User:Geogre/Ideology

We are all equal, including "trust" positions, in that we must all always honor the policies. There is no way to rule. The greatest "trust" positions are positions of discernment of when and whether a policy has been violated (administrators determine if the deletion guideline has been violated, arbitrators if another has been violated), but checkuser and bureauocrats are not positions of trust. They are, instead, positions of servitude. A checkuser cannot run the checkuser without a request. A beaurocrat cannot appoint an administrator until the community has voiced agreement by the nomination and support processes. These are positions of service, not superiority.

Further, there are positions of mere management and host/site work. Developers and office workers are separate from the operation of the site. Their jobs are entirely different, and they needn't even see Wikipedia except as a narrow cause presents itself. They are not above or below, not more trusted or less. They're just aside. Was Bomis above Jimbo? Is Danny above ArbCom? He's just beside.

Therefore, we are all, absolutely all, equal in power. There is no power and there is no government, except government by common consent. When any one person defies the common consent, that person is "usurping" and "fighting," and all the other things that people who believe they have power fear. Whenever two groups claim to have community consent, the issue has to be assessed by a wider, not narrower, audience to determine what the real common consent is. In other words, if two ideologies appear and are at odds, the only way to determine the proper one is by something approaching a plebicite, not an appeal to the "elected" members of a policy discernment body. That is not their job. Their job is merely to see whether any given action is a violation of existing policy, not to decide what policy should be, because policy is government, and government is by the governed.

The other issue, the one I disagree with some on, is simply that these titles are merely job descriptions, and nothing else. My job is to assess certain policy violations (deletion, protection, etc.), and that's why I have the "admin" title. I have agreed to take on the extra *duty* of that job. Whatever leadership I have is simply because people agree with me. This gives me an advantage because I am freakishly articulate, and it gives others a severe disadvantage, but I cannot help that: we're in an empire of words. I would pass around the Blarney Stone if I could.

Nothing, however, absolutely nothing, can try to claim "consensus" by narrowing into ever narrower circles the population of Wikipedia. If Schoolwatch wants to pass rules for Schoolwatch action, then it can poll only agreeing people, and if KellTone want to pass rules for KellTone and friends to obey, that's fine, but it ain't Wikipedia.

This is my understanding of "power" on Wikipedia. It's an accurate description of the project I began volunteering my professional efforts to in 2003. If it is no longer accurate, then the contract with me has changed. I agreed to help. I have not agreed to be governed by self-elected individuals.