GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.



note: this forum page is not intended to be the basis of any official policy or guidelines, but rather something for people to read as food for thought, to keep in the back of their mind when doing things or interacting with others on the wiki



While chatting about US election results with my friend tonight, the topic of Oligarchy came up. That got my mind thinking, "what is the model that best describes my idealization of the GuildWiki community?". After browsing through wikipedia:Template:Forms of government, I came upon Sociocracy, which seems to come closest. Note that different people through the years have taken the original concept of Sociocracy and expanded or elaborated on it, and not everything fits my idealization of how the GuildWiki community should work.

Excerpt quotes (not "derived work") of the Wikipedia article Sociocracy[]

(with interjected comments)

Sociocracy is a system of governance using consent-based decision making among equivalent individuals and an organizational structure based on cybernetic principles.

don't worry about the "cybernetics" part...

It literally means rule by the "socios," people who have a social relationship with each other - as opposed to democracy: rule by the "demos," the general mass of people.

GuildWiki is not a democracy, but it is run by the user community. Another quote later better explains the difference.

To apply sociocracy in larger groups a system of delegation is needed in which a group chooses representatives who take the decisions for them on a higher level. Kees Boeke introduced the terms 'naasthoger' and 'naastlager', with the word 'naast', meaning 'next', referring to the fact that a higher level is not superior to a lower level.

GuildWiki admins are people of a different level, but we don't consider them "superior" than a random anon who just made an edit to fix the grammar of a sentence.

Boeke saw sociocracy... as a form of governance or management that presumes equality of individuals and is based on consent. This equality is not expressed with the 'one man one vote' law of democracy, but in the principle that a decision can only be taken if none of those present have an overbearing argumented[sic] objection against it.

Decisions are made only when no one involved knows of a significant argument against the decision (no paramount objection); before that point is reached, each reasoned argument is included in the discussion. All decisions must be made by consent, unless the group agrees to use another method.

The following two quotes described how another person applied sociocracy in his electrotechnical company:

The organization’s structure is made up of semiautonomous circles. Each circle has its own goals and the responsibility to execute, measure, and control its own processes. Each circle exists within the context of a higher-level circle. No circle is fully autonomous; the needs of its higher-level circles and lower-level circles must be taken into account.

Decision-making meetings, as practiced in sociocracy, are an extremely efficient means of communication and an excellent way to establish trust. Despite the sound of it, consent is usually in the end more efficient than autocratic decision making.

Drama causes people to spend energy/time dealing with (or avoiding) it, making everybody affected less efficient.

Sociocracy as applied to GuildWiki[]

With GuildWiki, I can see the various levels as being:

  • Users = people who read/edit the content of GuildWiki (main-space) articles (no distinction between registered/anons)
  • Sysops
  • Bcrats
  • Wikia

Note that an individual may have membership of multiple levels at once. All Bcrats/Sysops are originally Users and remain Users upon promotion. It is theoretically possible for Bcrat/Sysops to cease being Users due to shift of interest (stopped playing the game and stopped reading the content of the wiki articles, while continue to help the community with the Prot/Del/Ban powers), though it is more typical to consider such people to be inactive Users.

The different levels are responsible for different aspects of the wiki:

  • Users are responsible for the content of the wiki (creation, correction, extension, etc)
  • Sysops are responsible for maintaining the structural integrity of the information on wiki through the use of force (Prot/Ban/Del) when reason is not going to prevail (vs spambots or people not paying attention to warning/advices).
  • Bcrats are responsible for the granting of Bcrat/Sysop level and User rollback tool, and ensure those are being used responsibly.
  • Wikia is responsible for the physical/ethereal operation of the site, to generate revenue that pays for expenses and keep employees employed.

Note that the above only deals with the cold-hard information aspect of the wiki, where things tend to be more clear-cut. When it comes to policies, general decision making, conflict resolution, mediation/arbitration, the following model is what I think would fit GuildWiki and fit the general Sociocracy principle/spirit:

  • Users are responsible for proposing, amending, and approving policies. Users are responsible for resolving conflicts among them through dialogue or mediation from third-party Users. Users form the community, and are responsible for the health of the community.
  • Sysops are responsible for enforcing the policies the User community have approved.
  • When disagreements among individuals of any given level (and over an issue governed by the respective level) reach an impasse where no amount of additional good-faithed dialogue or mediation could help the involved parties reach an understanding, individuals from the "nexthigher" level may arbitrate as a (almost-)last resort. So Sysops arbitrate User-level deadlocks, Bcrats arbitrate Sysop-level deadlocks, and Wikia arbitrate Brat-level deadlocks. Arbitration happens when logic and empathy combined have failed, and thus all parties involved can expect any arbitrary outcome, even one where it benefits none of the parties or one that doesn't seem to make any logical/empathic sense whatsoever (at least to the parties involved, since logic & empathy have already phailed).
  • As a counterpoint to individuals from the "nexthigher" level arbitrating deadlocks of a given level, any lower level as a collective may overturn the decisions/actions of a given level. Thus, the Sysops can collectively overturn what a Bcrat decided, and the Users can collectively overturn what a Sysop or Bcrat decided. Note this requires the collective to conclusively and unambiguously reach a consensus that disagrees with the higher level decision/action, and typically still requires an individual of the nexthigher level (or an even higher level) to actually execute it.

The above may read like a massive bureaucratic red-taped process, but in fact much of it relies on solving issues through communication among peers. The massive sections only deals with the extreme cases, where there is likely great drama already, and provides a systematic way for the wiki to move on with things instead of getting stuck in a mire of quibble.

Again, the above is not being proposed as a policy, but more as an informal model for people to keep in mind when acting/reacting on the wiki. We don't have something formal right now about these things, and we don't need to formalize them until we actually do need them. But it's a good thing to think about the relationships between the different "groups" on GuildWiki, and some insights from it might be useful for whichever other wiki you are on or will go to.


First post! -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 07:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

...Interesting. As far as one can get to "model" how something as complex as GuildWiki works, it's a good job. Of course, there are the inherent assumptions, such as: people will act in a logical manner most times (otherwise, proceed to drama and do not pass RC, etc.); people are willing to discuss openly in the first place; the integral structure of the wiki is sound (YAV and AGF are perennial examples of this, in any wiki)...etc. Still, I think for "only" 8,000 characters it's a nice attempt to summarize everything here. One thing I am curious about, is you say that perhaps maybe someday we would need to codify something like this. I would like to ask, why? "Writing down the spirit of the wiki" is an oxymoron of sorts; this is something similar, if only because you have to use such broad and general language to cover all cases. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 08:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, YAV is built into the model, in the sense that everyone is equal. People from the nexthigher level has no supremacy, and at least using the way I defined the levels, new editors have the same level as seasoned veterans, so they are also equal. I claim that everyone being equal has the same meaning as YAV in spirit. And AGF is implicit where you come here for the good of the wiki/community, and the model setting expectations that others are on the same level as you are. On a wiki where everyone come with bad intentions to do evil (even yourself), AGF wouldn't be able to stand despite YAV (where value is found in destruction?) and equality.
If people are unwilling to act in logical manner, unwilling to discuss things openly etc, then this model will lead to arbitrary Dictatorship. Sysops dictate "arbitrary" outcome on User-level issues where the Users won't work together. Bcrats dictate "arbitrary" outcome on Sysop-level issues where the Sysops won't work together. Heck, because it is supposed to be arbitrary, there's no guarantee that things will work out your way even if you kiss-up or bribe the guys in the nexthigher level (they can take your bribe and still arbitrarily decide to screw you over). The price of nobody (even among Bcrats, and even among Wikia comunity team) willing to stand down and reach a compromise is that ultimately everything gets decided by Jimbo's coin toss (Jimbo being at the "top" of the Wikia foodchain), if he could be bothered to do so. Therefore I claim that this model does not need to assume such thing as people willing to cooperate. The model is built to deal with the lack of such things (hey, if you don't want things dictated by arbitrary decisions from the nexthigher level, work out a compromise).
Ideally we wouldn't need to codify it someday down the road. Ideally we wouldn't even had to write down GW:1RV. But sometimes certain contentious circumstances crop up so much so often that something ends up getting codified to have a standardized metric on how to deal with the issues. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I suppose what I meant is that while AGF/YAV are policies on here, PvX, GWW, etc. the actual level of faith/belief in them, in the community as a whole, is never quite satisfactory. This evident when there is drama and they are broken and someone says for example that "it's all in favor of the bcrat/sysops" or claims "elitism" or "screw YAV, we all know who really has the power here", etc. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Faith and belief is something that requires the Community to educate and reinforce, and especially relies on people in the various "nexthigher" levels (who have certain technical powers, but not more rights or higher value) to be careful about how they are perceived. Thus I do view adminship as a form of shackles, placing handicaps on the actions of those who wield the power responsibly. In the real world, the military have guns and tanks and fighter jets, most people don't. Are the military people more "elite" than the rest of us? Are people carrying guns with them more "superior" then the people who do not? Are we second-class citizens because the military have access to things from which most of us cannot protect ourselves? That happens to be true in many dictatorships, but many non-dictatorships do exist despite having a military and a good number have thrived and become among the most powerful nations on this planet.
"Users form the community, and are responsible for the health of the community." If other people do not believe they are being valued, or do not believe we are treating them in good faith, then the burden is upon us through sincere effort to make them feel and believe so. If some people feel the admins have all the power, it is the responsibility of the admins to make Users feel empowered through encouragement, leaving opportunities open for Users, and careful use of arbitrarity to reinforce the admin role as public servants instead of being the Boss. I argue that the model described as applied to GuildWiki places the Community itself as being responsible for promoting the values essential for thing to work. Thus the model does not need to assume people's belief in it. The model allows things to start from a state where people don't actually believe it, but through the exercise of their responsibilities, implement and come to believe it. And if the people don't believe it and also failed in exercising their responsibilities to implement it, then there isn't really harm in arbitrarily dictating over those people who are incapable of assuming good faith of others or treat others as equals, is there? d-:
I claim that the present reality is, most GuildWiki users do believe in AGF and YAV sufficiently for us to not deteriorate into the arbitrary dictatorship described in the Sociocracy model. You might have butted your head against Auron, but you didn't actually have power over him (both being Bcrats), and he chose to standdown instead of deadlocking with you (which would then require Wikia to step in if neither of you would relent). Yes, sometimes drama arise over major disagreements and people throw fits and say stuff, and perhaps even mean what they said at that moment. But that doesn't necessarily mean they constantly feel that way, or that they reflect what the majority feels. Heck, sometimes (offwiki) I feel nobody loves me and I wanna jump off a cliff or something. But just because I'm throwing an emotional fit does not make it evident that nobody actually loves me (regardless of if it's actually true or not). People make mistakes. People who believe in honesty may blurt out slander in a heated argument that got emotional. That doesn't break a model that works best when people are honest. Thus I claim the Sociocracy model as applied to GuildWiki works best when what you claimed to be "inherent assumptions" are true, but the model still works and fits when those "assumptions" are not quite satisfactory. Furthermore, the model accounts for a way for the wiki to continue function even if those "assumptions" break down completely. I claim the model paints a fairly accurate picture of how things would end up being run even when nobody assumes good faith of others and do not stick to YAV and do not bother to discuss things openly and nobody act in a logical manner.
I hope I understood the original critique correctly and answered in a meaningful fashion that either achieved understanding or opened the way for more followup question/critique. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The "group chooses higher level representatives"/"elections by consent" aspect of sociocracy isn't covered. Having appointments from above instead (along with disagreements resolved by nexthigher individuals) would be key in constituting something of a representative dictatorship rather than sociocracy. The collective-overturn seems useless as a counterpoint for any reasonably debatable decision among a large group. The community incentive to avoid arbitrary outcomes also doesn't translate reliably enough into an individual's incentive to avoid it. --Rezyk 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Open society[]

One of the shortcomings of this model as presented is that it doesn't take into account that a wiki is by its nature an open society. There are no fixed circles because people comeand go all the time. In fact, I'm fairly sure that even before Jink registered and thus entered this model, she's talked to her husband about the wiki and thus influenced it. Readers do, by leaving links elsewhere, on forums etc. People come, become editors, and even if a wiki community is bad, may take a while to catch on and enlarge the content in the meantime. This constant coming and going also means that if these people who don't feel welcome had stayed, they might have outnumbered the people who didn'tmake them feel welcome (please, all this is hypothetical, I have nothing on this wiki in mind). --◄mendel► 04:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Explanatory power?[]

This is a pretty neat theory, and it's nice to be able to find more literature - thank you for bringing that to our attention. However, I am still confused. If this theory is useful, it can provide new insights, explain old observations, or confirm existing knowledge. Mind you, I haven't had the time to study any of the source materials for this concept, so I'm going mainly by your presentation here. Has anyone seen that? --◄mendel► 04:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Other models[]


Also known by its more benevolent name, WikiBoss(TM), first coined by Tanaric. The model goes something as follows (extremely oversimplified):

  • The Bureaucrat makes all the decisions.
  • Do not argue with The Bureaucrat.
  • The Bureaucrat is always right.
  • Sysops exist to handle the janitorial work that The Bureaucrat can't be bothered to do.
  • Users exist to add content and pay tribute and form the "community" over which The Bureaucrat reigns.

Surprisingly, this model works rather well, despite being highly autocratic in nature. By having all decision-making power centered on one person, conflict rarely happens and rival factions can express their disconcent but not act upon it. Moreover, because sysops are little more than glorified janitors, they do not get into power struggles, and YAV need not be invoked between people of different "circles".

...There's more to it but I can neither remember the rest nor say much else without finding a concrete example to draw on.

Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 08:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What happens to the wiki when the boss is shot or otherwise disappears from the internet? Bloodbath in the aftermath of the power vacuum? d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Then Michael takes over. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
and if (heaven forbid) Michael gets run over by a truck? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Then Auron's plan worked out, and he takes over. --◄mendel► 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
And when Auron somehow "accidentally" choke on a piece of oversized wiggling jello? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
That's no jello, that's my wife! Felix Omni Signature.png 00:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Have named successor(s) ahead of time to continue the ancient dynasty? --Rezyk 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Jr., but NOT Wikipedia[]

We are not Wikipedia, but a lot of the policies, values, spirit, and other things have obvious Wikipedia influences Even when we do thing differently from Wikipedia, sometimes it's still based on how Wikipedia did it, then modified to be different to account for the different circumstances.

list below things we reference/diverge or should consider look at from Wikipedia

  • Assume good faith - WP:AGF vs GW:AGF
  • Admins are not more important than regular users - WP:NBD vs... combo from GW:YAV and GW:AUNC?
    • Note that there are also differences between perception of admin on WP vs GW The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanSola (contribs) .

Passive dictatorship[]

Like the dictatorship model given above (which might be more aptly named "active dictatorship"?), a single entity maintains absolute power. However, this power is rarely/never exercised, or limited to special functions like technical administration, after that entity has devolved power into a submodel such as consensus decision-making, democracy, or representative democracy, etc. (Technically the submodel can even be another dictatorship, but that is really just a dictatorship through representatives.) The subsystem makes all the decisions in practice, and exists by the consent of the passive dictator, who also maintains the right to scrap and replace it (though this risks ire if it feels like a betrayal of given expectations). Pretty much every privately-owned website has this model, or an active dictatorship, at the owner level by virtue of legal control/responsibility. This cannot be avoided without legal mechanics; the general thing to do instead is to work on ironing out expectations. --Rezyk 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus decision-making[]

What would be the impetus for dividing people among levels of responsibility for sociocracy instead of this? --Rezyk 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus "seeks the agreement of most participants" or stakeholders, and that is just not true of the wiki. We often don't care if stakeholders don't join in on our discussions. --◄mendel► 04:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
To rephrase that in a better light, it's often not worth the trouble to seek out the stakeholders. If they can't be bothered to pay attention to the advertised discussions etc. then that is too bad for them. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 08:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but inclusiveness is just one aim, rather than some exact requirement. It'd just be practiced at some practical level (like those discussions being advertised as appropriate). Anyways, I didn't mean to imply that GuildWiki follows this at all -- just thought it might be something interesting to think about... --Rezyk 10:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
We have consensus in places, but not as a pervading principle, I believe. One of these places is GW:1RV - in effect, anyone who reverts blocks an action (the edit), and theoretically there must be discussion until soem kind of consensus is reached. However, we do encourage editors to be bold, so they don't have to seek consensus before doing edits (although inexperienced editors sometimes do). Often, we simply assume consensus until it appears that it's not there. The interesting question is whether the people who actually discuss in these consensus discussion aim to gain the consent of the other party, or merely try to get them to bow out — to exaggerate, the Mafia is ruled by consensus because evryone who doesn't consent to the godfather's actions gets to sleep with the fishes (I know it's not as simple as that...) --◄mendel► 11:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Ideally the two works out to be the same at the end, since the Users as a collective can able to overthrow any decision/action of Sysop/Bcrat. Thus, the levels of responsibility boils down to delegation. I claim we don't necessarily want every single disagreement over ban, prot, or del to go through a 1-week consensus process with the entire community (anything shorter than 2-week-notice is already inadequate to claim "consensus of the GuildWiki Users" IMO, when dealing with issues of the scale that got ppl involved in admin roles). And if we actually do so, and try to advertise to gain User participation in each of those disagreement-resolution events, it'll just desensitize the general Users. Thus consensus decision making introduces (relative) extra bureaucracy without obvious benefits. Users can still object/reverse admins decisions/actions, and the admins don't exactly *hide* what their actions on the wiki. So in the (hopefully unusual) cases where the Users have a consensus that differs from the result of Admins' resolution, the end result of Sociocracy is the same as Consensus decision-making, and in cases where the Users' consensus coincide with the Admins' resolution, the levels of delegation presented in the Sociocracy model as applied to GuildWiki greatly increases efficiency of the process. Thus I claim that Sociocracy optimizes for the common case (User apathy or consensus with admin), while still ensures the same result as consensus-decision-making in the uncommon cases. Also, nothing in the Sociocracy model prevents individual Users from trying to influence the Admins in their decision-making process. Thus Users can still comment and discuss, and if the Admins end up with a resolution the Users take issue with, the Users can (after reaching consensus) overthrow the Admin decision. Please let me know any issues with the logic I employed or any considerations I oversighted (-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not always the admis who decide. The decision for the dialogue css was reached on Quizzical's talkpage, with Wolfie, myself, and Dr ishmael participating in the discussion. It's not a circle that fits anywhere within a rigid sociocracy model. --◄mendel► 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Content presentation (styling) isn't a Ban/Prot/Del or otherwise policy-related matter, it's completely a "content" issue, and fits completely within the "User" circle of the "rigit" sociocracy model IMHO (unless Ish pulled rank on you two during the discussion to settle matters). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Still, it required an admin (Dr Ishmael) to actually make the required change to the CSS. The distinctions aren't as clear as the model makes them seem. --◄mendel► 09:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that's similar to saying any policy changes still require admins to actually enforce them though (despite policies are made through User consensus). I'll think about revising the wording to clarify them. Also note: there is a distinction between the original Sociocracy concept and the specific adaptation I took to make a model for GuildWiki, so some of the things you disagree with may not be inherent in Sociocracy itself, just how I adapted it, and that the specific adaptations I used could altered to address some of the concerns brought up while also be true to the original concept. (-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I also would disfavor any implementation that mandated a long site-wide meeting (with neon-flashing sign?) for every action/disagreement, just like I wouldn't advise a dictator in any dictatorship to personally step in on every single action/disagreement. Instead, I'd go for an implementation with some stuff to open/smooth things (encourage open bold editing, a policy system, etc), while trying to keep the core decision-making power adequately rooted in consensus (or in the dictatorship, respectively).
Regarding the difference in outcome between consensus decision-making and your implementation of sociocracy: it would depend on a lot on the delegates' final practices, but here the main things I would look at for differences. (1) Whenever the lower level does not reach a consensus, a solution from above is used. This is a new outcome in itself, but also damages the principle of egalitarianism and some things associated with that, such as shared responsibility. For example, if you were to say to me "we will abide by my decision unless you form a consensus otherwise", the inequitable burden of finding consensus would proportionately diminish my personal sense of responsibility in the decision. (2) The potential solution-from-above would profoundly affect many incentives driving the consensus decision-making process. Some get extra disincentive against compromising/standing-aside if they don't completely abhor the nextlevel stepping in. That is the most worrisome thing to me. (3) As mentioned, your implementation doesn't seem to cover sociocracy's elections by consent, so you might be losing any sense of the power originating from or tied to the people at ground level.
Back to my original question of why sociocracy versus consensus decision-making. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether/how you would manage elections by consent, I agree that there are generally many cases where delegation wins on efficiency (though I suspect it need not be as harsh as you expect); "time consuming" is a major disadvantage of consensus. But then my question is: If this efficiency is worth sacrificing egalitarianism, inherent incentives to compromise, etc (stuff mentioned above), then why not just go with a straightforward dictatorship instead (with a dictator that hears feedback and tries to encourage consensus and all that)?
--Rezyk 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a myth that delegation is more time-consuming than consensus for most issues because if a stakeholder needs to contact a delegate, educate him on his interests and get him to advocate them (lobbying, essentially), this takes more time than doing it yourself (consensus among interested stakeholders). Our consensus is more relaxed because decisions are rarely final (I know a wiki that has a "discussion closed" template, ugh), so there's no need to seek out potential stakeholders; everyone who notices the decision is already informed about the subject matter. The exception are administrative decisions, and those are mostly assigned (surprise!) to the admins. This also provides continuity. --◄mendel► 23:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


This model is basically characterized by the lack of any unifying "ideal" behind it, and falling back on the current software configuration by default. There is no special ideal that gives you the right (or lack of) to do any action -- the only "rights" with real meaning are those that the software is programmed to give you. You can edit that page just because the software configuration lets you, but that other user can block you just because the software lets him, and that third user can revoke admin rights just because the software lets him. Further justification is superfluous. The system generally grows up around the various defaults that some software developer decided on, and whoever has the bureaucrat flag (and removes it from the other bureaucrats first?) wins the wiki and bootstraps a dictatorship/dynasty from there, perhaps choosing a unifying ideal, etc. --Rezyk 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The software can be configured in various ways (and this is done). In addition, things that the software allows (e.g. personal attacks) are disallowed by the society. In fact, if a sopftware is sufficiently flexible, traditions play a large part in its use. (Many programming languages have writing styles and idioms that are not dictated by the compiler!) We have augmented our communication media with in-game chat, irc, and various IMs, so the software environment that this community uses is far from static - and that means there's more than "the" system. --◄mendel► 04:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This model is general enough to support all of that too; it just describes the fundamental power structure rather than a detailed end result. Evolving communications may alter discussion participation, political influences, etc, but generally doesn't change who ultimately has the final power/privilege to decide at this level. Personal attacks can be disallowed simply by it being chosen to be enforced by those with the power to. Ideals like sociocracy could be propagated to some degree, though their application would only continue at the behest of the higher-ups. And even if software rights do change significantly, the power structure just changes to fit what the software newly allows. --Rezyk 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)