This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Direct democracy article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
It is poorly written. For instance, the author waves general nouns such as, say, Anarchists, as if everyone knows what they mean exactly, and even more malicious, as if all anarchists believe one and the same thing uniformly, as if they were all robots. To make things even worse,the author then lists several of those general nouns, all of them extremely left oriented, or even with terrorist tendencies, that support direct democracy. As if only radicals support direct democracy. It's pure propaganda, the author of those passages does not bother to explain anything in any detail, nor to provide a counterexample: they just keep pushing in their own malicious direction. Also, the use of general nouns is hurtful, since it's political new-talk and does not provide any information at all, because general nouns do not refer to anything specific and real. That's why they're general. Such as, again, say, anarchists. If the author mentions anarchism as a philosophical concept with very well known literary representatives, why don't they say so then? Even then putting everything into a subject of few select anarchist books is extremely malicious. Improve it? Yes, delete those general propaganda, there's no other way to improve it. -- — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
141.136.196.250 (
talk)
11:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Svody. Peer reviewers:
Octopus's garden.
Hello. I find it difficult to understand the presence of the "Rojava" section in this article, because I do not see the link with the general theme of direct democracy.
Kimdome (
talk)
11:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Sortition?
"Fishkin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small, but still representative, number of people from the general public.[9][37]"