User blog comment:Mr Creeper500/Democracy or Oligarchy?/@comment-8-20160526152339

One thing to point out "fascist" is a loaded word. It implies that the leadership is oppressing the people, ruling without consent, and is all round nasty. I like your use of the word "oligarchic" later on, That seems a less biased choice of words.

As for what way is best, I would say that either can work, it depends on the community. Usually larger, more established wikis are democratic (usually with the weighting that Nerfmaster8 mentioned) while smaller wikis are less so. That's pretty inevitable when there aren't yet enough trusted people to make decisions.

I've seen big wikis work well with an oligarchic system though. Sometimes a wiki might even have a voting system but the the admins really make the final choice, others work well with one strong admin making all the decicisions. I've also seen very democratic smaller wikis, despite their small community - and everything inbetween.

Weighting is important to me. It's something that Wikipedia certainly did in the early days (I don't know about now, I'm not active there). imo, established users who have the trust of a community should be given more weight in discussions and votes than those who have just joined or who tend to disrupt the community in some way. This is especially important if a user tries to influence a vote by getting his friends from elsewhere to join in.

What it comes down to for me is that there is no One True Way to run a wiki, each has to find it's own way and the best balance for them.

This is a great blog by the way, one that has definitely made people think. I'm Highlighting it as one of our best. Congratulations!