|WikiProject Anarchism||(Rated Start-class)|
An excellent presentation of our relatively graceless world as it appears today. Grace, all to often, seems to be an individual and not a collective phenomenon.
- could do with headers, though
- One got added recently, near the end. Also a list of mainstream science references.
This is the weirdest shit I have seen on Wikipedia. Headers will not help. Water cycles are not groups. They are not capable of having a hive mind. They are largely non-biological.188.8.131.52 06:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- They are geological, ecological and biological systems can't exist without them. The current version is clearer about the idea of trustee/stewardship of water cycles, that is, a group entity that protects a water cycle, and refers to Capitalism 3.0 as one (already documented in Wikipedia) source where you can learn exactly what's proposed.
- In other words, a hive mind that protects a water cycle is not only entirely possible, it's an extant proposal in a notable work with a notable author with an article already accepted. Perhaps that wasn't so in March 2007, so you can be forgiven for thinking it weird.
This article needs sections, but it's difficult to do that because it's written like an essay instead of an encyclopedic entry. Chevymontecarlo. 04:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Added one; it was the best I could do. Airplaneman ✈ 22:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Improved somewhat today. It seems this line of discourse is now much more visible in the scientific and political literature and perhaps this is no longer just part of some "anarchist" discourse.
- It may for instance be part of green economics or natural capital thinking...?
Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references says clearly that "Neutral self-references are acceptable" though they are now hard to add because linking to Wikipedia itself no longer seems to be available as a shortcut way to make a neutral self-reference without learning noxious notations.
See Talk:Wikipedia itself for why the general rule to avoid namespace cross-redirect isn't applicable in this case, and why we should welcome a few really good explanations of what theories Wikipedia seems to prove or advance.
For now someone can replace the link with that noxious notation no one can remember. If you want people not to do something without thinking, educate them, don't make it harder to do. The people that will learn the notation aren't necessarily the best judges of when to use it - we'd rather have academics adding neutral links in an easy notation and letting syntax lawyers replace it with a harder notation, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addressconcern (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)