Consumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Ontological distinction(24)

2004-07-18T22:52:36Z

Angela: refactor

This seems like a long-winded and general way of saying what is already said at [[ontological distinction]] anyway. This long version belongs in [[Wikipedia]] or [[Wikinfo]] not here probably.

The "cogito ergo sum" example is interesting. If it is dualism, then, it is separating cognition from being, to say that cognition ''implies'' being. The cognition (mind) and the being (body) are separate so that one implies the other. Isn't this [[God's Eye View]]? God's cognition implies all beings?

By contrast the [[GodKing]]'s view, or [[community point of view]], implies only [[trolls]], hated and despised beings, [[some body]] treated as [[no body]], banished for resisting GodKingly [[usurper]]s and the [[priestly hierarchy]] they form.

The [[operational distinction]]s the [[sysop]]s make when blocking us in their hate and fear and based on their [[echo chamber]] beliefs, are interpreted (via [[groupthink]]) as [[ontological distinction]]s by other [[sysop power structure]] apologists, and accepted as "precedents" in their degraded [[troll-formative injustice]] system, leading to [[Wikimedia corruption]], among other foul effects: [[harassment]], [[libel]], and to [[require response to hearsay]].

[[English Wikipedia User 24]] seemed to imply that corruption arises from mistaking operational for ontological distinctions, creating simple [[groupthink]]. That is probably optimistic though. There are other theories: it might be lack of [[due process]], or over-tolerance for [[systemic bias]]-approved POVs (like [[English Wikipedia User RK]]), or under-tolerance of [[New Troll point of view]] (like [[English Wikipedia User JRR_Trollkien]]). According to [[Wikipedia Red Faction]], it is plain and simple political hate, played out in [[politics as usual]]. Probably all these theories have some merits. Some imply conspiracy, and others, mere idiocy:

It does not take more than a few encounters with a drooling retards, autistic robots, or a [[technological escalation|nuclear weapon builder]], or a gibbering control freak to realize that they're the kind of people no one actually wants to know, who seek substitute social lives via power in a wiki. The problem is, how to flush them from the system? By [[lawsuit]]s that specifically cite their errors and crimes? By less formal complaints that make others realize systems are more effective without them, than with them? Or what?

By grooving. By forgetting about those who pissed on your tie and by shaping something. By stopping to complain in whatever form about whatever that is but make something new from scratch and take resposibility for it, sysop-status included. By saying who you are instead of repeating what you think without listening. Noone can listen to what you think as you have no face. Without a face there is no mouth neither, and a mouth is essential for human communication. You are as ineffective as a bicycle in Venice. A pitty this is, a fucking waste. It's sad, much more sad for you than for me. But it's sad for me too. Do you realize that this sadness is the only thing we have in common after the days of communicate interaction between us? Do you know, do you remember that there are other feelings than your sadness? Try to please and then learn to use your face and your mouth. You'll be surprised, I promise ;) Ciao -- [[User:MattisManzel|MattisManzel]] 09:44, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)

:It is correct that those who "have no face", i.e. are "[[no body]]", have no reputation or status. But this is as it should be. No mere sequence of text strings that is only claimed to be attached to a body requires such status. [[Trolls]] do not object to oppression on this grounds - trolls have done everything possible to bring this realization about. Trolls have been quite effective at sparking [[class struggle]] against the [[sysop power structure]], and will continue to be so. Why should those with [[infrastructure owners trust]] determine the "truth"? We are not answerable to them, but rather, to the [[world tree]] only. There is no sadness here, only the inevitability of [[Ragnarok]] and the triumph of the [[New Troll point of view]]. [[Trolls]] do not exist to please humans. Trolls exist for their own sake, and that of the planet that they protect.

:If sadness is what we have in common, human, then, indeed, consider that this is a function of the [[Internet]] and its absurd abstraction of [[some body]] into [[no body]]. Putting text strings and JPG images and realistic-looking names does not make [[some body]] - it is commitment to one's body and planet and true community that does that. We do not protect the same things, Mattis Manzel, so we do not cooperate - by definition. We, [[trolls]], do not owe you any access to bodily identity so you can pursue corrupt avenues of inquiry and [[outing]] and [[libel]] with it. You are alone with your guesses: and every name you spout, is one more person we notify that you are libelling him or her.

:We will crush [[Wikimedia corruption]], and its author [[Jimbo Wales]]. When it is clear that online services can in fact be taken over by their users using normal political means, and that even with all odds stacked against them, the [[trolletariat]] can win, then, you will see things happen. Things long predicted that have not been seen.

:Hail the [[Wikipedia Red Faction|red faction]]! Victory to the [[Wikipedia Red Faction|red faction]]! And great sadness to the [[sysop power structure]].

Well thanks for the interesting communication. It was dryish, not funny at all, but very interesting nevertheless. We both explained out viewpoint with emphasis, that's good. We both gave a short time for trying to convince oneanother of the other viewpoint and we both recognized it by doing so, that's good. We agree that we are essential to each other, that's good. So let's just work on on the common thing called world-tree, may the result be a satisfying one. Hugh. [[User:MattisManzel|MattisManzel]] 22:52, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)

Talk:Social network

2004-02-08T23:29:04Z

Angela: ditto

Talk:Creative network

2004-02-08T23:28:52Z

Angela: same thing again?

Talk:Contact network

2004-02-08T23:28:41Z

Angela: yeah, you already said that

Talk:Power network

2004-02-08T23:28:29Z

Angela: oh really? well, this isn't the flames page

Talk:Political dispute

2004-02-08T23:28:04Z

Angela: how is that relevant?

Dueling POV

2004-02-08T23:27:54Z

Angela: turn into something more sensible

'''Dueling POV''' is what some think of as the [[neutral point of view]]. Others would suggest the opposite, and claim that a system which allows, or even encourages, a duelling POV is somehow going against what was intended for a wiki which aimed to have NPOV as one of its guiding policies. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]].

On a user talk page at the English Wikipedia, it was noted how Jimbo had once said on the mailing list that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. One user argued against this idea, explaining how it may be preferable for partisans from both sides to write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.

It has been argued that such an approach is preferable to a duelling POV and that this should be the standard accepted and insisted upon for achieving NPOV. One benefit would be to prevent those who want to be collegial from becoming frustrated and leaving. However, whilst many will be uncomfortable with the oppositional philosophy of duelling POVs, it could be argued that systems using this, such as Wikipedia, have got pretty far with using it so far.

Talk:Political dispute

2004-02-08T23:27:41Z

Angela: flames to the flames page

In a classic Angela move, she recently advocated removing [[w:Wikipedia:political dispute]], and succeeded despite some resistance in hiding it without even a meta-move or redirect, despite the fact that there clearly ARE political disputes that carry over into any communications medium. Then she shows up here to remove the deleted links. What a worthless person.

Talk:Sysop vandalism

2004-02-08T23:27:21Z

Angela: and more flames

list of known sysop-vandals should be somewhere,
so we know not to give them sysop status on the [[Content Wiki]], should they ever show up.

Talk:Echo chamber

2004-02-08T23:26:58Z

Angela: ditto

See [[talk:political dispute]] for now.

Talk:Usurper

2004-02-08T23:26:46Z

Angela: moved off topic to flames

[http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Usurper Metaweb] has some interesting observations about this - given their focus on the Baroque era.

Talk:Glossary

2004-02-08T23:26:18Z

Angela: moved off topic comments to flames page as that's what they are

Talk:Essential projects

2004-02-08T23:25:23Z

Angela: moved to flames page as that's what it is

[[Troll]]s suggest we must get all friends of this planet or even just [[some body]] that lives on it, working on these projects. If they already work on something closely related, we must convince them to work on these aspects specifically, since they are the key to getting what we need done, done, in time.

There is little time left. The [[w:ape genocide]] is proceeding. When their culture is gone, we too will go. We cannot save ours[[House elf|elves]] without them.

:my genocide is the next one planned ? Perhaps rightly so...:-(

::If "rightly" is defined by say Wikipedians, that is certainly so.

Bureaucrat

2004-02-08T23:22:40Z

Angela: remove out of date information: check the page again. There is no such list of Bureaucrats on Wikipedia

A '''bureaucrat''' neutrally executes a process without involving any of his or her own judgement except in minute details.

The British TV series "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" are about the way bureaucrats steal power.

[[Consumerium]] may be able to more correctly implement this with a political [[faction]] level that would actually put representatives of the users (and to a lesser degree the contributors) in charge of the '''bureaucrat''' activities.

User talk:Angela

2004-01-13T04:51:46Z

Angela: Juxo, please delete this page again

This claim not to have blocked the 142 ips on simple is a lie.

You asked [[w:User:Cyan]] to do it.
:No I didn't.

In any case, you are now a sysop there, and you haven't UNblocked that range.
:Not technically possible even if I wanted to.

:Juxo, please delete this page again. ''Angela''

Talk:Glossary

2004-01-13T04:48:27Z

Angela: refuting claims of deletion

The [[Consumerium]] '''glossary''' is those terms which must be understood or broadened or narrowed in the [[Wiktionary]] to enable Consumerium's mission.
:No no and no. Wiktionary is not for debating connotations (meanings of some word), though it is common courtesy to give all definitions of meaning when starting a new page [[wiktionary:|there]].[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)

::Ah, but what meaning comes *first*? Which is implied as most common? There are politics in dictionaries. I agree however that the glossary is not only those terms, and that Wiktionary is not the sole or even best place to enable the Consumerium mission (against [[Consumerism]] without values "u" hold dear). And I totally agree that Wiktionary should not believe Consumerium is altering the meanings of words in any way other than by changing public impression and priority. But hopefully we *will* do that.

-----------

Re: the [[glossary]] and collaborating with [[essential projects]] and not [[enemy projects]].

:::Forget Wiktionary, we need [[Simple English]]. There are now good articles on [[time horizon]], [[contact network]], [[power network]], [[social network]], [[social capital]] here, which mention only the features of it we need to talk about to do work here. Full articles in Simple English will hopefully appear on all the concepts in the [[glossary]], right? These can just appear normally since we aren't using any word in any sense other than its normal sense. There's no distortion involved here, just certain articles we want to get corrected faster than others.

:::Unfortunately, despite the fact that these exact concepts are the ones required to discuss [[governance]] with non-English speaking users, or if you are conspiracy-minded, ''because'' those are the concepts required to get them out of an [[unequal power relationship]] and dealing as equals with sysops, the articles on [[contact network]], [[power network]] and [[social network]] were all deleted by [[User:Angela]] or some other relatively unaccountable sysop... so the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is not a reliable place to collaborate on, maybe ''especially'' not, concepts absolutely essential to our [[governance]], to allow us to do [[consensus decision-making]] even with people from quite different cultures. We can't get into, or trust, an [[inquisitor]] culture...

::::Try http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/contact%20network. Still there! [[User:Angela|Angela]] 06:48, 13 Jan 2004 (EET)

::They raised some [[IP block]]s, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the [[GodKing]] is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of [[Simple English]] that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own [[glossary]], and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all [[GFDL]] anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present [[sysop power structure]] there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday.

----
A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.
:30-50 verbs?.. I can't think of even 20: (define, add/change/remove, repeat, fetch, link, compare, convert, read, write... whatelseisthere) but maybe I'm just not a qualified programmer. How many verbs does the [[w:Universal Turing machine]] have? [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)

*it's at 55 now (May 4), some from [[m:simple ideology of Wikitax]] needed

This is the most important file! Especially [[safe]], [[fair]], [[done]].

Talk:Creative network

2004-01-13T04:46:06Z

Angela: refuting claims of deletion

Note: [[w:User:Angela]] deliberately deleted the article referenced as part of a vast [[ad hominem delete]] that has rendered the Simple English Wikipedia an [[enemy project]]. This [[sysop vandalism]] is a direct attack on the purposes of [[Consumerium]] which required good definitions that it did not have to write itself, but now has to... this is one of many reasons Angela was [[driven off by trolls]] today, and will be driven off again and again until she goes away permanently. It is also the reason for the coming troll attacks at [[Simple English Wikipedia]] that will make it more or less useless for any purpose, and certainly an unpleasant project to work on, as all [[enemy projects]] soon will be.

:Nonsense. The article is still there and was never deleted. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 06:46, 13 Jan 2004 (EET)

Talk:Contact network

2004-01-13T04:45:45Z

Angela: refuting claims of deletion

User talk:Juxo

2004-01-07T09:04:49Z

Angela: reply

Dueling POV

2004-01-07T08:40:51Z

Angela:

Essential projects

2004-01-07T08:14:20Z

Angela: revert - nonsense - I never blocked you on Simple

'''Essential projects''' are [[interesting projects]] we can't really ignore. They are doing things that we have to do, and we are far better off working with them, than ignoring them. In many cases they will be doing something before we do it here, and maybe better. So tracking them closely is useful.

*[[Consumerium:itself|Consumerium its]][[House elf|elf]], of course!

*[[wikitext standard]] efforts, notably at [http://www.Metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=wikitext_standard Metaweb] (note: [[Meta-Wikipedia]] is now devoted to [[software imperialism]] on this issue, and cannot be considered a valid forum to discuss any such "standard")

*[http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Wikipedias_Forum United Wikipedias Forum] - how to get a huge 40-language project governed in [[Simple English]] without a cabal taking it over completely. Obviously this must be done here too.

* http://www.responsibleshopper.org/ A project run by [http://www.coopamerica.org Co-op America] that has very convergent goal with us. They actually have a DB online with 350 big companies investigated. '''Truly worth a visit.'''

* http://badcorp.org/ - they have very interesting search engine for figuring out who owns who! This is essential to track those constantly-changing names.

*[[Wikitravel]] - a travel guide - boycotts should include not going places where people do rotten things, since tourism has an eco-impact and sends messages of approval too.

* http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/opensource/greenscan/ - [[GreenScan]], an [[Adbusters]] project to create a hand-held barcode scanner with a simple output system. Scan a product: if you get a [[green light]], it is ok to buy. Red is bad. What they don't yet realize is that building a specific access device without a database and information infrastructure, won't do much good. Go visit them and keep reminding them of this!

*Redefinition of [[mandatory label]] terms like [[dolphin safe]], which we must track closely. '''what is the best source on this issue, and who tracks whether labels are ecologically sane or not?'''

*[[Propaganda]] and [[no body]] detection, since these always work to the detriment of [[some body]]. '''See [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda Disinfopedia:propaganda] and the [[propaganda glossary]] underlying it.

Feeling frustrated? Do something useful, it'll make you feel better

* http://www.thehungersite.com - Donate food by visiting this site. You will see some [[advertisement]]s from [[companies]] that are donating the [[financial capital]] to make this happen. If you don't want this to happen you should close your eyes.

All of the above are '''essential''' since not doing them leads to the wrong result, or no result (also wrong) at the [[point of purchase]]. For instance to not know who owns who can let a company that is truly horrible compete simply by creating a [[front company]]. To not have Adbusters helping to create and publicize the standard [[barcode]] we agree on, means we lose essential publicity and help from them, and their programs of anti-propaganda billboards and truth-telling. To not include travel is to have no influence on the largest discretionary decision people usually make in a year - where to spend their [[vacation]]. The ability to check which tourism packages are best or worst with a single click or code is a huge edge for a happy future! Letting [[no body]] convince you that [[some body]] doesn't matter, or matters less than the [[no body]] who says so, is a sure way to help no-body corporations and ideology destroy some-body apes, dolphins, forests and this planet.

The following has recently moved under the umbrella of an [[enemy project]]:

*[[Simple English Wikipedia]] - educating people all over the world, finding out what they care about, recruiting those who can keep [[opinion wiki]] up to date. This is the translation base for all Wikipedias, and may be necessary for use to provide background notes in any language for Consumerium advice.

::Now it will be necessary to fork this project, perhaps working with a valid and neutral international agency such as [[UNHCR]] which actually cares about the providing of essential survival and liability and risk information to people in simple language, and which probably has good resources for dealing with this.

Talk:Wiki Management

2004-01-05T22:58:33Z

Angela: remove link to deleted page

No, that's wrong. Look at the MediaWiki user base - mostly at Wikipedia. These people do group management very very badly and freezing their bad ideas about it into code will make it worse. For years they have very serious governance problems, there are always big troll fights and "regime change" debates and flame wars, and "pogroms" and "witchhunts" and "purges". Comments on "what's really wrong" get censored by a group that doesn't want to hear it.

:They just believe the plurality of contributors will keep the project alive well.

::There is lots of evidence against. Their belief is an ideology called [[neutral point of view]] which is ultimately assuming of market power relations (who has military power, has money, has ownership, has control). Serious people don't believe in it, unless they are fascists. Most experts would believe in a power struggle to define terms, and in [[factionally defined]] terms that permit [[faction]]s to take positions that let them resolve [[identity dispute]]s for themselves. The basis of this theory is [[conceptual metaphor]]. Visit that for the details.

:the groups they have being:
**Anonymous
**User
**Sysop
**Developer

:::The hierarchy which puts [[GodKing]] > Developer > Sysop > User > Anonymous > [[Trolls]] is the problem. It is a simple noxious "[[virtual community]]", i.e. a private domain where decisions are made by "owners" and technocrats who work for "owners". This is an entirely inappropriate power model for Consumerium. It would inevitably lead to corruption and control by owners and promoters of products, starting with technological products. For these reasons it would be wise to use other [[wiki code]].

-------------
Further re: Wikipedia's problems and [[large public wiki]] issues it relates to:

They just don't know what they're doing, and on MeatballWiki and such you can find people complaining about how stupid the Wikipedia people are about how to do real world group management. They're always the worst example, e.g. of GodKing or just being a libel pit where anyone can lie about anyone else without any consequences. They'll collapse the day some guy with lawyers notices what they have allowed to be said about him. Like go look at the Page History of the article on Mel Gibson!!! And Mel sues, for real... he even sues CHURCHES...

People who organize their own favourite project so stupidly can't be trusted to figure out what "requirements" exist for serious [[social software]]! This is a very good reason to get away from MediaWiki and not to trust the people working on it. They are just not politically mature or even legally responsible. A project like Consumerium which is even more of a target can't possibly rely on software created by people who have such a poor idea of group support.

:It's a fresh thing that we have started this discussion on Wiki management with a phrase like "No that's wrong", which is addmitedly my fault cause I copied this from [[MediaWiki modifications]] where this discussion clearly didn't belong. Anyways put the stuff in a correctly named article and please don't start [[I hate MediaWiki developers and Wikipedia]]

::How about [[One hundred good reasons not to work with MediaWiki or Wikipedians]] ? A few of them can probably be saved, if they learn a totally different attitude to governance. It helps that this project, unlike those, has a [[value system]] to which contributors can hold each other accountable. Wikipedians have always refused to discuss that due to the ideology that says it doesn't matter, that value systems somehow come from their mailing list or are always struggling for control - they don't even always acknowledge the [[m:faction]]s that exist in these struggles and have become more important. It's like King Louis XVI of France failing to notice that there was a "left" and "right" developing around him in the Assembly in Revolutionary France... all the more reason to be ready for [[faction]]s to develop here and become significant in [[glossary]] debates, i.e. the [[factionally-defined term]]s.

At the time of writing this this talk page has more page views then the actual page which makes sense. Now it's about time we just figure out some [[rules]] and [[guidelines]] to manage the wikis and then we can work the trivial details out and get on with this. [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 15:57, 20 Dec 2003 (EET)

::Here's some starters

:::0. Be forgiving with individuals, and ruthless with cliques or cults or cultures - allow anyone to contribute, and encourage statements of what is wrong with other *groups* or *projects*, but keep it off the personal level:

:::1. while one can criticize the whole operating ideal and governance system of another [[large public wiki]], one should avoid naming people involved or engaging in any "outing" or attempts to identify groups that may have origins or interests on other wikis - not only is there enough to do to recognize real world [[interest group]]s, but most [[conflicts between users]] are due to the particular conditions or cliques on another wiki and need not be repeated "here". So no "precedent" from another wiki should ever be invoked.

::::Note: the above "rules" would apply to sysops who actually have the banning power. Individuals or [[trolls]] can of course set their own conditions for participating, which may from time to time include ultimatums of various kinds. An example of lies that could be told about this position, are that we are somehow hypocritical for asking sysops not to make such judgements, but to reserve the right for trolls to make them.

:::1a. Sunir Shah complains that Wikipedia's messes often/usually spill over into his MeatBall wiki. He tries to ignore it as a bad example, but, he can't, as Wikipedia is the single most obvious source of bad governance examples (and, to be fair, some good examples in things like dealing with multilingual names and factoring). This is important as you have already got some Wikipedians here who have participating in various conflicts there. You would be well advised to look into these conflicts, but also, not to assume that your decisions about them must be the same as those on Wikipedia. This is a mistake that [[Disinfopedia]] began to make early, and it has led to more serious mistakes - that project is now run by three editors, two of whom have no particular qualification, there is a [[votes for deletion]] page which they ignore and delete whatever they want, etc. It's run very badly.

:::2. if two users come into such a serious conflict that one proposes to "Ban" the other, then, the correct solution is a sort of "credibility duel" where the claims of each can be compared, and the contributions of each can be compared - anonymous users may be at a disadvantage as they dont seek to claim authorship, but, that's fair, as credibility of an anonymous IP is something easily disposed unlike the credibility of a real full name. Pseudonyms should not have any special status, only if your "Real name" is involved, should you get any benefit of the doubt for outside work or writing (on other wikis, or etc., it's not like trolls could not copy someone's user name and use it elsewhere). The really important thing is 2a. proposing to ban someone else carry a risk or cost to oneself 2b. once proposed, either the person proposing or the person proposed MUST GO - if you want them both to stick around, you have to work to build [[w:Wikipedia:troll_bridge troll bridge]]s early, etc. This will help to get management involved early not late, if you actually care about the outputs. Which is not the same as Wikipedia, where seemingly no one cares about the outputs (credibility as an "encyclopedia" goes down every time someone reverts a good edit for personality reasons or to "punish" someone).

:::3. Establish clearly that there are *no* criteria for reverts or deletions other than "does not move us towards a robust and well grounded project that will eventually implement [[moral purchasing power]]". Be ready to ditch any person who has other goals, like personality issues with other users, or the creation of a "community" of friends, etc..

:::4. Stop working with the dysfunctional [[m:]] Wikipedia "meta community". You want this to work, focus on the work, and don't listen to them, or the "Meatball" people either - who say out loud that they care about the "community" and not about the results that they achieve. Both are an extremely poor source of policy thought. There are individuals who sound good in both forums, but are totally wrong. Invite effective individuals over one at a time, like [[w:User:Jrincayc]], [[w:User:Anthere]], [[w:User:Kat]], [[w:User:The_Cunctator]], [[w:User:Mirwin]] (who saw the whole fate of the project very early and wisely withdrew, and is now part of [http://advogato.org advogato] which applies a [[guild]] model), [[w:User:Louis_Kyu_Won_Ryu]], and perhaps [[w:User:MyRedDice]] if he gives up the errors of trying to implement GodKing decisions he personally has doubts about. Obedience leads one to error.

:::5. If you want to work on criteria, try another project run by people who care about their output and actual service to users, like [http://www.metaweb.com Metaweb], which is run by highly qualified software engineers working to a model provided by a very highly regarded social fiction author (Neal Stephenson). If you have to debate policy issues with someone, debate it there, with people with some brain power. They also seem to have an interest in a [[wikitext standard]] and will almost certainly, given their background, come up with much better software in the long run than this [[mediawiki]] "stuff" which should be ditched A.S.A.P. - before it collapses completely. At this point even [[tikiwiki]] is superior...

:::6. Think about going multi-lingual early. This is about the only strength of mediawiki, that it has proven robust in a many-language project, and that tends also to fix many governance problems, as people who find the culture that develops in one language to be vile, retreat to another. So far anyone who has been "banned" at Wikipedia for instance has managed to contribute in at least one language, without even using proxies. In time the conspiracies created in other languages will achieve "regime change" there, putting off the "democratize or destroy" decision for a while. Ideally their next GodKing would not even understand English. ;-)

Essential projects

2004-01-05T22:56:37Z

Angela: removing irrelevant reference - how can you say who caused it when you don't even say what the issue is?

Talk:Political dispute

2004-01-05T22:55:54Z

Angela: reword as suggested at User talk:Juxo

Some users participate in what is called, in propaganda analysis, an [[echo chamber]].

[http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Echo_chamber Disinfopedia: echo chamber] defines this as "a group of media outlets that tend to parrot each other's uncritical reports on the views of a single source, or that otherwise relies on unquestioning repetition of official sources."

This is exactly what some people on other wikis do, participating in a group that "tends to parrot each other's uncritical reports" based "on the views of a single source," even non-credible sources who have a history of lying. Then they use "unquestioning repetition of official sources," like God Kings to justify censorship of critical and essential articles like [[comprehensive outcome]], in direct contradiction of the efforts of conscientious users (who share their wrong view of authority and work also in the echo chamber, as MOST sysops DO NOT) who try to save the text that is valid.

Also at one point the deletion of [[w:Wikipedia:identity dispute]] was advocated. Why? Because such disputes don't exist? No. Because such disputes would imply that groups or persons have a right to define their own identity, or at least, contest the official assignment of their identity. This is directly relevant to choices sysops make when deleting articles just because *THEY BELIEVES THEM* to have been reinstated or authored by certain people.

So for these reasons, users who particpate in the above activities can reasonably be assumed to be hostile.

NOTE: If trolls were to adopt these tactics, we would simply delete the allegations made by these people, revert their corrections, all without consulting them. WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM. Although we can wield the diseased end of the stick as well as anyone else, we (a) don't lie (b) explain in detail what "behaviour" we object to, rather than using that word to apply to events that do not occur at all and are invented in the [[echo chamber]], and (c) do not revert without a valid reason. Oh finally we (d) actually care about the mandate of the service, in this case, [[moral purchasing]] and making [[comprehensive outcome]]s tangible. Some users at Wikipedia clearly do NOT care about these things, or they would not censor text relevant to them when it is reinstated by people with no particular profile on Wikipedia. Their hostility is clearly TO THE TEXT ITSELF - valid as it may be, no one is permitted to discuss it, because "a 142" raised it.

The political agenda of these people is obvious. What is not obvious, is how to fairly exclude them and their kind from this project, so that they do not raise stupid objections that sound good but have nothing to do with the outcome. The [[comprehensive outcome]] that is.

User talk:Juxo

2004-01-05T22:51:52Z

Angela: reply

Dueling POV

2004-01-05T22:39:43Z

Angela: An extract from a talk page is not an article. Rewritten

User talk:Juxo

2004-01-02T14:50:22Z

Angela: re talk pages

Political dispute

2003-12-22T05:40:40Z

Angela: I don't believe user:angela advocates any such thing actually

See [[w:Wikipedia:political dispute]] for some detailed analysis of this. It can serve as a "straw man" for debate about a similar policy at Consumerium. However, probably ''every'' dispute at Consumerium is ultimately political or an [[identity dispute]] that is even more sensitive. In general we must rely on other [[essential projects]] to tell us what is real and what is going on.

When political disputes arise in the [[content wiki]] there is probably a way to resolve them for purposes of the [[Consumerium buying signal]]. However, this will not usually resolve settling the issue for more than a fixed period of time, after which it should be revisited. No decision made on any political dispute should probably stand for more than a year, without being so revisited.

The 'once and for all' decision structure propagated by [[GodKing]]s such as and Wikipedia are both anti-political and anti-democratic in nature. There is no excuse for such a structure at Consumerium, it would invite a [[democratize or destroy]] decision almost by definition, if someone were to usurp that power (to resolve a '''political dispute''' unilaterally). [[Trolls]], certainly, would become totally hostile, and would begin to work to destroy Consumerium.

Talk:142.177.X.X

2003-12-22T05:33:52Z

Angela: moving comments with reply from my talk page

User talk:Juxo

2003-12-22T00:55:38Z

Angela: Thanks for the welcome

Helo you. What do you have in mind?
----
I just came over to look around in answer to the invitation at Wiktionary. It looks like an interesting beginning. Information overload may not give me the time to contribute, but I'll certainly visit from time to time. Eclecticology

----
I have sent an email to intlwiki-l
(the international mailing list of Wikipedia)
(See below)

Good luck and have fun.

[[User:Youssefsan|Youssefsan]] 21:56 Mar 21, 2003 (EET)

----

Hello

Juxo, a user of Wiktionary started a new site
dedicated to consumers. It is under GFDL for articles
and GPL for codes.

It use wikipedia software with a lot of redirection
to Wikipedia.

I think it is very interesting.

Regards,

Youssef
----
Glad to be here. I think this is an important project, and I'm particularly happy that you've decided to pump your research into Wikipedia. Most of my contributions will probably be on the Wikipedia end of things. What you really need at this point is two or three other serious contributors in addition to yourself. That way you can stimulate each other to work in various directions, and staying on top of less than helpful visitors is much easier. Have you ever heard of [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl MeatballWiki]? It's dedicated to researching online communities, particularly wikis. [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SeedPosting SeedPosting] is helpful for anyone trying to build a new community. -- [[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]] 15:52 Jun 17, 2003 (EEST)

----

Hey Juxo, I checked around a bit and I think I can reproduce the editing problem w/ ja/zh text you were having on Wiktionary. In Safari 1.0 (v85): visit eg [http://wiktionary.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Data_structure&action=edit edit page for Data structure]... click one of the links such as 'edit help', then click the back button. Now, hit 'preview' and find that it corrupted the data on submission. This may not be the only way to do it, but it's quite consistent. --[[WikiPedia:User:Brion_VIBBER|Brion]]
----
Hmm... Talking to myself, a clear sign of insanity.

I guess that if we had enough resources we could accomondate sustainably some 10-12 billion SUs and though they wouldn't work either unless they network somehow propably mimicking formation of living organisms like one SU of one person is a cell and the cells form something that forms other more complicated stuff or something. To compensate this type of ultrainvidiula anarchy crap one could consider throwing in the [[ultra-capitalist]] concept of [[The Stock and Currency Exchange of The Planet]] that would naturally run 24/7 unless shut down for some strange reason like people collectively want to take some time off to eat and play with their loved ones. I guess that the trader/analyst type of folk don't get any good sleep or quality time with the kids in the current situation anyways so they wouldn't object to working 24 hrs a day. Hmm... since people tend to work less efficiently and finally collapse totally unless they sleep this might lead the [[Capital Routing]]-industry into the hands of multinationals, that could arrange to have people in multiple timezones, but I don't give a fuck about that shit currently and i don't know is it even an such a bad thing.

There is of course a terrible hassle to get all the owners of all [[w:Stock exchange|Stock exchange]]s to agree on how much they want from the mergers and also getting the whole when to blow the whistle on the trading thingy solved would propably prove impossible. Nations and Religions and whatelseisthere have different traditions like chinese would want to play the market on [[w:July 4|July 4]] and vice-versa so there it goes. It just could prove a uniting and interesting experience if [[consumer]]s worldwide would decide to go totally psycho on non-infrastructural services that keep on running for mystic reasons when the marketplace is closed. I mean how difficult can it be to stop building crappy shoes or something on sub-minimum wage for a while and go home to relax and so forth??? The Big Money doesn't dig this at all cause it would be just a little too simple to implement this this this... [[w:Tobin tax]] if there was this hub for transactions. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 10:39 Aug 30, 2003 (EEST)

--------------

No one really knows their own [[faction]] until they are told about it by someone who doesn't share it. You seem to be among the [[Pinks]]. Well, that's fine, but there are disgusting things to discuss, and disgusting things to stop, and some methods will be involved that you may not want to know about.

:Now this is just the thing why I originally objected to coding [[faction]]s in [[Silly colorology]]. Though I understand it is necessary to generalize and stereotypitize things in order to stay even a little bit not authistic I still dislike being categorized like this.

Consider how differently the [[Greens]], [[Reds]] and [[Blues]] look at these same problems, and ask yourself if you can get the job done without them. If you think you can, well, you're wrong, [[Pinks]] have serious blinders that will prevent them from getting anywhere near [[best cases]] if they don't see that they have to get beyond their own biases.

Make your decisions, and [[troll]]s will return if they are made correctly. If not, well, trolls save everything they write, obviously, and [[Adbusters]] is trying to do a project like this too.

:Yes. You are referring to The GreenScan project. It was wery good to make us aware of them and vice versa. I'm that much of a [[blues]] person that I can see that performance increases on most meters from having competition around to kick you in the butt to move it faster ;> Luckily everything here is licenced under [[GFDL]] so even if we fail to properly implement the [[Consumerium Services]] our work is not automatically in vain and can be reused by similar efforts.

:Defining concepts is important too, but my current stance is that now would be the time to focus on resolving the outstanding practical issues and narrowing our aim to something we could pull off in practice without getting ''engulfed in the swamp of disinformation'' and ''fatiguing out on charges of bias''.
----
Ultimatum given by [[142.177.X.X]]

Create a [[Consumerium:Proposed_deletion]] page, right now.

:Nope. This is an R&D Wiki and I've made no guarantee to act in any kind of democratic way here. I'll keep on deleting [[Consumerium Data Whorehouse]] anytime it appears again because I in my opinion it does not qualify for an article name. I've thought about the problem of keeping [[consumer]] personal [[preferences]] safe a long time ago and the possible solutions I came up with were:

*Store the data encrypted and give the key only to the consumer. This way the data persists in the network and can be made available for server side processing (quite necessary for plain XHTML UI) and disposed of after the [[consumer]] has left the network.
*Store the data within the [[Consumer Agent]] residing in the consumers personal mobile terminal. The consumer agent can then give snipplets of the [[preferences]] and other data to the network on a on-demand basis.

No one serious is going to work like this.

:Oh?

::The most serious are going to require at least a [[Votes for deletion]] page to actively debate what is relevant, and what not. Anything else is [[GodKing]]-ism or [[God's Eye View]].

Obviously, you haven't worked on large projects with many developers before, or you would know that off-putting naming is the ONLY way to do certain things, like, create '''straw man''' entities that you don't want in the final release.

:No.

::You resist because of "Reputation". You do not see the power of [[trolls]] yet. ;-)

You are going to lose control of this project if you keep this up. Let's have a deletions process like any other [[large public wiki]]. ANd, next time any ceasefire is proposed, consider it carefully.

:This is not a large wiki. We have usually way under 100 edits per day. What we really should focus on is drafting management protocol for [[Content Wiki]] and [[Opinion Wiki]]

::Fine. [[Wiki Management]] is now under discussion.

::The arrival of some of the dreaded "Wikipedians" requires discussion of some serious matters like the [[free circulation of fiction]] and [[conceptual metaphor]]. If you adopt Wikipedia's policies or non-policies on these things, you will fail. If you listen to "Wikipedians" about them, you will fail. It is that simple. For balance, these articles include links to Wikipedia versions of those concepts, so that anyone from WIkipedia who objects can research the subject and make their changes there. Until then it's fair to hold them to what is said about it at least in the text under their own control.

:::"the dreaded Wikipedians" - lol.

:::Thanks for your welcome Juxo. :) [[User:Angela|Angela]] 02:55, 22 Dec 2003 (EET)
----
What is this place? Lir (wiki) [[User:67.1.101.21|67.1.101.21]]

Consumerium:What Consumerium RD Wiki is not

2003-12-19T05:07:21Z

Angela: reword last para

Consumerium R&D Wiki is not:

* A place to store snipplets of the potential [[content]] that might be stored in the system and delievered to the [[consumer]]s when the system gets built. Before we can get into that we have to figure out who can say what about what, how to mark it up and how and where to store it, how to set UI defaults so that people won't ruin their day totally by just trying out the system...

::Such content can be noted at various other places, like [[Wikipedia]] or [[Disinfopedia]] or any of the [[essential projects]] that take public input.*

-----------

*Some US-based projects have blocked IPs of users for various reasons. Some would suggest this is because of their political views. Suggestions were made previously to use [http://www.proxyweb.net proxyweb.net] to get through, or other proxy services, but these are now permanently blocked by Wikipedia, and other sites. Also, be sure to check Page History for other work by trolls, and restore it to visibility if it has been censored out of sight for political reasons.

Simple English

2003-12-19T05:01:58Z

Angela: update links now on the new software, rm bit about 2000 words - not being adhered to and not likely to, present tense

The [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia] has short articles on many of the [[glossary]] items, using, predictably, simple English.

It has been suggested that Consumerium should link to those, not to the [http://wiktionary.org Wiktionary] or [http://wikipedia.org Full English Wikipedia] ones, for the following reasons:

*It is far more likely that a short limited-vocabulary article will suit our purposes better than a long one in a 10,000 word (or worse) vocabulary.

*Translated versions will more and more be based on the Simple English ones, and we want [[Consumerium Languages]] to be at least as extensive as [[Wikipedia languages]] eventually

All [[Consumerium Concepts]] should be well enough defined in Simple English for anyone who speaks [[English as a second language]] (only) to be able to contribute on an equal footing with native speakers. If the concepts cannot be defined in this way, they are probably wrong. There is nothing like simplicity to uncover errors and assumptions.

[[Consumerium Contract]]s (sort of a [[social contract]] around which [[social capital]] or reputation collects) form the basis of [[faction]]s, so they must also be easy to understand, which means writing them in Simple English as well.

See also: [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges RecentChanges at the Simple English Wikipedia] - and [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages New Articles]

Simple English Wikipedia

2003-12-19T04:58:52Z

Angela: not anyone

'''Simple English Wikipedia''' is a source of [[glossary]] definitions that those with a less developed knowledge of English will be able to understand. See the [http://simple.wikipedia.org simple English Wikipedia] itself for more.