It's childish behavior. -- Stevietheman 22:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Further, what don't you understand about: The Wikipedia isn't for introducing new concepts? Your content breaks the rules I listed above. Yet, all you can do is attack others and commit destructive behavior. You need to understand that we're not going to back down and just let you have your way. As long as you continue breaking the rules, you aren't getting anywhere. -- Stevietheman 22:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What does it mean new concpet? World knowledge is speeding up because of this media. Something that was new a year ago, thanks to the Internet becomes well known a year after. What is the line you can drove and say what belongs to wikipedia and what does not?
The only line I can clearely see is that concepts that are adequatelly profilated and accepted by public debate belong here and things that are not concepts at all do not belong here.
So, considering this, and considering the prime world search base, google, it is you who vandalising.
Yet. From another point, you are propagating something that does not exist, concept that is not a concept, something your frined made up and you took as good just to opose me. Remember, at first you claimed that internet democracy as a concept DOES NOT EXISTS! So, you, great expert who is fighting for the good of wikipedia can not claim something like that and kepp your reputation of somebody who makes sense.
So, let me ask you 1 thing? How can you feel competent to change this issue if it was you who said that internet democracy does not exist? If I was you, I would let to other people who did not jump in their own mouth to do this. And I, as a person who publicly admited that I do not not have a clue about this concept, would let it go.
Why dont you do that? Why dont you do a thing that would stop further embarasment of your name?
You know what you needed to do to preserve your content, and you didn't produce any evidence of encyclopedic relevance. Further, nobody else to date has been convinced of your position. Go ahead and keep putting your dubious content in here, and the article will be locked again.
Why do you insist on acting like a child who can't get his way? -- Stevietheman 00:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To help end this conflict, I would like to reoffer a compromise idea I made before. Gale could create an article named Internet democracy (political system) and it could be linked to as a "See also" in Internet democracy. There, Gale could have his entire article intact. And there, he can debate with others whether his content is encyclopedic. -- Stevietheman 13:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Gale, why don't you just accept this compromise so we can move on? It gives you an entire article to yourself to spread your "new concept". -- Stevietheman 20:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think this compromise is a good one -- the reasons why we don't think that Gales non-famous idea doesn't belong into Wikipedia are equally true for a disambig'd extra article. Stuff like this belong onto user pages or talk pages, but not into the article space -- or vfd will grab them sooner or later. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 13:12, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I do agree with you, Tillwe. But I'm just trying to reach some kind of accommodation with Gale. I realize that if he creates another article that it may get vfd treatment. It's just a shame that Wikipedia has no process for dealing with individuals who are extremely partisan about their content, despite the fact that their content breaks multiple Wikipedia rules. -- Stevietheman 16:16, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The fact is that different people use this term for different things. Some of them use it to express the new political system based on the Internet. The one I mentioned. These are the facts and you have to involve these facts to the article, unless you have some problems to it?
Off course, you can explain it, why dont you want to play fair? Just because I showed you clerarly some contradictions in your approach that you do not like to see them showed? It is time to evercome this personal part and to make wikipedia be INFORMATIVE place.
- Playing fair means playing by Wikipedia's rules. Your content breaks multiple Wikipedia rules. It has always been that simple.
- Further, you know but are pretending otherwise that you are just about the only person on the planet who defines "internet democracy" the way that you do. You're not fooling anyone. -- Stevietheman 21:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The only rule I broke was that I bashed you after removing all material due to some things that do belong to wikipedia or wikipedia politics.
I'm new to this particular discussion, but one thing appears clear: simply in keeping with a non-partisan, NPOV, the non-Tiaktiv text appears to be more factual and, well, encyclopaedic. Also, it is more indicative of the general concept of internet democracy, as opposed to some specific ideology. If there is any need for the Tiaktiv article at all, it should appear in a different article, where it can be VfD'd if necessary, or fixed if possible. The simple matter is that we can't merge them on this page, since they're two completely different concepts here, and the non-Tiaktiv one is the one under more active development. So I recommend that Gale goes ahead and creates the new page and goes ahead with that.
- Apparently, Gale is ignoring this advice and instead wants never-ending confrontation. -- Stevietheman 02:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What appears to be clear is usually far from that.
Anyway, as long as you are trying to remove my rights, I can not give the same ones to you. The only compromise that can happen, after you completely changed this concept to something that exists under terom of e-democracy,is to join these two texts, giving the same right to everybody. I will even let you write your view based on ignorance to be first. Just because I respect majority, however noninformed it is.
- I can only conclude after these many months of dispute is that, you Gale, are indeed on the edge of insanity. You know full well that your "concept" doesn't exist in reality. Yet, you're knowingly fighting for what you know is a lost cause. You won't ever win, continuing to break the rules, upset the Wikipedia community, and push ideas that are too new to be encyclopedic. So, let me be clear: You need to realize that the Wikipedia is not the place to put your propaganda. And nobody here is *ever* going to relent! -- Stevietheman 00:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
From Gale's article: "A fully transparent system enables both an easy recognition of responsibility and penalization of any form of unwanted action." What sort of penalization should there be for unwanted action? Moreover, if you want a place to advocate what you're saying, wouldn't it fit better under Open Source Government? That seems to be more related to what you're talking about. Let me put it this way: I'd like to see a response to the following points:
- Who coined the term in the form you are using it?
- What sources can you cite for this use of "Internet Democracy"?
- What is it that makes the information in your article descriptive (explaining current systems) rather than proscriptive (proposing new ones)?
If you can seriously answer these 3 questions, then my initial estimation was wrong, and I would support the inclusion of your text in the article whole-heartedly. You have the chance to win a supporter if you will rationally support your argument. An informed internet democracy rests on the ability to express and justify proposals to others - here's your chance.
OK. Let me present my point of view. It might not be right, but we shall see.
1. Open source government. Who placed this term in the wikipeida? The creator of this concept. So, he has right to do that, or what? Imagine he has right? Ok, why dont I have a right to put ID, my vision of this upthere? I do not exclude and other vision, even I do know that internet democracy as an articulated concept does not exists. You can check it out by simple writting down of internet democracy in the google search.
- Open Source Government probably should be VfD'd. Just because there are other errant articles existing in the Wikipedia (and there are some), doesn't excuse your content. Just because others break rules doesn't mean you can. -- Stevietheman 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. So, when you do that, you will see many coined perspectives of internet democracy. One of these is internet democracy as the rule of open and transparent political elite using central political media, Forum.
- This is the naive coinage of one person, you. -- Stevietheman 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So, as long as you do write down many views of this term, this term I introduced to wikipedia, being articulated has the same right to be placed here. That is due to the reason that some people do find internet democracy be a political system. Even though, it is true, these people found this concept through my engagement.
- You still don't comprehend that Wikipedia is _not_ the place to introduce new concepts. That is squarely against its raison d'etre! -- Stevietheman 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Why do these people have the less right to coin these term in their opinion, than others who are presented in this description of internet democracy? Is their coined link less worthy? Is todays link more worthy? No.
- Any article that coins a new term should be removed from the Wikipedia. Stop playing the 'fairness' card, as it does not apply to this situation. -- Stevietheman 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Internet democracy as from my point of view and analysis, from me as an expert from this field, has to be mentioned. Unless you think I do have less right than people who introduce new concepts every day to wikipedia. Such as smart mob. Right?
- You are not an expert in the use of forums used for political purposes. Your forum site has a Google page rank of ZERO! If that's expertise, then I don't know the meaning of 'expert' any longer. -- Stevietheman 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. We have to let the best concepts win and we can not mix our prejudies but arguments.
- I agree. But the Wikipedia is not a vehicle you can use to do that. The Wikipedia is not a marketplace of ideas, but rather a repository for existing, established ones. And this isn't going to change just for you. -- Stevietheman 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. What will happen when sme other person comes to wikipedia but me and wants to write down internet democracy in a manner I see it? You will eliminate the right to that person too?
- Let's see if that happens. The bottom line is that if the idea isn't encyclopedic, it will be rejected just the same. -- Stevietheman 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, I believe I made my point. See you.
- Your points so far are irrelevant to keeping your content here. -- Stevietheman 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yitzhak 02:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yitzhak, I very much appreciate your willingness to resolve this manner. However, these questions (more or less) have already been put to Gale. The answers are 1) Gale coined it; 2) Gale has no sources outside his sphere of influence; 3) It's all proscriptive. His MO for the most part has been to lash out at others rather than properly defend his article. His article simply doesn't comply with the rules (see the many rules he and his content breaks at the top of talk). -- Stevietheman 02:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sigh... I understand this. I just wanted to give him a chance to justify himself. The answers to the questions seem fairly obvious, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt in that I believe all human beings to be essentially somewhat rational. Perhaps a misguided effort, but I would like to see if he indeed has a logical defence he can present himself to me, in the interest of fairness. Yitzhak 05:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Just for your information: in the Archive 1, there is a lengthy discussion of Gale's (then anonyousmly proposed) concept (see the end of the archive). In that discussion the three questions are more or less answered in a way which could paraphrased as "everything else is just e-democracy, our system of transparent government using 'the' Open Forum (whatever that is) is the only one that should be called internet democracy, and Wikipedia is exactly the right place to advertise it" -- sorry to say that. Maybe rather something for the arbitration commitee than for finding a compromise here. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 09:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Even if the arbitration committee made a decision, I'm convinced that Gale wouldn't abide by the decision. This person has demonstrated over and over again that he believes the rules don't apply to him and his propaganda, or at best, is ignoring the rules. With such disrespect for the internet democracy of Wikipedia, he even undermines his own concept. He's a destructive anti-democratic hypocrite who is probably a teenager. -- Stevietheman 13:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Believe me or not, but I am rational guy. Yet, this is part of my several years research I do suppose you can not understand by overall look at it. So, please, be patient.
- If you are a rational guy, then please answer my questions satisfactorily. Also, you've just conceded that this is several years of your research, which indicated once again that this information is not encylopaedic in nature, but simply something interesting you're working on. Don't get me wrong, it's a great idea, but it's not what most people understand by Internet democracy, and it's not a canonical definition. Do you see why we're trying to maintain the previous article, which is the work of many people, rather than your article, which you keep replacing the work of others with. Surely this is not in the spirit of internet democracy... -- Yitzhak 14:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lets get concern about concept of "encyclopedic by nature". Look around. Internet is offering many new conepts every day. Today, we are overhelmed by new info and new concepts. Look at the smart mob for instance. This concept is not encyclopedic by nature, but some guy found a nice name for phenomenon that you accepted. And now, wikipeda is making this concept be encyclopedic. And I do agree with that.
One more thing. I am in the Internet politics for a quite while. I am pretty much familiar what is going on in this field and all I can say is that new ideas are getting born every night. Off course, people from wikipedia do not expect to make these all things be encyclopedic by nature, because the Internet is developing too fast to make this have sense. So, understanding this, people put new concepts based on the net directly, not waiting this to be published wherever you want it to be published.
One more thing. About number 3 you asked. We are talking about political concepts that do not have to exist yet to become encyclopedic. Such as communism, liquid democracy, etc is.
- If there are articles you believe don't belong in the Wikipedia, then submit them for VfD. Stop complaining about other unworthy articles--the onus is and always shall be on you to prove your article's worthiness. Being destructive and tearing down others' work gets you nothing. Go ahead and VfD radical transparency and Open Source Government.
- Existence is about the term itself, not about what the term portends. If your coined version of "internet democracy" doesn't exist beyond your sphere of influence in a significant manner, your term is not encyclopedic.
- You still have not provided any new information that lends any credibility to your position.
- -- Stevietheman 19:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Stevie, as long as you are personaly involved in this, I suggest you to step back.
- Never. Your response to Yitzhak's overture was to again defile the article with your propaganda. It has already been effectively decided democratically that your content has no encyclopedic value (but then, you care nothing of democracy). Therefore, you must cease your destructive activity. -- Stevietheman 16:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is all about arbiter. To aceept his arbitary, I have to trust his judging abilities.
- It doesn't matter if you trust the Wikipedia's arbitration committe or not. They own this "printing press"! If you can't trust them, you can't trust anybody. Therefore, I conclude that you know full well that you have no successful arguments to make, and are simply acting destructively. -- Stevietheman 19:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Change to disambiguation page
I would like to make this article a disambiguation page, as it probably always should have been. It would basically say that Internet democracy has one of the following meanings:
- A derivative, but essentially equivalent term for e-democracy.
- Self-regulation of the Internet and the development of its constituent technologies through "rough consensus and running code," RFCs and expert boards.
- Participation of Internet users worldwide in non-governmental bodies that are setting Internet policy, to advocate that these bodies adhere to principles of open participation, public accountability and human rights.