Talk:Internet democracy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Internet democracy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Talk:Internet democracy/archive 1

VfD debate

Archived delete debate, see Template:VfD-Internet democracy

Newly coined term? (lengthy)

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This term has the smell of being newly coined just to link to a single site that describes a concept that's actually more specific than the very general "internet democracy". E-democracy, on the other hand, is in demonstrably wide use already, and there's many sites on the web that talk about it.

Further, this term doesn't link to any other terms (including back to e-democracy), making itself to be a termination point, and that doesn't make any sense.

Last, Internet democracy and e-democracy in reality are virtually the same concept. There was no need for this new term.

Stevietheman 23:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are not right. E in e-demmocracy means electronical. It is a very wide range concept. E-democracy gathers everything that links electronical systems to democratic process.

Internet democracy is in the other hand, something completely exact. It is the new political order based on open source concept.

You are not correct (whoever you are). "Internet democracy" is _not_ being used in the way you describe by anyone. You made it up.

However, there are efforts related to what you're talking about, but again, nobody is using the general term "Internet democracy" to describe it. The Internet and "open source" are two separate concepts.

Stevietheman 14:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Stevietheman for formulating this -- that's exactly the reason why I made this page a redirect to e-democracy. -- till we *) 15:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who is the legitimate body to say what is the correct meaning? You? I do not find you be the one.

The fact internet democracy is not used on a wide broad is because it is the new idea and wikipedia can be proud to introduce the new term to the world.

One more thing. You are stevie being hypocrtical. Because you are legitimating term liquid democracy and in the same time you are feeling this be something obsolete. Do not do that anymore.

illegale

But "introducing a new term to the world" is exactly what Wikipedia isn't doing. We are reporting about existing terms and their meaning. If this open source kind of internet democracy becomes something noteable, it should be included in Wikipedia. But as long as it is not more than an idea, Wikipedia isn't the right place for it. (Also, if I would want to introduce a new open source democracy concept to the world, I wouldn't call it "internet democracy" -- exactly because this is used synonymous with "e-democracy" and related terms at the moment). Following this, I will revert the article back to the redirect. -- till we *) 16:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you are a legitimite body that decides what is accepted and what is not accepted term, then OK. But you are not. So leave this thing here where it belongs. Because you are messing within a thing that is not under your jurisdiction.

Thank you.

Sorry anonymous, you are wrong. We are co-editors of Wikipedia, and have as much to say here as you do. Besides, this page was/is listed on VfD (Wikipedia:Vfd), where a whole lot of people don't see this fitting here. Please indicate some proofs that "internet democracy" in the way you are using it is used by someone else, if you want to keep this article. (Oh, and you can sign your talk contributions with ~~~~; and of course, you also can get an account) -- till we *) 17:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You can say whatever you want, but what you are doing is that you want to remove this concept from wikipedia just because you do not find yourself to be familiar with it. It seems you have some attitude problems you should deal with first. When you do that, get familiar with this concept. When you get familiar to this concept, you will be in position to do something smart, instead of wining around.

Sorry, I wrote my M.A. thesis about the potential of virtual party conventions and am an activist in the German Network New Media, a NGO concerned not only with privacy issues, copyright and open source software/free software, but also with the potentials of e-democracy and e-government. I think I do know this field a bit -- and I never heard anyone calling the usage of open source concepts for democratic or participatory purposes "internet democracy". So, maybe it's your time to explain -- in terms of encyclopedic relevance and NPOV -- why you think your own interpretation of "internet democracy" deserves an Wikipedia entry. For the record: I did not revert the redirect this time, because I believe it would be more sensible to discuss this instead of continuing another edit-war (Wikipedia:Wiki pacifist, anyone?). But I am sure, if you don't show us some better arguments than "I believe it is a cool idea", me or someone else will make this article a redirect again. -- till we *) 20:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your definition of Internet democracy makes no sense. The concpet of e-democracy can not be the same as Internet democracy because e- presents much more things than Internet. One more thing, if you wish to put your notice about Internet democracy, then please, leave this new concept too.

Agreed, Tillwe. "Internet democracy" is a rubbish entry to self-servingly point to a single "concept" web site. Further, the term is grossly ill-defined. The closest meaning in the Wikipedia at this time is "e-democracy", and a redirect from here is the best policy I can see.

Stevietheman 21:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you feel that to be a rubbish entry, than let it die by itself. Yet, I noticed you understand Internet democracy have another meaning. So, feel free to explain it. As I said, I do not own this term, as you do not own it either. So, I will let you write what you think it is right, as long as you leave me my legitimate right to call this new political order I explained in its best way.

BTW, why do you feel so related to this? It is pretty obvious you do not act in a racional way, due to the fact you use diferent set of rules for my attempt. Did I hurt you in some manner? Talk to me.

First, I won't answer any "personal" references, as nothing about my previous objections were personal in nature.

Second, I like the latest description for "Internet democracy". It has the ring of accuracy, and with some minor revisions, it will be worthy of the Wikipedia.

Stevietheman 14:55, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am really delighted by the last comment :). Off course, it is far from the perfect, yet I find this to be the way. Anyway, open source concept might need to be replaced with open politics as the new political paradigm.

Maybe we should add a version statement to Steviethemans comment, so that we may know which version they found positive. -- till we *) 08:14, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to Tillwe's version, which was the accurate one. The unencyclopedic one supplied by the anonymous contributor should be replaced again. This is getting ridiculous.

Stevietheman 13:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh my clueless people. You really sadden me by forcing this Newspeech from your side. Do you feel embarased at least a little bit because of that?

The only "Newspeak" is the false definition provided by the anonymous contributor who refuses to admit that their concept is not encyclopedic in nature, and thus, doesn't belong here.

At any rate, as long as the accurate description remains, I won't remove the added rubbish text by the anonymous one (of course, that won't stop others from removing it again). However, leaving the rubbish in opens this article up for deletion by the administrators, and that, of course, would be the sad thing.

Stevietheman 17:39, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stevie, I knew you where personally attached to this concept. Do not let your feelings do stuff that will make you feel embarassed later. Such as not letting the revolutionary concepts be introduced to the wikipedia, yet in the same time forcing things such as liquid democracy. To be correct, I have nothing against the new terms, but what is the more important in this clueless e-democracy scene, is to explain things you ar working on. Internet democarcy as the new political order is excatly that. If you do not understand that, you should reconsider your political engagement basics. Sooner you do that, sooner you will realise that wanking attitude is just wasting a time and posing in front of the other clueless people. Pretty sad thing I can not accept. Because that attitude do not let the people with ideas get the space they deserve.

Same worths for you, Tillwe.

The Wikipedia was _not_ established for "revolutionary concepts". What don't you understand about that fact, anonymous one? The Wikipedia only exists for the sake of encyclopedia-style entries. Brand new concepts don't belong here, period. You continue to take our objections personally, when all Tillwe and myself are trying to do is to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia.

Please realize your mistake and remove the extra text. You know for a fact that your concept of "internet democracy" is newly coined and only being discussed by yourself for the sake of generating hits to your site. Whereas, e-democracy (to a large degree) and liquid democracy (to a significant but smaller degree) are being discussed and referred to beyond their originators.

The new description for "internet democracy" was not generated by myself and I have no personal attachment to it. However, I do have knowledge that the new description is *accurate* and your concept is not.

Stevietheman 21:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This might be a brand new concept for you and for those who are not familiar with it. That is the reason we have wikipedia to get understand things we do not understand yet. In the other hand, this concept is not so new for anybody who have already met it, meaning thousands of people.

One more thing. If you create things to get your site more popular, it does not mean that is the goal of every single individual here. For instance, I find much more important to secure the roots of the concepts that are hardly tried to be eliminated and confused by the newspeak propagators and false authorities they obey.

I do not find their lies and empty concepts to have any more right to be here. But I wont delete them, even I hardly despise them.

"That is the reason we have wikipedia to get understand things we do not understand yet."

The Wikipedia is _not_ for establishing new concepts and familiarity with them. In other words, it's _not_ a mechanism for advertising your ideas. It's for _established_ ideas only.

"In the other hand, this concept is not so new for anybody who have already met it, meaning thousands of people."

Prove it by including other external links, instead of just a link to your site. It's _your_ job to prove this. Otherwise, you are continuing to risk the deletion of this article.

Stevietheman 17:11, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What? You want ten blogs and two other wikies that will make you legitimase this concept as you did with liquid democracy? This sort of looking for the base is too shallow to look at it as something right. What I found out to be something that is right is meeting with the depth of this concept. Something that even direct democracy can't handle. But internet democracy can. That is what I find to be the good base. People who are ready to check it out by using critical mind are those who legitimase this. Other people just follow them.

But Wikipedia still isn't a marketplace for new ideas. See What Wikipedia is not, and try to judge if your new idea "internet democracy" meets these criteria or not. -- till we *) 10:24, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the anonymous one is violating #6, #9 and #18 of What Wikipedia Entries are not. -- Stevietheman 13:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, anonymous one, so where's _any other_ reference to your topic then? At least, Liquid Democracy (not my idea or contribution, by the way) is referred to elsewhere in 12 spots, as you say. Prove _any_ establishment of your concept. -- Stevietheman 13:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The consensus in the "delete debate" is to keep the article but remove the "political system" text.

However, to play nice, here are a couple suggestions on what the anonymous contributor can do with the political system text:

As suggested in the debate, merge the ideas into the Radical transparency article. It seems to be very related.
Create a new article "Internet democracy (political system)". And it will be linked to from this article under the "See also" section.

Note: The 2nd suggestion doesn't change my view on the legitimacy of the "political system" description.

Stevietheman 14:34, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

If I remember properly, Steve, you think that internet democracy and e-democracy are virtually the same concept. This makes me think you actually do not have a clue what you are talking about. Now, you are trying to fuck up this NEW concept and you surf on the google to make this spam principle look more fancy. It's lame Steve. Do not do that. You are to big boy to do this.

BTW, my intention ere is to clarify these concepts to the wider population. To reduce chaotic factor of an oligarchy that wants to make filthy any good idea. I wont let you do this, Steve. Nor, to anyone. Wiki is too free to make this possible.

Buzz off?

Latest comment: 20 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Steve, Tillwe, buzz off. If you are not ready to face all the falacy of your motives, go to some other article and mess with some other people. And leave this political system where it belongs.

PS. One thing you should think about. What is the difference between e-democracy and internet democracyin your narrow minded understanding? When you start to undesratnd that, you will start to understand your motives you should be embarassed of.

Anonymous one, first of all: why don't you get a name or any other handle? That makes communication quite much simpler. Then I must say that I disagree with the encyclopedic relevance as well as the factual accuracy of your text version. It seems to me a very single-minded version, one that only allows its one truth. I don't think this will work in an encyclopedia. Finally, please understand that what we are doing here isn't messing around with people or articles (and please don't become personal!), but that Stevietheman as well as I seem to have a quite different idea about the concept "internet democracy" than you seem to have. This Wikipedia encyclopedia is about internet based collaboration, speaking technically. So the only way to improve the article is to collaborate on it. From my point of view, the current version of the article gives an adequate overview about internet democracy as one special form of electronic democracy. You don't see to agree. Reverting the article again and again won't help. So maybe, to improve the article, what about finding some good arguments for your version and against the actual version? Telling us that we are idiots doesn't seem to help, and telling again and again that the one and only "true" definition of internet democracy is on one website, quite possibly authored by you, doesn't seem to help, also. So, just give an answer to the question why you think the broader definition is wrong (seen from an encyclopedic-neutral point of view, not from your personal ideas about internet democracy). -- till we *) 15:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Tillwe for your very eloquent response--I can't agree more. It is disheartening that the anonymous one continues to view our actions as against him or his ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. His ideas on his web site are actually worthy of consideration in a broad public sense, but alas, he continues to fail to understand that his ideas do not hold encyclopedic relevance at this time in history. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to be placed into this article. On top of this, I offered him an easy out, that is, to create a separate article on his unique definition of the term, although I suspect a delete debate would swiftly ensue--and I have a feeling that the anonymous one knows his idea wouldn't survive that scrutiny. -- Stevietheman 15:37, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Concept of internet democracy you suggest is the concept that is already considered to be the concept of e-democracy, even though its very bad choice of the meaning of that letter "e". I suppose the lousy base of this name is its remaining to e-mail. Though, what you are trying to do is to make actually completely meaningles count of two words to make it be derivate and even more nothingness to its meaning. In the other hand, the meaning of very clearly described political system I wrote here down and showed this concept to the wider public is perfecrtly defined and I find it be suitable in this moment here. Even though, being democraticaly oriented I do let you write your nonsense to this place. But I wont let you take my right of critical mind to be this much ignored. So, my suggestion is for you to accept the concept I put here, because this one actually perfectly makes its sense.

I absolutely understand what are you aiming to, but I do not find this be worthy of consideration. The reason pro my deeds is much bigger than the reason I would let you destroy this term by your ignorance or even jealousy? BTW, Steve I am not here to promote the site, but to clarify this very concept. Do you understand the difference?

PS. You guys should help me out on this issue, but it is sad thing that youi are doing the oposite. It is very funny when I see you Steve finding reasons why you are doing this, especially when I know what range of argument you used to screw this attempt. Your consistency is very low. You should think about it.

Clarify your unique concept by clarifying it on your web site, not by placing it in an encyclopedia. Consider that at least two separate individuals with no links whatsoever agree on the description that you consider to be nonsense, and also agree that your description doesn't hold encyclopedic relevance. It also doesn't help you that you stay anonymous.

Here's your help: Start a new article with the term "Internet democracy (political system)" and put a disambiguation link in this article. Nobody is going to let you keep your unique description in this article.

Further, I don't think anyone would object (strongly) if you just add an external link for "Tiaktiv" and leave out the other content you keep trying to put in there.-- Stevietheman 16:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

You miss the point Steve. I want equal (even it is two of you, so I give you the right to be above) right to share the true meaning of the concept, as you have in forcing newspeak. This is due to the desired tendency of complete elimination of these nonsenses you write and force, because of their irelevance.

I believe that Tillwe and myself have made all the arguments we can make on this subject. Your content will not be allowed. -- Stevietheman 16:28, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I do not find you be in position to make this sort of statements. Or I missed something?

You were offered the help you requested. Accept the suggestions and there won't be any more problems. -- Stevietheman 16:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

The only problem I see here is you messing with the terms you actually have no clue about. In the same time, I am protecting my right.

So, here is my suggestion. Work something usefull.

See the suggestions above, including starting a new article. -- Stevietheman 16:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Stevietheman and Tillwe: the article that the anonymous person keeps reverting is not encyclopedic and is wrong for Wikipedia, while Stevie's version is informative. BrendanH 16:42, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

OK, its now three of jerks. Splendid. My suggestion. In the moment after jerking off, think about my proposal.

Just surfed the web. Internet democracy as concept does not exists. It is not widely used term, as you want to show it. So, if it is going to be a term of internet democracy than we are in position to set its meaning. My proposal of this meaning is revolutionary and very grounded. The proposal of Stevie, Tillwe and others is in the other hand empty and shallow. It is up to you to face to this fact I am pointing out.

An encyclopedia, such as this, reflects existing human knowledge rather than trying to extend it or shape it. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also, please respect our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. You may wish to create and use a user name so that you are better able to communicate with others involved in the project. Welcome to Wikipedia! UninvitedCompany 16:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open content. This is a thing I am willing to use in a manner of spreading human knowledge. Off course, you can ban me, if you feel this thing to be right thing. But as long as I am here able to post, I will fight for the thing I know is right.

Nobody is saying that your version of "Internet democracy" isn't "right" or isn't worthy of public discourse. It just does not have encyclopedic relevance.

I'm sure everyone here understands your passion in promoting your unique idea, but there are many other methods and places for you to do that, including your web site.

I'll repeat an argument I've made before to clarify this: I've also coined new terms related to e-democracy, namely "Pervasive Democracy" and "microparticipation". However, I realize these terms do not have encyclopedic relevance at this time in history. So I won't even attempt to add them here. This is what you might call intellectual restraint, or the realization that I know I cannot convince others of the beauty of my ideas by standing tall and declaring them "powerful" and "must-know" for all the masses and knowingly inserting them into contexts where they don't belong. -- Stevietheman 17:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Yet, Internet democracy, the term you are suggesting to be placed is already coined to the word of e-democracy. So, if there is going to be something, it can not be the principaly same term because it ads the oil to the chaotic trend of this sphera.

So, if there is going to be Internet democracy it can be only what I have suggested, because nothing else makes no sense. Look at the google when you write internet democracy, if you do not understand what I mean.

So, you're suggesting that we create a disambiguation page? There are currently three separate descriptions of "Internet democracy" on the current page, and then there's yours that doesn't have encyclopedic relevance, although you're certainly free to create a new page for it.

The only compromise I can go along with is creating a disambiguation page that links to the current article (maybe even split up into 2 or 3 articles) and to a new one by you. However, I still believe that any page you create with your unique version of the term will become a victim of a deletion vote. -- Stevietheman 18:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Further, I am very confident that research (including Google searches) will support the article as it currently stands. -- Stevietheman 18:47, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Discussing the concept in detail

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

For the purpose of discussion the disputed version, I have copied it onto this page and put some comments (marked [TW] between -- till we *) 21:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Internet democracy

[TW] Disregarding all the discussion about content, this extra pseudo-headline isn't wikipedia style.

Internet democracy is the government based on open source concept. It is the rule of open and transparent political elite. This elite are individuals competent in their respective areas. Within the frame of internet democracy, public opinion is created directly by those competent persons. The reason why this is so is the rise in the importance of responsibility. A fully transparent system enables both an easy recognition of responsibility and penalization of any form of unwanted action.

[TW] Here "Internet democracy" is defined as government based on an open source concept. As far as I know about e-politics terms, the usage of electronic media for helping with government mostly isn't called ...-democracy, but ...-government.

This is the major difference. This concept is based on the completely new political paradigm of open politics. And when you approach to anything by the completely new paradigm, what you get is the completely new system, too. Much more different than any other system that was based on the old paradigm.

Since the anonymous one is admitting that the concept is "completely new" (that is, recently coined by him), then this is also an admission that the concept does not have encyclopedic relevance at this time. -- Stevietheman 15:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

So, on the one hand you get all those worn out political systems where we see where they all lead to and this new one.

Yet, if you find the word government be a bad one, you can put there the political system. It seems to fits better than the government. Esepcially if we know the fundamental difference that can not be related to the governemt only, but to the whole political concept

The rest of the definition is not really clear: "Internet democracy" as a kind of government system is described as government of an "open elite". We don't learn how this elite should be selected, only that this "open elite" should create "public opinion" (which is a bit of a paradoxon, isn't it?). The definition emphasises "transparency" and links this to better recognition of responsibility. We don't learn why the "open elite" should use the internet for deliberation only.

First, I am glad to see critical mind in action, at last :). So, this text I placed here is far from perfect. It has to be build up. Anyway, let me reply.

Open elite is based on this selfregulating principle where the whole community can see is the individual capable of participating in creating good politics for his community, or is not he. I suppose, it is the level of the true, structured knowledge actually the main involvement factor. In the text called the path to the internet democracy I mention parents, football players and other people who are competent in their fields to talk about things they are competent to. Meaning I might belong to the elite, but only in the spheres I am competent of. The reason why open elite uses Internet is due to the reason it is their prime interest, because using Internet they gain legitimacy by fully transparent and involving action this is the way of gaining political support by connecting directly supporters and workers, wich makes final tendency that the politician gets support in a manner how cloes he gets to the common good About deliberation. There might be some people who are willing to do rapid actions, but in this created network on the politcal level, their intention gets pufferised and judged if anybody finds the gap in this intention. Knowing there are actually no unplanned actions, that all actions are allways carefully planned out in political sphere, off course from the other side of curtain, knowing that ==free== flow of info can obtain great support to those who show out these bad intention. the "karmic" circle hits back too soon and it clears the whole political sphere from its filth. Utopia stuff. Oh. One more thing. You can never look at the society as at the mob. Because society is not a mob, but its organization and autopoietic nature made us survive through all of these hundreds of thousands of years

The principle of horizontal communication makes it possible to solve political problems on the level they arise at and under constant monitoring by the whole political community that protects and propagates the general interest. The openness and transparency of the system ensure the solutions found are optimal for the political community.

[TW] The "principle of horizontal communication" also isn't explained.

You are right. Definition I have found on google is not perfect one. Here it is: Communication between a sender and a receiver at a similar level in the organization.

Anyway, HC presents the equal possibiltiy in communication of the all political factors. It is the idea that today practically anybody can approach to the whole entity, withouth any chance of oligipoly creation. This means final equality as a true major principle, not just as an empty phrase that it is today. Anyway, I disccussed over this on the CICDD list, so if you are interested in this you might join it.

The term "political community" is blurry at best -- is this equal with the "open elite", or with the government, or with "all people interested in politics", or with "the user base of my internet democracy implementation"?

You are right. It is not community, but entity that is has suvereingity

We still don't learn anything about the ways openness and transparency should be enforced.

Those who decide to use the new political intereface, from one side get the organic connection to te community wich gives them very strong political power, but they are in the same time judged on O&T. They used this principle when they approached there and they are not in position to eliminate it, because they can not get support for this sort of an action.

The whole concept is based on the open forum that enables equality of all participants, as well as transparent political discussions on the level of the political entity.

[TW] As central point of the concept the "open forum" is established. This term isn't defined, and brings with it some interesting and not answered questions: 1.What about anonymity? 2.What about security? 3.How does this proposed system of e-government interacts with existing governments? 4.Who is proposing it, who likes it, 5. who opposes it?

1. You can be anonymus, if you want to be. But than you give up from the possibility to be trusted on.

2. What sort of security? 3. The NPS removes things that are no more needed. 4. It is proposed by those who understand where does the actual system goes to, courrage enough to make step forward. 5. It is opposed by everybody who is affraid of political transparency.

And from your previous comments, you believe that our disallowing of your non-encyclopedic text represents an "opposition" to your ideas or a promotion of newspeak. And that would be incorrect. Encyclopedic relevance is required, no matter how eloquent and thoughtful (and even applicable) your new ideas are. -- Stevietheman 15:35, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

See also: Direct democracy, Liquid democracy, Political systems, Radical transparency

External link: Tiaktiv

[TW] External link -- one, and not really finished, too.

It is finished now.

My concern (as expressed before) is that it's the only site that discusses this new concept. Therefore, your article text represents pretty much an advertisement rather than an expression of established concept(s). To this day, establishment of this concept hasn't been proved by the anonymous one. -- Stevietheman 15:35, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

[TW] Conclusion: If I understand this concept correctly, it proposes the use of "open forums" (i.e. open source based web forums, wikis etc.?) for the use of deliberation and opinion building.

No. 1. Open Forum is the only one. 2. Free flow of information based on the horizontal communcation demands new system that will be based on the same principles. Todays system is in contrary in high collision to this principle.

It is presented as a form of political system, as a form of government, but neither the links between deliberation and the execution of the public opinion nor the links between deliberation and participation are explained.

Decision making is all about legitimacy of the people, who are souveregin. I find it be too big speculation to set these priniples in this moment, when we do not have even Forum. Yet. The new system is already seen as necessity in this new political era of free information. And I can notice that pretty soon the arbitring is going to be main principle of problem solving.

In the first sentence the concept is called "based on open source concept", and if I understand this correctly, the repeated argumentation with "transparency" is how "open source concept" can be found in the latter text.

No. Open source concept is what I see to be the idea that you are giving your work, idea or anything to everybody, because you profit from it in the best manner. It is the fundamental idea that made Linux and other proud products of opens/free source movement to happen. Transparancy is only one part of this concept.

[TW] So, I see two possible next steps: either I didn't understand the really innovative aspects of this concept. Despite the still existing problems with including newly coined and not yet encyclopedic relevant concepts into an encyclopedia, in this case the next step should be the anonymous contributor to better explain their concept and to make clearer what is distinctive in comparison with other e-democracy and e-government concepts.

I suppose the main problem is that those who look at democratisation process by the Internet have not realized that this new political media that enables open source concept to get to life in every aspect of our lives, including politics, means one big good bye to all existing principles of todays politics. So, you keep looking on the Internet as just a tool that will partilly upgrade todays system, not realizing Internet is in big collition with it, not realizing the strenght of the Internet highly overcomes what you are hardly attached to. Internet democracy I am talking about said that good bye long ago and it is time to you to accept this new approach.

If, on the other hand, I did understand the concept correctly, I absolutely do not see any reason why this should be included in the Wikipedia, being nothing else than a not so new label for a not so new concept, proposed by not much more than one person, without knowledge about the history of e-democracy.

You just remind me of people who graduated on philosophy, thinking they are philosphs right now. But they are not. They are just experts of the history of philosphy wich actually has nothing to philosphy itself.

And you remind me of people who have a good idea (or maybe only think they have a good idea) and think everything else they have to do to let that idea become reality is to tell it to everybody, and who become angry when everybody says that the idea isn't that good, isn't that new and isn't that feasible. Or, to be more blunt: what I still don't grasp is how one Open Forum (singular), populated by a so-called political elite discussing "horizontally", can be seen as a replacement for a political system with all its complexity -- till we *) 17:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

His "internet democracy" proposal is definitely "blue skies" in its approach. And I agree that the proposal couldn't possibly be a replacement for a political system; however, I believe he is at or near the beginning of thinking about ways to enhance democracy, and that shouldn't be discouraged. Nevertheless, at this time, his proposal is nowhere near encyclopedic. -- Stevietheman 16:26, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Here we go.

If you look carefully these links you obtained, you can easily notice this term you are talking about is already defined as e-democracy. Actually, this is not a term, but two lousily related words, such as "clearly defined". You can notice internet democracy you define, is not a concept at all.

Some relate interent democracy to regulatives on the internet, some relate e-democracy projects under internet democracy etc. Steve, you can notice that you never use this term on your site, nor anywhere else. That is understandable, because it is e-democracywhat you are talking about.

What I want to say is that term you are forcing here is just a lame and it does not have place in wikipedia. In the other hand, concept of the new political order, based on opennes and transparency is clearly described as concept and it can be placed in wikipedia.

Especially if we know that this concept is being used by many mambers, especially on the CICDD list. It is not only me, or people around me who use this clearly defined concept. What I can also notice is that internet democracy I am talking about is better defined than any other political concept, such as democracy, direct democracy etc.

All in all, lets sublime:

1. What you are talking about is not a concept and does nto have place in encyclopedia 2. What I am talking about is clearly defined concept that is being used around

So. Stop you ego bullshit and let this concecpt become a part of the wikipedia. We live in too dynamic information interface to make some concept known by everybody, which is actually impossible if you do not let it be accepted and placed by things like this one is.

Now, I am removing the old part, even it is collorfull and well designed. But accept it. It is completelly empty thing. Though, being that formal, you can make internet democracy true concept become that beatufull if you help out for difference.

It's all simple. You can rename your concept to a term not already in use. Further, you can stop your vandalism here before you are banned. -- Stevietheman 13:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No! This term is not used! Internet democracy as a concept did not exist before we developed it. Face it, you little man.

PS. I can be banned, but your karma wont be able to handle it. Ever.

Your position is abject nonsense. -- Stevietheman 13:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For wider public. Write in the google search engine internet democracy. You will get EVERYTHING imaginable. What you can notice is that you wont notice any concept coined to these two words.

So, if internet democracy is going to exist on this site, it has to be some concept. In contrary it makes no any sense.

One more important thing. Me, being a democrat did let to Stevie to has his definition of internet democracy even I do not find it be satisfactory for this encyclopedia, but he continued to delete this under the color of many lousy arguments.

So, Steve, write down what are these arguments for deleting one concept and leaving something that insults sommon sense. I wont enter your motives anymore, even I do find your negative approach be very harmful for this idea, for my time, but what is the most important for you, is for the fact that you are building up too big shit, that you wont be able to swallow.

What I do encourage is to delete this concept from encyclopedia, if there is no common interest to share this brand new concept. Keeping the empty shall, newspeech is supported, which is even more dangerous, than having nothing.

But. I am really dissapointed in the fact there are no users who understand the importance of keeping this new concept on this place.

Looking for the brighter future.

Did anybody actually read the whole history around establishment of the new concept in wikipedia? Does anybody find it sick that the person who was strictly against introduction of the new concept is now fighting for this empty phrase? I do. And what is more important is that I find on this place to many jerks that I wonder what is your problem? Why cant you accept that there are people who understand some things better than you?

This reminds me on the fact that over 4 000 000 of the books "Find the genious in yourself" are sold, just because people can ignore the fact they are not so smart. In the other hand, people can not ignore the fact thay can not play football good, because it is too obvious.

But please, dont you have any decency to do something that makes sense instead of stoping people who have something to say? You idiots.