What is the point of this page? The topic has nothing to do with the project, and it seems heavily stilted toward one philosophy. This project is not about putting forward particular political philosophies other than the those immediately consistent with collaborative governance. If others do not object, I intend to delete this page. And more broadly, StalkingTime, could you please take up some of your posts with the list server, where the rest of the group is more active? It seems like you have a whole separate subsection of this wiki dedicated to your personal philosophy and not really in sync with the philosophy generated collectively by the rest of the members of the group (we are a collaborative group, after all). If you wish to put forward your philosophy, please at least bring it to the attention of the rest of the group before putting it on the "official" face of the project. — Ed Pastore 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are right to bring up your concerns. I will just reply with a few points:
- The issues with regard to sexuality and the body are directly relevant to the body politic as any cultural studies major can tell you.
- If there is discomfort with the words (like semen), consider that the subject dominated the U.S. presidency under Bill Clinton on two different fronts: gays in the military and the stain on the dress. Its relevance is worth discussing -- if not here, it will find alternative routes, as you know. I'm doing my best to respect the difficulties of the subject by keeping it distant from the rest of the pages until it is able to be discussed with less vehemency (and its relevance is clearer).
- It can hardly be said to be my "personal philosophy" as half of the country objects to the practice.
- The wiki is collaborative by nature.
- Replying in kind...
- I don't see the relation between Metagovernment and homosexuality. I am sure some sort of chain of reasoning can be presented, but to what end? This wiki could have thousands of articles, but… that's what Wikipedia is for. This wiki is concerned about issues directly related to presenting our group and collaborative governance. That purpose is not really served by increasing the number of articles in the wiki.
- I don't have any problem with any of the words used, but I don't see them as necessary nor beneficial to the objectives of the group. The article as it reads now is an invitation to confrontation, and I do not see how that serves us. The ideas of collaborative governance are extremely difficult for most people to accept in the first place. There is no utility in further pushing people with such topics.
- This group is not about half of any country (if you are referring to the US, note that most people participating in the group are not American). It is a global movement which transcends taking sides of any issue. This group equally invites people of every persuasion with the only possible exception of authoritarians. Come to think of it, authoritarians are welcome too; but their core philosophy will meet much resistance from the group.
- The contents of this page and of many of your articles are not the product of the group. They read like your personal philosophical thoughts. Yes, wikis are inherently collaborative, but this particular group has a long history of starting its discussions on the list server and in live meetings, not on the wiki. In the context of this group, the wiki is a reflection of thoughts which have already been discussed in the open forum of these chosen venues. There are now numerous pages on this wiki which were created by you but which have not had significant input from any other users. I am asking you to please at least ask the list to look at your articles or to take them to a venue which is purely your own.
- There are lots of wikis out there, plus plenty of places where you can create your own space, such as Wikia. I would like to suggest that the articles which have only been edited by you may be better served by not being intermingled with the very focused ideas of this project. Again, more content on the wiki does not enhance the objectives of the group, especially when that contend expresses ephemeral philosophical concepts. The more focused and simple our message, the more likely it is to be comprehended and accepted.
- —Ed Pastore 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Replying in kind...
The issue is conceeded in favor of Ed Pastore.