Talk:Inclusive Democracy

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 January 2007. The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Philosophy: Social and political This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Socialism This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles

I uploaded a modified version of the Inclusive Democracy entry. This has nothing to do with the original one which was based on the corresponding Routledge entry and caused the copy vio. User: Narap43, 10:40 (UTC), 27 December 2005

---SOMEBODY VANDALIZED THE PAGE JUST BEFORE WITH A PORNIGRAPHIC PICTURE. SHOULDN'T SOMEONE SEARCH WHO DID IT?--TheVel 13:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We demand that wiki administrators trace the IP so we can find out who vandalized the page with pornography!User:john sargis 8:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question for the administrators

It is well known that every entry here (or anywhere in Wikipedia for that matter) leaves its trace in the History page. Why the pornographic entry, which stayed here for over an hour, left no trace at all in the history page? But, even if this vandalising entry somehow did not leave any trace in the History page surely it left its trace in your monitors and therefore you know the IP of the vandaliser. OK?

I watched the Administrators' behaviour with respect to the Inclusive Democracy (ID) entry and I could only characterise it as a perfect example of authoritarianism mixed with ignorance.

First, you discovered possible copyright violation in the ID entry with respect to the corresponding entry in the Inclusive Democracy.org webpage and the relevant Routledge Encyclopedia entry. Then, the webmaster of the ID webpage wrote to you and explained that there was no such violation as he has the copyrights for all the contents of his webpage. Furthermore, he created a new temp. page on ID which has little relation to the old one and consequently to the one in Routledge. You ignored him. Instead a supposed 'expert' in copyrights violations, under the name karmafist yesterday deleted the temp page WITH NO EXPLANATION AT ALL. When today the webmaster posted the same page, another 'expert' under the name Ulayiti deleted the page again, OFFERING ALSO NO EXPLANATION AT ALL.

Could you stop behaving in such an arbitrary way and explain what is wrong with the temp. page? The fact that it contains parts of the old entry, for anyone with an elementary knowledge of copyrights legislation, is not a violation, particularly if the author of both entries is one and the same: Takis Fotopoulos! Had you checked for instance the entries on Participatory Economics by Michael Albert in his own webpage and elsewhere against the WP entry on Participatory Economics you would have found dozens of cases of similar 'violations'.

Alternatively, if you have no explanation for your arbitrary actions then you have to restore the temp. page as the new ID entry--unless of course, as one may suspect, the reasons for your action have much more to do with the political content of ID which is clearly against the political affiliations of most administrators--particularly those deleting the temp.page-- (rather than with any copyright violations!

The words 'Wikipedia' and 'copyright' are not compatible with each other. In other words, nothing on Wikipedia is copyrighted. If you upload something on Wikipedia, you release it under the GFDL licence, which means that anyone can do pretty much whatever they want with it. If you want to upload content that is currently copyrighted, you must show that you are in fact the copyright holder, and relinquish all rights to the content itself. - ulayiti (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared a new version of the Inclusive Democracy entry for use exlusively for Wikipedia purposes. Does this resolve any possible copyright problems?? User:Narap43, 15:30, 29 December (UTC)

I've removed the protection from the article, so you're free to put that version up now. - ulayiti (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new version also appears to be a copyvio, so I have reverted and reinstated protection. [[Sam Korn]] 16:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Inclusive Democracy entry was not deleted for vanity reasons as this (rightwinger) Jbamb implies but for a minor copyvio reason, which has by now been corrected and there is a new ID entry. The IJID entry also should not have been deleted and several administrators have now recognised this error as the relevant debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democracy_%26_Nature_%282nd_nomination%29 shows. User:john sargis12:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific on why the new version also appears to be a copyvio because alternatively you simply abuse your power? A mMember of the International Network for Inclusive Democracy, 16:35, 31 Dec. 2005

The new version WAS NOT a copyvio. Sam Corn's protection is unacceptable. --TheVel 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Don't write in bold, it's impolite. 2. It is not unacceptable to remove a page that is a) unsuitable for an encyclopedia and b) (far more importantly) an apparent violation of copyright. A Google search for random pieces of text still throws up results at inclusivedemocracy.com, and, to my knowledge, there has been no formal release of the text under the GFDL, which is mandatory for text on Wikipedia. [[Sam Korn]] 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the new version of ID contains approximately the same sections as the old one is not a proof of copyvio (otherwise most entries on various scientific or theoretical topics would be copyvios!). To prove a copyvio you have to show that the entry as a whole, or at least entire sections of it, are copyvios from another copyright-protected page. In fact our webmaster explicitly stated that this is a version which is different from the one published in Routledge Encyclopedia (the cause of the previous copyvio) and he specifically adopted for the new version the terms of GNU Free Documentation License. User:john sargis 12:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. OK. My text is We may distinguish various forms of political power-sharing in History, which, schematically, may be classified as either democratic or oligarchic. In the former, political power is shared equally among all those with full citizen rights (typical example the Athenian ecclesia), whereas in the latter political power is concentrated, in various degrees, at the hands of miscellaneous elites. Now see [1] and [2] To prove a copyvio (from WP's POV) you need some reasonable idea that the text uses a copyrighted source. Until there is some official release from the owners of the copyright, this article remains a copyright violation. If and when that comes, I shall immediately list on AfD as this article is completely unverified and biased. Happy new year. [[Sam Korn]] 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The version I uploaded is a summary page of the main aspects of Inclusive Democracy. As such, it is reasonable that some phrases will be a repetition of main phrases from our website. The specific you mention, as well as some other parts of the text, are from the onine book "The Multidimensional Crisis & Inclusive Democracy", for which the rights are reserved by the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (please refer to [3]). As the webmaster of this Journal, I have released the specific parts used in the Inclusive Democracy entry for Wikipedia purposes. To prove this, I wrote some days ago a relevant e-mail to the Wikimedia foundation from the Journal's address. In conclusion, please indicate a way to proceed with this since a GFDL on the whole book is, as you understand, not an option. User: Narap43, 18:57, 31 December 2005, (UTC)

1. We, the members of the Editorial Board of Democracy & Nature (D&N) and its present successor The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (IJID) have, over the last few days, witnessed a concerted attack against the journal by an alliance of sockpuppets (who have been created by a disgruntled ex-member of the journal with a vendetta against us) and some administrators who are either apolitical (not in the sense of party politics but in the sense of a fundamental lack of understanding of politics in the broader sense) or who do not hide their hostility towards the Inclusive Democracy political agenda. This ‘unholy’ alliance has attempted to delete all Inclusive Democracy entries in Wikipedia and in some cases it has already succeeded in doing this.

2. The reasons for which Wikipedia have attempted to substantiate their AfDs range from silly WP copyright violations (from our own webpages!-- which, if applied to all WP entries, would lead to most of them being eclipsed) to arbitrary ‘assessments’ of the notability and significance of our entries. Such ‘assessments’ are given either by administrators who do not have any expertise on the topics they are assessing, or by others following their own political agenda which is at the opposite end of the political spectrum to the Inclusive Democracy project.

3. We find it humiliating, to say the least, to be subjected to this pseudo-democratic process which defames not only our journals, which have been honoured to have had as contributors and members of their Editorial Boards well-known writers such as Steven Best, Murray Bookchin, Pierre Bourdieu, Cornelius Castoriadis, Noam Chomsky, Takis Fotopoulos, Andre Gunder Frank, Serge Latouche, Harold Pinter-- and many other equally important writers who do not have similar WP entries—but also our subscribers who have, in the past, included such notable institutions as Michigan State University, University of Maryland, University of Wisconsin, London School of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Stanford University, Simon Fraser University, Hamburg Library, University of New South Wales, University of Canterbury, Kent; Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal; Harvard College Library,Iinternational Institute of Social History, Amsterdam; Formazione ii Biblioteca, Palermo; Bath University and many others. Furthermore, we find this process equally humiliating to the authors of hundreds of references and citations to D&N and IJID in books, journals, magazines, and electronic media.

4. Finally, we find appaling the fact that, through Wikipedia’s so-called assessment process, self-anointed administrators, with no guarantee at all of any expertise in the fields they assess, use their wide-ranging powers to decide which pieces of knowledge and information are appropriate enough to be included in Wikipedia. These powers include discounting the votes of registered users who are not long-established--even if their expertise is much more relevant to the topics assessed than that of the administrators, as the irrelevant comments of these administrators frequently show. These built-in fatal errors in assessment—only some of which have been mentioned--could go a long way in explaining the growing literature in the world press on the low standard of knowledge and information provided by Wikipedia.

5. When we created the WP Inclusive Democracy entries, we were functioning as bona fide new users thinking that we were helping the development of a free and supposedly democratic encyclopaedia that could function as an alternative source of information to the established encyclopaedias. We were utterly disappointed when we discovered the irresponsible and completely unreliable way in which knowledge on important matters is supposedly created by this supposedly alternative encyclopaedia, which clearly will never reach the standards of the established encyclopaedias because of the fatal structural flaws mentioned. Therefore, the sooner it is disqualified as an authoritative source of knowledge, the better.

6. In light of the above we have decided the following:

a) to withdraw with immediate effect ALL the Inclusive Democracy entries from Wikipedia, including those that have been challenged only on account of trivial Wikipedia copyright violations, as well as those like the entry on the founder of Inclusive Democracy, Takis Fotopoulos, which has not been challenged by anyone during this whole process. b) to demand the banning of any new entry on the following topics:

. We reserve all our legal rights in case any future entries on these topics are created in Wikipedia without our explicit and written permission.

The Editorial Committee of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy Narap43, 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

ADDENDUM

Since yesterday’s announcement some of the main points we made in it have already been confirmed! Thanks to the technical work of some administrators who showed that they function without any political agendas against us but instead attempted to find out the truth,

Meanwhile, other administrators still doubt whether the present announcement is a genuine Editorial Board announcement. Here is the proof:

http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/newsletter/Wikipedia.htm

The Editorial Committee of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy

11:19 (UTC) January 2, 2006 User:Narap43

Either the disputed content was or was not released under the GFDL. If it was, then it cannot be taken back. If not, then the above announcement is false when it claims the copyvio objection was groundless. Either way, the above announcement lacks credibility. --- Charles Stewart 18:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When they came to Wikipedia they should have understood its rules and accepted them. Unfortunately, they chose a confrontational pattern of behaviour. They should stop for a moment and think if such internet drama befits an academic. SentientContrarian (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering nominating this page for deletion under Articles for Deletion in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability:

...a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. (emphasis added)

Please bolster the article's case for notability, if possible.

In the alternative, please develop the article with more content. Right now it is obviously just a submarine advertisement for a political philosophy, with only enough text so that it can call itself an article and get the reader to use the external links. I have to warn you that without a solid case for notability, the article will continue to be in danger of deletion. However, as a matter of personal choice, I will not personally initiate the deletion process as long as someone puts some actual content in.

Drake Dun 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of new material, first, to give more info on the aspects of the Inclusive Democracy project and, second, to establish the notability of the article. Also, many links to online and printed resources are given.

User:narap43 9:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

All four references to parecon are misleading:

"This implies a new definition of economic efficiency, based not on narrow techno-economic criteria of input minimisation/output maximization as in socialist models like Parecon, but on criteria securing full coverage of the democratically defined basic needs of all citizens as well as of the non-basic needs they decide to meet -- even if this involves a certain amount of inefficiency according to the orthodox economics criteria."

Parecon is not based on input minimization and product maximization, but on value maximization, that is, satisfying the needs of consumers (citizens). For example, the citizens can decide that a process that uses more inputs and produces fewer products is preferable because it makes the work more enjoyable. About basic needs, see below.

"This is so because economic decision making is carried out by the entire community, through the citizens' assemblies, where people make the fundamental macro-economic decisions which affect the whole community, as citizens, rather than as vocationally oriented groups (e.g. workers, as e.g. in Parecon [8])."

The sentence is flatly false. Parecon's consumer councils play the same role as ID's citizen assemblies. The only reason parecon theory refers to consumers rather than citizens is because it focuses on the economic aspects of social organization. Participatory polity, which is the extension of parecon to politics, focuses on the political aspects.

"The main characteristic of the proposed model, which also differentiates it from socialist planning models like Parecon, is that it explicitly presupposes a stateless, money-less and market-less economy that precludes private accumulation of wealth and the institutionalisation of privileges for some sections of society, without relying on a post-scarcity state of abundance, or sacrificing freedom of choice."

The sentence falsely suggests that parecon is based on a market economy, based on a state, and allows the institutionalization of privileges for some sectors of society, or relies on a post-scarcity state of abundance, or sacrifices freedom of choice any more than ID. Parecon does not do any of these. Whether it allows the accumulation of wealth depends on what that means. The only real difference from parecon is ID's money-less economy.

"Thus, unlike Parecon where basic needs are satisfied thanks to public goods and to compassion,[10] ID is based on the principle that meeting basic needs is a fundamental human right which is guaranteed to anybody who offers a minimal amount of work."

What compassion? Parecon guarantees an average income to those who cannot get income by working -- the unemployed and the infirm. ID guarantees basic goods to everyone who can work a minimally. Both are based on compassion, and that is not a weakness of either. Also, parecon does not assume that everyone's basic needs are the same, so it offers more freedom of choice. Also, it seems that ID in fact assumes abundance of basic goods in order to guarantee them to everyone. That assumption may not hold, for example, in time of war or natural disaster.

-Pgan002 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All four defences of Parecon above are biased and false

“Parecon is not based on input minimization and product maximization, but on value maximization, that is, satisfying the needs of consumers (citizens). For example, the citizens can decide that a process that uses more inputs and produces fewer products is preferable because it makes the work more enjoyable. About basic needs, see below”.

The discussant obviously has no idea what the issue is about. The issue is not what is the objective of production (value maximization, etc.), but what definition of efficiency Albert and Hahnel adopt and as Fotopoulos points out in his critique of Parecon (“Inclusive Democracy and Participatory Economics”, DEMOCRACY & NATURE: vol.9, no.3, (November 2003) “in the pursuit of respectability and recognition by the ‘serious’ economists,( i.e. the orthodox economics profession teaching in universities, etc.) the authors adopt unreservedly even what themselves call ‘the traditional view’ that a desirable economy should be ‘efficient’ and they then proceed to adopt the orthodox Paretian optimality conditions ‘as a useful definition of social efficiency’ (M. Albert’s and R. Hahnel’s ‘The Political Economy of Participatory Economics’ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 9). Of course, these optimality conditions imply input minimization or output maximization!

“The sentence is flatly false. Parecon's consumer councils play the same role as ID's citizen assemblies. The only reason parecon theory refers to consumers rather than citizens is because it focuses on the economic aspects of social organization. Participatory polity, which is the extension of parecon to politics, focuses on the political aspects.”

This is another typical example of the biased defence of Parecon by the discussant. Fotopoulos says the same thing, but he draws a very different conclusion: “Given the nature of Parecon as purely an economic model, it is not surprising that the main actors in it are determined in the economic field. Thus, the concept of citizen is completely missing from the Parecon model and is replaced instead by workers and consumers”. And further on he explains why the compartmentalization of people into workers and consumers and the identification of consumers with citizens attempted by Parecon is completely irrelevant to democracy: “However, the dual council structure proposed by Parecon, instead of creating an all round personality of citizen as citizen who expresses the general interest, it enhances the market economy’s division of people as consumers and workers, and is inevitably leading to the creation of particular interests, which potentially may come in conflict with each other… In other words, people as workers may have conflicting ideas, views and possibly even interests with people as consumers, and the dualism between workers and consumers councils enhances competition between them.”

“The sentence falsely suggests that parecon is based on a market economy, based on a state, and allows the institutionalization of privileges for some sectors of society, or relies on a post-scarcity state of abundance, or sacrifices freedom of choice any more than ID. Parecon does not do any of these. Whether it allows the accumulation of wealth depends on what that means. The only real difference from parecon is ID's money-less economy.”

This is a pure distortion of the sentence in the ID entry which does not say that Parecon is based on a market economy (Fotopoulos has recognized the non-market nature of Parecon anyway: “Parecon is, of course, in accord with the ID project as far as it concerns the rejection of the market mechanism as incompatible with self-management”). What it does say is that “socialist Planning models like Parecon” have characteristics that are missing from ID, like a state-based economy (Parecon does not explicitly propose a stateless economy, like ID does, but simply demands compatibility of “political institutions” with the economic institutions: “institutions existing alongside a Parecon will have to respect balanced job complexes, remuneration for effort and sacrifice, and self-management and…will have to interface with participatory planning’ (Parecon, p. 287)). Furthermore, Parecon does not assume, unlike ID, a moneyless economy, (as the discussant admits) and this makes possible the accumulation of wealth in a Parecon system and so on.

“What compassion? Parecon guarantees an average income to those who cannot get income by working -- the unemployed and the infirm. ID guarantees basic goods to everyone who can work a minimally. Both are based on compassion, and that is not a weakness of either. Also, parecon does not assume that everyone's basic needs are the same, so it offers more freedom of choice. Also, it seems that ID in fact assumes abundance of basic goods in order to guarantee them to everyone. That assumption may not hold, for example, in time of war or natural disaster.”

This is either a complete misunderstanding of what ID proposes or a pure distortion of it in order to defend Parecon. ID does not assume that everybody’s needs are the same nor it assumes abundance of basic goods, or compassion! What is a basic need in ID is not determined “objectively”, but by the democratic decisions of citizens who also assess at what level such needs can be met given the scarcity of resources. Then, the way basic and non-basic needs are met is decided individually by each citizen through the use of vouchers or special credit cards - a way securing real freedom of choice, in contrast to the bureaucratic way in which consumer needs are met in Parecon. As for compassion, this is a bourgeois principle adopted by Parecon, whereas ID bases the meeting of basic needs on the communist principle “from each according to his ability to each according to his/her needs”.

John sargis (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated redundances and original investigations in cats (cats work like that: A contents B). But some users don't want to understand it. Please see:

]

Unjustified reverts of my edits

My recent edit was reverted twice, by an editor who falsely accused me on my talk page of "re-writing the entire entry without providing valid reasons". If anyone cares to actually look at my edit (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inclusive_Democracy&diff=588427855&oldid=586933790), one will see that I merely copy edited some sections of the article and improved the organization, all within Wikipedia guidelines. Some of my changes in that edit are as uncontroversial as deleting or adding lines of space. I certainly did not "rewrite" the article, delete content or change the substance or meaning at all. Note that at the top of this talk page, it says "This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale." For a detailed explanation of that rating, which means the article needs to be improved, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Assessment#Quality_scaleSpylab (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your editing you deleted the following that was in the original text: The theoretical project of Inclusive Democracy (ID), as distinguished from the political project which is part of the democratic and autonomy traditions, emerged from the work of political philosopher, former academic and activist Takis Fotopoulos. This deletion, especially-The theoretical project of Inclusive Democracy (ID), as distinguished from the political project which is part of the democratic and autonomy traditions- is crucial and is a form of vandalism, because it gives the wrong impression that the theoretical project of ID is identified with the political project, which is an absolute distortion. In another example of your editing you placed a comma in the first line between -workers’ self-management and democracy in the social realm. This changes the meaning of that entry giving the distorting impression that self-management is something different from democracy in the social realm! These examples show bad-faith copy/editing, and therefore reverting the edits is fully justified. This could hardly be a false accusation. User:John sargis 11:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was not vandalism, but I will at least partially revert the lead section so the meaning of that portion stays true to the original intent. It should be written more clearly though, so readers who aren't intimately entwined with the topic will understand the subtleties.Spylab (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim to “copy editing and re-organizing” is open to question. For example, the first line of the original text reads: Inclusive Democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for

ecological democracy

.

You took a correct form (a singular) "ID project aims" and made an incorrect plural form "theory and project that both aim". First of all you change the grammatics, thus your edit is incorrect. By doing this you distort the ID “project” (singular) by breaking it into two separate forms theory and political “both aim”. This is incorrect. You took a singular subject and changed it to a plural subject. ID is a project which is both theoretical and political to the extent that it is being transformd into a political movement. You again distort the grammar in the text by replacing commas with semi-colons and thus modifying the meaning. What style of “copy editing and re-organizing” are you following?

Next, you deleted Takis Fotopoulos’ name from the =See also= list.

Next, you should have changed "organisation" to "organization" wherever you saw it and changed the other British style spellings with American English style equivalents. For example under “Conception of Inclusive Democracy” section: Fotopoulos describes Inclusive Democracy as "a new conception of democracy, which, using as a starting point the classical definition of it, expresses democracy in terms of direct political democracy, economic democracy (beyond the confines of the market economy and state planning), as well as democracy in the social realm and

ecological

democracy. In short, inclusive democracy is a form of social "organisation" which re-integrates society with economy, polity and nature.

Next, you deleted a quote (and reference) and then added a useless and an improper comma, as a copy edit at the “Artificial market” section, after a prepositional phrase which is grammatically incorrect and is superfluous! The original reads:

In the ID's system of allocation of resources the artificial market complements the envisaged direct democratic planning mechanism in the allocation of all goods and services on the basis of the crucial distinction introduced in this model between basic and nonbasic goods and services.

And your edit reads:

In the ID's system of allocation of resources, the artificial market complements the envisaged direct democratic planning mechanism in the allocation of all goods and services on the basis of the crucial distinction introduced in this model between basic and nonbasic goods and services.John sargis (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Political theory" and "political project" are two different things, thus plural. I see that you or another editor changed the sentence to say merely "Inclusive Democracy is a project ...", thus the issue is moot if that's how the sentence is to remain.
• The semi-colons that I added to the list are correct English grammar, since one portion of the list already has a comma within it: "economic democracy in a stateless, moneyless and marketless economy".
• I removed Takis Fotopoulos from the See Also list because terms that are already in the article aren't meant to be in the See Also section. Any other terms in the See Also section that already appear in the article should also be deleted.
• Your demand that I "should have changed "organisation" to "organization" wherever [I] saw it . . ." and other Brit spellings to American is not an appropriate order. Anyone, including you, can change things like that if they so please; it is not my responsibility to fix everything.
• You claim that I deleted a quote and reference in the "Artificial market" section, but I don't see what you are talking about. I removed the bolding though, which does not belong.
• The sentence "In the ID's system of allocation of resources the artificial market complements the envisaged direct democratic planning mechanism in the allocation of all goods and services on the basis of the crucial distinction introduced in this model between basic and nonbasic goods and services." is essentially gibberish and needs to be written in plain English with correct grammar and syntax.Spylab (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In ID the terms "political theory" and "political project" are not plural. In ID "political theory" and "political project" are INTRINSIC which means that they are intertwined and connected, and not two separate entities.
• The semi-colons are incorrect.In a complex sentence as long as the phrases are on topic commas are used, otherwise the semi-colon disconnects the flow.
• Show me the wiki rule which states terms that are already in the article are not meant to be in the See Also section.
• Hardly a demand, but an expectation and probability that a superior editor would not shun.
• Look at my post again. Do you deny you removed the quotation marks and the reference? Look at your edit again at the "revision History" page of Inclusive Democracy.
• If one takes the time to read about basic and non-basic goods and services in the article any lack of understanding would be dissolved. People who do not take the time to figure things out use all sorts of adjectives to describe what they do not understand. John sargis (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing is singular, two things are plural. If the two terms are actually one term, then why does at least one editor feel that it is absolutely essential that the disclaimer "The theoretical project of Inclusive Democracy (ID) — as distinguished from the political project on which the ID movement is based ..." be included in the article? If they are the same thing, how are they "distinguished" from each other? That's what the "Clarify" tag is for.
• The semi-colons are certainly correct in English grammar and style. Here is just one of many links that say so: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/grammar/grammar_tutorial/page_05.htm which says "The semicolon can be used to sort out a complicated list containing many items, many of which themselves contain commas." That is exactly what I did.
• Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also section
  says: "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a 'See also' section ..."
• When you tell someone they "should" do something, that is a demand, and is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Nobody is "required" to do anything that other editors could easily do themselves.
• You have not shown me where I "removed the quotation marks and the reference". I looked, but didn't see it.
• The goal of Wikipedia is to convey information. Run-on sentences with no commas and no clear meaning fail to do that, thus rendering them useless.Spylab (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• “One thing is singular. Two things are plural”. How do you explain identical twins developing within a singular fertilized ovum in the uterus?
• In the semicolon link you provided: The semicolon 'can' be used to sort out a complicated list containing many items, many of which themselves contain commas. The list not complicated and "can" does not mean it is mandatory.
• The Takis Fotopoulos link in the “See also” section takes the reader to his wiki page. Even though there is one Takis Fotopoulos link in the article that takes a reader, who is interested in finding out more about Takis Fotopoulos to his wiki page, it does not matter. In the link you sent it also says: “Whether a link belongs in the ‘See also’ section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgement”.
• The word “should” is not a demand or a command. You are confusing an authoritarian command with an educative request.
• You replaced the quotation marks and the reference.
• Sorry, it is not a run on sentence. The sentence has no two independent clauses.John sargis (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Twins are two people (or animals), thus plural, thus the s at the end of the word twins.
• So you admit that my edit was grammatically correct, just not necessarily mandatory.
• So you admit that my edit was within Wikipedia guidelines, and not due to some conspiracy to "diminish" anything.
• I am not confusing anything regarding that matter.
• You still have not shown which quotation marks and reference I supposedly deleted. Why not?
• The sentence runs on and it is not clear what the different clauses are. The sentence might as well be in a different language.Spylab (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are playing a word game. You did not answer the question.
• I am not admitting anything of the sort. If it is not mandatory, then your edit does not have to stand.
• No, it means I showed that it is an "editorial judgement" to keep Fotopoulos in the “See also” list if an editor wants it. If some other editor removes it, it can be reverted. If the name is repeatedly removed, then an editor can claim vandalism.
• Yes, you are still confusing the matter. A general does not tell his troops they should kill the enemy. The general gives an order to kill the enemy.
• Here is the link to your edit of 30 December, 2013 located at “artificial market” section line 59, paragraph two where you remove the quotes. You somehow reverted it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inclusive_Democracy&diff=588427855&oldid=586933790

• The meaning is plain, when one reads it. It is not complex to understand. Where is the run on? John sargis (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spylab, as was noted by 2 users above and was already alerted in his talk page, proceeded in the last 2-3 days in sweeping-mass edits and continuous reverts in the Inclusive Democracy (ID) entry, although s/he was asked to do his changes one-by-one and justify them. In reality, under the pretext of simple "copy/editing" and "reorganization", it can be shown that s/he managed to effectively diminish the content of the entry and the work of the contributors in the entry and the ID project, whereas at the same time s/he did not do the required copy-editing changes, where they were needed in the original text before his/her repeated reversions of it and mass edits on it. This shows beyond any doubt that his/her motive was far from improving the text. I will explain why and, trying to show good faith, I will implement some of his/her alterations in the entry.

1) The ID Project as a researched and historically resourced project

Spylab moved all "PRINTED RESOURCES" (apart from two!) to "EXTERNAL LINKS" (see line 133 at [5]), whereas in all other relevant Wiki entries, printed resources belong to "FURTHER READING" and the External Links are restricted to online sources of reference (see e.g. entries of

, who originated it and other supporters of it, or by critics of it.

2) The ID Project and Takis Fotopoulos

In the following cases, Spylab tried to diminish the work of Fotopoulos on the ID project by removing any reference to him, as is shown in important extracts like the following: a) Intro: "The theoretical project of Inclusive Democracy (ID) — as distinguished from the political project which is part of the democratic and autonomy traditions — emerged from the work of political philosopher, former academic and activist Takis Fotopoulos…" (the phrase in bold has been removed in the very Introduction to the entire entry)

b) In "See Also", he also deliberately removed Takis Fotopoulos’s name from the references about the entry!!

3) Faults and distortions due to misunderstanding of the ID Project and political literature in general

At the Intro, the text before Spylab's sweeping intervention was: "Inclusive Democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for direct democracy, economic democracy in a stateless, moneyless and marketless economy, self-management (democracy in the social realm), and [[ecological democracy]. The theoretical project of Inclusive Democracy (ID), as distinguished from the political project which is part of the democratic and autonomy traditions, emerged..." etc.

Spylab initially removed the extract "as distinguished from the political project which is part of the democratic and autonomy traditions," while s/he separated the sentence about the theoretical project from the sentence about the political project, and then s/he cited the need for "clarification"!

ANSWER: In fact, these two notions (political and theoretical project) should NOT be separated, because there is an intrinsic relation between them. A political project is a project emerging in the History of the social struggle (

and so on simply expressed, in theoretical terms, the aspirations of struggling peoples for radical social change and tried to justify the need for such change. So, to the extent that theoretical projects are adopted by peoples in the social struggle, a project like, for instance, Marxism, is both a theoretical and a political project and in the end the former is subsumed under the latter.

4) Faults also because of the LACK of copy/editing

As also stressed by User:John sargis above, on several occasions, when Spylab did not want to make any changes to the text, s/he simply copy-edited the original text, together with all its faults, leaving untouched wrong punctuation marks, even misspellings! This makes clear that in effect his real activity was not for copy-editing but distortion!Panlis (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edits have not been "sweeping" at all. This article needs massive improvement to come up to Wikipedia's quality standards, and I have only scratched the surface. Your several accusations that I tried to "minimize" or "diminish" anything are blatantly false and uncalled for.

1) Many of the entries in the Further Reading section actually do belong in the External Links section because they are direct links to full articles online.

2) I did not remove Takis Fotopoulos's name from the sentence you quoted. However, Wikpedia articles are to avoid "bigging up" people when they are mentioned in articles. It is unnecessary and over the top to add three descriptors in front of a person's name when he already has his own article, and the sentence links to that article. It clutters up the sentence and distracts from the main point of that sentence.

b) I removed Takis Fotopoulos from the See Also list because terms that are already in the article aren't meant to be in the See Also section. Any other terms in the See Also section that already appear in the article should also be deleted.

3) At first I deleted the phrase "as distinguished from the political project which is part of the democratic and autonomy traditions" because it cluttered up the sentence and distracted from the main point of that sentence. As it stands, the article still does not explain what that phrase means and why it is notable. That's what the "clarify" tag is for. If the phrase is so important, then someone should elaborate (with citations) in the article, not the talk page.

4) My first edit description in this article clearly stated that I "started" copy editing. I am not "required" to fix every single error on Wikipedia. Any editor who notices mistakes can fix them.

All editors please remember that personal attacks are against Wikipedia's rules. See

Wikipedia:PERSONALSpylab (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no indication of a "Personal Attack" against you. It seems that some editors sometimes are prone to using (deliberately or not) a pre-defined list of "self-victimization" terms in order to diminish other editors' documented opposition or remarks on their activity and their effort to justify in detail this opposition. For example, in the same page you cited, none of the above remarks myself and other editors noticed in your activity, constitute a "Personal Attack" as they were not ad hominem attacks, but documented critique based on deeds, activity, and history of a user. This critique is reversible, if based on rational discourse and consensus building (instead of arbitrary edits ofter under the guise of "copy/edit"), according to common Wikipedia rules. See

Wikipedia:NPA#AVOIDYOU.Panlis (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

There have been several personal attacks against me on this talk page and my own talk page, in response to my edits to this Start-Class article. I have deleted the blatant ones posted by anonymous IP user(s). Here are examples just from this section:

1. "This shows beyond any doubt that his/her motive was far from improving the text."
2. "This way s/he tried to minimize the significance of the ID project as a theoretical project ..."
3. "In the following cases, Spylab tried to diminish the work of Fotopoulos ..."
4. "This makes clear that in effect his real activity was not for copy-editing but distortion!"

Those are all accusatory ad hominem attacks about my supposed motivations, not critiques of my edits.Spylab (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First it's a blatant distortion to take some quotes out of their context as you do constantly. Second, these are editors' judgement/opinion on your activity based on rational discourse on and reversible facts which were in detail explained. When there is a dispute someone doesn't do arbitrary edits but tries to establish a consensus, using rational discourse, at first. So this is not a "personal attack" as you misconstrue it. If we followed your "rules" effectively we should call any criticism and rational discourse in society and wikipedia a "personal attack". Ad hominem attacks is a very different thing as even the links about "what a personal attack is" I provided above show. I hope this clarifies the matter and I will not go on with this discussion and, to my mind, self-evident conclusions. Panlis (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those quotes are obviously ad hominom personal attacks, regardless of the context. They are on record. I distorted nothing.Spylab (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808143931/http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol9/takis_parecon.htm to http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol9/takis_parecon.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219134128/http://hungary.indymedia.org/cikk.shtml?x=21661 to http://hungary.indymedia.org/cikk.shtml?x=21661

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on

for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706115814/http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/swin%3A989/SOURCE1 to http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/swin:989/SOURCE1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On this article, as well as the articles on

]

Scope

If we appropriately reduce the amount of primary source material (by Takis Fotopoulos) here, not much remains. Coverage of Fotopoulos's philosophy and the academics who responded to it can easily be covered within context of the parent article's dedicated section. czar 05:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way you swiftly deleted effectively an all-encompassing article about a new political and theorerical project (despite its problems,ainly of morphological nature, which are not restricted to this article of course) does not offer any room for its improvement by any other editor. Moreover, the deletion of private data from Fotopoulos' personal biography that is by any standard difficult to be "externally verified" could be taken as completely biased editing about the work of a living person, grounded mostly on negative intuition. ~~ 2A02:1388:142:A167:C8ED:E944:20E1:A0F (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]