Talk:Internet democracy/Archive 2
 | 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 |
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.
- It was already explained to you (ad nauseum) that the Wikipedia is expressly _not_ for the establishment of new concepts, nor for the advertising of same. Since nobody has agreed with your position, it's now time to accept that and move on. -- Stevietheman 16:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is really pretty new concept. But what are you talking about is no concept at all. Deal with it and buzz off.
BTW, these are the links you are adressing to:
- CitizenSpace/UKonline (http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/CitizenSpace/CitizenSpace/fs/en) -- Citizens shape government policy by taking part in online consultations.
Not a one mentioning of internet democracy.
- Online consultations are a form of e-democracy using the Internet (that is, Internet democracy). -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Democracy 2.0 (http://www.democracy2.org) -- A nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and effecting Pervasive Democracy and direct, nonpartisan resolution of community issues in U.S. states/territories and localities.
You never dealed with this concept before. You even insisted to remove this concept as this is concept already part of e-democracy, you idiot.
- See the definition of "Pervasive Democracy" on this page. Note that I haven't created a Wikipedia article for my coined concept. So why do you insist on doing that for yours? -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- ICANN at Large Member Signup (http://www.icannatlarge.com/) -- Individual participation in the governance of the Internet.
Not a one mentioning of the concept of internet democracy.
- The title strongly suggests a commonly known use of the term "Internet democracy", which is Internet users deciding how the Internet is governed. -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- International E-Democracy Meetup Day (http://edemocracy.meetup.com/)
e-democracy. Not internet democracy, again.
- Internet democracy is a derivative of e-democracy... in fact, its most common derivative. -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Internet Democracy Project
Wow. Internet democracy is mentioned. But not as a concept.
- The Wikipedia's purpose is _not_ to establish new concepts. The use of "Internet democracy" on this page is a commonly known use of the term. -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So, These are the facts. You are standing for something that only your vanity insist to be, just because you can not let to one Gale to put the new concept to the wikipedia.
But I am doing that. And I am doing that just because this what I mentioned is getting to the use more and more. If your ego was not so hurted, you would notice that on the list you participate and in the same time, you could notice that when you make a google search.
You idiot I trully despise.
- It's interesting that one committed to democracy as you supposedly are cannot accept the will of the vast majority to your minority of 1. If you really accept democratic values, you will move on and find another way to promote your special unencyclopedic concept. -- Stevietheman 17:37, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If we use cheap political concepts that are available to your mental setting, I have to remind you that democracy is based on the protection of the minorities rights.
- The right to add unencyclopedic content that breaks the established rules of the Wikipedia? Surely you jest. I really don't understand why you insist on acting so irrationally. A rational person realizes that he cannot win all battles in life. Move on. -- Stevietheman 18:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia has to be in line with time. If it does not follow that rule, it will become irrelevant. People can and have to have the approach to the new concepts even they are not known in a number of billions. This is an information age and you can not be an obstacle between taht new information and the consumer of that information. Especially not in a manner of introducing of non existing concepts.
One more thing. Search the google, ask the leading world list for this issue what is Internet democracy? The answer might actually suprise you.