Consumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]

Interwiki link standard

2004-09-07T18:26:30Z

Troll64: delinking, to avoid involving this important concept with issues that are at least rather controversial and speculative, and have gotten quite personal.

Net domestic product

2004-09-07T18:24:11Z

Troll64: delinking, to avoid involving issues that are at least rather controversial and speculative, and have gotten quite personal.

The '''net domestic product''' is [[gross domestic product]] "minus depreciation on a country's [[capital (economics)|capital goods]]".

*http://www.taxopedia.com/terms/n/netdomesticproduct.asp
*http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/nipa/T1t7t5l30q
*http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nscl.asp?ID=5910

[[Roland Spant]] and [[Michael Rosenberg]] are two analysts who argue strongly that the NDP must replace the GDP to avoid rewarding [[uneconomic growth]]:

*http://ideas.repec.org/a/sls/ipmsls/v7y20033.html
*http://www.csls.ca/ipm/7/spant-e.pdf

Both argue that [[unemployment]] is created by capital overinvestment, as in (Rosenberg's analysis) such worthless items as [[computer]]s which soon become [[e-waste]], and which have no measurable impact on [[productivity]] whatsoever. In addition they have many harmful social and cultural impacts.

See also "constructing a partially [[Environmentally Adjusted Net Domestic Product]]":

*http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/nierwp/0076.html

''Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] has no article on [[w:net domestic product]], proving their bias in favour of [[corporate globalization]].''

Wiki vicious cycle

2004-09-07T18:22:42Z

Troll64: delinking, to avoid involving this important concept with issues that are at least rather controversial and speculative, and have gotten quite personal.

''Originally [[m:Wikipedia Vicious Cycle]], deleted by their [[sysop power structure]].''

The vicious cycle is:

*contributors are quietly going about their business when
*vandals appear and sabotage their work, justifying the creation of
*sysops who zealously track and IP ban vandals, and try to ignore
*trolls who consider them the 'enemy', doing everything possible to antagonize, distract, anger, and burn out sysops, in the process causing actual
contributors to leave, disgusted by all these various annoying users above.
*castle jumpers call for deletion of topics which are unfinished or seminal encylopedic works. United holyland en.wikipedia.com/wiki/e-consensus e-consensus etc..

What makes this a vicious cycle is that, in the short term, each of the above has reasonable motivations and is making a reasonable decision. The vandal is just having 'fun' of some sort, and to his or her point of view, that's what Wikipedia is for: fun. The sysop is trying to put out fires, may consider himself or herself part of a en:Wikipedia:Volunteer fire department, and doesn't care to distinguish vandals from trolls or (quite often) just those contributors whose political opinions he doesn't like. This drives away contributors who are mistaken for vandals, who are caught out in some 'rule' they don't understand, or who are just disgusted with lack of accountability of sysops. So this is already a vicious cycle - let's call it the Vandal-Sysop cycle.

Then, add in the troll who tries to somehow alter this power balance by going after specific sysops who she or he perceives as more oppressive or stupid or biased (call this the Sysop-Troll cycle), and you have recipes for more conflicts (the whole Vandal-Sysop-Troll Wikipedia vicious cycle) that can't clearly be said to drive out more contributors, or fewer, than Vandal-Sysop alone. The trolls probably think they do good. The sysops probably think they do harm. Who cares what they think? It's what they do, that does the damage.

Perhaps a [Wikipedia] [[Peace Process]] is required to dampen the enthusiasm of sysops and trolls for attacking each other, so sysops can concentrate on dealing with actual vandals, and trolls can attack some less petty power clique which might (hint!) be a better use of their time.

Worst practices

2004-09-07T18:21:49Z

Troll64: delinking, to avoid involving this important concept with issues that are at least rather controversial and speculative, and have gotten quite personal.

'''Worst practices''', the opposite of [[best practices]], are [[factionally defined]] because different groups think different things are "worst":

*[[Greens]] probably think [[deforestation]] and other [[extinction]] are worst
*[[Pinks]] probably think [[child slavery]] and [[spreading disease]] are worst
*[[Reds]] probably think [[excessive profit]] and [[prison labour]] are worst
*[[Trolls]] probably think and [[sysop vandalism]] are worst
*Some people probably think [[animal cruelty]] is worst

Regardless of these [[teleological]] priorities, rack up enough "worst" across many [[faction]]s, and you can expect a [[red light]] to flash as the [[Consumerium buying signal]]!

Troll-friendly

2004-09-07T18:20:03Z

Troll64: delinking, to avoid involving this important concept with issues that are at least rather controversial and speculative, and have gotten quite personal.

An internet discussion forum is considered '''troll-friendly''' if it does not take steps to discourage [[trolling]]. Troll-friendly policies include:
*not banning or moderating accused [[trolls]],
*not preventing the forum being accessed from [[open proxy|open proxies]],
*allowing [[anonymous post]]ing or allowing easy creation of new accounts,
*not permitting deletions of materials based solely on accusation of authorship
Being troll-friendly implies also controls on the [[sysop power structure]] such as to prevent or restrict any [[sysop]] acting alone from:
*redefining trolling as [[vandalism]] arbitrarily
*selecting its own political labels on controversial topics
*subverting [[due process]] for any cases of [[outing]] or [[alleged and collective identity]] confusion, in particular, banning all "user X is user Y" class of comments as irrelevant or biasing

Because controversies on these issues are common, usage of this phrase has also become very common:
*"We also have troll friendly proxies," - [http://brawl-hall.com/pages/index2.php brawl-hall.com]
*"VT is definitely a troll-friendly environment, but I make a habit
of using the report option when they get too far out of line." - [http://www.funmac.com/showthread.php?t=6971 re: VersionTracker]
*" Fanhome is a Troll friendly environment. ... Yet here you are. Like I said,
Fanhome is Troll-friendly." - [http://mb3.theinsiders.com/fvancouvercanucksfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=2963.topic&start=21&stop=31 Vancouver Canucks "FanHome" site]

Some services say as explicit matter of policy that they are '''not troll-friendly'''. For instance, [[Wikipedia]] goes on [[wiki witchhunt]]s against presumed trolls who question its [[sysop power structure]]. The term troll-friendly is quite common:
*"We are not Troll friendly. Postings that have been placed on the boards to disrupt the flow of conversation will be removed..." - [http://www.cruise-addicts.com/forumguide.html CruiseAddicts.com forum guidelines]

=== '''troll-friendly''' [[politics as usual]] ===

Troll-friendly [[wiki management]] [[Wiki best practices|practices]] are designed to accomodate the [[New Troll point of view]] as much as possible. Rather than attempting to classify, categorize, restrict and challenge what [[trolls]] do, it attempts instead to engage them using [[political virtues]]:

*prudence,
*conciliation,
*compromise,
*variety,
*adaptability, and
*liveliness.

These democratic values were listed by [[Bernard Crick]] as alternatives to [[ideology]] or any "absolute-sounding [[ethic]]".

Very tellingly, [[w:political virtues|the article that is supposed to explain this is a mere stub]] at [[Wikipedia]]. This will not surprise anyone familiar with their [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]], which lacks very considerably in these virtues.

=== trolling, trusting, process and forgiving ===

Any '''[[troll]]-friendly''' [[system]] or [[social software]]-based service assumes that [[built trust]] is very low, [[found trust]] is very high. It further assumes that [[grown trust]] will not happen unless a degree of [[politics as usual]] is allowed to apply in that system. ''This seems to be one motivation for proposing explicit [[faction]] support.''

The main motive for troll-friendly policy is that consensus has to form on the basis of strict [[due process]]. Low-integrity editors must be "driven off":

[[Trolls]] believe that when someone has actively participated in building a [[sysop power structure]] that engages in [[ad hominem revert]], [[ad hominem delete]], [[witch-hunt]], [[inquisitor]], [[psychiatry]], [[libel]] and [[echo chamber]] tactics, under the same identity, they ''should'' be ''actively'' [[driven off by trolls]], and good riddance. If they wish this not to happen, they should make a new identity, and change their behaviour under the old one on any [[large public wiki]] where they are known for this inexcusable [[sysop vandalism]] - probably also giving up any position in the [[sysop power structure]] as well.

If they do all this and become an advocate for true [[soft security]] at least in cases other than [[simple vandalism]], and become widely known for changing their spots, at that point, [[trolls]] usually say it is the obligation of any '''troll-friendly''' wiki to not only accept them back, but honour their conversion to the ways of trolls...

=== Implications for [[Consumerium Services]] ===

For consumerium, this means [[sysop]]s should not push their luck or assume they are in charge of every [[faction]] or can resolve [[political dispute]] when people devote their lives to that in the real world and fail. In the long term it means that the [[Consumerium social club]] shouldn't over-ride [[consensus]] rules. It pays to push this process out to [[user-land]] to support a reliable [[Consumerium buying signal]].

Talk:Trolling

2004-09-07T13:14:49Z

Troll64: how to become a Wikiactivist - from Sydney Indymedia, wikified

No confusion with group entity

2004-09-06T20:43:59Z

Troll64: more fixes

The [[anarchist]] principle of '''no confusion with group entity''' is, simply put, that no [[human body]] or collection of living things of any kind, can be in any way confused with the interests of ideals of a [[group entity]]. There is nothing in common between the objectives or structures of groups, even the [[faction|groups]] that co-operate and participate in [[Consumerium:itself]], and the survival and propagation and emotional interests of bodies.

It was probably first stated in this exact form by [[Bob Black]], who emphasized the difference between [[eat-or-be-eaten]] group relationships and co-operative relationships that were possible between beings that were similar.

However, this is part of a general [[embodiment]] trend in modern [[philosophy as usual|philosophy]]: It's a central issue in [[philosophy of body]], [[philosophy of action]], [[eco-anarchism]], [[animal rights]], and [[Great Ape personhood|hominid personhood]]. It relies on [[empathic integrity]]: having high empathy for things like oneself, and low or no empathy for things that are simply abstractions or [[ideology]].

One application of this principle is the rejection of [[animal experiment]]s and [[vivisection]] as being for the [[public good]]: the abstract "advance of [[science]]" or "improving of [[medicine]]" or "[[Uneconomic growth|helping the economy]]" are all rejected as valid [[moral reasoning]]s because economies, sciences, medicines, are only assumed to relieve [[suffering]], but bodies do most definitely suffer in the processes involved.

Most critiques of [[mass movement]]s and [[cult]]s and [[military training]] focus on the confusion with the group entity that is deliberately created by the group's conditioning of the individual to identify overly with groups.

A trivial example is [[outing]]: someone believes that a group has "rights" or "needs" to continue some behaviour, and, without identifying the impact of that behaviour on bodies, leaps instantly to risking the bodies of others in order to propagate that behaviour. This seems to be a particular problem of the [[vile mailing list]]. Strong objections to [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] of that and other kinds have been one impetus to developing some strong [[policy]] to ensure we don't [[require response to hearsay]], or otherwise credit statements from nowhere or no-one about bodies.

The [[due process]] principle of [[no self-incrimination]] is likewise based on similar logic: to take one person, isolated from their peers and support, facing [[authority]], and demand of them that they either incriminate someone else or themselves, is to place the interests of the [[group entity]] doing the interrogation (its need to save time, to appear competent, etc.) above those of the bodies affected by decision. Such methods as [[torture]] for instance might advance the group-entity's interests by speeding resolution of cases, or generating fear of its [[power]]. But there should be no confusion with group entity interests, by those who might be next in line:

[[No cooperation with authority]] can be tolerated in such instances, and no outing of others can be permitted if it simply puts them next in line.

See also: [[avoid building metaphor]]

No confusion with group entity

2004-09-06T20:38:02Z

Troll64: "helping the economy" -> uneconomic growth - no need for bogus redirect

The [[anarchist]] principle of '''no confusion with group entity''' is, simply put, that no [[human body]] or collection of living things of any kind, can be in any way confused with the interests of ideals of a [[group entity]]. There is nothing in common between the objectives or structures of groups, even the [[faction|groups]] that co-operate and participate in [[Consumerium:itself]], and the survival and propagation and emotional interests of bodies.

It was probably first stated in this exact form by [[Bob Black]], who emphasized the difference between [[eat-or-be-eaten]] group relationships and co-operative relationships that were possible between beings that were similar.

However, this is part of a general [[embodiment]] trend in modern [[philosophy]]: It's a central issue in [[philosophy of body]], [[philosophy of action]], [[eco-anarchism]], [[animal rights]], and [[Great Ape personhood|hominid personhood]]. It relies on [[empathic integrity]]: having high empathy for things like oneself, and low or no empathy for things that are simply abstractions or [[ideology]].

One application of this principle is the rejection of [[animal experiment]]s and [[vivisection]] as being for the [[public good]]: the abstract "advance of [[science]]" or "improving of [[medicine]]" or "[[Uneconomic growth|helping the economy]]" are all rejected as valid [[moral reasoning]]s because economies, sciences, medicines, are only assumed to relieve [[suffering]], but bodies do most definitely suffer in the processes involved.

Most critiques of [[mass movement]]s and [[cult]]s and [[military training]] focus on the confusion with the group entity that is deliberately created by the group's conditioning of the individual to identify overly with groups.

A trivial example is [[outing]]: someone believes that a group has "rights" or "needs" to continue some behaviour, and, without identifying the impact of that behaviour on bodies, leaps instantly to risking the bodies of others in order to propagate that behaviour. This seems to be a particular problem of the [[vile mailing list]]. Strong objections to [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] of that and other kinds have been one impetus to developing some strong [[Consumerium:policy]] to ensure we don't [[require response to hearsay]], or otherwise credit statements from nowhere or no-one about bodies.

The [[due process]] principle of [[no self-incrimination]] is likewise based on similar logic: to take one person, isolated from their peers and support, facing [[authority]], and demand of them that they either incriminate someone else or themselves, is to place the interests of the [[group entity]] doing the interrogation (its need to save time, to appear competent, etc.) above those of the bodies affected by decision. Such methods as [[torture]] for instance might advance the group-entity's interests by speeding resolution of cases, or generating fear of its [[power]]. But there should be no confusion with group entity interests, by those who might be next in line:

[[No cooperation with authority]] can be tolerated in such instances, and no outing of others can be permitted if it simply puts them next in line.

See also: [[avoid building metaphor]]

No confusion with group entity

2004-09-06T20:28:07Z

Troll64: fixing some links

The [[anarchist]] principle of '''no confusion with group entity''' is, simply put, that no [[human body]] or collection of living things of any kind, can be in any way confused with the interests of ideals of a [[group entity]]. There is nothing in common between the objectives or structures of groups, even the [[faction|groups]] that co-operate and participate in [[Consumerium:itself]], and the survival and propagation and emotional interests of bodies.

It was probably first stated in this exact form by [[Bob Black]], who emphasized the difference between [[eat-or-be-eaten]] group relationships and co-operative relationships that were possible between beings that were similar.

However, this is part of a general [[embodiment]] trend in modern [[philosophy]]: It's a central issue in [[philosophy of body]], [[philosophy of action]], [[eco-anarchism]], [[animal rights]], and [[Great Ape personhood|hominid personhood]]. It relies on [[empathic integrity]]: having high empathy for things like oneself, and low or no empathy for things that are simply abstractions or [[ideology]].

One application of this principle is the rejection of [[animal experiment]]s and [[vivisection]] as being for the [[public good]]: the abstract "advance of [[science]]" or "improving of [[medicine]]" or "helping the [[economy]]" are all rejected as valid [[moral reasoning]]s because economies, sciences, medicines, are only assumed to relieve [[suffering]], but bodies do most definitely suffer in the processes involved.

Most critiques of [[mass movement]]s and [[cult]]s and [[military training]] focus on the confusion with the group entity that is deliberately created by the group's conditioning of the individual to identify overly with groups.

A trivial example is [[outing]]: someone believes that a group has "rights" or "needs" to continue some behaviour, and, without identifying the impact of that behaviour on bodies, leaps instantly to risking the bodies of others in order to propagate that behaviour. This seems to be a particular problem of the [[vile mailing list]]. Strong objections to [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] of that and other kinds have been one impetus to developing some strong [[Consumerium:policy]] to ensure we don't [[require response to hearsay]], or otherwise credit statements from nowhere or no-one about bodies.

The [[due process]] principle of [[no self-incrimination]] is likewise based on similar logic: to take one person, isolated from their peers and support, facing [[authority]], and demand of them that they either incriminate someone else or themselves, is to place the interests of the [[group entity]] doing the interrogation (its need to save time, to appear competent, etc.) above those of the bodies affected by decision. Such methods as [[torture]] for instance might advance the group-entity's interests by speeding resolution of cases, or generating fear of its [[power]]. But there should be no confusion with group entity interests, by those who might be next in line:

[[No cooperation with authority]] can be tolerated in such instances, and no outing of others can be permitted if it simply puts them next in line.

See also: [[avoid building metaphor]]

No confusion with group entity

2004-09-06T20:10:19Z

Troll64: GFDL, from Recyclopedia

The [[anarchist]] principle of '''no confusion with group entity''' is, simply put, that no [[human body]] or collection of living things of any kind, can be in any way confused with the interests of ideals of a [[group entity]]. There is nothing in common between the objectives or structures of groups, even the [[Consumerium:group]]s that co-operate and participate in [[Consumerium:itself]], and the survival and propagation and emotional interests of bodies.

It was probably first stated in this exact form by [[Bob Black]], who emphasized the difference between [[eat-or-be-eaten]] group relationships and co-operative relationships that were possible between beings that were similar.

However, this is part of a general [[embodiment]] trend in modern [[philosophy]]: It's a central issue in [[philosophy of body]], [[philosophy of action]], [[eco-anarchism]], [[animal rights]], and [[hominid personhood]]. It relies on [[empathic integrity]]: having high empathy for things like oneself, and low or no empathy for things that are simply abstractions or [[ideology]].

One application of this principle is the rejection of [[animal experiment]]s and [[vivisection]] as being for the [[public good]]: the abstract "advance of [[science]]" or "improving of [[medicine]]" or "helping the [[economy]]" are all rejected as valid [[moral reasoning]]s because economies, sciences, medicines, are only assumed to relieve [[suffering]], but bodies do most definitely suffer in the processes involved.

Most critiques of [[mass movement]]s and [[cult]]s and [[military training]] focus on the confusion with the group entity that is deliberately created by the group's conditioning of the individual to identify overly with groups.

A trivial example is [[outing]]: someone believes that a group has "rights" or "needs" to continue some behaviour, and, without identifying the impact of that behaviour on bodies, leaps instantly to risking the bodies of others in order to propagate that behaviour. This seems to be a particular problem of the [[vile mailing list]]. Strong objections to [[Wikimedia corruption]] of that and other kinds have been one impetus to developing some strong [[Consumerium:policy]] to ensure we don't [[require response to hearsay]], or otherwise credit statements from nowhere or no-one about bodies.

The [[due process]] principle of [[no self-incrimination]] is likewise based on similar logic: to take one person, isolated from their peers and support, facing [[authority]], and demand of them that they either incriminate someone else or themselves, is to place the interests of the [[group entity]] doing the interrogation (its need to save time, to appear competent, etc.) above those of the bodies affected by decision. Such methods as [[torture]] for instance might advance the group-entity's interests by speeding resolution of cases, or generating fear of its [[power]]. But there should be no confusion with group entity interests, by those who might be next in line:

[[No cooperation with authority]] can be tolerated in such instances, and no outing of others can be permitted if it simply puts them next in line.

See also: [[avoid building metaphor]]