Consumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:142.177.105.241

2005-03-25T04:27:15Z

Anthere:

Neil Harris wrote:

Christopher Mahan wrote:

--- Neil Harris <usenet-aflbMylNHbUjX+cr6OkN1Vpr/1R2p/CL@public.gmane.org> wrote:

I agree: there can be many partners, and there's no reason not to
be partners with many people and organizations. But with the Wikipedia
brand becoming more and more valuable, and official trademark recognition in the offing, there needs to be an official process
for registration of Wikipedia/Wikimedia partners. In particular, I
believe that the Foundation will have a legal requirement to defend its trademarks Real Soon Now, and not doing so risks losing the rights over that trademark and becoming a [[genericized trademark]].

Any value the wikipedia brand has comes from the content of the
wikipedia. The content itself does not "belong" to the Wikimedia
Foundation. The brand, well, I could not care less. Be careful that
you recognize value where it really is.

The content belongs to its original copyright owners, and increasingly, the Wikimedia Foundation is their official copyright agent. The community is deeply tied up with the Wikipedia name and reputation; if there's no community, there will be no encyclopedia. The name (and logo) are a banner for everyone to unite around.

Trust me, the brand is worth a great deal, in both moral and monetary terms: people want to contribute to "the" Wikipedia, not a fork, for example, and donors want to fund the "real" Wikipedia project, not one of the hundreds of knockoffs. The brand symbolically holds the community and initiative together, and symbols have great power. Even the strongest Free Software advocates like Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds jealously protect the GNU and Linux brands; and for good reason.

If things were to fall apart, the community _could_ realign around a different organization, with a different name: consider x.org vs. xfree86 -- however, that would be an option of last resort, after some assumed failure of the current Wikimedia initiative, which is what the Foundation exists to prevent. Hence the important of good branding and trademark policies.

The Foundation urgently needs an official policy before anything damaging occurs to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia brand. An official
partner list page would be a good idea: so the Foundation can say "if
you're not on this page, you're not an official partner, and here's how to
apply to be a Wikimedia partner, dear Bill/Melinda [delete as applicable]"

Do we? Is it so important that we "recognize" our "partners"?

Yes it is. Partnership implies two-way consent. On the other hand, the GFDL makes all the content available to anyone, without any need for recognition or permission save that explicitly given in the GFDL. And letting self-designated "partners" use the trademarks without explicit permission leads down the slippery path to genericization, which has the potential to severely damage the project.

I say the opposite is true. We should have a policy that says: "It
does not matter how much money, content, or goodwill you send our
way, we are not putting your logo or anything else in the wikipedia.
Our NPOV policy would prohibit that, now that I think about it.

It would be kind of like saying "This unbiased beverage report
brought to you by our Partner: Pepsi"

Chris Mahan

I agree with you on this. Partner recognition should be kept well clear of the content. Which is why I recommend having partnership info on the Wikimedia Foundation site, not in the project content.

There are some very important points here in the matter of intellectual property law. I have long believed that in terms of copyrights the big argument will not come over the inclusion of copyvio material in some Wikipedia article, but over the willingness of Wikimedia to defend the collective rights of its multitude of licensors. The collective has a history of removing copyvio material when it is found, often to an extent that far exceeds what may be required by law. We only need to be aware of the copyvio material before we act.

So far, I believe that those who have used the Wikipedia material have been reasonably willing to be compliant when advised of the GFDL. What happens if someone bluntly and stubbornly refuses? What tools do we have that we are willing to use to enforce compliance? Who has the personal responsibility to take the necessary legal steps? Prosecuting cases can be more difficult than defending them. The fact that our collective rights are primarily not fiscal ones makes protecting them more difficult in a judicial system that reduces all disputes to dollar values as the lowest common denominator. A lawyer working on contingency fees knows how to calculate 30% of nothing.

I remember well the first "24" who was chased away when I arrived three years ago. (He should not be confused with the more recent and now more familiar one who really was a PIA.) Anyways, the first 24 was concerned with a set of ideas in economic theory based on different kinds of capital. He considered such things as social capital, educational capital and environmental capital, all of which should appear on some kind of balance sheet. IIRC he was mostly criticized for presenting original research, but some of which I had heard already heard about in other sources. The point in raising this is that we need to look at capital in other than monetary terms, because that may be the one common idea that underpins all movements for the free distribution of knowledge.
In the matter of partnerships being big has certain advantages; it allows us to be in the driver's seat. We can, for example, charge a fee for the right to call oneself a Wikipedia partner while doing very little else in return. A single page which shows the logos of all our partners would be enough. That would only be there as verification that someone that calls himself a partner really is.

Picture this: We have, by volunteer effort alone, created a half-billion dollar gorilla that can't be sold (though not for a lack of willing buyers). Its physical assets are a tiny depreciating server farm, and a little pocket change in the bank. Enron could only wish to have done so much with so little? That's the ultimate futures trade by the libertarian capitalist king of a socialist monarchy.

Ec

Consumerium:General disclaimer

2005-03-25T03:29:04Z

Anthere: Reverted edit of 217.70.108.106, changed back to last version by 69.195.36.213

This wiki is intended for and defined and [[consumerium governance organization|governed]] by a fundamental concept that embodies the ideal [[consumer]]. Any person, even an [[anonymous]] person, can contribute and edit text in this wiki.

Wiki spam

2005-03-25T03:28:54Z

Anthere: Reverted edit of 217.70.108.106, changed back to last version by 66.250.68.54

All [[large public wiki]]s get [[spam]] - unsolicited commercial content which, in [[wiki]]s, is typically inserted randomly in articles by [[anonymous edit]]s.

[[Consumerium Services]] must be especially watchful of commercial activity since the [[Consumerium buying signal]] directly influences buying decisions! Any removal of accurate negative data, or insertion of inaccurate positive data, or any [[systemic bias]] in demoting or promoting some commercial service or product over another, would seriously degrade trust in that buying signal and the whole [[healthy buying infrastructure]]. So it is important to really understand '''wiki spam''' and all the ways [[funded troll]]s might provide some advantage by manipulating or altering the overall [[Publish Wiki]] and [[Research Wiki]] mechanisms that, end to end, affect the [[price premium]]s and [[green light]]s.

Here are some references on the generic problem of public wiki spam:

* CommunityWiki http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/WikiSpam
* c2 http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiSpam
* OpenWiki http://openwiki.com/ow.asp?WikiSpam
* Meatball http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiSpam
* s23 http://wiki.s23.org/wiki.pl?WikiSpam
* GründerWiki http://www.wikiservice.at/gruender/wiki.cgi?WikiSpam (German)
* blog chongqed.org http://chongqed.org/

Most differentiate between '''wiki spam''' which is externally motivated, and genuine "[[new troll]]s", those '''honestly attracted by the [[wiki mission]].''' Not the old trolls that started the wiki, because they '''neurotically thought they were the best people to control''' the wiki mission. By definition the new trolls are sincere, while the old trolls simply seek to retain power. In this view, a '''spammer''' is an old troll from the existing ''real world''' [[power structure]] of money and interests, who ''masquerades'' as a new troll. This makes new trolls look bad, and helps justify [[sysop vandalism]];

True trolls are made by [[troll-formative injustice]] and maintained by [[anti-troll bias]]. In general they do not make bald pro-corporate comments or link to commercial web sites unless they are truly the best reference on some issue. This is rare, and the rarity of it can actually be detected and used to determine who is a [[funded troll]] from the old power structure, and who is a genuinely concerned activist from the [[New Troll point of view]].

From [[NTPOV|that view]], here is how [[trolls]] view [[spam]] in the context of their struggle:

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

There are postings called "spam" pretty all over in wikilandia. I tried to interlink some wikispam discussions and proposed a SpamBox/WikiSpamBusters solution. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. http://wiki.s23.org/wiki.pl?WikiSpam. More generally your view on spam in the wiki process interests me. -- [[User:MattisManzel|MattisManzel]] 20:54, 15 Jul 2004 (EEST)

::::So-called "[[spam]]" is a symptom of having no clear process to deal with the [[funded troll]]. Most [[wiki spam]] is actually subtle and consists of inappropriate references to commercial products or services including raising questions or issues about them that put one type of service in a competitive advantage to another.

:::::''side note'' - Obviously [[Consumerium buying signal]] is doing this honestly and openly. But much [[Wikimedia corruption]] consists of an over-tolerance for specific corporate interests, e.g. Bomis, that advance their own interests over the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole by sponsoring [[sysop vandalism]].

::::Tolerating unlimited [funded troll]]s is to permit the [[systemic bias]] of "whoever has money to pay them" into the [[community point of view]]. But to react by censoring them has of course the opposite effect to that intended: if I wish to promote [[Coca-Cola]] then I simply insert spam for [[Pepsi]] and the reactive stupidity of the [[sysop power structure]] will end up favouring my actual sponsor. So the right reaction is one process that doesn't care who is funded and who is not, and simply determines that:

:::::"Hey, you are not representative of the [[New Troll point of view]], the statistical evidence and sequence of events is such that the [[balance of probabilities]] favours the theory of you being paid to be here, not having shown up due to some natural or normal expansion of our user base to include such as yourself." Is this easy to figure out? No. But given a [[faction]] system is possible. If in a given month you get 20 new "Reds" and 10 new "Blues", you might observe that one blue defends commercial products very specifically, two reds attack them. So if in one month four of the ten Blues are strongly promoting commercial products but only two of the Reds are strongly defaming them, this is a big shift, and there are tests you can apply to determine if this skew is the result of some deliberate attempt to influence or alter the [[neutral point of view]].

:::::But to get to that, you must acknowledge that there is a [[New Troll point of view]] and that changes in the flow of attention into the wiki do matter - that there are good reasons to study them and be concerned with [[systemic bias]] problems:

:::::In this model, "spam" is simply statistically infrequent linkage or approval of some commercial product, perhaps as quantified by a [[URI]].

:::::There are other useful tests like "is the URI linked to, presently for sale?" If so then it's likely someone trying to boost up the [[page view]]s.

==Solutions...how to fight spam on wikis==
I have a mediawiki site set up that just got spam links (ment to increase page rank in google), how do you fight this?

*The only solution I can think of is having what many sites use to stop automated form submission, which is have an image that contains a word that the user has to retype. This would be a slight burdon to the user, but it would make the user and the spammer on the same level, since one could delete spam just as fast as a spammer could produce it. [[wikibooks:User:RobKohr]]

Main Page

2005-03-25T03:28:45Z

Anthere: Reverted edit of 217.70.108.106, changed back to last version by 20.137.14.50

__NOTOC__

<center>
===Articles and their histories have/are been/being compromised===
===[[WARNING|See this notice about it before you read anything else]]===
</center>
 
{|cellpadding=2 cellspacing=3
|- valign="top"

|[[Consumerium:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome, newcomers]] to [[Consumerium]] [[Development Wiki]], where [[fair trade]], [[political consumerism]], and [[moral purchasing]] trends, all essential to our [[Consumerium:philosophy|philosophy]], are being pieced together into what we call '''moral purchasing power''':

[[Consumerium:Itself|Consumerium itself]] is a [[not-for-profit project]] to enable consumers to gain more insight into products and companies.

Start exploring Consumerium by seeing the '''[[Brief introduction]]''' article and another way in to this could be the '''[[Consumerium:FAQ]]'''. There are also other '''[[essential projects]]''', such as ''[[Simple English Wikipedia]]''' and '''[[Living Platform]]''' that we hope to introduce you to.

We are collaborating under the [[GFDL]] [[licences|license]], to design a [[healthy buying infrastructure]]. We are identifying [[hardware requirements]] for [[wiki|storage]], transport and display of varying levels of '''[[features|product information]] to [[consumer]]s''' and '''[[feedback]] to [[producer]]s''' at the [[point of purchase]] to enhance the consumer experience, advance product development and to keep this planet as hospitable as possible.

There are currently {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} [http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/Special:Allpages articles] of [[Development Wiki|Consumerium development]] related work

|width="35%" bgcolor="#f0fff0" style="border:1px solid #6e6e6e;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"|

Managers wondering about the impact of this on their business should read <big>[[Consumerium:Executive summary|The Executive Summary page]]</big>.

To contribute corporation information please review [[types of companies]] and [[Research:policy]] first. When these issues are clear [[Research Wiki]] will be available - until then please use [[CorpKnowPedia]].

Our [[Links]] offer a comprehensive list of moral purchasing related information resources

Proceed to the <big>[[Article hub]]</big> for more access points to this wiki'''

For editing practice, try playing in the [[Consumerium:Sandbox|Sandbox]].
|}

We invite you, if you wish to participate by editing proposals and discussions below. As customary in many [[wiki]]s '''any page can be edited by anyone, anytime''', or [[revert|restored to a previous state]] by anyone, which is the convention we assume will also apply in operation in this (combined) [[Research Wiki|Research]] and [[Development Wiki]]; Please see [[What Consumerium RD Wiki is not]], [[guidelines]] and [[rules]] for do's and dont's
<center>
===Selected articles===
'''[[Links|Looking for info on companies and products now?]]''' - '''[[Features|Planned Features to The Consumer]]''' - '''[[Consumerium Services]]''' '''[[Research Wiki|Planned Research Wiki]]''' - '''[[Publish Wiki|Planned Publish Wiki]]''' 
'''[[How Consumerium differs from Wikipedia in a nutshell]] [[(NEW)]]'''

</center>
----
Use [[w:Wikipedia]] to link to http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia (and [[m:]] to meta). Avoid unnecessary replicating, we're in the [[GFDL]] part of the world after all :)

Consumerium:About

2005-03-25T03:28:36Z

Anthere: Reverted edit of 217.70.108.106, changed back to last version by Juxo

==Welcome to Consumerium.org R&D Wiki==

[[Consumerium]] is a project, developed under [[GFDL]] [[licences|licence]], to develop [[w:free software|free software]] and [[Hardware Requirements|infrastructure]] for storage, transport and display of [[Features|product information]] to [[consumer]]s and [[feedback]] to the producers to enhance the consumer experience and to keep this planet hospitable in the future for everyone.

'''For an introduction to the project we suggest you read the [[Motivation|motivation rant]] and browse the planned [[features]].'''

Consumerium:Block log

2005-03-25T03:28:01Z

Anthere: blocked "217.70.108.106" with an expiry time of 240 hours: spam

<ul><li>03:28, 25 Mar 2005 [[User:Anthere|Anthere]] blocked "217.70.108.106" with an expiry time of 240 hours (spam)</li>
<li>14:18, 25 Jan 2005 [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] blocked "61.51.173.2" with an expiry time of 72 hours (spam)</li>
<li>13:59, 15 Jan 2005 [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] blocked "61.149.217.240" with an expiry time of 72 hours (spam)</li>
<li>12:44, 11 Jan 2005 [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] blocked "221.219.56.198" with an expiry time of 72 hours (spam)</li>
<li>13:17, 14 Dec 2004 [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] blocked "61.149.49.145" with an expiry time of 72 hours (spambot)</li>

</ul>

User talk:Cimon Avaro

2005-03-25T03:27:13Z

Anthere:

oi --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 16:31, 29 Jul 2004 (EEST)

bonjour :-) [[User:Anthere|Anthere]]

User:Anthere

2005-03-20T16:34:13Z

Anthere:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/utilisateur:Anthere

[[test Ant]]

User:Anthere

2005-03-20T16:33:16Z

Anthere:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/utilisateur:Anthere