Talk:Technocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Technocracy article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

"The word technocracy (or the adjective technocrat) has also been (mis)applied to refer to ideas revolving around technology and so may also refer to:"

I'd like to know why the "(mis)" was put in here, as I do not think that it applies to the Technocratic movement. While it may apply to the other reference there, I think that it is misleading to group them both under something where people could misconstrue the Technocratic Movement as being an improper use of the word. Is there a better way to change this?

--Kolzene 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The changes seemed to be based on the opinion of the editor and gave preference to some articles as being "correct" or "incorrect". I have changed it back giving everything equal weight again. I did leave in the entymology though. - DNewhall 05:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

This disambiguation page was marked for cleanup per MoS:DAB. The following entries were (a) too detailed and (b) not related enough for a disambiguation page but I'm still copying them here in case someone can turn them into something suitable/useful for this dab page (see WP:DAB and MoS:DAB) or for wikt:technocrat or wikt:technocracy.

  • A political attitude common to Thorstein Veblen and H. G. Wells, who considered that the economy would be better off run by technical experts instead of private industry. This is somewhat similar to the ideas of the Technocratic movement, mentioned above. See also planned economy and anticipatory democracy.
  • A term adopted by Neil Postman to describe a society where tools play a central role in culture and everything must give way to the advancement of the tools, yet there are alternatives still present
  • In Francoist Spain, the tecnócratas were a group of politicians associated with the Opus Dei who took the running of the economy of Spain from the autarkic Falangists, incorporating Spain to Western capitalism and producing the Spanish Miracle.
  • A technocrat can be an individual who makes decisions based solely on technical information and not personal or public opinion. This definition is usually applied to political decision makers who use this method to guide their actions.

– sgeureka t•c 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I must object to this, all those things do represent some meaning of the word in different contexts, it is not useful at all to delete many of them wholesale and cut the rest a single (something inaccurate) sentence. It's more complicated then that and needs to be explained. I agree that there is probably too much information here for a disambig page, but it needs to be whittled down more carefully. --Hibernian 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the removed entries and can only say that I disagree. Disambiguation pages (which "Technocracy" has been for over a year) are for resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic (Wikipedia:Disambiguation). None of the removed entries resolved such a conflict, and meanings of a word are better left for wiktionary. The removed entries also did not provide links to a section-in-article where the topic is explained in more detail. Therefore, I removed them per MoS:DAB. If you think they can be fleshed out into their own article, start an article and link to them from this disambiguation page. Have a look at other dab pages and you'll see that "Technocracy" was marked for cleanup for a reason. If you think my clean-up was inappropriate (per MoS:DAB) and you can do a better job, be my guest, as I don't claim to be a Technocracy expert (but I'd say I'm a bit of disambiguation expert by now). I'm going to revert your revert now. – sgeureka t•c 14:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Added a few links to other Technocracy related pages. skip sievert (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Technocrate please do not re add the Anticipatory democracy link here. It does not reflect ideas considered about Technocracy issues. Here is a video of Howard Scott explaining that Gibbs was the intellectual forefather of Technocracy and that it is not democratic http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm The Origins of Technocracy Please watch it. skip sievert (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Again it is requested to the same person above to not add the mentioned link for the same reasons as stated above. skip sievert (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea of this page, Skip, if you haven't already figured it out (which you obviously haven't), is to link to the different meanings of the word "technocracy", it is not about the Technocracy movement, that's what that page is for. Get it? --Hibernian (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove links to other wiki articles that are related and expand this subject. skip sievert (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not supposed to expand the page Skip, it's supposed to contain only one link to each idea. That's the Nature of a Disambiguation page, it's just a navigational aid. --Hibernian (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As a navigation aid it this page should have links to both Tech Inc and the technocracy movement as they are not the same thing (although Tech inc is the main part of the movement). Also the link the Anticipatory democracy page should also be here as they use the term technocracy as well and the point of this page is the different usages of the word, even if we don't agree with their usage. Isenhand (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no connection at all between Technocracy Technate and anticipatory democracy... a site that is probably slated for deletion. There is no Technocracy movement. The Technate design is something that was formatted and presented by Technocracy Incorporated in 1934. NET for which the Technocracy movement page was created is not in any way connected to the original ideas connected with the so called Technocracy movement.skip sievert (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


This page is not about if there is or is not a connection with a Technate, that’s why Anticipatory Democracy should be here. This page is about different meanings for the word technocracy. That’s the point of this page. The word has been used a number of ways. Technocracy is not just what you say it is. Isenhand (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A non political (democratic or other) system.

While this page may be about different meanings of the word... it is not about one editors different meaning of the word. Also it is noted that perhaps an account was just set up for the express purpose of reinforcing a biased view (in my opinion) of this article. This may be a sock puppet account solely used to revert. This is the account (CSUNhistorian (Talk |). skip sievert (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting series of videos originally put out by a member of Technocracy Incorporated that gives an explanation of some of the very basic ideas connected to the Technocracy Technate design for North American. You will notice that it explains that this system is not a democratic system or a political system. It is a science based social design. http://www.youtube.com/TBonePickensetc The first video in this series is suggested for those interested in a further knowledge of this subject. This is information originally distributed by Technocracy Incorporated. skip sievert (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is a disambiguation page

The purpose of this page is to provide Links to different interpretations of the meaning of the article title

and since people do not appear to be able to come to a consensus as to what it should mean then links should be to the different possible meanings.

I would suggest that you stop editing, removing and especially reverting things until can come to a consensus as to what should be here.

and if you can do that get a third party to take a look at it

to that end i have added both movements under groups (movements are groups by definition) and tech inc under organisations as that is how they are described in their own articles

if can get a proper consensus then this page may need marking for cleanup again, to get someone neutral who knows how to write a disambiguation to do it

(Firebladed (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC))


Technocracy Movement is not a group or an organization. It is a concept made up by a European group to try and give credence to some information they wished to promote. It is an ambiguous term at best. As said it is an artificial construct. *skip sievert (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
that statement is at best a personal opinion and not a Neutral point of view, and defiantly not a point of consensus (Firebladed (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC))


As a registered member of a group that formerly created a team to edit and control articles related to Technocracy issues... and I can give the link for that if you wish... it is suggested that you are representing a special interest group here... net.. and that a consensus is not related to a cabal. Defiantly not a point of consensus ? Odd language.

Technocracy movement is really a good article to permanently delete.

You are in a conflict here. http:DISABLE//en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=107 Network of European Technocrats - fireblade skip sievert (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it odd language? other than the possibility of missing out the word "is"
if you want it deleting then follow proper policy and request it, and if you can get a consensus for it to be deleted they you would have a legitimate reason to remove it from this page.


also there doesn't appear to be a consensus between you and Hibernian (talk) or anyone else that i have seen edit the page recently


i'm ignoring your comments as conflicts of interest as they seem to have as little basis as saying that a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is in a conflict of interest when editing articles on Electronics
(Firebladed (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Technocracy Incorporated as a subgroup of Technocracy movement

I'm not going to object to this version

(though have made minor edit to remove extra links as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages))

though i still think that Technocracy Incorporated should be under a separate section of Organizations but thats a minor issue

[edit] Technocracy movement a nonstarter.. there are hundreds of groups that use that word

And while there are.. they are not related to the information in any way as people have tried to link them. Again that amorphous term really means nothing much except a connection to an article that is mostly about TechInc. It can relate to any number of notable or non notable groups or sites.. forums or blogs or what ever. Technocracy movement is an article that could be put up as an article for possible deletion. It is mostly repetitive information from the TechInc article ... and was originally created to promote two blogging/forum sites which no longer exist.

Technocracy Incorporated as a subgroup of Technocracy movement? That goes against every conceivable way of looking at this. These others are spin offs of the original group. Despite what is conjectured in some fiction books. Here is a short history of the movement. It is suggested reading Fireblade. It is not based on fiction. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy. As far as consensus that is a tricky thing when dealing with a cabal of editors that are trying to conform articles to a book written by one of themselves. As a registered member of net there is a direct conflict of interest of trying to conform edits to a leaders instructions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia ... In essence fireblade you are trying to link your group to a movement. It is not connected though. You are a paying member of a commercial blogging site in Europe that was shown to exibit this quality previously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VSCA Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. skip sievert (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


First starting with the definition of a Movement (a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal)

That would make Technocracy Incorporated as a organisation that is part of the Technocracy movement and originated the movement but the movement has since expanded to to include other subgroups and organisations, which group is a spin off from which other is not important, the point is that a movement is a group of individuals and organisations that share a general common goal, though may differ in approach and methods.

whether or not the technocracy movement article is good or not or should be deleted is an issue for that article and not a disambiguation page. As I have said before if you want the article deleted then follow wikipedia policy and put a request for deletion. (Firebladed (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

Again you are a special interest editor for a European movement that is unrelated to the subject here although you are making this point for that contention. A Technocracy movement is not a group where you have located it under the heading.. groups. It may be a part of culture.. but having 3 to 6 active bloggers on a commercial website about half of which is devoted to money making schemes does not make a movement. This POV-pushing nonsense should go. You insert all sorts of nonsense on the basis that any two people who agree with you is consensus and any number who disagree means nothing. They are monomaniacs, disruptive, the article is an embarrassment, and they have showed long-standing determination to make sure it remains that way. skip sievert (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)