Talk:An Anarchist FAQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/Archive 01

Contents

[edit] New "influences" section

I suggest writing a new section to inform readers of the wide influence of the FAQ. Here's a start draft - and I will be adding to it as I get more information. -- infinity0 17:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draft

[edit] Comments

  • According to Chuck Munson, the FAQ is the most cited anarchist resource on the internet. Granted, he did say this on Talk:Anarchism, but there must be some degree of truth in this. -- infinity0 17:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Not bad. I might also suggest that you mention that google scholar mentiones 12 papers that cite the FAQ as a reference, though probably someone should check what those papers are. Some are not available freely, but should be checked out. --Aryah 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I have also seen FAQ's bibliography and links referenced even from sites of ideologies that were criticised (like the abovementioned mutualist.org quote, 'Monumental compendium on anarchist history, theory and practice. Many hundreds of pages. The bibliography alone is incredible' (think it could be shown that mutualist.org is the largest mutualist site online) or, ironically, even here [7] and here [8].
dmoz.org says 'A comprehensive look at the history of anarchism and contemporary anarchist theory and practice.' [9]. This same dmoz formulation is quoted on 1600 other websites, [10] , social justice wiki 'Stupifyingly comprehensive, provides pretty good answers to many, many questions.' [11] , from the article by Kevin Stranack, Revolution in the stacks:a bibliography of selected multimedia anarchist resources in English, here in pdf [12] 'An exhaustive (though currently incomplete) source, the bibliography is divided into three sections: anthologies of anarchist authors; books by or about anarchists, libertarians or anarchist movements and history; and books by non-anarchists and libertarians.' , from 'The Scout Report for Social Sciences Volume 2, Number 3 October 20, 1998' [13] , about infoshop.org, mentioning the FAQ : 'Organized anarchy? The political tenets of Anarchism are often misconstrued. The Mid-Atlantic Infoshop dispels this confusion by providing an extensive collection of anarchist and activist resources on the Web that promote voluntary cooperation, equality, and free association among persons. Within the guide, myriad information resources are clearly arranged by topic area, such as Anarcha-feminism, Anarchist Opinion, and Practical Anarchy. Also included in the guide are an anarchist news kiosk, a comprehensive anarchist FAQ, and a search engine for anarchy on the Web.' About its host, infoshop, google scholar gives 75 papers that reference it, some, like E Brophy - ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 2002 - portal.acm.org, The Outlaw'Net': Opposition to ICANN¿ s New Internet Order , say : "infoshop.org (one of the most widely used anarchist information site on the web) ". Any of this usable? --Aryah 22:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) I'll go write something incorporating this information. -- infinity0 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist writers

The FAQ was written collaboratively by many people. The writers had input from ind-anarchists as well. -- infinity0 16:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Source? RJII 16:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, in the intro they say "anarchists wrote this FAQ" rather than "social anarchists" wrote this FAQ. Only the main contributors can be said to be social anarchists. -- infinity0 16:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." Now, stop disputing this unless you have a source that says otherwise. RJII 16:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the main writers of the FAQ are social anarchists. But many anarchists have contributed to the writing of the FAQ. -- infinity0 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are any of those anarchists individualist anarchists? If so, prove it. RJII 17:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the burden of proof. In logic, the burden of proof is on the person whose claim is the most complex, as in Occam's Razor. "All the writers are social anarchists" is a more complex claim the "most of the writers are social anarchists". The authors of the FAQ are open to suggestions - they respect individualist anarchists, and therefore will have used their contributions. Kevin A. Carson even commends the AFAQ on this website. -- infinity0 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. You have zero evidence for your claim. The FAQ says the writers are "social anarchist." Now you can stop your disputations. You need to learn to accept sourced information when you have absolutely no sourced information to the contrary. RJII 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The main writers of the FAQ call themselves social anarchists. But you have no evidence to show that all the contributors are social anarchists. Stating "the FAQ is written by social anarchists" implies all the writers are social anarchists, making it seem like no other anarchists contributed to the FAQ. -- infinity0 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [14] Now, stop disputing this unless you have a source that says otherwise Do you want me to take you to arbitration over this? You're being extremely disruptive. RJII 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, you're blurring the lines between the "main writers" and "all the contributors". In the introduction of the article, when you say "written by" you imply "exclusively". Now, the FAQ was NOT exclusively written by "social anarchists" - only that the main writers are. Saying it your way is very misleading to the reader. -- infinity0 17:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your words are empty. You have no sourced to back up your claim that the FAQ was written by anyone other than social anarchists. The FAQ says the FAQ was written by "social anarchists" --not "mostly social anarchists." Your incessant misrepresentations of POV of the FAQ writers is extremely disturbing. RJII 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, my words really are not empty. Look:

  • You are trying to say the FAQ is written by only social anarchists
  • Actually, the FAQ does not say "This FAQ was written by social anarchists". If you study your quote carefully, it is clear that it is the main writers (probably Iain McKay) who are talking about themselves.
  • In the intro, the authors explicitly invite suggestions from all anarchists, which to them includes individualist anarchists.

Finally, if you think the FAQ is biased (against/towards what?) because the writers are social anarchists, here is the quote from the authors:

The anarchist movement is marked by wide-spread disagreement and argument about various aspects of anarchist ideas and how to apply them (but also, we must add, a wide-spread tolerance of differing viewpoints and a willingness to work together in spite of minor disagreements). We have attempted to reflect this in the FAQ and hope we have done a good job in presenting the ideas of all the anarchist tendencies we discuss.

-- infinity0 17:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [15] RJII 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to explain that on that quote "the writers" do not refer to ALL the writers but only the MAIN writers, because they are the ones who personally wrote those words, and are therefore referring to themselves. The intro states they accept suggestions from all anarchists. -- infinity0 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what you trying to say. The problem is, you have no evidence for your claim. You're just making an empty claim. The FAQ says explicitly, "to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [16] Enough of your evasions. They writers are social anarchists. RJII 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But, RJII, you have no evidence for your claim that ALL the writers were social anarchists either. You quote that sentence every reply; my explanation is that those are the words of the main writers. But they have been open to suggestion from more anarchists. I think the available evidence fits my picture of things better:

  • Main writers are social anarchists ("the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism.")
  • Anarchists from all schools (except a-c) have contributed to the FAQ ("We are sure that there are many issues that the FAQ does not address. If you think of anything we could add or feel you have a question and answer which should be included, get in contact with us. The FAQ is not our "property" but belongs to the whole anarchist movement and so aims to be an organic, living creation. We desire to see it grow and expand with new ideas and inputs from as many people as possible.")

Your picture of things discounts the last piece of evidence, where the main writers open up the FAQ to input from all anarchists. -- infinity0 18:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure, they will accept requests for information to be put in the FAQ, but they're not going to put it in unless it passes their screening process (whatever that is). The writers and controllers of that FAQ are social anarchists. RJII 18:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I know you think that the FAQ is extremely biased, but you have nothing to even remotely suggest the above. The writers explicitly state "We desire to see it grow and expand with new ideas and inputs from as many people as possible." You are choosing to see that sentence as nefarious - why? The writers respect ind-anarchism as a school of anarchism, do they not? They even state that they respect what ind-anarchism represents. Why wouldn't they accept contributions from ind-anarchists? Even Kevin A. Carson thinks the FAQ is a good piece of work. -- infinity0 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to keep sourced information out of the article. The FAQ say that the writers of the FAQ are social anarchists. You have absolutely no evidence to the contrary. (by the way, have you forgotten: ""social anarchists reject the individualists conception of anarchy.") RJII 18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

Can I remind all editors of the undue weight section of the neutral point of view policy. The lead of an article is not the best place to make an argument over the beliefs of a number of contributors to the document. This information is best presented in the full body of the article, and seems to addressed in the content section already. Steve block talk 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing I think is very important to point out in the intro is that it's not merely an informational document (as one would expect from a FAQ) but also has a polemical nature. Of course, we don't need to go into detail on that in the intro, but simply to mention that that is the case. RJII 15:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Is there any reason why this cannot be removed? Steve block talk 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII would say that "anarchists" instead of "social anarchists" is POV. That's his main reason, I think. -- infinity0 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There are still clear NPOV problems. The FAQ says "to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [17] They are clearly "social anarchists." I've been fighting to get this simply fact known. infinity has relented a bit after much pressure and allowed "mostly social anarchists" but there's no evidence to indicate "mostly" and misleads the reader into thinking some of them are individualsts. Also, saying that the writers "reject some ideas of individualist anarchism" is not good enough. They reject the philosophy itself. "social anarchists reject the individualists conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts....However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, WE do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws" Why Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism RJII 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Also, this sentence in the article is misleading: "the FAQ cites references from, and attempts to represent, most schools of anarchism, including mutualism, individualist anarchism" The FAQ does not try to "represent" individualist anarchism --rather, it tries to explain it (to a degree). Social anarchists cannot simultaneously "represent" individualist anarchism while at the same time criticizing it as a flawed philosophy and saying that social anarchism is the better philosophy. RJII 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you do, don't belabor this. I'm working in another screen on a note to one of the FAQ authors, giving a mutualist take on issue in the FAQ. I don't expect that the satisfy RJII, no matter what comes of the discussion, which was solicited by the author. The truth is that nobody reading the FAQ is likely to be fooled about its authors' perspectives. Whatever we write here, the POV of the FAQ is clear, and the sources are there to be checked. That is all that we can require of any scholarly source. Requiring more than that in the intro is almost certainly undue weight. Libertatia 19:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
A major problem is that when someone consults a "FAQ," I think there is the expectation that you're going to get some kind of authoritative NPOV information. I'm not asking for this article to SAY that the FAQ is "biased," but simply to note what that bias is. It was written by "social anarchists" rather than "anarchists" in general. And, they "reject individualist anarchism" because they think it's flawed. If the reader knows that bit of information, then he naturally knows it's biased. RJII 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't this line in the article make your point clear? The FAQ was started in 1995 when a group of anarchists got together in order to write an FAQ arguing against Libertarian Capitalist claims of being anarchists. Steve block talk 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. That something different. The FAQ differentiates between individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists (libertarian capitalists). Not all individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists (the FAQ writers allege that anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism at all). They reject anarcho-capitalism AND claim it's not real anarchism, AND they reject individualist anarchism (excluding anarcho-capitalism) BUT concede that it's a form of anarchism. RJII 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has made clear that the authors are from the social anarchist branch of anarchism since March 11th, to my eye. Secondly, RJII's quote seems to back up the point that they reject only some of the ideas of individualist anarchism, given they note that they consider them to be a form of anarchism they accept that they share some common ideals. The issue seems to complex to be defined by a simple blanket statement that they reject the philosophy outright. Is there a consensus on the article version represented in this link? Steve block talk 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, they might agree with some of the idea of individualist anarchists (they're anarchists afterall), but there are central ideas which they find "flawed" enough to "reject individualist anarchism" and " reject the individualists conception of anarchy." RJII 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What constitutes a central idea of any philosophy is a point of view call. Given that you seem to be agreeing that there are shared ideals, it's possible others may see the shared ideals as the central ones. Given there are shared ideals, I see no issue with reject only some of the ideas of individualist anarchism. I'm also concerned that your quotes are somewhat taken out of context, note for example their comment Therefore, social anarchists have to part company with individualists when the latter, (my emphasis). Steve block talk 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It's fine to say that they reject some of their ideas, but they reject enough of them to "reject individualist anarchism"." Just saying that they reject some of their ideas is not clear enough. They "reject the individualists conception of anarchy" They say that individualist anarchism has "many flaws" and it's not the right kind of anarchism that one should choose. RJII 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The points of "rejection" really are few, and that seems clear from the article. In fact, the FAQ goes to some lengths to show how much general agreement there is in the movement. The issue of markets is a critical one, but it's very nearly the only issue involved in the rejection. Libertatia 20:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
we have been around this point a number of times, as Ive argued a number of times you ignored, you cannot provide any source, including the individualist sources, that says 'they reject individual anarchism', and your quote from the FAQ itself is a construct. Provided the influences section provides enough idea about the general, and not just 'sectarian' acceptance of the FAQ, 'reject some ideas of individual anarchism' is about as far as Id go in attempting a compromise about that sentence. This was btw about the agreement me and Vision Thing reached on my talk page (without 'some' in that case), so Id expect him to agree as well. --Aryah 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


As far as 'anarchists' vs 'social anarchist' in the introduction, i think it is undesputed that social anarchists are anarchist, therefore if it is true that authors are social anarchist, then it must be true that they are anarchists. One place in the article explaining what kind is surely enough; anything above that is definitely undue weigth. --Aryah 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensual position

Is there a consensus on the article version represented in this link? Steve block talk 19:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Which one are you talking about? The one on the left or the right? RJII 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
close to, on both cases - either one would need just minor adjustments. --Aryah 20:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see the unlovely phrase "across the world" turned into something like "from several nations," but, other than that, I'm content with the linked edit. Libertatia 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

how about this?--Aryah 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. That's soothes both my aesthetic senses and my sense of justice. Libertatia 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
but, can an anarchist be 'from .. nations' ?? :) --Aryah 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Tell me how to avoid it, and i'll be right on that. Libertatia 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version [18] is OK. However, "several nations" makes it sound like only a select few - I actually prefer "across the world" - it's what the FAQ says in the intro. -- infinity0 21:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If we retain "across the world," then it should be in quotation marks. Otherwise, it's perhaps a broader statement than we want to be responsible for. There is a lot of world out there, and not so many anarchists on that roster, or even on the listed mailing lists. Libertatia 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
'from different parts of the world'? --Aryah 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've got it: "anarchists all over the internet" - truthful, I think, and gives the sense of generality necessary. -- infinity0 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to direct people's attention to the #New "influences" section - I've gathered some points there, which can eventually be incorporated in the main article, hopefully. -- infinity0 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not bad at all! Think the google hits will be a 'floating' number though, hard to codify in an article. Maybe above (some num) could prove more constant?--Aryah 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Google hits are not all from the “An Anarchist FAQ”, there are also hits from the “Anarchist Theory FAQ”, and all anarchists Q&A. Phrase “Anarchist FAQ” is just too general. -- Vision Thing -- 07:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
In either case, is any NPOV concearns in this version? Could we be bold enough to (gasp!) remove that bloddy banner? :) --Aryah 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should wait for RJII to comment? He'll be back at around 00:30 UTC. -- infinity0 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
We should indeed wait, methinks. Libertatia 21:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The Steve Block version is ok, in the above link except the intro says the FAQ was written by "anarchists." That's true, but why not be more precise and tell the whole truth? It was written by "social anarchists." There is no legitimate reason to obscure this fact from the readers. And, the fact that a couple others here are pressing to prevent that fact from appear there is appalling. I'm sure if a FAQ was written by, say, anarcho-capitalists, you would be pressing for it to say that the FAQ was written by anarcho-capitalists if the intro merely referred to them as "anarchists." There is no reason to be vague, when all it takes is the addition of one word "social anarchists" instead of "anarchists." RJII 00:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
only cuz its allready stated; there is no vagueness, all thats required is reading on. Should we simply write all other information in the intorduction to? Maybe to note how this was written by social anrchist who reject individualist anarchist and dont consider anarcho-capitalists to be a form of anarchism? If we dont want to 'cover up' any characteristic of the convictions of the authors even in the intoduction, why not be even more precise? Since you admit that whats written is true (while in your example, calling an anarcho-capitalist an anarchist is not necessarly true; it can possibly be considered such, by some, but is at least contraversial), and the fact that they are social anarchist is written, further down, i dont understand whats your objection. I however object to the idea that every anarchist must be labeled as anarcho-this or anarho-that; and it seems you object to the idea that a simple 'anarchist' label can be used to correctly and perfectly describe (gasp) social anarchist anywhere; no - they are anarchists, this can legitimatly be stated, this is not covering anything up, but is a simple fact, and probably expressing precisely how anarchists percieve themselves. --aryah 83.131.144.155 01:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that all this fighting by a couple people trying to prevent me from stating in the intro that the FAQ was written by "social anarchists" rather than "anarchists" tells me I'm on to something, and that I should pursue this. Obviously it's conflicting with the POV someone wants to put across. It's the addition of ONE word that accurately describes the writers by their own account. Sure, they can find out if they read it in the body, but why not allow that one word in the intro to make the sentence more precise? RJII 01:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, even if it were the case that you were "on to something," it doesn't change the fact that the particular position of the FAQ authors is obvious to anyone who reads the text. But I'm not going to assume that everytime anyone—say you, for example—clings doggedly to a point, that they're up to no good. The FAQ meets scholarly standards. The intro avoids undue weight. The bias is clearly indicated in the body of an entry so short that nobody reading the thing can miss it. And, ultimately, this is a fairly unimportant entry, on which we've expended a lot of energy. It would be lovely to put this one to bed, and get on with more substantive debates elsewhere. Libertatia 03:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if I were to accept the intro as "anarchist" instead of "social anarchist," the body of the article is misleading as well in that respect. It says "The main authors of the FAQ call themselves social anarchists." The "main authors"?? This leads the reader to believe that there are other authors who are not social anarchists. But, no one has presented any evidence to corroborate that. The FAQ says the FAQ was written by "social anarchists" --not "mostly" and not "mainly." This article is clearly misleading the reader. At this point, it's very difficult to conclude that this misleading is not intentional. It's a very simple matter to fix the problem --just say straight out what the authors of that FAQ openly say. RJII 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that version because of sentence “The FAQ authors also criticise some of individualist anarchism's ideas [2]; but they acknowledge the importance of individualist anarchism within the anarchist movement.” My impression is that writers don’t reject some IA’s ideas, but all ideas by which IA differs from SA. Word “some” doesn’t reflect that. My suggestions are: “The FAQ authors also reject individualist anarchism's ideas…” or “The FAQ authors also reject main individualist anarchism's ideas…” -- Vision Thing -- 07:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair play. I've amended the text to:
  • The FAQ authors also explain why social anarchism rejects ideas expressed within individualist anarchism [19], whilst acknowledging the importance of individualist anarchism within the anarchist movement.
  • This removes the use of the word some, clarifying that ideas of individualist anarchism are criticised, which appears to be the consensual agreement on this page. Steve block talk 08:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the tag

Please note there was an edit conflict and some comments above may have been missed.

The FAQ is open to contributions via e-mail, therefore it seems germane to state that the main authors of the FAQ are from the social anarchist school of anarchism. However, to address your concerns I've amended the text to read as follows:

  • Although the FAQ has been released under the GFDL, and can thus be altered and amended by anyone, the original compilers of the FAQ identified themselves as from the social anarchist branch of anarchism.

My understanding is that contributions are e-mailed and the FAQ is updated, per "If you think of anything we could add or feel you have a question and answer which should be included, get in contact with us. The FAQ is not our "property" but belongs to the whole anarchist movement and so aims to be an organic, living creation.", although, given the FAQ is released under the same license as Wikipedia, there could exist many versions of the FAQ authored by many different people, and it would be extremely hard to quantify them as anything. I therefore feel RJII's concerns have been addressed and thus I have removed the tag. I would ask that, rather than a blanket reinsertion of the tag, editors address their concerns to this talk page. Steve block talk 08:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes. It has fixed some major problems. Unfortunately, there are more problems that are coming up. RJII 18:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that although contributions are e-mailed and the FAQ is updated, not all contributions are added. Contributions probably go through screening/editorial process by main authors of the FAQ. Because of that, probably all suggestions from anarcho-capitalists, and most from indivudualist anarchists, are not added. So proclaimed openness of the FAQ is just propaganda. -- Vision Thing -- 09:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, given the FAQ is released under the GFDL, there's nowt stopping the anarcho-capitalists and the individual anarchists from amending the FAQ as they will. It's as open as wikipedia. So I'm not sure the point about it being propaganda is wholly germane. However, if you can source the particular criticism you're making, that would be useful. Steve block talk 10:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about versions on infoshop and geocities. If I rewrite certain sections of the FAQ, there is no way that they will publish it. -- Vision Thing -- 11:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
So can you source your criticism? Steve block talk 12:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Why would I need to source anything? I’m not the one claiming that the FAQ is open for everybody’s contributions. -- Vision Thing -- 12:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Because if you want to add it to the article, it must be sourced. WP:V. Steve block talk 15:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) See below. Steve block talk 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start again

Vision Thing, I might be misreading you, so can you restate your problem. Are you stating that the line "An Anarchist FAQ" is a FAQ written by anarchists from all over the internet in an attempt to present anarchist ideas and theory to those interested in it. is misleading? Steve block talk 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

On webpages of the FAQ it's noted that: "It is produced by a small collective of people who work on the FAQ when we can (mostly in our free time, after work). This means that any e-mail sent may take a while to be replied to." As I understand it, that means that all contributions are not automatically accepted. They must be first approved by this "small collective". In the introduction of this article, it sounds more like the infoshop's FAQ is some kind of Wikipedia. -- Vision Thing -- 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
That's my concerns as well. Sure, they allow people to offer opinions but they won't enter them in if it conflicts with their POV. The information is not going to see the light of day unless that "small collective" authorizes it as conforming to their "social anarchists" POV. This information needs to be known as well. Unfotunately "infinity" is the main stumbling block to putting important information like this in this article. It looks like he's fighting tooth and nail to maintain the impression that it's a document with objective information which represents the view of all anarchists. RJII 16:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not a main aspect of the FAQ. In the intro, they state:

We are sure that there are many issues that the FAQ does not address. If you think of anything we could add or feel you have a question and answer which should be included, get in contact with us. The FAQ is not our "property" but belongs to the whole anarchist movement and so aims to be an organic, living creation. We desire to see it grow and expand with new ideas and inputs from as many people as possible. If you want to get involved with the FAQ then contact us. Similarly, if others (particularly anarchists) want to distribute all or part of it then feel free. It is a resource for the movement. For this reason we have "copylefted" the FAQ (see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html for details). By so doing we ensure that the FAQ remains a free product, available for use by all.

They have accepted contributions from anarchists all around the world, including individual anarchists. Individual anarchists such as Kevin A. Carson look upon the FAQ very highly. The authors work WITH people who submit in contributions, they don't dictate them. RJII chooses to try to make the authors out to be biased, whilst ignoring the fact that the FAQ is widely acclaimed and distributed. In short, he is doing original research on the bias of the FAQ. Our job is to present the FAQ as it is widely recognised, and that the main editors are social anarchists simply is not a main point of contention. -- infinity0 16:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. There is NO QUESTION that they are biased. That's not even disputable. They say flat out that they are social anarchists, they reject individualist anarchism (they say it has "many flaws"), and even allege that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism at all. Don't make us laugh. An NPOV FAQ doesn't say one of the philosophies it's discussing is "flawed." And doens't go out of it's way to devote a large part to drag another philosophy through the mud. RJII 17:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you choose focus on a few sections of the FAQ. You ignore all the other aspects. Also, this view that the FAQ is extremely biased is compromising your ability to write about it neutrally. Most people don't think the FAQ has much bias - even individualist anarchists think it is a good piece of work. -- infinity0 17:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you choose to try to repress the fact that it is not an NPOV FAQ. RJII 17:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My God, do you really think that? I have been trying to say time and time again that it is NOT an important issue for the FAQ and so shouldn't be in the intro, but I have not disputed that the authors ARE anti-individualist anarchist - just how you word it. -- infinity0 17:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's exactly what should be in the intro. It's not a mere informational document. It's also polemical. Stop censoring the truth. And, stop with your nonsense about how I "word" their opposition to individualist anarchism. I have always pushed for direct quotes --their words. RJII 17:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes without explanation can be misleading; I have said that before. So, you want the authors' anti-anarcho-capitalism views noted in the intro? Fair enough. No need for current wording. "Value judgements" makes the authors seem arrogant. How about:

The FAQ started off as a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, and as such retains some of its past history.

-- infinity0 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


BTW, Mike Huben, one of the contributors to the FAQ, is an ordoliberal (pro-market). That should clear up any doubts you have about the main editors monopolising the content towards a social-anarchist bias. -- infinity0 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't clear up anything. There is no disputing that the FAQ is not merely information, but polemical as well. A large portion of it is dedictated to dragging anarcho-capitalism through the mud, and they also place value judgements on individualist anarchism, saying it has "many flaws." By the way, ordoliberalism is anti-libertarian statism. RJII 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not a large portion of it - less than 1/5 of it. "Value judgements" is extremely weaselly, making the authors seem like they're forcing it upon the reader. Ordoliberalism is pro-market and therefore not social anarchism. -- infinity0 17:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Huben did not write any of the FAQ. The FAQ was written by social anarchists. Huben, the anti-capitalist statist merely gave them some feedback. RJII 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Mike Huben is listed as one of the contributors. -- infinity0 17:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If he is one of the writers, then you can't even state that it was written by "anarchists." You have to state it was written by anarchists and statists. Also, you are contradicting what the FAQ itself says. It says it was written by social anarchists. Provide a source that Huben, the statist, is one of the writers. RJII 17:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the "list of contributors". Wikipedia is the only site that says "Mike Huben" is a ordoliberal, so that may not be true, though. Still, you can't say all the authors are social anarchists. -- infinity0 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the list of contributors? If this is true that an anti-anarchocapitalist STATIST wrote, then it's even more uncredible than I thought. RJII 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up. Wikipedia is the only site on the web that says Huben is an ordoliberal. The list of contributors is on the introduction. -- infinity0 18:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say Huben wrote any of the FAQ. It lists some people who gave feedback and contributions. The WRITERS are social anarchists. That's what the FAQ says. We can't deny. So stop deleting the information. Stop deleting the truth. RJII 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, there is no need for that sentence. The previous sentence already states the FAQ criticises anarhco-acpitalism. And it dedicates a very small section to criticising ind-anarchism. -- infinity0 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Contributions are contributions. The main writers are social anarchists, not all the writers. -- infinity0 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

All that means is that some people presented them with some information and feedback. Ultimately, the "small collective" has to authorize it before it goes in the FAQ. The actual writers are the "social anarchists" in that "small collective." Stop fighting this. You won't win. It clearly says that the FAQ writers are "social anarchists." RJII 18:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re the openness, FAQ is exactly as open as any free/open source software project; they also have a team of builders, are open to contributions that are not exepted automatically, and ppl are unsatisfied with the team, they can freely fork it. Therefore, its correct to say that its open, and in 'ownership' of all anarchists of the world, and that it grows as having a life of itsown, not just as a work by a few authors. I would frankly like to see wiki being developed in that way too.. --Aryah 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've cleaned out the external links. There's no point linking to a list of mirrors and hosts and then linking them here too. See WP:EL for policy on external links. Steve block talk 08:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it should be noted, however, that AFAQ is very widely distributed on the net. Could we cite the google search results? If not, any other ways? -- infinity0 17:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV comments from RJII

[20] - to add that sentence in the intro is undue weight; to add that other sentence is misleading and misrepresentative. -- infinity0 17:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not undue weight. It's proper weight, because it wasn't mentioned at all that the FAQ was not merely an information piece. It's also a polemic that says that social anarchism is the best anarchism and everything else is flawed. That's not something one would expect to find in a "FAQ". RJII 17:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Only two sections are pro-social-anarchist. The other 8 sections give a general outline of all anarchism. -- infinity0 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Note that "2 out of 8 sections" are about which kind of anarchism is better than another kind, then. RJII 18:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And the writers admit that they take up too much space in the intro. And it's 2 out of 10, not 8. -- infinity0 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 2 out of 10 then. Whatever. RJII 18:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So, remove? It's a minor aspect of the FAQ, and is noted in the main body of the article already. Also, the other sentence is redundant and uninformative. -- infinity0 18:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, don't remove. Include. Also, you're ignoring that much of the FAQ is dedicated to disparaging anarcho-capitalism. Clearly, it's significant that this is a polemical document and not just an information piece. RJII 12:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not "disparaging" "anarcho"-capitalism, it critcises it as well as indicating why most anarchists do not think it is a form of anarchism. It also explains why most anarchists have not been and are not individualist anarchists. BlackFlag 08:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV deletions by infinity

infinity deleted the fact that the FAQ also attempts to explain anarcho-capitalism. Lest there be any doubt: [21] RJII 17:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ does not consider a-c to be a school of anarchism. The sentence in the article says "most schools of anarchism" which in the FAQ excludes a-c. -- infinity0 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
So? They still attempt to explain it. A large part of the FAQ is devoted to explaining anarcho-capitalism. If the article says "most schools of anarchism" and doesn't include anarcho-capitalism under that, then the article is POV. RJII 17:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
They don't present it, though. A-c is clearly given a separate treatment and adding it like that as you are is very misleading. They don't explain it - do they explain the non-aggression axiom, and stuff like that? No, they only focus on a-c's claims to being anarchist. -- infinity0 17:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You're grasping for straws. They do attempt to explain anarcho-capitalism even though they allege that it's not a form of anarchism. RJII 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I'm saying putting "anarcho-capitalism" with the other anarchism schools is misleading and unhelpful to the reader. -- infinity0 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite the contrary. You're misleading the reader when you don't include anarcho-capitalism in that list. You're making it look like all kinds of anarchism are explained except anarcho-capitalism. RJII 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, that the authors dispute a-c is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. To put it in the intro is undue weight, as it is not the FAQ's primary purpose. May I remind you of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It says "most schools of anarchism" not all. And a-c's place within anarchism is itself disputed outside of the FAQ, anyway. -- infinity0 18:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to remind me of "Undue weight." You need to remind yourself of it. It's under weighted in respect to showing the slant of the FAQ. And, noting that they explain anarcho-capitalism is certainly not giving "undue weight" as they devote a huge portion of the FAQ to it. RJII 18:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And the slant of the FAQ is minor - 2 out of 10 sections presents what they themselves think. The slant is already talked about in the *next sentence*. Half the section is on the slant; 1/5 of the FAQ is slanted. That should be more than good enough for you. -- infinity0 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not "undue weight." You're giving it ZERO weight when you delete the fact that the FAQ also explains anracho-capitalism. RJII 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it says the authors criticise anarcho-capitalism in the very next sentence. -- infinity0 18:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You're deleting the fact that the FAQ explains anarcho-capitalism, but leaving in that it explains all the other kinds of anarchism. You have no justification for this. Stop deleting it. RJII 18:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added that they explain it, but in a new paragraph, so that it is clear the authors treat it differently. Is that OK now? -- infinity0 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not ok, because it's keeping anarcho-capitalism out of the list for no apparent reason. It's a small matter to add the word "anarcho-capitalism" in the list. It makes it look like the article is assuming that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism (which is probably your intent). RJII 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons are given above. Notably, WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- infinity0 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the one giving undue weight. RJII 19:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV intro

I put a POV tag on the intro, because infinity is deleting the mention that the FAQ is not a purely information document, but also gives value judgements on which types of anarchism are better than others. (Not what one would expect to get from a FAQ). RJII 19:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop looking for arguments, RJII. Consensus above is that only major aspects go into the intro. The arguments against anarcho-capitalism take up 1.5 out of 10 sections, and the arguments against ind-anarchism take up 0.1 out of 10 sections. -- infinity0 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There was no consensus on this matter, as it wasn't discussed. This is a new issue. I want to note that the FAQ is not merely informational. You need to stop preventing true and helpful information from appearing. RJII 19:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I explain the generality of consensus in the reply above what you just wrote. -- infinity0 19:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No you didn't. This is a different issue. It needs to be noted in the intro that the FAQ is not a mere information document, as one would expect from a FAQ. It's also a polemic. RJII 19:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I explain the generality of consensus in my first reply. less than 1/5 of the FAQ is the author's views; it is not a major point of the FAQ. Consensus above is that only major aspects go into the intro. Now stop repeating the same arguments I have already answered. -- infinity0 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Your "explanation" is faulty. There is no consensus on that, as it hasn't been discussed. Stop saying the same thing over and over. And, it is a "major point" that the FAQ is not merely informational. RJII 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

RJII, you keep saying that a major theme of the FAQ is to criticise anarcho-capitalism. This is untrue. The criticism takes up about 1/5 of the whole FAQ. The criticism of ind-anarchism takes up much less than this. You should not make it out like it is a major theme in the intro - it simply isn't.

Futhermore, the main writers are social anarchists - that's all you can say in the intro. We've been through this before - anarchists of all sorts wrote the FAQ. All the details are already mentioned in the rest of the article.

The FAQ is a document of anarchism. That is its main theme. Your edits make it seem like the document is written from a social anarchist perspective to explain social anarchism and criticise the rest. -- infinity0 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's certianly a very significant theme. It needs is a one sentence mention in the intro that the FAQ is not NPOV informational. It takes a POV stance that individualist anarchism has "many flaws" and that anarcho-capitalism is falsely representing itself as anarchism. RJII 18:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
And you're deleting of the term "social anarchists" to describe the writers of the FAQ is absolutely unexcusable, since they say themselves that they are social anarchists. There is absolutely no reason to not say "social anarchists" instead of "anarchists." RJII 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No FAQ is NPOV informational. It is not a significant theme - it takes up 1/5 of the FAQ. Those stances represent a very minor part of the FAQ. Again, I have said this before.

I have already answered your point about "social anarchists" - read the above paragraph. -- infinity0 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, it's disruptive to remove the dispute tag when you know full well we are disputing this. You're putting in dispute tags for the things you dispute. Should I go in and delete those? You need to be more civil. RJII 18:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you have consistently put forward the same arguments which I and the other editors have answered time and time again. You are over-emphasising the POV aspects of the FAQ and neglecting the factual side of it. You are the one who is being disruptive. Your objection that the writers are social anarchists is untrue, as I have said many many times before. What you are adding should not go into the intro; this has been discussed before and you know this. -- infinity0 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's downright laughable. You've been fighting over the most minor but true additions. You've been fighting to say the FAQ was written by "anarchists" in the intro when the more precise term is "social anarchists." They say so themselves. You're being EXTREMELY disruptive. Why don't you just let the truth come out? You can't win competing against the truth. So, I don't know why you keep trying. RJII 18:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

These "minor" additions of yours are the ones which have been rejected by me and the other edits. Yet you just ignore everything we have said on the talk page and carry on inserting the same stuff. Why? It has been explained that your additions are undue weight, and that they shouldn't be in the intro. Your additions are mentioned elsewhere in the article already, and this has been pointed out to you many many times. -- infinity0 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to look around. You're the main antagonist against NPOV here. VisionThing has also expressed concerns about the POV problems with the article and the intro. I'm firmly dedicated the Wikipedia NPOV policy, so I'm not going to stop until this article is NPOV. You need to either get with the program and help try to NPOV this article, or you need step out of the way. But, certainly you need to stop fighting against NPOV. RJII 18:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC) And, stop being disruptive by removing the dispute tags of others while leaving your own. RJII 18:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Libertatia, Steve block and Aryah all have expressed that the minor details of the FAQ do not belong in the intro. Vision Thing's concerns have been noted and still they are less extreme than yours. You say you're dedicated to NPOV - then understand undue weight. I don't think your attitude is very constructive - when I criticise you, you just turn that criticism back on me. It's not very helpful. -- infinity0 18:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one at fault here. You are. You've been fighting against NPOV from the start. You even fought any mention of the fact that the FAQ writers reject individualist anarchism. Libertaria also agreed with me that it should be noted. Steve Block agreed as well, apparently. After a lot of pressure you caved in. Why does it have to take so much pressure to force you to abide by Wikipedia NPOV policy? RJII 18:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I fought the way you were wording it. Please understand the difference between wording and insertion. You don't seem to see the difference - again, I would suggest reading WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Like I said to you before, humans are not machines and readers will infer things from the way a statement is worded on the page, things which may not necessarily be true. -- infinity0 18:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you fought the very mention of the fact at first. Then, you fought the wording after you were pressured to allow it in the article. I was providing direct quotes in order to avoid NPOV disputes. But, you insisted on putting in your own words, which obscured what they were actually saying. RJII 18:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[22] - RJII, this edit is false editorialising. The authors do not say they reject ind-anarchism. They say social anarchists reject ind-anarchism. Your wording puts focus on the authors and misleads the reader, when in actual fact the authors are explaining social anarchism as a whole and not just themselves. -- infinity0 18:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not fight the mention that social anarchists reject ind-anarchists. Don't misrepresent me. From the start my argument has always been that the authors do not say they themselves reject ind-anarchism, but social anarchists as a whole do, which your insertions of "the authors reject ind-anarchism" distorts. -- infinity0 18:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. Just as you fought mention that they were "social anarchists." After pressure you caved in and stopped fighting it being made known in the body. Now you're fighting it in the intro, which is ridiculous. It's a simply addition of the word "social" in front of the world "anarchist" that let's the reader quickly see precisely what kind of anarchists the writers are. RJII 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I have not stood in the way of any edits, as long as the weight is appropriate and it is not misleading to readers. [23] - you removed a vital phrase, "ideas expressed within ind-anarchism". Why? It was what the authors said. -- infinity0 18:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. You've militated against every attempt to make the article NPOV issue from the start. RJII 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The point is that they're rejecting individualist anarchism in favor of social anarchism because they think it is flawed. Just saying they "reject ideas within" it is not good enough. They're rejecting the philosophy as a whole, while of course not disagreeing with all of the individualsts' ideas. And, of course they've rejected it. That's why they're social anarchists and not individualists. RJII 19:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, your attitude towards criticism is not encouraging. I criticse your edits for POV and undue weight, and you respond by denying it thoroughly and then turning it back on me. You keep ignoring the things I say, repeating the same things which have already been answered. Please comment on my above criticisms. Why do you not acknowledge the points I make?

The previous version was fine, and said "flawed". They reject its ideas, not the philosopher as whole, which they say they respect. Your version does not show this. -- infinity0 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course they reject the philosophy as a whole. This does not mean that they reject every idea of individualist anarchists. They reject the philosophy as a whole when they choose to become social anarchists instead of individualist anarchists. They clearly say that they they "reject the individualists' conception of anarchy." RJII 19:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
NO. They have not rejected it "as a whole." The FAQ is explicit, and I think correct, in saying that there are only a few significant differences between individualist and social anarchists. They reject its emphasis on the market, and they reject its tendency to rely on "evolutionary" means. It is likely that the pre-publication revision process that is currently going on will further clarify the similarities and differences. You can say that the FAQ is a product of a time when individualist anarchists were much less visible in mainstream anarchists circles, and that it reflects a greater concern with historical individualism than it does with present developments. But that cuts both ways, since ten years ago, a sympathetic treatment of individualist anarchism in a social anarchist publication was a striking advance. It is likely that the FAQ will retain something of the flavor of that time, rather than today, when, for example, the Journal of Libertarian studies has taken a full issue to review Kevin Carson's work. But that's not a terribly damning criticism. The authors of the FAQ have expressed an interest in being fair to individualists in their criticisms. My suggestion for the Introduction is to mention both that it is critical of individualist anarchism and that it remains one of the best, and only, recent explorations of the individualist tradition from within anarchist circles. (In my scholarly opinion, despite the fact that I have plenty of nits to pick with the FAQ, it also makes fewer glaring errors and misrepresentations of that tradition than some of the more recent book publications.) Libertatia 19:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
By saying they "reject it as a whole" I mean they "reject individualist anarchism" in favor of "social anarchism." This is not to say that they don't find some individualists' idea attractive. For example, you might break up with your gilfriend even though you might like somet things about her. You are rejecting her "as a whole." They say that individualist anarchism has "many flaws." Obviously those flaws outweight any good points enough for them to "reject the individualists' conception of anarchy" and choose anarcho-communism, etc. RJII 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It's likely that individualist anarchism does have many flaws, though I still prefer it to anarcho-communism or syndicalism. Any individualist who won't admit that has greater POV problems than the FAQ. Some of the criticisms in the FAQ are quite interesting. and the entire work is scholarly in its apparatus. The most serious elements of "bias" are almost all artifacts of the history of the writing of the FAQ, at a time when individualist anarchist looked a lot like a historical curiosity. I've offered an option for reflecting some of that history in the Intro, and would be glad to help write it. Libertatia 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
That's good. But, I don't expect them to drop their antagonism toward individualism. I mean that's essential to what makes them social anarchists --they're right and the other guy is wrong. And, vice versa. They would lose their identity if they gave individualist anarchism any more credit than that. RJII 20:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You're attributing personal characteristics to folks you don't know. That's certainly not what we're supposed to be incoporating into the Wikipedia entries. It's also kind of weird. I've been reading and rereading the FAQ sections on individualist anarchism, and I just don't see any of that. The "debates" with Caplan and Co., back in the day, were definitely not friendly affairs, and plenty of that heat remains. I do know a number of the FAQ authors and contributors, and suspect the differences come down to little more than differing senses of what is worth the risk in terms of post-capitalist economic systems. Libertatia 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
They don't have anatagonism towards ind-anarchism. Disagreement doesn't mean hatred. -- infinity0 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Im my life I have never seen an orthodox-anything anarchist. Its great ppl know the 'party lines', and know how to present them, but to consider it a binding truth is simply not in the spirit of anarchism. So, if someone that feels close to social anarchisms ideas 'gets their identinty', as RJII puts is, from intra-anarchist differenences and quarrels, I wonder how much of an anarchist they are at all. Instead, i think acknowleging both the criticisms of all particular 'versions' of anarchism, and their respective worth regardless of personal closeness to a specific school, is much more commonplace - and why anarchist are mostly simply 'anarchists', not anarcho-whatever. --Aryah 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, please stop avoiding the point. The criticisms of a-c is not a major part of the FAQ - could you at least acknowledge that? Nowhere do they say they reject the philosophy as a whole. That is you extrapolating their views without evidence. In fact, they say they reject individualist anarchism. -- infinity0 19:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a major part of the FAQ. Stop denying the truth. RJII 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content: Who "may" believe what

The FAQ is called An Anarchist FAQ, not The Anarchist FAQ. It is not affiliated with any organization. There is no reason to assume an expectation on the part of an average reader that this is somehow social anarchist doctrine. The fact that some social anarchists might disagree with the authors is not noteworthy. Many social anarchists, and many individualist anarchists, undoubtedly disagree with elements of the FAQ, and it is likely, if our collaborations here and every other collaboration I've been involved with are any indications, that there is no full agreement among the authors. But to emphasize that fact is to talk about collaborations, rather than this particular document. Libertatia 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, time out

Right. I don't want to see this page protected, but at this rate I'm going to be requesting it soon unless people settle down.

Here's a suggestion. All parties write their ideal lead to this introduction and post them here on the talk page. Then we'll either see if we can discuss to a consensual version, or we'll set up a survey. Steve block talk 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infinity0's version - concise intro with one sentence detailing criticism

"An Anarchist FAQ" is a FAQ written by a (virtual) working group of anarchists from all over the internet. It documents a great range of anarchist ideas and theory for those interested in it. It presents arguments on why one should be an anarchist as well as countering common arguments against anarchism. It also exists to provide a useful organising tool for both anarchists online and in the real world. The FAQ started off mainly as a criticism of anarcho-capitalism (and continues to be one), but has grown to be a huge document presenting all schools of anarchism.

[edit] Endorsed by

  1. -- infinity0 19:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Aryah 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC) But for a stylistic problem with The FAQ started off mainly as a criticism of anarcho-capitalism (and continues to do so) - to do so?? to do what? maybe continues to be that?
    • OK, I changed it so it makes grammatical sense :P -- infinity0 20:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some hyperbole in this one that isn't found in Libertatia's. Steve block talk 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII version

"An Anarchist FAQ" is a FAQ written by anarchists who place themselves "firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism" [24] in attempt to present information about anarchism. Though the FAQ is largely informational, it is not merely so, as it "presents arguments on why [one] should be an anarchist" and points out what it believes to be flaws in individualist philosophies, with the most significant critical emphasis focused on discrediting anarcho-capitalism as being a form of anarchism. In fact, the document was began in 1995 as a refutation of anarcho-capitalism. However, while the amount of criticism is still significant throughout, the FAQ has expanded to include general information on anarchist theory and history...blah blah blah... RJII 20:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, this is reading more like the content rather than the lead. Steve block talk 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we not just summarise this as "RJII hates 'An Anarchist FAQ'" and just leave it as that? User:BlackFlag 08:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertatia version

"An Anarchist FAQ" is a FAQ written by an international work group of anarchists connected through the internet. It presents arguments in favor of anarchism, explores debates internal to the anarchist movement, and counters common arguments against anarchism. It has been in constant evolution since 1995, when it was started as a critique of anarcho-capitalism.

I'm all for as simple an introduction as possible. Let folks read more detailed information below. If we signal the origins in the criticism of anarcho-capitalism, we have, I think, appropriately raised the issue of bias. It might be useful to briefly catalog the sections of the FAQ below, if we are concerned with showing the "weight" of the criticisms of individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Libertatia 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm for this one - though I'd like to see one sentence saying "presents anarchist theory and ideas" inserted so that the FAQ is shown to be a resource in its own right rather than just an argument in favour of something. -- infinity0 21:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just trying to cut out unnecessary babble, and avoiding the pitfall of trying to cover the main sections in the intro. Little tweaks like that are fine with me. Libertatia 21:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This reads best of the three to me. Anymore thoughts, discussion or suggested leads? Steve block talk 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly want RJII's feedback. But perhaps by giving nothing much weight at all in the introduction, we can ease some of the wrangling we know has to follow about the sections. Libertatia 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, keeping it as short and neutral as possible is a good idea; this is simple and sufficient.--aryah 83.131.135.138 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not bad if you want to be really minimalist about it. But I still think it's important to be a more precise about what kind of anarchists they are: "social anarchists." That explains a lot. It's called "An Anarchist FAQ" but in reality it's "An Anarchist FAQ from a Social Anarchist Point of View." It's the addition of one word which infinity here has been fighting. The FAQ itself goes out of it's way to talk about themselves as social anarchists, and to "lay [their] cards on the table,"etc. I don't think we should obscure that fact either. Lay their cards on the table. Right up front. Just like they do. RJII 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ includes criticism of social anarchism by individualists, btw. I suppose that is irrelevant? As it stands, there is one section on different schools of anarchism and why they disagree (A3). There is one section on individualist anarchism (G), in which *one* sub-section explains why social anarchists (historically and currently the majority of anarchists) reject individualist anarchism (surely a relevant issue). In the section of an anarchist society and what anarchists do, they discuss all schools of thought. Basically, as far as I can see the "crime" of the FAQ is to present the majority anarchist position, while highlighting minority trends. Surely that is the point of an FAQ? As such, it reflects such classic histories of anarchism as Woodcock's book "Anarchism" and Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible." User:BlackFlag 09:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The authors themselves explicitly state that the point of the FAQ is to educate people about anarchism. And the vast majority of the FAQ is neutral and all-encompassing. If other details are mentioned, this certainly should be noted. -- infinity0 17:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL. The FAQ is nowhere near being "neutral." I don't how anyone could conclude that. All throughout are put-downs of anarcho-capitalism. RJII 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Funny. Last time I checked, 1.5 < 10. -- infinity0 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete version of introduction

""An Anarchist FAQ" is a FAQ written by a (virtual) working group of anarchists in an attempt to present different anarchist ideas and theories to those interested in it. The FAQ is mainly written from a social anarchist viewpoint. It started off as a criticism of anarcho-capitalism (and continues to be one), but it was expanded to include general information on anarchist theories and history. It presents arguments on why one should be an anarchist, as well as countering common arguments against anarchism. "An Anarchist FAQ" is published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (copyleft) and it is dedicated "to the millions of anarchists, living and dead, who tried and are trying to create a better world." It was officially released on July 19, 1996 "to celebrate the Spanish Revolution of 1936 and the heroism of the Spanish anarchist movement.".

Most recent update can be found on a geocities site, but the most popular mirror is at Infoshop.org [1]." -- Vision Thing -- 08:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ isn't "mainly written from a social anarchist viewpoint" - what does that mean, anyway? Reading it, the reader would think other non-social anarchists have severe disagreements with it. -- infinity0 16:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course non-social anarchists have a disagreement with it. You think individualist individualist anarchists agree that the philosophy is "flawed" like they say it is? You think anarcho-capitalists agree with all the denigration of anarcho-capitlism that the FAQ engages in? You've got to be kidding. RJII 17:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I said "severe disagreements". Kevin A. Carson calls the FAQ a "[m]onumental compendium on anarchist history, theory and practice". -- infinity0 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Carson is not an anarcho-capitalist. RJII 17:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Correct. He's an individualist anarchist, which the FAQ authors disagree with. That he compliments the FAQ despite the differences between their ideologies is a testimony to the authors' neutrality. -- infinity0 17:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If you think the FAQ is not biased against anarcho-capitalism then there is no way that you could have read the FAQ. No one could conclude that. RJII 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
But you're using this to make them out to be biased in favour of social anarchism; they are not - only against a-c. -- infinity0 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course they are biased in favor of social anarchism. They say so themselves. And, they're not just against anarcho-capitalism --they're against individualist anarchicm in general. RJII 17:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Just as individualist anarchists are against social anarchism! That is why they are *individualist* anarchists rather than social ones! And if the author's were "against" individualist anarchism they would not have explained their ideas in a whole section, showed their similarities with social anarchism and quoted them repeatedly throughout the work. You are confusing criticism of other anarchists with being "against" them. The FAQ includes individualist criticism of social anarchism, communist criticism of syndicalism, criticism of Platformism and vice versa. I assume that means they are "against" to all them too? User:BlackFlag 10:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin A. Carson thinks that anarcho-capitalism represents a legitimate strain of anarchism. I would call that a "severe disagreement" with the view presented in the FAQ. -- Vision Thing -- 13:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What Kevin has said is that people who identify themselves as "anarcho-capitalists" vary in their beliefs. Since some are very close in their beliefs to individualist anarchism, and others hold beliefs that are in many ways antithetical, the label alone is not a useful way of determining whether someone is "really an anarchist." He has at times used my distinction between "anarcho"-capitalists and anarcho-"capitalists" to make the same point. Libertatia 18:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
How dare anyone cross the line too far and become an anarcho-"capitalist" and risk being accused of "vulgar libertarianism" by Kevin Carson. RJII 18:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. We all have opinions, RJII. Kevin backs his up pretty well, IMHO. BTW, the ones who "cross the line" are "anarcho"-capitalists. Libertatia 18:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infinity's claimed sources

infinity, you attempted to put sources for the claim that social anarchists are in the majority. One of the sources you put was the FAQ itself. You can't do that. It can't be self-referential. (Not to mention they don't give any kind of source for that --they just say it). And, the other sources you gave was written around 1920. That's that's not good either. RJII 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not self-referential, though. The FAQ saying social anarchists are in the majority has nothing to do with the FAQ itself. The 1920s quote is for "historically". If you dispute with the statement, please provide an opposing source. -- infinity0 17:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is self-referential. The FAQ makes the claim that social anarchists are the majority, and you use that as a source for the truth of that claim. Besides, the FAQ cannot be used as a secondary sources --it's not credible enough. It's not even published. On your other claim, of course at a time in history, communist anarchists were the majority. First individualist anarchists where the majority, then "social anarchists," and now it's not so clear. You need a credible source saying that "social anarchists" are the majority today. RJII 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I got curious about just how controversial the claim for a social anarchist majority could be. My experience in "offline" anarchist communities over the last 10-12 years has been that, even in a town with a reputation as a stronghold for market anarchists, anarchist communists and anarcho-syndicalists were very much in the majority. Online, being an individualist anarchist or mutualist has been a very lonely business indeed. Currently, a survey of the 200 most-recently published books (keyword: anarchism) shows a handful of individualist anarchist titles (one of which was written by an anarcho-capitalist). Of the 130 Yahoogroups (keyword: anarchism), another handful are individualist in emphasis, and those are extremely small in terms of subscribers, and running heavily to penis-enlargement ads in content. There are about as many "national-anarchist" groups active. All the general histories of anarchism I have seen emphasize the social strands. Historically, "anarchist" was not a common title in the early mutualist period, and then, almost immediately, tensions in the First International (followed by Haymarket, the propaganda by the deed period, the early red scares, etc) made it much less likely that individualists would associate themselves with anarchism, particularly in the US. And so on... Does this add up to the source that RJII wants? Nope. But it ought to be possible, in a case like this, to come to some consensus about the controversiality of the claim. From where I'm sitting, the claim doesn't seem controversial at all. Libertatia 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, stop removing disputed statement tags. You put tags on and you expect others not to remove them. Why are you doing this? You know full well this dispute is still going on, because you're engaging in it right now. Please be more civil. RJII 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You asked for a citation; you should have used the {{citeneeded}} tag. Go re-add it if you want. There is no reason the FAQ cannot be used as a secondary source for the numbers of social anarchists. If they were lying, there'd be sources all over the place condemning them - so if this is true you must be able to find one. -- infinity0 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No there wouldn't be "sources all over the place condemning them." Scholars couldn't care less about that FAQ. It doesn't hold any importance to them to fight over. It it was a published paper, sure, but it's not. It's just a bunch of internet anarchists who put together a question and answer thing together. We agreed before in a mediated dispute that the FAQ could not be used as a secondary source on Wikipedia. RJII 17:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Academic Search Premier, one of the larger databases of academic journals, list exactly one source that cites the FAQ. This is exactly the same number of sources that cite Richard Sylvan, though nobody cites the entry on anarchism at issue elsewhere. Google Books shows 18 citations for the FAQ, and 1 for Sylvan's anarchism chapter. My Internet Culture chapter fared much, much better, so maybe I should go throw my weight around in virtual community or something. Libertatia 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Not as a secondary source of anarchist theory, but it's OK as a secondary source for anarchist numbers. Your objection is a logical fallacy. There is no reason to think the authors are uncredible. I have provided two sources; you have removed them for no reason. If the claim is untrue, provide a source with the opposing view. -- infinity0 17:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You cannot use the FAQ as a secondary source. It's not a credible secondary source by Wikipedia standards. You need to review the sourcing policy. And, the idea of using the FAQ as a source for its own claims is ludicrous. RJII 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting situation. I'm inclined to say that the FAQ does not back up the argument about the majority, but, as I've explained above, I also think it is a pretty uncontroversial claim. What's interesting is that the FAQ is pretty obviously a legitimate secondary source by scholarly standards: it's argement is clear; its assumptions are laid out, and it is brimming with checkable source material. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, however, seems to be a little narrower, so that legitimate scholarly sources can be attacked, based on the conservative standards of this project. This is one of those things that is sometimes a bug and sometimes a feature. Consider the William Batchelder Greene page, which was riddled with errors before I cleaned it up recently. Every single one of those errors was "properly sourced," while still being clearly in error. The correct information was available on my website (not sourceable by Wikipedia standards, apparently) and on Ronald Creagh's website (which probably is, since it is a continuation of his published research of 30+ years ago, even though several of the corrections came straight from my work.) I mention all of this only to plead for a little common sense here. "Gaming" the system is abuse as well. Libertatia 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at any history of anarchism and you will see that "social anarchism" is the main subject, with individualist anarchism very much mentioned in passing (if at all). That is because, historically, the majority of anarchists have been social anarchists. As can be seen from the size of the organisations. For example, the Italian Anarchist Federation in the early 1920s had 20,000 members. Subscribers to Liberty numbered the hundreds ("It probably never had more than 600 to 1000 subscribers", according to Charles H. Hamilton). I could give more examples, but the point is made. I would also suggest that this is the case currently as well, as the number of individualist anarchists is small (I know of two). User:BlackFlag 10:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Using one of RJII's sources: "Communistic-Anarchism, which now has largely outgrown the Individualistic-Anarchistic division in numbers and political importance." (Anarchist Socialism By John William Lloyd) So "An Anarchist FAQ" reflects the majority of anarchist opinion on the subject of anarchism, as such it is representative.BlackFlag 08:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, that was written in the 1920's. I think it's pretty well established that communist anarchism took the forefront. The question is about today. I question whether "social anarchism" is more popular than individualist anarchism (which includes anarcho-capitalism) today. RJII 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
And it has not changed. "Anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists and even if they were, they are *not* individualist anarchists (as Rothbard admitted). In my 20 odd years in the anarchist movement I've come across *three* individualist anarchists (two of them on mailing lists and I consider them good comrades). The rest have all been social anarchists of some kind or another. As for "anarcho"-capitalists, I've come across a few on-line and they have been Americans (almost always). If we listed the anarchist groups and papers across the world, there would be few individualist ones amongst them. BlackFlag 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Your personal experience doesn't count. That's "original research" --flawed methodology at that. And, of course anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists. There's not a shortage of sources that indicate that they are. 1) "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." (Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide, Simon Tormey) 2) "Anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism..." (Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Individualist Anarchism, Daniel Burton) 3) ""the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists" (Individualism Reconsidered, Joe Peacott) 4) "Another branch of individualism was found in the United States and was far less radical. The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." (Anarchism, Carl Levy) 6) "[What these liberal philosophers] had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." (Ralph Raico, Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century) 7) "Workers are propertyless and forced to wage labor because they cannot finance their self-employment: the state monopoly over money is the problem. Let the people issue their own private, fiduciary moneys and the choice between working for an employer or for oneself will become entirely voluntary. This is the individual anarchism (or anarco-capitalism) championed by Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker in America and Gustave de Molinari in France." (A Rational Theory of Socialist Public Ownership, Mario Ferrero) And, of course there are anarcho-capitalists who simply refer to themselves as individualist anarchists, such as McElroy. Notice I put a mix of political pursuasions in there, from capitalists to anti-capitalists and socialists to labor-value individualists. I'd like to see a source for your claim that Rothbard says anarcho-capitalists are not individualist anarchists. I don't believe it. He certainly doesn't think anarcho-capitalists are collectivist anarchists. RJII 17:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, 20 years in the anarchist movement counts for nothing when you can quote "anarcho"-capitalists! It really is simple. Just because it is published does not mean that a book knows what it is talking about. As a long standing anarchist activist, I can tell you that "anarcho"-capitalism really does not exist outside of the USA and even there it is small. BlackFlag 10:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC).

Anarchism is a minority point of view, Anarcho-capitalism is a minority of a minority of a minority point of view. Can we all not agree on that? - FrancisTyers 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I can definitely agree that anarchism is a minority point of view. But, I can't agree that that anarcho-capitalism is "a minority of a minority point of view." My experiences lead me to believe that it is more popular than anarcho-communism today. Of course, I can't use my personal experiences as a source just as no one else can use their personal experiences as a source. But, I do require a source in order for us to assert one way or the other in an article. RJII 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
At present, you're using your personal experiences to counter a claim that pretty much nobody else—individualist or social anarchist—seems to find very controversial. Even if anarcho-capitalism was somehow numerically a majority in the US—which doesn't seem to be the case, based on the distribution of websites, discussion groups, citations in major databases, etc—I can't find anything to support the notion that it is particularly popular anywhere else. When you see references to "anarcho-capitalism" in non-US contexts, it's generally in reference to organized crime in the former USSR or the like. Libertatia 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that "pretty much nobody else" finds it controversial. I've seen others on here disputing the same thing. It's hard for me to believe that communist anarchism is very fashionable anymore. Until we have a credible source indicating one way or the other, I'd rather not risk giving the readers bogus information. RJII 19:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've come across one source talking about anarchism in America splitting into left and right in the 1960's and saying anarcho-capitalism became more popular: "Despite this diversity, we can categorize all anarchists as essentially left-wing libertarians who champion growth of the individual within a community (anarcho-communists, christian anarchists, and most anarcho-pacifists) and right-wing libertarians (anarcho-capitalists, and ultraindividualists) who are more egoistical and stress the individualism of the unregulated marketplace. Since the social ethic of America is not communal but is based on a private world of personal fulfillment and satisfaction (the self-made man, not social man), it is not surprising that what I call right-wing libertarianism was the predominant element of the new, explicit anarchism." (The American As Anarchist, DeLeon) This gives some weight to my suspicion that anarcho-capitalism is more popular than anarcho-communism, at least in America. I think it's more popular in other countries as well --at least in philosophical anarchism. I know it's popular in Italy, for example. So, I'm still very dubious about claiming in any of the anarchism articles that communist or "social anarchism" is more popular than the individualist anarchisms. RJII 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That book is, what, 30 years old? And it is *not* a case "anarcho"-capitalism against anarcho-communism, it is a case of *anarchism* vrs "anarcho"-capitalism. And are we *really* discussing this becaused on RJII's "suspicion that anarcho-capitalism is more popular than anarcho-communism"? Is that really it? A "suspicion"? BlackFlag 10:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a case of left anarchism versus right anarchism. And, yes, this is because of my "suspicion" that right anarchism is more popular. I will not allow the article to say left anarchism is more popular without a credible source saying so. RJII 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And, yes the book is from 1978. I have no doubt that anarcho-capitalism is even more popular today. RJII 03:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If RJII says it, it must be true! As for "credible" sources, I would suggest looking at Peter Marshall's recent (very long) history of anarchism. One chapter is on "anarcho-capitalism" while the rest is about anarchism (Marshall notes that few anarchists consider them anarchists, btw). It is a very big book and brings anarchism's history into the 1990s. It is considered the standard account on anarchism, replacing Woodcock's book (which did not mention "anarcho-capitalism" at all). I wonder why he would do that, if "anarcho-capitalism" is so much bigger than anarchism? And, of course, the US anarchist movement has increased massively over the last ten years. Looking at the organisations, webpages, papers, etc., then it is clear that anarchism is much bigger than "anarcho-capitalism", as reflected in Marshall's book. BlackFlag 11:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is what a respected scholar on anarchism had to say on the De Leon book: "The results, on the whole, are disappointing . . . There is to much facile generalisation, too little depth of analysis, and too little attention to detail. What DeLeon has written is not a solid scholarly monography but a loosely reasons interpretive essay that is marred by oversimplication and distortion . . . The weaknesses of DeLeon's analysis are compounded by the errors of fact into which he frequently lapses." (Paul Avrich, American Historical Review, vol. 84, No. 5, p. 1467-8) A good credible source to justify a "suspicion" on? BlackFlag, 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL

RJII, that is said in the intro of the FAQ. YOu could have easily verified this yourself without adding the unnecessary tag. -- infinity0 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Although the FAQ has been copylefted under the GNU Free Documentation License, and can thus be altered and amended by anyone..."
So, if someone wants to change everything to say social anarchism is bad and individualism is good, and then post it on their web site, they can? LOL. RJII 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

They can do whatever the license allows them to. Read the license if you want to know the details, I don't know. -- infinity0 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So, a Wikipedia editor can add whatever he wants to the FAQ then come back here and cite it? That just does to show how uncredible of a source that thing is. It should NEVER be used as a cited secondary source on Wikipedia. RJII 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand the GDFL. The original work and a derivative work(s) are separate things. -- infinity0 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the one making the claim that the FAQ can "be altered and amended by anyone." Is that true or not? RJII 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Steve block wrote that part. I just realised the section has major repetitions in it, and have now removed them. -- infinity0 19:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editors

RJII, why do you say the only editors are social anarchists? The FAQ is an open document and the main editors have been open to suggestions and input from anyone. -- infinity0 19:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to stop making the same points. I have already showed that the burden of proof is on you since there is no evidence to suggest the editors only took in contributions from social anarchists. -- infinity0 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll make the same points over and over until the NPOV and factual problems on this article are fixed. The FAQ says explicitly that the writers of the FAQ are "social anarchists." RJII 19:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [25] There it is, right in front of your face. RJII 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have plenty of evidence that the writers of the FAQ are social anarchists: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [26] You have no evidence of any writers that are not social anarchists. RJII 20:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating the same thing. You're saying nothing new. No, it is the main editors who say this. You are inferring your own views of the FAQ. "The writers place themselves firmly" are written by the main editors, not everyone who participated in the writing of the FAQ. One contributor may have written a few paragraphs, but had nothing to do with that part of the FAQ. You have no evidence to suggest that the other people only "contributed information". "Contributions" clearly means content. Nor do you have evidence to show that ALL the writers are social anarchists. -- infinity0 20:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [27] OF course I keep repeating the same thing. You keep disputing that the writers are social anarchists. There it is --a direct quote right in front of your face. RJII 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In version of the FAQ from year 2000 (version 8.5) there are four editors and in contributions and feedback list there are eight people. In version of the FAQ from year 2006 (version 11.4) number of contributors increased by one. To me, that doesn't look like they are open to suggestions and input from anyone. -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the sentence RJII quotes "the writers of this FAQ" (I italicize the deictic, which is a source of ambiguity) can mean at least two different things:
  1. The writers of all of the FAQ answers available through this website (RJII's reading, I think)
  2. The writers of the answer to FAQ number three, what kinds of anarchisms are there.
The sentence RJII quotes could mean either one. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There are only four main writers of the FAQ, and they refer to themselves as the "small collective". -- Vision Thing -- 14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Perhaps now Infinity can explain what he means by "an open document?" I am only trying to be constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In the writing of the FAQ, the main editors accepted input and contributions from everyone who bothered to contact them. RJII is inferring from this that the authors rejected everything except social anarchist views. However, there is nothing to suggest this at all apart from his own thoughts. The FAQ has been complimented by non-social anarchists as well. -- infinity0 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as all indications are, the only writers of the FAQ are "social anarchists." Sure, you can email the "small collective" of social anarchists, and if you're lucky and it passes the purity test, they might write into the FAQ some idea you "contributed." But, apparently they are very picky. As VisionThing indicated they only list a few "contributors." RJII 15:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Who says they are picky? Libertatia knows them; he says they aren't. You don't know them; so you're saying this for no reason at all. Like Libertatia said, the FAQ is not social anarchist doctrine but an attempt to present all schools of anarchism thoroughly to the reader. -- infinity0 15:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


So, why not say, "The FAQ, an attempt to represent the spectrum of anarchist views, compiled (or edited or managed) by a group of editors who self- identify as social anarchists ...?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
How can they "attempt to represent the spectrum" when they give the POV that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Surely, they're not representing anarcho-capitalists. And, they say that individualist anarchism has "many flaws" and that they "reject the individualists' conception of anarchy." They're definitely not representing individualist anarchists on that. RJII 16:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, you have a serious bias against the FAQ which is hindering your ability to edit neutrally. That the editors oppose anarcho-capitalism is already noted. They have nothing against the rest of anarchism, but you are making it out as if this is the case. I suggest you go edit a different article, one where you're not so emotionally involved. -- infinity0 16:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You have a serious bias toward the FAQ. You've even gone so far as to try to use it as a secondary source, which is ludicrous. I suggest you go edit another article. I am not "emotionally involved" whatsoever. I'm as calm and objective as I can be. We've been trying forever just to let it be known that the FAQ was written by "social anarchists" and you have been fighting it every step of the way. RJII 16:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You have absolutely no reason to think the FAQ is as biased as you are thinking it to be currently. The FAQ has one bias against anarcho-capitalism. It has a very very very minor bias against ind-anarchism. Compared to many of the sources you cite, the FAQ is neutral as can be. -- infinity0 16:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
All that is irrelevant. All we are trying to do is get past your resistance to presenting the facts. The FAQ was written by "social anarchists." " Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." RJII 16:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And that is already said, and I have never tried to delete it from the section it deserves to be in. I urge you to read WP:NPOV#Undue weight, especially as that is what you are on probation explicitly for. I repeat: You have absolutely no reason to think the FAQ is as biased as you are thinking it to be currently. The FAQ has one bias against anarcho-capitalism. It has a very very very minor bias against ind-anarchism. Compared to many of the sources you cite, the FAQ is neutral as can be. -- infinity0 16:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No that is not what I am on probation for. I am on probation because a few people tried to get me banned from Wikipedia because they couldn't get around the sourced information I was providing (and for a few "personal attacks"). The arbitrators are apparently overworked and didn't bother to check up on the accusations. Whether I think the FAQ is biased or not is not the point here. All we are trying to do, is to let it be known that the FAQ was written by "social anarchists." RJII 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That is already mentioned. You have been trying to say that the only writers are social anarchists, and from this the reader would infer that the whole FAQ has a social anarchist bias. This is not the case. Only a few parts of the FAQ show this bias. To represent the bias of the FAQ correctly, we must state what is true - that the main editors are social anarchists, and that therefore only a very few sections are their views.-- infinity0 16:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with saying that the FAQ claims to represent the whole spectrum - an accurate statement that RJII ought to agree with. Would Infinity0? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says currently "However, the FAQ presents and attempts to explain most schools of anarchism," Is that similar enough? -- infinity0 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, the dispute is in the first sentence of the first section: Although many people have contributed to the writing of the FAQ, the writers identify themselves as from the social anarchist branch of anarchism. I am trying to explain that it is the main writers who say they are social anarchists; but that they have accepted contributions from all anarchists. -- infinity0 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether it shows bias or not, it's the truth that "the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." So, it should be stated. It's very relevant to know what political pursasion the writers are. You really need to let this FACT be known. RJII 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That is not a fact. You don't know that all the writers are social anarchists. -- infinity0 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The FAQ itself says the writers are social anarchists. You have ZIP evidence to the contrary. RJII 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Both you and RJII agree that the principal editors identify themselves as social anarchists, and all you want to do, Infinity0, is add some more information? I do not see any problem. RJII wants the article to include the information about how these editors self-identify. I have read nothing by Infinity0 that suggests he wants to delete this part. So if all RJII wants is for this information to be included, I see no conflict. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See what he said just above. He wants to make it look like some of the writers are not social anarchists. RJII 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is whether the "main writers" or the "writers" are social anarchists. RJII claims all the writers of the FAQ are social anarchists. -- infinity0 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"The writers of this FAQ..." doesn't say the "main" writers. It says THE writers. RJII 16:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you are repeating the same thing. You're saying nothing new. It is the main editors who say they are social anarchists. You are inferring your own views of the FAQ. "The writers place themselves firmly in the social strand of anarchism" are written by the main editors, not everyone who participated in the writing of the FAQ. One contributor may have written a few paragraphs, but had nothing to do with that part of the FAQ. You have no evidence to show that ALL the writers are social anarchists. Since this is the more complex proof, burden is on you. -- infinity0 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything new, because there is no need to say anything new. You're still fighting the same thing you've been fighting from the start. The FAQ says that "the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." You have ZERO evidence that they statement is false. RJII 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You are not understanding the difference between "the writers" in the two different contexts. In the FAQ, it is the main writers who write that sentence. However, when you use the same phrase in the article, it infers "all the writers". -- infinity0 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"THE" writers, means ALL THE WRITERS. All we are asking is that you let the article say what the FAQ says: "THE writers" and don't state anything indicating otherwise, becuase you have NO EVIDENCE otherwise. RJII 16:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I just explained that the same phrase means two different things in two contexts. -- infinity0 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't. RJII 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I just did, right there. Read it, and responded in such a way that I know you have understood it. Ie. argue against it. -- infinity0 17:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't. It's nonsense. The FAQ clearly says that the FAQ was written by social anachists. You have no evidence that any of the writers were not social anarchists. RJII 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not responding in such a way that I know you have understood it. You haven't explained why it's nonsense. -- infinity0 17:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing to understand. I read it and it's nonsense. You have ZERO evidence that any of the writers are anything but social anarchists. The FAQ says ""the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." RJII 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Explain why it's nonsense. It makes perfect sense to me, because it's what I think. Why is it nonsense? -- infinity0 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It's nosense because it's incoherent --meanginless. The FAQ clearly says "the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." You have NO BASIS for disputing that. RJII 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You're not explaining why it's meaningless. And my reply was the "BASIS for disputing that". -- infinity0 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing to explain. It's incoherent. RJII 19:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You're still not giving a reason for making these claims. My response says what it says. -- infinity0 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And, I'm not going to. All I need to do is point out what the FAQ says: "the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." RJII 20:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You're not countering any of my points. You're just saying they're flawed, but you're not explaining why. You're being illogical. -- infinity0 20:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm being quite logical. Understand this: I am not going to explain why your incoherent statement was incoherent. RJII 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can't explain what you think, you are wrong. -- infinity0 14:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
""the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." RJII 17:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hundreds/thousands of websites

McKay "An Anarchist FAQ" OR "Anarchist FAQ" -wiki gives ~500 - mirrored on about 600? [28] - gives 500,000, but most of these probably isn't this Anarchist FAQ (though most of the front page entries are)

[29] - Apparently, Iain McKay teaches history at Queens in Toronoto. -- infinity0 15:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he does not. I happen to know that as a fact. He is *not* an academic, but a worker in another industry. BlackFlag 08:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAQ Publication

RJII, this is starting to look more and more like a vendetta. The news of the FAQ's pending publication has been out there for quite some time. (I'm guessing you can find discussion of it in various mailing list archives.) It's a logical publication for AK Press. There is no reason to disbelieve the claim, though you can perhaps block its inclusion via sourcing rules. The question is: why would you bother? Libertatia 18:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, this edit is blatantly disruptive. What reason do you have for thinking the source is lying? -- infinity0 19:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not lying. It could just be wishful thinking. We can't make claims unless they're sourced. And, if the claim is a claim from the FAQ, we certainly can't use the FAQ as a secondary source for that claim. And, stop accusing me of being disruptive. I've been trying to fix NPOV problems in this article from day one and you've fought me every step of the way. But, you won't win. RJII 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why could it just be wishful thinking? Stop thinking this is a fight. -- infinity0 19:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just notes in the update log .."getting ready to be published by AK Press." There is no indicate that there has been any official agreement from AK Press to publish it. You really shouldn't assert things in an article unless you have more information that this. I suggest you review our rules on sourcing and original research so that you can improve your editing. RJII 19:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
But, it is a fight. I'd rather it not be. I've just been trying to fix NPOV and factual errors. You've been resisting the changes assiduously. It's clearly a fight. And, I'm not going to stop until this article is NPOV and accurate. RJII 19:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII, in this case you are clearly not dealing either with a "factual error" or with an NPOV issue. You are applying the sourcing rules in a fairly aggressive manner. You may well be within your rights, by Wikipedia standards, but I do not see that you have been as scrupulous in a number of other cases where similarly rigorous standards might be applied. This edit seems to follow a pattern of anti-"social anarchist" edits. I see you are also now going after the introduction, about which we had reached a rough consensus. This seems much less defensible. Libertatia 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. It's obvious you have serious personal problems with the FAQ. -- infinity0 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop your personal attacks. What I have a problem with is your POV editing and your attempts to keep sourced information out of the article. RJII 19:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop your personal attacks. You have been accusing me of POV editing when you're the one pushing against consensus. -- infinity0 19:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you have been systematically undermining progress in the article. You're starting arguments over small issues. The FAQ says they are being published by AK Press. There is little doubt of the truth of this, so there is no need to insert weaselly comments like "according to". Similarly, you have been dodging consensus about the bias of the FAQ. Please stop being disruptive. -- infinity0 19:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary. I'm improving this article. It was absolutely horrendous when I arrived up on it, full of gross NPOV problems and outright falsehoods. It's slowly coming around to being more NPOV and factual, thanks to me and a couple others. RJII 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I see you're running to administrator's noticeboard again to try to get me banned. And, you say this isn't a "fight"? LOL. Don't you think they're getting a little tired of your attempts to get rid of me? RJII 19:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As an outsider, I think the editors of this page should possibly focus less on trying to outline the content of the document rather than commenting more on its History and influence in the short term. Trying to summarise an outside document in an NPOV manner will come eventually, but it may be easier to develop the other sections more fully until consensus on the Content section is achieved. It may be easier to develop the section here, and hence avoid edit warring on the article page. Ansell 23:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
RJII thinks the article has POV problems, and is trying to "correct them". Unfortunately this is only due to his extremely distorted personal view of the FAQ. He has called the writers "communist anarchists" in many cases, and tries to add unnecessary focus onto the authors' bias, which is minor compared to the whole FAQ. -- infinity0 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If RJII *really* thinks that the authors of the FAQ are lying about it being published by AK Press then he should contact AK Press (in the UK, as they are responsible for proof reading it -- I know as I've talked to them about it). Ask them to provide an email saying that they are *not* publishing it and the case will be closed. Of course, if he did do that he would soon discover that AK Press *is* planning to publish the FAQ as a book. So case closed. BlackFlag 08:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Have they made any formal statement about it? Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore, anything that is unsubstantiated should not be here. Until evidence is produced regarding a claim like that then it is probably best for it to stay out of wikipedia. Ansell 12:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The authors' of the FAQ have made a formal statement about it. They would have hardly done so if AK Press was not going to publish it. They would be a laughing stock if AK Press turned around and said, no. BlackFlag 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, this page has the source needed for the statement. Ansell 07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content: mutual "rejections"

Section A.3.1 of the FAQ opens with the observations that "there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some kind of state...." The section then elaborates a number of disagreements and "fears" that differentiate the two schools. Libertatia 20:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In whole section there is no mention that IA reject SA. But it is mentioned that SA reject IA. Furthermore, the conclusion of section A.3.1 is that IA is deficient and that SA is the only good way to go. -- Vision Thing -- 12:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Just one quote of many: "This second difference is the most important. The individualist fears being forced to join a community and thus losing his or her freedom (including the freedom to exchange freely with others) . . . In effect, they argue that communism (or social ownership in general) would be similar to capitalism, with the exploitation and authority of the boss replaced with that of "society." Now, could that suggest that IA's reject SA? Difficult one! And as most anarchists have been and are SAs, the FAQ reflects the general position -- which is the point of an FAQ! BlackFlag 14:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Great qoute, I will replace “reject” with "fear". -- Vision Thing -- 14:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT. There was nothing stated wrong with my re-writing, which puts the FAQ content into perspective better. -- infinity0 14:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Your changes weren’t leading to more neutral content. Also, you didn’t discussed them, and we had arguments about that same paragraph before. -- Vision Thing -- 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't it more neutral? -- infinity0 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You should explain how your version is more neutral than previous. You removed "reject" without discussion and "The FAQ authors also explain why social anarchism rejects ideas expressed within individualist anarchism, whilst acknowledging the importance of individualist anarchism within the anarchist movement." was consensual position reached by these talk pages. -- Vision Thing -- 16:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I prefer Vision Thing's version. RJII 16:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
My version still says the above. I have now added "reject" back in. You could have changed my wording instead of reverting. -- infinity0 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You should have discussed changes first, especially because there was already an open discussion about that part of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 10:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

An Anarchist FAQ includes an explicit "rejection" of individualist anarchism (along with explicit discussions about what elements are rejected) as well as the grounds on which individualist anarchists reject (critical elements of) social anarchism. This much seems clear and entirely uncontroversial. The claim that individualists "fear" elements of social anarchism is a bit of hyperbole that probably doesn't need to be repeated. Libertatia 17:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The main issue

Maybe it would be better if we debated this structurally. Here is my take on the issue RJII is disputing:

[edit] Infinity0's view of the FAQ

  • Many anarchists contributed content to the FAQ and information to the FAQ writers.
  • The main writers and editors of the FAQ are social anarchists.
  • The main writers make a good faith attempt to be neutral to all schools of anarchism, except "anarcho"-capitalism.

[edit] Agreed with by

  1. -- infinity0 18:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to opposing view(s)

  • RJII's view that (because the main editors are social anarchists) all the content of the FAQ originates from social anarchists has no evidence to back this up. It is a very paranoid view, and assumes bad faith on part of the writers of the FAQ. There is nothing to suggest the FAQ is social anarchist propaganda, since the authors make a good faith attempt to inform the readers that the FAQ is not all-encompassing. (See intro of FAQ)
I suggest you take back this personal attack. RJII 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • RJII's view that (because the main editors are social anarchists) the FAQ is biased also has no evidence to back this up. The FAQ has mostly very neutral content.

[edit] RJII's view of the FAQ

Note: infinity is misrepresenting my position. RJII 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My god, RJII. I've left space especially for you to represent your position. -- infinity0 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed with by

[edit] Response to opposing view(s)

My view on this is simply to note that what the FAQ says. That it was written by "social anarchists." RJII 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

What about saying "anarchists" in the intro and "editors" (as opposed to "writers" or "main writers") in the section? -- infinity0 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's best to stick with what the FAQ says. It says the "writers." RJII 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why is infinity disputing this?

Why is infinity disputing the following statement: "However, the FAQ presents and attempts to explain most schools of anarchism, including mutualism, individualist anarchism, and even some lesser known theories like anarcho-primitivism and anarcho-capitalism (disputed — see talk page)" ?

Because anarcho-capitalism is given a separate treatment and should not be on the list with the others. -- infinity0 23:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
By keeping it out of that list you are being POV. You are doing the same thing the FAQ is doing, by ostracizing it as not being another form of anarchism. RJII 23:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
To say that the FAQ explains "anarcho-capitalism" along with other schools of anarchism is to imply that the FAQ thinks that it is a form of anarchism. It does not. It is RJII's POV which claims that it is a school of anarchism, a POV the FAQ (like most anarchists) dispute. "Anarcho"-capitalism, as far as the FAQ goes, is *not* considered anarchism and should not be listed with the rest. Given that "anarcho"-capitalism has a whole paragraph to itself later on, we can drop the reference here. BlackFlag 09:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No, RJII, you have me wrong. I'm not putting it out of the list because I don't think a-capitalism is anarchism, but because the FAQ specifically treats a-capitalism differently from other anarchisms. By putting it in the list you imply they think it's anarchism too. -- infinity0 13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it does not imply that. It implies that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism by keeping it out of the list. It's POV, plain and simple. RJII 13:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Saying "anarcho-capitalism" is anarchist is POV, plain and simple. Given that it has a whole paragraph later having it here is redundant. It is not like its not mentioned. BlackFlag 09:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It implies that because it puts a-capitalism in the same boat as everything else, which is not how it is in the FAQ. It is already mentioned in its own paragraph. -- infinity0 13:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is not the FAQ. The article shouldn't have the same POV as the FAQ. The article should be NPOV. RJII 13:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a sentence. My point is that anarcho-capitalism should not be in the list with the others because that's not how the FAQ treats it. IN the end the list is a list of what the FAQ thinks, nothing more. -- infinity0 14:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And, my point is that the article should be NPOV and not take the POV of the FAQ by ostracizing it from the list of anarchisms. RJII 14:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That sentence is only a list of what the FAQ thinks. It's not supposed to inform the reader about anarchism, only about the FAQ. If you think the wording is bad, re-word it, but I don't think adding anarcho-capitalism to the list is helpful. -- infinity0 14:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that statement too. Google search for anarcho-capitalism gives 204.000 results and for “individualist anarchism” 64.900 results. Based on that, you can’t say that AC is lesser know theory than IA... -- Vision Thing -- 14:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

True. I put it in the wrong place initially. RJII 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You do realize that "anarcho-capitalism" is also a term used in the media to describe the "mafia economies" of the post-soviet world. Right? Not that raw Google numbers are particularly useful by themselves anyway. If you Google on "mutualism," you'll probably get a huge number of hits, but very few of them, proportionately, will be about market anarchism (as opposed to biology). As for the the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism among the schools of anarchism that the FAQ attempts to explain, it seems entirely uncontroversial that the authors do not consider it among those schools. To write an entry that implies either that they do include it, or that the inclusion is otherwise uncontroversial, seems inappropriate. The body of the entry already explains the conflict. Libertatia 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

Are there any more reasons for POV tag on content? To me it looks ok. -- Vision Thing -- 10:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blackflag and the faq

I've been working on the Auberon Herbert article. I don't have any non-circumstantial evidence for this, but it seems very clear that when user:BlackFlag wants to say something in the article that he doesn't have a source for, he goes and writes something and creates new sections for the FAQ then comes back and cites them. Look at the new sections tailored explicitly for the arguments I've been having with him that didn't exist a few days ago. There is a whole new section called "F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?" [30] that is not on the FAQ on the Infoshop copy. [31] Is this how the FAQ works? Anyone can make things and sections up and anyone can come back here and cite them? Or is he tied in with the editors? What kind of crap is this? RJII 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Maybe BlackFlag is Iain McKay? In any case, you yourself have a personal vendetta against the FAQ, don't criticise others. -- infinity0 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a personal vendetta against the FAQ. RJII 20:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it just looks like that... BlackFlag 09:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
More like "Anarcho". This article magically appeared just a couple days after arguing with him about Herbert and government. [32] RJII 20:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that essay was written and posted to infoshop news before I started to contribute here. BlackFlag 09:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You so do. You've been trying to discredit it ever since I used it as a source. -- infinity0 20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's nothing personal. I've just been trying to make this article NPOV. It was horrible POV when I first encountered it. RJII 20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha ha. -- infinity0 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a response I received from an administrator on the BlackFlag sourcing matter: "They don't look like credible sources to me. The first one (the geocities site) definitely isn't. The anarcho directory in anarchism.ws looks like a personal directory. Anything that looks like a personal website is disallowed, in part for the very reason you've given above, viz. that anyone could add whatever they want to a personal website then use it as a source for Wikipedia.SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)" RJII 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The geocities site is the original home of the FAQ. Infoshop is a mirror, although now it is the main site (effectively). The geocities site is often updated before infoshop. BlackFlag 09:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. You have to cite "credible" sources. An anonymously written article by someone with no apparent academic qualifications that has never been published is not a credible source. You can't go contrive your own internet article then come back here cite it because you lack sources for your assertions on Wikipedia. How shady. RJII 14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than happy not to reference any new sub-sections of section F of "An Anarchist FAQ" in the future -- I would hate to be considered "unethical" by RJII (whose grasp of facts is well known). However, I do wonder what will happen when "An Anarchist FAQ" *is* published. Does it become a valid source then? And what of articles written by anarchists who have "no apparent academic qualifications"? Does that mean we cannot quote anarchists who have only been published in anarchist papers? Just wondering... BlackFlag 16:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources RJII 15:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"Partisan political. . . sources . . . should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." As the FAQ is considered by many, many anarchists as a good introduction to anarchism, it is a primary source and can therefore be quoted. BlackFlag 16:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider it the opinion of a "larger like-minded group." It's the opinion of a small clique. Also, it says it "should not be relied upon as a sole source." That means if it was actually the opinion of a "larger like-minded" group, that it would have to be buttressed by an additional source that is more credible. RJII 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, a site which is linked to by most anarchist webpages, mirrored extensively and is going to be printed by a leading anarchist publisher is *not* the opinion of a large group. ROFL! So, just to check, a source written by anarchists is not "credible" when it talks about anarchism? ROFL! The FAQ is a primary source and should be quoted as such. BlackFlag 10:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This makes clear why "An Anarchist FAQ" should never be cited on Wikipedia. Apparently anyone in their clique that happens to edit Wikipedia, who lacks a source for their claims, go write their own original research into the FAQ then come back here and cite it. "An Anarchist FAQ" is a scam. RJII 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and that is why we should never quote anything but the first editions of books, as the authors go away and make changes to their work based on new information. What a scam! As the "new" page indicates, the current lot of revisions is part of the process of getting the FAQ ready for publication. When it is published, what will RJII's reason for not wanting to cite it become then? BlackFlag 16:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess you'll just have to wait and see. RJII 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I smell hypocrisy here. RJII, you are on probation for original resource. You claim your edits are NPOV and sourcing is reliable; but all you do is find a bunch of sources to support random sentences you write. You haven't provided background information on the authors of the 9 sources you cited yesterday. -- infinity0 15:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not conduct original research. I am on probation because the arbitrators didn't bother to ask for sources. Apparently they were too busy. I provided the authors and publishers for the books I cited yesterday. That's good enough. RJII 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure and building a case that anarchism is compatible with government by cherry-picking a few quotes here and there (and ignoring others) is not "original research"... BlackFlag, 10:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The main authors of the Anarchist FAQ are given. According to you, that's enough too. -- infinity0 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. RJII 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Then you need to, too. You're being hypocritical. -- infinity0 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I'm providing published sources. RJII 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a primary source, according to Wikipedia's own standards. As for as RJII goes, when the FAQ is published will he be happy to see it used as a source? It *is* going to be published (as indicated above). What more evidence does RJII need? BlackFlag 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course it's a primary source. What that means is that it can only be used as a source about itself and only in this article. It can't be used as a source about the works of anarchists in other articles. RJII 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I see you've been editing the medieval Iceland section of the FAQ as a result of the Criticism section in this article. But, the FAQ still says that "The "anarcho"-capitalist argument that Iceland was an example of their ideology working in practice can be found in the work of David Friedman." Why don't you fix that? You could say their argument was "built on the work of Friedman that says that medievial Iceland had some of the characteristics of anarcho-capitalism." I think it would still be untrue though --no anarcho-capitalist that I'm aware of claim it was a working example of anarcho-capitalism. RJII 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop quoting out of context. The section says: "The "anarcho"-capitalist argument that Iceland was an example of their ideology working in practice can be found in the work of David Friedman. Friedman is less gun-ho than many of his followers, arguing in The Machinery of Freedom, that Iceland only had some features of an "anarcho"-capitalist society and these provide some evidence in support of his ideology." Are you saying that "anarcho"-capitalists do not become aware of Iceland via Friedman's work? And, if no "anarcho"-capitalist points to it as "anarcho"-capitalism you better change the Wikipedia entry on "anarcho-capitalism" as it lists it as the first example of "anarcho-capitalism in the real world." If its *not* an example, why mention it? And Caplan's FAQ calls Iceland their "favourite example." BlackFlag 09:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC

[edit] Notability?

I am not familiar with the subject, so I would like to ask editors if this FAQ crosses the threshold of notability to warrant its own article in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read the articles related to notability criteria at Category:Wikipedia notability criteria ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of notability is provided in the "influences" (section 6) of this article. -- infinity0 21:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

RJII, I have made a compromise that the "editors" are social anarchists (in "The editors of the FAQ identify themselves as belonging to the social anarchist branch"). You should be willing to compromise on this issue, that even some ind-anarchists have contributed to the FAQ. -- infinity0 16:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that individualist anarchists have contribued to the FAQ? RJII 16:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You have no evidence that only social anarchists wrote the FAQ. That sentence, "the writers" is most likely left over from an old version. You know that the FAQ is open to contributions. -- infinity0 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism" [33] RJII 16:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That sentence, "the writers" is most likely left over from an old version. You know that the FAQ is open to contributions, RJII. Why are you focusing on one sentence of the FAQ, choosing to intepret it as stone? -- infinity0 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It says it's open to contributions. But, the "small collective" decides what contributions they are going to accept. According to them, "the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." So, as far as we know, no individualist anarchists have "contributed." RJII 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are extrapolating. The intro says "anarchists", not "social anarchists". You can't say anything about all the writers of the FAQ. -- infinity0 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism" [34] RJII 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, RJII, that is the main editors identifying themselves as social anarchists. But by saying "social anarchists" in the intro, you imply that the editors only receive content from social anarchists. -- infinity0 16:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

They say that the writers are social anarchists. You have no evidence to the contrary. RJII 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Eh, individualist anarchists can also be described as social anarchists, except for the "anarcho"-capitalists, specifically rejected within the FAQ as not being part of the anarchist tradition. Donnacha 15:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing in Wikipedia?

I am not sure that the section recently added can be included in the body of the article. It maybelon to thos talk page, but not in the article itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

I don't know. I don't see why not. It's notable information, right? RJII 19:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/_/Talk%7EAn_Anarchist_FAQ_6cdc.html"