Democracy as an unstable equilibrium.

Starting from a universal democracy where actions are effected by consensus, we next arrive at a situation where judges must referee actions where the rights of seperate parties collide.

At first the judges are given minor but useful powers by the people. Some judges however decide those minor powers are just too minor, and the people just too unruly.

So the judges all get together and vote themselves greater powers and less control over how and when they should use those powers.

The stable equilibrium is achieved finally when the judges have all powers and no controls. The people who are not obedient slaves to the judges authority are quickly put out-of-the-way by whatever means necessary. The judges themselves do not see this as the opposite of a productive free society, they see their own task as the necessarity of not allowing a descent into anarchy.

That's pretty much how the Spanish Inquisition operated.

I regret to say I have some misgivings about the reliability of their judgments.

What does this have to do with Wikipedia?

Jonny

I believe that what our friend is suggesting is that Wikipedia has become exactly the system that he is suggesting. I tend to agree with this judgement.

But Wikipedia Is Snot Supposed To Be A Democracy, Right?

Jonny

WIkipedia is an MMPORG and compendium of popular culture, including copious instances of lunatic social drama, especially those reprising Pythonesque sketches based on The Spammish Inquisition.

Torture him with soft pillows!

And the comfy chair!

Oh, no! Not the comfy chair!


PS I wonder just how many hours of my school days and university time did I pass in quoting Monty Python?

Aw come on! That was never five minutes ....