To invoke the AnewGoMajorEditAct involves reaching a resolution before making the edit, recognising the the WikiPageLineage authors of the ideas in dispute and reaching a resolution, then recording the Edit in AnewGoCourt.

If a resolution cannot be reached another citizen is nominated as a mediator.

An appeal to the Edit can be recorded in AnewGoCourt, and the earlier page reinstated.

If the page is repeatedly in AnewGoCourt over the same issue it will deemed to be in AnewGoCourt, and the AnewGoMajorEditAct cannot be invoked anymore.

===Discussion:

=

I don't really understand the need for this on pages which are not official business or signed declarations. I think the less structured wiki model of collaborative authorship is great for discussing and creating general documents.

Is this mainly for the purpose of changing pages already signed by people? I propose that we go further than this (but also simpler). How about: no one's signature may be attached to anything other than the exact text which they signed.

In more detail: each signatory must be notified on their AnewGo homepage of a proposed change -- then, when the change is made (which might be immediately), their signatures are removed from the changed page, and the old page (with all signatures) is archived in a new page.

If the document in question is not just a declaration of a bunch of individuals, but is to be a formal Law or Act of AnewGo, I think we need a different, more formal process. See CongressionalProcedure for my ideas.

-- BayleShanks

Their are two problems, as I see it. They are related to each (similar), but of different flavors.

Flavor #1) An AnewGoAct. On an Act, we do not want someone just changing the text of what was just signed.

However, that's why people sign their signatures. You sign that you agree with something, as that AnewGoAct appears, on a certain date. While tricksters can cause some mischief, so long as they do not have access to the source control backend, they will always leave an auditable trail, and in time I believe the matter can be resolved via AnewGoCourt.

Flavor #2) A discussion or opinion piece. (Normal Wiki stuff.) While being able to edit anything anyone else has put up is a strength of Wiki, sometimes that is used against the Wiki community. Such as what someone did to the Islam page. If done subtlely, it might not be detected for a while.

Again, this can be tracked down and corrected, so long as those having done this do not have access to the source control backend.

Combined, I think that eventually, to vote for an AnewGoAct, one is going to have to email in their vote for or against to a specific bot, or sign in with a hard account (with a requirement to have to register via an active process and only allowing one account per email box, etc). If AnewGo grows to the size some hope for, at least. The more people, the more trouble they will cause, after all.

---StarPilot