Talk:Internet democracy/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Newly coined term? (lengthy) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Buzz off?