User:DerHexer/Governing Ontological distinction

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A governing ontological distinction is an w:ontological distinction that imposes conformance. It is, in a sense, a shared category system.

One discussion I would like to raise is the purpose of discussions. Why bother spending days and nights on Wikipedia when you can interact SOCIALLY


The main Governing Ontological distinction that applies on the wiki project is the w:Neutral point of view (or NPOV). This is to some extent jargon - it is possible to have a "point of view" which one considers "neutral", and yet what is written is not "NPOV". Indeed, understanding the NPOV policy and learning how to practically apply it is one of the main difficulties in contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedians regularly disagree over whether some article "is NPOV" or "is not NPOV" - that is why we have en:Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, for example.


Also, it is not possible to look at an article and immediately make any real Governing Operational distinction, e.g. rename, redirect, revert, IP ban.

Rather, an ontological process wherein "what exists" in the mind of the individuals empowered to make such operational distinctions must be assumed. Such a process will rely on a w:foundation ontology with certain basic assumptions, most of which is beyond the scope of the Governing ones.

These include, at least:

  • trollishness - does one feel somehow that the edit was intended to annoy, anger, or anally penetrate another individual, rather than inform them?
  • edit sanity - whether the most recent edit was what a real person intended to leave, or whether it simply reflected some degree of damage
  • page source - sources for text or claims on the page, assumed or stated
  • page name - scope implications of the page name, e.g. too narrow, too broad
  • page author - reputation (or lack of same) of the author, e.g. one who is trusted to write many philosophy articles with little attribution may be allowed a truly incomprehensible article, e.g. w:ontology
  • page length - a truly outrageously long essay on a small topic may well offend
  • page topic - is the topic truly one that is out in the general culture, or is the wiki itself a medium by which it achieves its primary attention?
  • IP ban - does any combination of the above suggest that the page author hsas already been subject to an IP ban? this may imply a reduced level of patience
  • more requested which are critical to detecting w:Neutral point of view

An w:editor, or w:censor, or w:Militia, or w:clique, or w:party, or whatever individual or group is observing the article, is going to apply one or more ontological distinctions before deciding whether to consider, advocate, or perform any Governing Operational distinction. Only this makes a real event occur. Ontological distinction only establishes the w:groupthink that applies to this consideration, advocacy, or performance, e.g. an IP ban of someone offending.

Any system of wiki governance must discover what these distinctions are, by examining the visions and threats that drive the emotions of each group or individual. When disputes arise regarding these distinctions, which affect naming conventions, assumptions regarding control and authorship, and other fundamentals as evidenced by Governing Operational distinction, it makes the Ontological more clear. These may or may not affect any real status quo power relationships, sysop status, Militia approval, or Jimbo's goodwill. In fact, all such Ontological distinction may well be arbitrary and beyond rational examination.

If so, refer the Governing Operational distinctions, and evidence from each case of their use, and attempt to determine what w:precedent may apply.


These are not easy problems, nor is Larry Sanger an easy troll to ignore. However, together, we can do it, and drive him out of this project forever, and prevent future cabals from arising that claim a monopoly on playing G.O.d.