https://develop.consumerium.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Virtual+communityConsumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]2026-04-23T14:57:21ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.43.6https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Self-claim&diff=15594Self-claim2004-05-22T22:49:17Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Self-claims''' are claims an entity makes about itself. They are ontologically distinct from those other entities make about it, or those that it makes about other entities. Without this distinction one cannot tell ordinary reference from ''self-reference''--nor easily determine how the entity forms its [[self-image]].<br />
<br />
'''Self-reference''' is usually considered the key to ''[[self-image]]'' and self awareness and ultimately any form of individual, group or [[collective intelligence]]. Without it, there can only be [[groupthink]] - the unexamined adherence to a prior list of self-claims made by interest groups, without a capacity to evolve these, or obsolete those claims that prevent the entity from achieving its destiny.<br />
<br />
Self-reference can at time be an annoyance or a distraction, but it is necessary in order to combat groupthink. If no examination of self-claims is allowed, discourse about current policies can devolve into [[duckspeak]].<br />
<br />
Those self claims made very early in, or before, the entity's formation, are usually reflected in its [[founding assumption]]s, e.g. in a state constitution, a city charter, or a party ethic, which explicitly state such assumptions, and are usually key to the self-image.<br />
<br />
Sometimes self-claims are primarily or wholly negative, e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], which serves as a charter for that project. In this case they serve as an excuse for various kinds of eloision, censorship, and perhaps ultimately a [[decline of civility]] as the original self-claims are obsoleted by events or evolution.<br />
<br />
The study of [[groupthink]] has shown repeatedly that the self claims of a group are best challenged anonymously, but with some means of limited accountability, e.g. known selection of the critic from a trusted group, or online, the availability of IP address information which provides some insight or traceability in case of genuine abuses.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Self-claim&diff=3852Self-claim2004-05-22T18:19:47Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Self-claims''' are claims an entity makes about itself. They are ontologically distinct from those other entities make about it, or those that it makes about other entities. Without this distinction one cannot tell ordinary reference from ''self-reference''--nor easily determine how the entity forms its SelfImage.<br />
<br />
'''Self-reference''' is usually considered the key to ''[[self-image]]'' and self awareness and ultimately any form of individual, group or [[collective intelligence]]. Without it, there can only be [[groupthink]] - the unexamined adherence to a prior list of self-claims made by interest groups, without a capacity to evolve these, or obsolete those claims that prevent the entity from achieving its destiny.<br />
<br />
Self-reference can at time be an annoyance or a distraction, but it is necessary in order to combat groupthink. If no examination of self-claims is allowed, discourse about current policies can devolve into [[duckspeak]].<br />
<br />
Those self claims made very early in, or before, the entity's formation, are usually reflected in its [[founding assumption]]s, e.g. in a state constitution, a city charter, or a party ethic, which explicitly state such assumptions, and are usually key to the self-image.<br />
<br />
Sometimes self-claims are primarily or wholly negative, e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], which serves as a charter for that project. In this case they serve as an excuse for various kinds of eloision, censorship, and perhaps ultimately a [[decline of civility]] as the original self-claims are obsoleted by events or evolution.<br />
<br />
The study of [[groupthink]] has shown repeatedly that the self claims of a group are best challenged anonymously, but with some means of limited accountability, e.g. known selection of the critic from a trusted group, or online, the availability of IP address information which provides some insight or traceability in case of genuine abuses.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Self-image&diff=15596Self-image2004-05-22T18:18:31Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''self-image''' is the view an entity takes of itself. Depending on the nature of the entity, this may be of many different characters. For instance, an entity defined wholly in or by text transactions, e.g. a wiki, or a body of jurisprudence, will have a self-image composed wholly of written [[self-claim]]s.<br />
<br />
Nations, organizations, families, and persons can have self-images in this very general sense. For persons self-image is often tied to body image. For families, to family values or other shared moral core beliefs. In organizations of cells or beings related by some means other than biological relatedness, the idea of a self-image is controversial, as it has no self-perception and no real biological reason to evolve one. Such an entity should be called a [[group entity]] denoting its lack of biological shared interest.<br />
<br />
One way for a group entity to evolve a self-image is to start with [[self-claim]]s that are undisputed within that group. For instance a religious group may make a statement that "we are all Muslims" or that "we all wish to help the poor living nearby". Statements that define a certain scope of "we" are very important. If there is a disciplined way to ensure that the word "we" is not used when there is a chance to imply wider agreement or commitment than really exists, then "we" itself can reflect the self-image.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known means of creating such a self image is the authoring of a charter or constitution, which contain the many or few [[founding assumption]]s by which power or interest groups come together to commit to some common defense of land or community. In fact the word "nation" seems to have no clear meaning other than that of "a group of people who has done great things in the past, and continues to choose to do so." A positive self-image is implied in this definition.<br />
<br />
But, any [[group entity]] that has a self-image but no genetic or bodily identity, can cease to exist without an obvious or measurable way in which to determine it has ceased to exist. Use of "we" can be one way to determine if a [[group entity]] still exists - if people act as if they agree, it's fair to say they do agree.<br />
<br />
Dissolution of a group entity can be messy, and can lead to such events as civil war or class war. The USSR devolved in the 1990s with some degree of both. It had lost much of its self-image as a Vanguard of Revolution or Peoples Democratic Republic in previous decades. The USA may be going through a similar devolution now as self-image ideas like rule of constitutional law, Fortress America, Champion of Freedom and Protector of Democracy are challenged, and as new anti-privacy are passed.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Rise_of_Martinets&diff=3921Rise of Martinets2004-05-22T18:16:10Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Rise of [[Martinet]]s''' is the phenomena of visible figures using [[etiquette]] as an excuse to trump [[ethics]]. Pettiness and small points of order are permitted to justify [[duckspeak]]ing and mask deep [[groupthink]], e.g. a comment containing facts and pointing out lies or misleading statements is deleted due to a claim that it is somehow "rude". Vital information fails to reach responsible community leaders. Etiquette itself loses its ethical ground. Shallow [[self-claim]]s overcome and swamp deep ones.<br />
<br />
Usually a consequence of a [[decline of civility]] that permits the Martinets to rise and make themselves, often, a de facto [[police force]]. If the Martinets achieve formal power, i.e. to [[IP ban]] or censor talk pages in a [[wiki]], this will usually accelerate the decline. Speeding the evolution of such services (they are not communities) implies making Martinets subject to some kind of [[due process]] wherein they do not get to decide the rules of evidence nor the standard of proof or who bears the burden of proof.<br />
<br />
Martinets are a different class from the little [[tin god sysop]]s who just confuse [[ontological distinction|ontological]] and [[operational distinction]]s. They are not the [[GodKing]]s who believe that there is no alternative to just trusting their judgement. Martinets honestly believe they are applying the etiquette legitimately! They often convince others of that, it's even a preoccupation. But if you look at the details, they are liars, blamer, and inventors of evidence, and concealers of evidence, and make mountains out of molehills linguistically, and none of this is characteristic of a little tin god sysop, or a GodKing.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Rise_of_Martinets&diff=3849Rise of Martinets2004-05-21T21:59:20Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Rise of [[Martinet]]s''' is the phenomena of visible figures using [[etiquette]] as an excuse to trump [[ethics]]. Pettiness and small points of order are permitted to justify [[duckspeak]]ing and mask deep [[groupthink]], e.g. a comment containing facts and pointing out lies or misleading statements is deleted due to a claim that it is somehow "rude". Vital information fails to reach responsible community leaders. Etiquette itself loses its ethical ground. Shallow [[self-claim]]s overcome and swamp deep ones.<br />
<br />
Usually a consequence of a [[decline of civility]] that permits the Martinets to rise and make themselves, often, a de facto [[police force]]. If the Martinets achieve formal power, i.e. to IP ban or censor talk pages in a wiki, this will usually accelerate the decline. Speeding the evolution of such services (they are not communities) implies making Martinets subject to some kind of [[due process]] wherein they do not get to decide the rules of evidence nor the standard of proof or who bears the burden of proof.<br />
<br />
Martinets are a different class from the little [[tin god sysop]]s who just confuse [[ontological distinction|ontological]] and [[operational distinction]]s. They are not the [[GodKing]]s who believe that there is no alternative to just trusting their judgement. Martinets honestly believe they are applying the etiquette legitimately! They often convince others of that, it's even a preoccupation. But if you look at the details, they are liars, blamer, and inventors of evidence, and concealers of evidence, and make mountains out of molehills linguistically, and none of this is characteristic of a little tin god sysop, or a GodKing.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Group_entity&diff=14154Group entity2004-05-21T21:52:43Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''group entity''' is just any [[mob]], [[faction]], [[political party]], [[corporation]], [[union]], [[government]] or even [[nonprofit]] entity that has [[no body]] i.e. inherent biological identity of its own. Individuals, families, and species may not be group-entities, although anything beyond a single sexually reproducing being may well be called one. It is a very abstract term and is an alternative to such terms as [[online community]] that does not imply any common behaviors or traits between physical human or other animal communities, and organizational behaviors.<br />
<br />
This term is from anarchist discourse and may be controversial to some. See [[w:group entity]] for a deep analysis of why such entities tend not to behave like humans, or as if they care about humans.<br />
<br />
They influence [[Consumerium Services]] mostly by providing [[institutional buying criteria]], and, by making some [[threats]] that threaten them into [[worst cases]] by their body-less body-hating influence.<br />
<br />
The tendency of humans to form group entities to avoid responsibility is called [[limited liability]]. The way humans rationalize this, and pretend that they did not deliberately create the [[comprehensive outcome]], is called [[groupthink]]. If a group does something, '''no one''' is responsible even if ''all'' refused to stop it.<br />
<br />
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] should approve all arrangements with any group entity, if only so that [[legal trust]] issues remain clear. This is particularly important for such stuff as [[patent pool]] management or other [[Consumerium License]] provisions where groups might become constrained by dealing with Consumerium.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Self-image&diff=3850Self-image2004-05-21T21:50:49Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''self-image''' is the view an entity takes of itself. Depending on the nature of the entity, this may be of many different characters. For instance, an entity defined wholly in or by text transactions, e.g. a wiki, or a BodyOfJurisprudence, will have a self-image composed wholly of written [[self-claim]]s.<br />
<br />
Nations, organizations, families, and persons can have self-images in this very general sense. For persons self-image is often tied to [[body image]]. For families, to Family Values or other shared [[moral core]] beliefs. In organizations of cells or beings related by some means other than biological relatedness, the idea of a self-image is controversial, as it has no self-perception and no real biological reason to evolve one. Such an entity should be called a [[group entity]] denoting its lack of biological shared interest.<br />
<br />
One way for a group entity to evolve a self-image is to start with [[self-claim]]s that are undisputed within that group. For instance a religious group may make a statement that "we are all Muslims" or that "we all wish to help the poor living nearby". Statements that define a certain scope of "we" are very important. If there is a disciplined way to ensure that the word "we" is not used when there is a chance to imply wider agreement or commitment than really exists, then "we" itself can reflect the self-image.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known means of creating such a self image is the authoring of a charter or constitution, which contain the many or few [[founding assumption]]s by which power or interest groups come together to commit to some common defense of land or community. In fact the word "nation" seems to have no clear meaning other than that of "a group of people who has done great things in the past, and continues to choose to do so." A positive self-image is implied in this definition.<br />
<br />
But, any [[group entity]] that has a self-image but no genetic or bodily identity, can cease to exist without an obvious or measurable way in which to determine it has ceased to exist. Use of "we" can be one way to determine if a [[group entity]] still exists - if people act as if they agree, it's fair to say they do agree.<br />
<br />
Dissolution of a group entity can be messy, and can lead to such events as civil war or class war. The USSR devolved in the 1990s with some degree of both. It had lost much of its self-image as a Vanguard Of Revolution or Peoples Democratic Republic in previous decades. The USA may be going through a similar devolution now as self-image ideas like rule of constitutional law, Fortress America, Champion Of Freedom and Protector Of Democracy are challenged, and as new anti-privacy are passed.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Duckspeak&diff=15595Duckspeak2004-05-21T21:47:32Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Duck-Speaking''' refers to '''duckspeak''', a term defined by George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty Four. Duckspeaking is the repetition and invocation of prior formulas, e.g. Use Real Names, as an excuse for activity (censorship for instance) which actually violates prior norms or [[self-claim]]s.<br />
<br />
Rather than revisiting the [[self-claim]]s and current [[self-image]] to determine if they need revision, the duckspeaker simply deletes or engages in [[quack-over]], which drowns the truth in more repeated copies of the formula.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Self-claim&diff=3851Self-claim2004-05-21T21:43:45Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Self-claims''' are claims an entity makes about itself. They are ontologically distinct from those other entities make about it, or those that it makes about other entities. Without this distinction one cannot tell ordinary reference from ''self-reference''--nor easily determine how the entity forms its SelfImage.<br />
<br />
'''Self-reference''' is usually considered the key to ''self-image'' and self awareness and ultimately any form of individual, group or [[collective intelligence]]. Without it, there can only be [[groupthink]] - the unexamined adherence to a prior list of self-claims made by interest groups, without a capacity to evolve these, or obsolete those claims that prevent the entity from achieving its destiny.<br />
<br />
Self-reference can at time be an annoyance or a distraction, but it is necessary in order to combat groupthink. If no examination of self-claims is allowed, discourse about current policies can devolve into [[duckspeak]].<br />
<br />
Those self claims made very early in, or before, the entity's formation, are usually reflected in its [[founding assumption]]s, e.g. in a state constitution, a city charter, or a party ethic, which explicitly state such assumptions, and are usually key to the self-image.<br />
<br />
Sometimes self-claims are primarily or wholly negative, e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], which serves as a charter for that project. In this case they serve as an excuse for various kinds of eloision, censorship, and perhaps ultimately a [[decline of civility]] as the original self-claims are obsoleted by events or evolution.<br />
<br />
The study of [[groupthink]] has shown repeatedly that the self claims of a group are best challenged anonymously, but with some means of limited accountability, e.g. known selection of the critic from a trusted group, or online, the availability of IP address information which provides some insight or traceability in case of genuine abuses.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Rise_of_Martinets&diff=3848Rise of Martinets2004-05-21T21:38:24Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Rise of [[Martinet]]s''' is the phenomena of visible figures using [[etiquette]] as an excuse to trump [[ethics]]. Pettiness and small points of order are permitted to justify [[duckspeaking]] and mask deep [[groupthink]], e.g. a comment containing facts and pointing out lies or misleading statements is deleted due to a claim that it is somehow "rude". Vital information fails to reach responsible community leaders. Etiquette itself loses its ethical ground. Shallow [[self-claim]]s overcome and swamp deep ones.<br />
<br />
Usually a consequence of a [[decline of civility]] that permits the Martinets to rise and make themselves, often, a de facto [[police force]]. If the Martinets achieve formal power, i.e. to IP ban or censor talk pages in a wiki, this will usually accelerate the decline. Speeding the evolution of such services (they are not communities) implies making Martinets subject to some kind of [[due process]] wherein they do not get to decide the rules of evidence nor the standard of proof or who bears the burden of proof.<br />
<br />
Martinets are a different class from the little [[tin god sysop]]s who just confuse [[ontological distinction|ontological]] and [[operational distinction]]s. They are not the [[GodKing]]s who believe that there is no alternative to just trusting their judgement. Martinets honestly believe they are applying the etiquette legitimately! They often convince others of that, it's even a preoccupation. But if you look at the details, they are liars, blamer, and inventors of evidence, and concealers of evidence, and make mountains out of molehills linguistically, and none of this is characteristic of a little tin god sysop, or a GodKing.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Rise_of_Martinets&diff=3846Rise of Martinets2004-05-21T21:35:36Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Rise of [[Martinet]]s''' is the phenomena of visible figures using [[etiquette]] as an excuse to trump [[ethics]]. Pettiness and small points of order are permitted to justify [[duckspeaking]] and mask deep [[groupthink]], e.g. a comment containing facts and pointing out lies or misleading statements is deleted due to a claim that it is somehow "rude". Vital information fails to reach responsible community leaders. Etiquette itself loses its ethical ground. Shallow [[self-claim]]s overcome and swamp deep ones.<br />
<br />
Usually a consequence of a [[decline of civility]] that permits the Martinets to rise and make themselves, often, a de facto [[police force]]. If the Martinets achieve formal power, i.e. to IP ban or censor talk pages in a wiki, this will usually accelerate the decline. Speeding the evolution of such services (they are not communities) implies making Martinets subject to some kind of [[due process]] wherein they do not get to decide the rules of evidence nor the standard of proof or who bears the burden of proof.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Groupthink&diff=4495Groupthink2004-05-21T21:33:22Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Groupthink''' is a very well-documented psychological tendency of humans to tend to agree with each other, and hold back objections or dissent even when it is obvious to them that the group is moving strongly in a very wrong direction.<br />
<br />
See [[w:groupthink]]<br />
<br />
Groupthink is sometimes misleadingly referred as [[community values]]: there are no "community values". [[Community|Communities]] are compromises of values created to achieve bodily protections. The community shares no values other than protecting its own bodies.<br />
<br />
This is relevant to [[Consumerium]] in many ways, see [http://www.consumerium.org/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Groupthink what links here]<br />
<br />
One way to control groupthink is to steer it into [[faction]]s that can at least have sharp differences with each other. In [[democracy]] this means dividing into [[political party]] structures that debate the actual policy while a [[bureaucracy]] implements the policy only of the [[ruling party]].</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Community_values&diff=15593Community values2004-05-21T21:31:45Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>#redirect [[groupthink]]</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Etiquette&diff=13531Etiquette2004-05-21T21:30:35Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Etiquette''' on [[Consumerium]] is still poorly understood. For instance this file was authored by [[trolls]] and it is not sure that they really are the ones who understand it best. For now take all this as a DRAFT, at best:<br />
<br />
*purpose of [[Consumerium]] is to protect lovely living things from stupid ignorant unliving things (like "bodies of capital", "production processes") that stomp on them often without caring to<br />
<br />
*to avoid harming life here we only ask certain questions or reveal data on<br />
** '''who''' wrote something in a formal [[m:TIPAESA|structure like TIPAESA]] where formal [[evidence]] is tracked for [[source]] or [[authority]].<br />
** '''where''' someone or something is, down to the [[ecoregion]] or [[city]] but not deeper down, e.g. their street address unless they are doing some provable harm to real life.<br />
** '''why''' someone may bring up a certain fact - that can be balanced by bringing in counter-opinion, not by psychiatry or slandering early authors<br />
<br />
Questions of '''how''', '''when''' and '''how much''' are far more open as they do not hold up bodies to scrutiny by non-living things that may harm them. If you keep in mind that Consumerium protects bodies from not-bodies, that makes it easier to remember not to use a not-body idea to try to reveal or attack any body. This is especially important for respecting [[anonymity]].<br />
<br />
While this etiquette may make [[sysops]] sometimes more annoyed due to having to put up with more [[trolls]], no trolls will be harmed just for annoying any sysops, and this in the long run will make sysops far better life protectors!<br />
<br />
A mainstream theory is that etiquette is a form of minimal [[negative ethics]], i.e. exceptions to an ethical framework that make it acceptable to humans who otherwise would not be able to apply it fully, "situations where ethics doesn't count", e.g. where lies are acceptable, or a number of standard hypocrisies. Judith Martin is very clear about this: etiquette is hypocrisy. I would say that it is the limits of ethics, and does not embody it except insofar as it protects bodies by what it discourages the investigation of. The [[Rise of Martinets|Martinets]], then, are those who break all ethical rules by extending etiquette to beyond its breaking point, to the point where it is actually enforcing an 'unethic' - a set of excuses to risk and [[bodily harm|harm bodies]] for [[ideology|ideological]] purposes.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Rise_of_Martinets&diff=3845Rise of Martinets2004-05-21T21:28:02Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Rise of [[Martinet]]s''' is the phenomena of visible figures using [[etiquette]] as an excuse to trump [[ethics]]. Pettiness and small points of order are permitted to justify [[duckspeaking]] and mask deep [[groupthink]], e.g. a comment containing facts and pointing out lies or misleading statements is deleted due to a claim that it is somehow "rude". Vital information fails to reach responsible community leaders. Etiquette itself loses its ethical ground. Shallow [[self-claim]]s overcome and swamp deep ones.<br />
<br />
Usually a consequence of a [[decline of civility]] that permits the Martinets to rise and make themselves, often, a de facto [[police force]]. If the Martinets achieve formal power, i.e. to IP ban or censor talk pages in a wiki, this will usually accelerate the decline.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)&diff=4122Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)2004-05-10T23:00:49Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[WARNING]] This article is linked from [[142.177.X.X/Anti Wikipedia Rants]] and expresses a critical perspective. If [[neutral point of view]] is your religion or the cabal are your friends you will not like this! [[WARNING]]'''<br />
<br />
''See also [[Wikipedia (neutral)]] for a neutral point of view version.''<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia Itself==<br />
<br />
'''Wikipedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] run by the [[Wikimedia]] foundation, It also receives support from Bomis Inc. in the form of free [[w:bandwidth|bandwidth]] and this connection with a [[for-profit]] [[corporation]] is seen as a burden affecting the functioning of [[Wikipedia]] as ''' a free encyclopedia''' as it claims to be.<br />
<br />
''Because Wikipedia censors much discussion of its own deficiencies, especially its legally significant ones, this article will focus on these, to balance the view at [[w:Wikipedia]] and [[w:Meta-Wikipedia]], which contains largely a Wikipedia-promoting view.''<br />
<br />
Wikipedia claims to be an [[w:encyclopedia|encyclopedia]] based on the [[GFDL text corpus]]. That is, it claims to have the editorial standards of an encyclopedia. It further asserts by claiming it is applying the terms of the GFDL that anything written and released under [[GFDL]], including those directly submitted via [[the Wikipedia user interface]] which is based on [[mediawiki]], can be legally included in the Wikipedia corpus. <br />
<br />
http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. As is often pointed out, it is in technical violation of several points of the GFDL due to a combination of software deficiencies, mismatches of the software with the terms of the GFDL, and a developer and [[sysop power structure]] that is the opposite of democratic, and strongly favours insiders over outsiders. It is generally run better in the 22 languages other than English, since the guiltiest parties actually can't read those languages. The [[GodKing]], Jim Wales, can't read or write any language other than English. This is probably good:<br />
<br />
Wikipedias' struggle to resolves their internal contradictions (multi-language project run by a [[GodKing]] who speaks and reads only English, claims of neutrality with no outreach or mediation mechanism other than a technology that itself puts a [[sysop power structure]] of mostly developed-world people in charge of content, inability to examine its own [[community point of view]]) will provide both good and bad examples for the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]], which would do well to avoid all the pitfalls it is falling into. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for a starting list of these, and references to longstanding issues and potential solutions that 'Wikipedians' ignore and censor, mostly at [[Meta-Wikipedia]], e.g. [[m:regime change]].''<br />
<br />
For instance the [http://fr.wikipedia.org French Wikipedia] is among the best run, although it had teething pains, it attracted competent people who knew to selectively ignore Wales' pronouncements. Probably the worst run today is the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia] - which seems to have no framework even for deciding what "Simple" is to mean... what purposes (or even audiences) it is to serve and what level of English mastery they may have. It has actually discouraged any discussion or policy setting in these regards, the opposite of what a real basis for translation of articles would have done.<br />
<br />
===Criticisms:===<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is often used as a [[bad example]] in discussions about the [[wiki way]] - sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Wrong use of it as an example focuses on the fact that it has a specific mission to build some specific content - which in fact almost all wikis do. Wikis are not wholly for the benefit of their authors, but, presumably, create some statement that WE* agree on and can present to others as OUR opinion or best assembly of the facts. The highly confused and ideological [[Meatball Wiki]] has a page[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiPediaIsNotTypical "Wikipedia is not typical"] which focuses on this, as if somehow wikis in general existed solely to facilitate text interchange among their users. Which might be true if wikis were all dating services, or intended to serve purposes like those of [[NetNews]]. However, this is to miss the whole point of [[collaborative editing technology]], which is to produce some output that represents something that is "more true than not". In real wikis, goodwill among contributors is a side effect of dedication to a common goal. In bad ones, it is required even under extreme circumstances of unethical behaviour, e.g. [[echo chamber]]s.<br />
<br />
Correctly citing Wikipedia as a bad example, many insiders are decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture. The Cunctator refers to its "vile mailing list", Robert Kaiser called it the "Nazipedia" because he believes there is viciously anti-semitic bias (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about [[outing]] that seem to focus on whether a [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]].<br />
<br />
In discussions of both policy and content, the loudest voices who attract the most supporters during the pendency of a discussion often dominate direction. Users critical of the project are sometimes blocked from discussions. A review of user-histories at Wikipedia suggests that power users who spend several hours a day making small edits to numerous pages often dominate discussions, and comprise the most active elements of the administrative ranks. and that people who are qualified or interested in administrative functions may hold different interests from the people who are the best contributors (see ''[[community point of view]]'' and ''[[systemic bias]]'').<br />
<br />
Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia. There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not. There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content. He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc..<br />
<br />
Finally, Wikipedia has no full text search facility, due to deficiencies of the [[mediawiki]] software.<br />
:You can do full text searches using '''Google''' or '''Yahoo'''. Full text searching from the [[MySQL]] database became possible starting from version 4.0, which is now in use at [[Wikipedia]], but the lack of this feature is surely related to the heavy load on the servers - the [[Wikimedia]] foundation not having sufficient trust or resources to actually buy sufficient hardware.<br />
<br />
===Usefulness:===<br />
<br />
Wikipedia articles, flawed as they are, can often be a good first reference for someone with no knowledge at all of a topic, especially if they have good references. After reading a Wikipedia article, it is usually possible to enter a few search terms in google or another search engine and find more credible material on the same subject, confident that you are using the terms that are recognized there. Indeed, it is the ability to find several dozen to a hundred or so hits on google that is often used as a criteria for an acceptable title of an article. This one good feature is abused by applying it to subtitles, however, and generally by applying it only to subjects politically disliked by the sysops.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article on itself [[w:Wikipedia]] makes various claims about its origins which are generally credible, but doesn't say enough about its many problems. There is an entire separate site devoted to that, the "meta" (see [[m:]]), and this debates issues of [[m:governance]], but the difference between such proposals and real [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] are great indeed. <br />
<br />
It seems Wikipedia has gone at least two years without seriously considering its governance structure, and that [[Wikimedia]] is simply a front organization for the same [[power structure]] that was described in early 2002 by Wales - a simple hierarchy with himself in charge, no accountability to anyone, not even donors who believe they are supporting a GFDL encyclopedia with "open" editing.<br />
<br />
There has been some examination of the project's role and the way it portrays itself, see [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]] for a list of contributions relevant to the form of Wikipedia, itself.<br />
<br />
In general, Wikipedia has a dishonest view of itself, and presents itself very dishonestly as an attempt to build an encyclopedia, when in fact it appears to do little or nothing to meet the editorial standards of a serious encyclopedia, and forces people of strong qualifications to answer to petty abuse from various parties of no particular qualifications at all, as the project turned to popular selection of contributors and casual verification of content, often on ad hominem reasoning toward authors, instead of a more formal fact-checking process. It should be seen as a project that helped build the [[GFDL text corpus]] in many languages, but is now in decline. Much as the attempt to build a "GNU Unix" built the body of [[GPL]] code.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia, more so than other wiki service in early 2004, had become a main source for re-distribution of encyclopedic content by other sites, and thus expanded the reach of errors contained in its largely unverified content. Redistribution of Wikipedia-sourced material by another user-editable encyclopedia that could prove more popular with contributors might pose the greatest risk to control by Wikipedia's founding cadre.<br />
<br />
===Relation to Consumerium===<br />
<br />
The default position should be that Wikipedia's serious governance problems are so dangerous to Consumerium that they can't be repeated here. The English Wikipedias and Mediawiki are [[enemy projects]] in that their goals and values differ so radically from those of [[Consumerium]] that any confusion of one set of policies or concept of responsibility on those projects with the policies or responsibilities of Consumerium is a net negative - that is, anyone who says regarding an important governance decision that "X isn't what WE* do on Wikipedia" should be told "right, go away, we're doing it anyway". Or more neutrally, "that's evidence that X is the right thing to do". On [[governance]] specifically.<br />
<br />
*"[[who's we]]" on Wikipedia? See [[community point of view]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
===List of related wikipedia articles===<br />
<br />
If you see something in wikipedia that could be useful, please put it here, if the Wikipedia article '''is not complete''' you should put it in the [[Research]] page - '''Lists and timelines are very welcome.'''<br />
<br />
See also [[list of related Disinfopedia articles]], [[list of related Metaweb articles]], [[list of related Internet Encyclopedia articles]], [[list of related Everything2 articles]], [[list of Consumerium related articles]] (all external links)<br />
<br />
Understanding buying choices and their effects:<br />
* [[w:Conversion of units]]<br />
* [[w:GTIN]]<br />
* [[w:EAN]]<br />
* [[w:UPC]]<br />
* [[w:List of countries]]<br />
* [[w:List of timelines]]<br />
* [[w:List of reference tables]]<br />
* [[w:List of stock exchanges]]<br />
* [[w:List of supermarkets]]<br />
* [[w:Commodity markets]] - buying on the largest scale<br />
* [[w:Money]] - what it is and how it works, commodifying everything even you<br />
* [[w:Tariff]]<br />
<br />
Understanding moral choices as expressed in the marketplace:<br />
* [[w:list of ethics articles]] - why would you care what you buy?<br />
* [[w:Globalization]] makes it harder to know what your money does<br />
* [[w:Transparency International]] tries to make it easier to find out<br />
* [[w:Greenpeace]] has six campaigns to affect buying choices, and advocates<br />
* [[w:Accounting reform]] which would make more liabilities visible to you<br />
* [[w:Full cost accounting]] in particular would make waste visible<br />
* [[w:Means of persuasion]], e.g. [[w:advertising]], [[w:propaganda]] of<br />
** [[w:Productivism]] assumes that everything humans make is good<br />
** [[w:Consumerism]] assumes that everything humans want is good<br />
<br />
Directly relevant to consumerium mission, making actual moral buying choices:<br />
* [[w:Slow Food]] - tied for third most relevant? buy local, organic, etc.<br />
* [[w: Sweatshop]] - tied for third most relevant? often the target of<br />
* [[w: Boycott]] - second most relevant? usually shorter term than<br />
* [[w:Moral purchasing]] describes most exactly the consumerium.org mission<br />
* [[w:Local food]]<br />
<br />
Other<br />
* [[w:brand management|brand management]], how products are positioned and gain identity. The "Wikipedia" brand has this concern too, leading to:<br />
* tracking of [[w:Wikipedia:Self-references|Self-references]] of the project to itself, which [[self-references|Consumerium needs too]] so it knows what it is and is becoming. <br />
* [[w:Wikipedia:itself]] which is the view of the english version of [[Wikipedia]] from '''Wikipedia, itself,''' and is used to mediate disputes about its direction and purposes.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)&diff=3811Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)2004-05-10T22:40:39Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[WARNING]] This article is linked from [[142.177.X.X/Anti Wikipedia Rants]] and expresses a critical perspective. If [[neutral point of view]] is your religion or the cabal are your friends you will not like this! [[WARNING]]'''<br />
<br />
''See also [[Wikipedia (neutral)]] for a neutral point of view version.''<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia Itself==<br />
<br />
'''Wikipedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] run by the [[Wikimedia]] foundation, It also receives support from Bomis Inc. in the form of free [[w:bandwidth|bandwidth]] and this connection with a [[for-profit]] [[corporation]] is seen as a burden affecting the functioning of [[Wikipedia]] as ''' a free encyclopedia''' as it claims to be.<br />
<br />
''Because Wikipedia censors much discussion of its own deficiencies, especially its legally significant ones, this article will focus on these, to balance the view at [[w:Wikipedia]] and [[w:Meta-Wikipedia]], which contains largely a Wikipedia-promoting view.''<br />
<br />
Wikipedia claims to be an [[w:encyclopedia|encyclopedia]] based on the [[GFDL text corpus]]. That is, it claims to have the editorial standards of an encyclopedia. It further asserts by claiming it is applying the terms of the GFDL that anything written and released under [[GFDL]], including those directly submitted via [[the Wikipedia user interface]] which is based on [[mediawiki]], can be legally included in the Wikipedia corpus. <br />
<br />
http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. As is often pointed out, it is in technical violation of several points of the GFDL due to a combination of software deficiencies, mismatches of the software with the terms of the GFDL, and a developer and [[sysop power structure]] that is the opposite of democratic, and strongly favours insiders over outsiders. It is generally run better in the 22 languages other than English, since the guiltiest parties actually can't read those languages. The [[GodKing]], Jim Wales, can't read or write any language other than English. This is probably good:<br />
<br />
Wikipedias' struggle to resolves their internal contradictions (multi-language project run by a [[GodKing]] who speaks and reads only English, claims of neutrality with no outreach or mediation mechanism other than a technology that itself puts a [[sysop power structure]] of mostly developed-world people in charge of content, inability to examine its own [[community point of view]]) will provide both good and bad examples for the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]], which would do well to avoid all the pitfalls it is falling into. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for a starting list of these, and references to longstanding issues and potential solutions that 'Wikipedians' ignore and censor, mostly at [[Meta-Wikipedia]], e.g. [[m:regime change]].''<br />
<br />
For instance the [http://fr.wikipedia.org French Wikipedia] is among the best run, although it had teething pains, it attracted competent people who knew to selectively ignore Wales' pronouncements. Probably the worst run today is the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia] - which seems to have no framework even for deciding what "Simple" is to mean... what purposes (or even audiences) it is to serve and what level of English mastery they may have. It has actually discouraged any discussion or policy setting in these regards, the opposite of what a real basis for translation of articles would have done.<br />
<br />
===Criticisms:===<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is often used as a [[bad example]] in discussions about the [[wiki way]] - sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Wrong use of it as an example focuses on the fact that it has a specific mission to build some specific content - which in fact almost all wikis do. Wikis are not wholly for the benefit of their authors, but, presumably, create some statement that WE* agree on and can present to others as OUR opinion or best assembly of the facts. The highly confused and ideological [[Meatball Wiki]] has a page[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiPediaIsNotTypical "Wikipedia is not typical"] which focuses on this, as if somehow wikis in general existed solely to facilitate text interchange among their users. Which might be true if wikis were all dating services, or intended to serve purposes like those of [[NetNews]]. However, this is to miss the whole point of [[collaborative editing technology]], which is to produce some output that represents something that is "more true than not". In real wikis, goodwill among contributors is a side effect of dedication to a common goal. In bad ones, it is required even under extreme circumstances of unethical behaviour, e.g. [[echo chamber]]s.<br />
<br />
Correctly citing Wikipedia as a bad example, many insiders are decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture. The Cunctator refers to its "vile mailing list", Robert Kaiser called it the "Nazipedia" because he believes there is viciously anti-semitic bias (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about [[outing]] that seem to focus on whether a [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]].<br />
<br />
In discussions of both policy and content, the loudest voices who attract the most supporters during the pendency of a discussion often dominate direction. Users critical of the project are sometimes blocked from discussions. A review of user-histories at Wikipedia suggests power users who spend several hours a day making small edits to numerous pages often dominate discussions, and comprise the most active elements of the administrative ranks. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia. There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not. There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content. He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc..<br />
<br />
Finally, Wikipedia has no full text search facility, due to deficiencies of the [[mediawiki]] software.<br />
:You can do full text searches using '''Google''' or '''Yahoo'''. Full text searching from the [[MySQL]] database became possible starting from version 4.0, which is now in use at [[Wikipedia]], but the lack of this feature is surely related to the heavy load on the servers - the [[Wikimedia]] foundation not having sufficient trust or resources to actually buy sufficient hardware.<br />
<br />
===Usefulness:===<br />
<br />
Wikipedia articles, flawed as they are, can often be a good first reference for someone with no knowledge at all of a topic, especially if they have good references. After reading a Wikipedia article, it is usually possible to enter a few search terms in google or another search engine and find more credible material on the same subject, confident that you are using the terms that are recognized there. Indeed, it is the ability to find several dozen to a hundred or so hits on google that is often used as a criteria for an acceptable title of an article. This one good feature is abused by applying it to subtitles, however, and generally by applying it only to subjects politically disliked by the sysops.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article on itself [[w:Wikipedia]] makes various claims about its origins which are generally credible, but doesn't say enough about its many problems. There is an entire separate site devoted to that, the "meta" (see [[m:]]), and this debates issues of [[m:governance]], but the difference between such proposals and real [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] are great indeed. <br />
<br />
It seems Wikipedia has gone at least two years without seriously considering its governance structure, and that [[Wikimedia]] is simply a front organization for the same [[power structure]] that was described in early 2002 by Wales - a simple hierarchy with himself in charge, no accountability to anyone, not even donors who believe they are supporting a GFDL encyclopedia with "open" editing.<br />
<br />
There has been some examination of the project's role and the way it portrays itself, see [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]] for a list of contributions relevant to the form of Wikipedia, itself.<br />
<br />
In general, Wikipedia has a dishonest view of itself, and presents itself very dishonestly as an attempt to build an encyclopedia, when in fact it appears to do little or nothing to meet the editorial standards of a serious encyclopedia, and forces people of strong qualifications to answer to petty abuse from various parties of no particular qualifications at all, as the project turned to popular selection of contributors and casual verification of content, often on ad hominem reasoning toward authors, instead of a more formal fact-checking process. It should be seen as a project that helped build the [[GFDL text corpus]] in many languages, but is now in decline. Much as the attempt to build a "GNU Unix" built the body of [[GPL]] code.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia, more so than other wiki service in early 2004, had become a main source for re-distribution of encyclopedic content by other sites, and thus expanded the reach of errors contained in its largely unverified content. Redistribution of Wikipedia-sourced material by another user-editable encyclopedia that could prove more popular with contributors might pose the greatest risk to control by Wikipedia's founding cadre.<br />
<br />
===Relation to Consumerium===<br />
<br />
The default position should be that Wikipedia's serious governance problems are so dangerous to Consumerium that they can't be repeated here. The English Wikipedias and Mediawiki are [[enemy projects]] in that their goals and values differ so radically from those of [[Consumerium]] that any confusion of one set of policies or concept of responsibility on those projects with the policies or responsibilities of Consumerium is a net negative - that is, anyone who says regarding an important governance decision that "X isn't what WE* do on Wikipedia" should be told "right, go away, we're doing it anyway". Or more neutrally, "that's evidence that X is the right thing to do". On [[governance]] specifically.<br />
<br />
*"[[who's we]]" on Wikipedia? See [[community point of view]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
===List of related wikipedia articles===<br />
<br />
If you see something in wikipedia that could be useful, please put it here, if the Wikipedia article '''is not complete''' you should put it in the [[Research]] page - '''Lists and timelines are very welcome.'''<br />
<br />
See also [[list of related Disinfopedia articles]], [[list of related Metaweb articles]], [[list of related Internet Encyclopedia articles]], [[list of related Everything2 articles]], [[list of Consumerium related articles]] (all external links)<br />
<br />
Understanding buying choices and their effects:<br />
* [[w:Conversion of units]]<br />
* [[w:GTIN]]<br />
* [[w:EAN]]<br />
* [[w:UPC]]<br />
* [[w:List of countries]]<br />
* [[w:List of timelines]]<br />
* [[w:List of reference tables]]<br />
* [[w:List of stock exchanges]]<br />
* [[w:List of supermarkets]]<br />
* [[w:Commodity markets]] - buying on the largest scale<br />
* [[w:Money]] - what it is and how it works, commodifying everything even you<br />
* [[w:Tariff]]<br />
<br />
Understanding moral choices as expressed in the marketplace:<br />
* [[w:list of ethics articles]] - why would you care what you buy?<br />
* [[w:Globalization]] makes it harder to know what your money does<br />
* [[w:Transparency International]] tries to make it easier to find out<br />
* [[w:Greenpeace]] has six campaigns to affect buying choices, and advocates<br />
* [[w:Accounting reform]] which would make more liabilities visible to you<br />
* [[w:Full cost accounting]] in particular would make waste visible<br />
* [[w:Means of persuasion]], e.g. [[w:advertising]], [[w:propaganda]] of<br />
** [[w:Productivism]] assumes that everything humans make is good<br />
** [[w:Consumerism]] assumes that everything humans want is good<br />
<br />
Directly relevant to consumerium mission, making actual moral buying choices:<br />
* [[w:Slow Food]] - tied for third most relevant? buy local, organic, etc.<br />
* [[w: Sweatshop]] - tied for third most relevant? often the target of<br />
* [[w: Boycott]] - second most relevant? usually shorter term than<br />
* [[w:Moral purchasing]] describes most exactly the consumerium.org mission<br />
* [[w:Local food]]<br />
<br />
Other<br />
* [[w:brand management|brand management]], how products are positioned and gain identity. The "Wikipedia" brand has this concern too, leading to:<br />
* tracking of [[w:Wikipedia:Self-references|Self-references]] of the project to itself, which [[self-references|Consumerium needs too]] so it knows what it is and is becoming. <br />
* [[w:Wikipedia:itself]] which is the view of the english version of [[Wikipedia]] from '''Wikipedia, itself,''' and is used to mediate disputes about its direction and purposes.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)&diff=3810Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)2004-05-10T22:25:08Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[WARNING]] This article is linked from [[142.177.X.X/Anti Wikipedia Rants]] and expresses a critical perspective. If [[neutral point of view]] is your religion or the cabal are your friends you will not like this! [[WARNING]]'''<br />
<br />
''See also [[Wikipedia (neutral)]] for a neutral point of view version.''<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia Itself==<br />
<br />
'''Wikipedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] run by the [[Wikimedia]] foundation, It also receives support from Bomis Inc. in the form of free [[w:bandwidth|bandwidth]] and this connection with a [[for-profit]] [[corporation]] is seen as a burden affecting the functioning of [[Wikipedia]] as ''' a free encyclopedia''' as it claims to be.<br />
<br />
''Because Wikipedia censors much discussion of its own deficiencies, especially its legally significant ones, this article will focus on these, to balance the view at [[w:Wikipedia]] and [[w:Meta-Wikipedia]], which contains largely a Wikipedia-promoting view.''<br />
<br />
Wikipedia claims to be an [[w:encyclopedia|encyclopedia]] based on the [[GFDL text corpus]]. That is, it claims to have the editorial standards of an encyclopedia. It further asserts by claiming it is applying the terms of the GFDL that anything written and released under [[GFDL]], including those directly submitted via [[the Wikipedia user interface]] which is based on [[mediawiki]], can be legally included in the Wikipedia corpus. <br />
<br />
http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. As is often pointed out, it is in technical violation of several points of the GFDL due to a combination of software deficiencies, mismatches of the software with the terms of the GFDL, and a developer and [[sysop power structure]] that is the opposite of democratic, and strongly favours insiders over outsiders. It is generally run better in the 22 languages other than English, since the guiltiest parties actually can't read those languages. The [[GodKing]], Jim Wales, can't read or write any language other than English. This is probably good:<br />
<br />
Wikipedias' struggle to resolves their internal contradictions (multi-language project run by a [[GodKing]] who speaks and reads only English, claims of neutrality with no outreach or mediation mechanism other than a technology that itself puts a [[sysop power structure]] of mostly developed-world people in charge of content, inability to examine its own [[community point of view]]) will provide both good and bad examples for the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]], which would do well to avoid all the pitfalls it is falling into. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for a starting list of these, and references to longstanding issues and potential solutions that 'Wikipedians' ignore and censor, mostly at [[Meta-Wikipedia]], e.g. [[m:regime change]].''<br />
<br />
For instance the [http://fr.wikipedia.org French Wikipedia] is among the best run, although it had teething pains, it attracted competent people who knew to selectively ignore Wales' pronouncements. Probably the worst run today is the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia] - which seems to have no framework even for deciding what "Simple" is to mean... what purposes (or even audiences) it is to serve and what level of English mastery they may have. It has actually discouraged any discussion or policy setting in these regards, the opposite of what a real basis for translation of articles would have done.<br />
<br />
===Criticisms:===<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is often used as a [[bad example]] in discussions about the [[wiki way]] - sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Wrong use of it as an example focuses on the fact that it has a specific mission to build some specific content - which in fact almost all wikis do. Wikis are not wholly for the benefit of their authors, but, presumably, create some statement that WE* agree on and can present to others as OUR opinion or best assembly of the facts. The highly confused and ideological [[Meatball Wiki]] has a page[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiPediaIsNotTypical "Wikipedia is not typical"] which focuses on this, as if somehow wikis in general existed solely to facilitate text interchange among their users. Which might be true if wikis were all dating services, or intended to serve purposes like those of [[NetNews]]. However, this is to miss the whole point of [[collaborative editing technology]], which is to produce some output that represents something that is "more true than not". In real wikis, goodwill among contributors is a side effect of dedication to a common goal. In bad ones, it is required even under extreme circumstances of unethical behaviour, e.g. [[echo chamber]]s.<br />
<br />
Correctly citing Wikipedia as a bad example, many insiders are decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture. The Cunctator refers to its "vile mailing list", Robert Kaiser called it the "Nazipedia" because he believes there is viciously anti-semitic bias (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about [[outing]] that seem to focus on whether a [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]].<br />
<br />
In discussions of both policy and content, the loudest voices who attract the most supporters during the pendency of a discussion often dominate direction. Users critical of the project are sometimes blocked from discussions. A review of user-histories at Wikipedia suggests power users who spend several hours a day making small edits to numerous pages often dominate discussions, and comprise the most active elements of the administrative ranks. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia. There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not. There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content. He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc..<br />
<br />
Finally, Wikipedia has no full text search facility, due to deficiencies of the [[mediawiki]] software.<br />
:You can do full text searches using '''Google''' or '''Yahoo'''. Full text searching from the [[MySQL]] database became possible starting from version 4.0, which is now in use at [[Wikipedia]], but the lack of this feature is surely related to the heavy load on the servers - the [[Wikimedia]] foundation not having sufficient trust or resources to actually buy sufficient hardware.<br />
<br />
===Usefulness:===<br />
<br />
Wikipedia articles, flawed as they are, can often be a good first reference for someone with no knowledge at all of a topic, especially if they have good references. After reading a Wikipedia article, it is usually possible to enter a few search terms in google or another search engine and find more credible material on the same subject, confident that you are using the terms that are recognized there. Indeed, it is the ability to find several dozen to a hundred or so hits on google that is often used as a criteria for an acceptable title of an article. This one good feature is abused by applying it to subtitles, however, and generally by applying it only to subjects politically disliked by the sysops.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article on itself [[w:Wikipedia]] makes various claims about its origins which are generally credible, but doesn't say enough about its many problems. There is an entire separate site devoted to that, the "meta" (see [[m:]]), and this debates issues of [[m:governance]], but the difference between such proposals and real [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] are great indeed. <br />
<br />
It seems Wikipedia has gone at least two years without seriously considering its governance structure, and that [[Wikimedia]] is simply a front organization for the same [[power structure]] that was described in early 2002 by Wales - a simple hierarchy with himself in charge, no accountability to anyone, not even donors who believe they are supporting a GFDL encyclopedia with "open" editing.<br />
<br />
There has been some examination of the project's role and the way it portrays itself, see [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]] for a list of contributions relevant to the form of Wikipedia, itself.<br />
<br />
In general, Wikipedia has a dishonest view of itself, and presents itself very dishonestly as an attempt to build an encyclopedia, when in fact it appears to do little or nothing to meet the editorial standards of a serious encyclopedia, and forces people of strong qualifications to answer to petty abuse from various parties of no particular qualifications at all. It should be seen as a project that helped build the [[GFDL text corpus]] in many languages, but is now in decline. Much as the attempt to build a "GNU Unix" built the body of [[GPL]] code.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia, more so than other wiki service in early 2004, had become a main source for re-distribution of encyclopedic content by other sites, and thus expanded the reach of errors contained in its largely unverified content. Redistribution of Wikipedia-sourced material by another user-editable encyclopedia that could prove more popular with contributors might pose the greatest risk to control by Wikipedia's founding cadre.<br />
<br />
===Relation to Consumerium===<br />
<br />
The default position should be that Wikipedia's serious governance problems are so dangerous to Consumerium that they can't be repeated here. The English Wikipedias and Mediawiki are [[enemy projects]] in that their goals and values differ so radically from those of [[Consumerium]] that any confusion of one set of policies or concept of responsibility on those projects with the policies or responsibilities of Consumerium is a net negative - that is, anyone who says regarding an important governance decision that "X isn't what WE* do on Wikipedia" should be told "right, go away, we're doing it anyway". Or more neutrally, "that's evidence that X is the right thing to do". On [[governance]] specifically.<br />
<br />
*"[[who's we]]" on Wikipedia? See [[community point of view]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
===List of related wikipedia articles===<br />
<br />
If you see something in wikipedia that could be useful, please put it here, if the Wikipedia article '''is not complete''' you should put it in the [[Research]] page - '''Lists and timelines are very welcome.'''<br />
<br />
See also [[list of related Disinfopedia articles]], [[list of related Metaweb articles]], [[list of related Internet Encyclopedia articles]], [[list of related Everything2 articles]], [[list of Consumerium related articles]] (all external links)<br />
<br />
Understanding buying choices and their effects:<br />
* [[w:Conversion of units]]<br />
* [[w:GTIN]]<br />
* [[w:EAN]]<br />
* [[w:UPC]]<br />
* [[w:List of countries]]<br />
* [[w:List of timelines]]<br />
* [[w:List of reference tables]]<br />
* [[w:List of stock exchanges]]<br />
* [[w:List of supermarkets]]<br />
* [[w:Commodity markets]] - buying on the largest scale<br />
* [[w:Money]] - what it is and how it works, commodifying everything even you<br />
* [[w:Tariff]]<br />
<br />
Understanding moral choices as expressed in the marketplace:<br />
* [[w:list of ethics articles]] - why would you care what you buy?<br />
* [[w:Globalization]] makes it harder to know what your money does<br />
* [[w:Transparency International]] tries to make it easier to find out<br />
* [[w:Greenpeace]] has six campaigns to affect buying choices, and advocates<br />
* [[w:Accounting reform]] which would make more liabilities visible to you<br />
* [[w:Full cost accounting]] in particular would make waste visible<br />
* [[w:Means of persuasion]], e.g. [[w:advertising]], [[w:propaganda]] of<br />
** [[w:Productivism]] assumes that everything humans make is good<br />
** [[w:Consumerism]] assumes that everything humans want is good<br />
<br />
Directly relevant to consumerium mission, making actual moral buying choices:<br />
* [[w:Slow Food]] - tied for third most relevant? buy local, organic, etc.<br />
* [[w: Sweatshop]] - tied for third most relevant? often the target of<br />
* [[w: Boycott]] - second most relevant? usually shorter term than<br />
* [[w:Moral purchasing]] describes most exactly the consumerium.org mission<br />
* [[w:Local food]]<br />
<br />
Other<br />
* [[w:brand management|brand management]], how products are positioned and gain identity. The "Wikipedia" brand has this concern too, leading to:<br />
* tracking of [[w:Wikipedia:Self-references|Self-references]] of the project to itself, which [[self-references|Consumerium needs too]] so it knows what it is and is becoming. <br />
* [[w:Wikipedia:itself]] which is the view of the english version of [[Wikipedia]] from '''Wikipedia, itself,''' and is used to mediate disputes about its direction and purposes.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)&diff=3809Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)2004-05-10T22:24:34Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[WARNING]] This article is linked from [[142.177.X.X/Anti Wikipedia Rants]] and expresses a critical perspective. If [[neutral point of view]] is your religion or the cabal are your friends you will not like this! [[WARNING]]'''<br />
<br />
''See also [[Wikipedia (neutral)]] for a neutral point of view version.''<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia Itself==<br />
<br />
'''Wikipedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] run by the [[Wikimedia]] foundation, It also receives support from Bomis Inc. in the form of free [[w:bandwidth|bandwidth]] and this connection with a [[for-profit]] [[corporation]] is seen as a burden affecting the functioning of [[Wikipedia]] as ''' a free encyclopedia''' as it claims to be.<br />
<br />
''Because Wikipedia censors much discussion of its own deficiencies, especially its legally significant ones, this article will focus on these, to balance the view at [[w:Wikipedia]] and [[w:Meta-Wikipedia]], which contains largely a Wikipedia-promoting view.''<br />
<br />
Wikipedia claims to be an [[w:encyclopedia|encyclopedia]] based on the [[GFDL text corpus]]. That is, it claims to have the editorial standards of an encyclopedia. It further asserts by claiming it is applying the terms of the GFDL that anything written and released under [[GFDL]], including those directly submitted via [[the Wikipedia user interface]] which is based on [[mediawiki]], can be legally included in the Wikipedia corpus. <br />
<br />
http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. As is often pointed out, it is in technical violation of several points of the GFDL due to a combination of software deficiencies, mismatches of the software with the terms of the GFDL, and a developer and [[sysop power structure]] that is the opposite of democratic, and strongly favours insiders over outsiders. It is generally run better in the 22 languages other than English, since the guiltiest parties actually can't read those languages. The [[GodKing]], Jim Wales, can't read or write any language other than English. This is probably good:<br />
<br />
Wikipedias' struggle to resolves their internal contradictions (multi-language project run by a [[GodKing]] who speaks and reads only English, claims of neutrality with no outreach or mediation mechanism other than a technology that itself puts a [[sysop power structure]] of mostly developed-world people in charge of content, inability to examine its own [[community point of view]]) will provide both good and bad examples for the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]], which would do well to avoid all the pitfalls it is falling into. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for a starting list of these, and references to longstanding issues and potential solutions that 'Wikipedians' ignore and censor, mostly at [[Meta-Wikipedia]], e.g. [[m:regime change]].''<br />
<br />
For instance the [http://fr.wikipedia.org French Wikipedia] is among the best run, although it had teething pains, it attracted competent people who knew to selectively ignore Wales' pronouncements. Probably the worst run today is the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia] - which seems to have no framework even for deciding what "Simple" is to mean... what purposes (or even audiences) it is to serve and what level of English mastery they may have. It has actually discouraged any discussion or policy setting in these regards, the opposite of what a real basis for translation of articles would have done.<br />
<br />
===Criticisms:===<br />
<br />
Wikipedia is often used as a [[bad example]] in discussions about the [[wiki way]] - sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Wrong use of it as an example focuses on the fact that it has a specific mission to build some specific content - which in fact almost all wikis do. Wikis are not wholly for the benefit of their authors, but, presumably, create some statement that WE* agree on and can present to others as OUR opinion or best assembly of the facts. The highly confused and ideological [[Meatball Wiki]] has a page[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiPediaIsNotTypical "Wikipedia is not typical"] which focuses on this, as if somehow wikis in general existed solely to facilitate text interchange among their users. Which might be true if wikis were all dating services, or intended to serve purposes like those of [[NetNews]]. However, this is to miss the whole point of [[collaborative editing technology]], which is to produce some output that represents something that is "more true than not". In real wikis, goodwill among contributors is a side effect of dedication to a common goal. In bad ones, it is required even under extreme circumstances of unethical behaviour, e.g. [[echo chamber]]s.<br />
<br />
Correctly citing Wikipedia as a bad example, many insiders are decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture. The Cunctator refers to its "vile mailing list", Robert Kaiser called it the "Nazipedia" because he believes there is viciously anti-semitic bias (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about [[outing]] that seem to focus on whether a [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]].<br />
<br />
In discussions of both policy and content, the loudest voices who attract the most supporters during the pendency of a discussion often dominate direction. Users critical of the project are sometimes blocked from discussions. A review of user-histories at Wikipedia suggests power users who spend several hours a day making small edits to numerous pages often dominate discussions, and comprise the most active elements of the administrative ranks. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia. There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not. There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content. He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc..<br />
<br />
Finally, Wikipedia has no full text search facility, due to deficiencies of the [[mediawiki]] software.<br />
:You can do full text searches using '''Google''' or '''Yahoo'''. Full text searching from the [[MySQL]] database became possible starting from version 4.0, which is now in use at [[Wikipedia]], but the lack of this feature is surely related to the heavy load on the servers - the [[Wikimedia]] foundation not having sufficient trust or resources to actually buy sufficient hardware.<br />
<br />
===Usefulness:===<br />
<br />
Wikipedia articles, flawed as they are, can often be a good first reference for someone with no knowledge at all of a topic, especially if they have good references. After reading a Wikipedia article, it is usually possible to enter a few search terms in google or another search engine and find more credible material on the same subject, confident that you are using the terms that are recognized there. Indeed, it is the ability to find several dozen to a hundred or so hits on google that is often used as a criteria for an acceptable title of an article. This one good feature is abused by applying it to subtitles, however, and generally by applying it only to subjects politically disliked by the sysops.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's article on itself [[w:Wikipedia]] makes various claims about its origins which are generally credible, but doesn't say enough about its many problems. There is an entire separate site devoted to that, the "meta" (see [[m:]]), and this debates issues of [[m:governance]], but the difference between such proposals and real [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] are great indeed. <br />
<br />
It seems Wikipedia has gone at least two years without seriously considering its governance structure, and that [[Wikimedia]] is simply a front organization for the same [[power structure]] that was described in early 2002 by Wales - a simple hierarchy with himself in charge, no accountability to anyone, not even donors who believe they are supporting a GFDL encyclopedia with "open" editing.<br />
<br />
There has been some examination of the project's role and the way it portrays itself, see [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]] for a list of contributions relevant to the form of Wikipedia, itself.<br />
<br />
In general, Wikipedia has a dishonest view of itself, and presents itself very dishonestly as an attempt to build an encyclopedia, when in fact it appears to do little or nothing to meet the editorial standards of a serious encyclopedia, and forces people of strong qualifications to answer to petty abuse from various parties of no particular qualifications at all. It should be seen as a project that helped build the [[GFDL text corpus]] in many languages, but is now in decline. Much as the attempt to build a "GNU Unix" built the body of [[GPL]] code.<br />
<br />
===Relation to Consumerium===<br />
<br />
The default position should be that Wikipedia's serious governance problems are so dangerous to Consumerium that they can't be repeated here. The English Wikipedias and Mediawiki are [[enemy projects]] in that their goals and values differ so radically from those of [[Consumerium]] that any confusion of one set of policies or concept of responsibility on those projects with the policies or responsibilities of Consumerium is a net negative - that is, anyone who says regarding an important governance decision that "X isn't what WE* do on Wikipedia" should be told "right, go away, we're doing it anyway". Or more neutrally, "that's evidence that X is the right thing to do". On [[governance]] specifically.<br />
<br />
*"[[who's we]]" on Wikipedia? See [[community point of view]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
===List of related wikipedia articles===<br />
<br />
If you see something in wikipedia that could be useful, please put it here, if the Wikipedia article '''is not complete''' you should put it in the [[Research]] page - '''Lists and timelines are very welcome.'''<br />
<br />
See also [[list of related Disinfopedia articles]], [[list of related Metaweb articles]], [[list of related Internet Encyclopedia articles]], [[list of related Everything2 articles]], [[list of Consumerium related articles]] (all external links)<br />
<br />
Understanding buying choices and their effects:<br />
* [[w:Conversion of units]]<br />
* [[w:GTIN]]<br />
* [[w:EAN]]<br />
* [[w:UPC]]<br />
* [[w:List of countries]]<br />
* [[w:List of timelines]]<br />
* [[w:List of reference tables]]<br />
* [[w:List of stock exchanges]]<br />
* [[w:List of supermarkets]]<br />
* [[w:Commodity markets]] - buying on the largest scale<br />
* [[w:Money]] - what it is and how it works, commodifying everything even you<br />
* [[w:Tariff]]<br />
<br />
Understanding moral choices as expressed in the marketplace:<br />
* [[w:list of ethics articles]] - why would you care what you buy?<br />
* [[w:Globalization]] makes it harder to know what your money does<br />
* [[w:Transparency International]] tries to make it easier to find out<br />
* [[w:Greenpeace]] has six campaigns to affect buying choices, and advocates<br />
* [[w:Accounting reform]] which would make more liabilities visible to you<br />
* [[w:Full cost accounting]] in particular would make waste visible<br />
* [[w:Means of persuasion]], e.g. [[w:advertising]], [[w:propaganda]] of<br />
** [[w:Productivism]] assumes that everything humans make is good<br />
** [[w:Consumerism]] assumes that everything humans want is good<br />
<br />
Directly relevant to consumerium mission, making actual moral buying choices:<br />
* [[w:Slow Food]] - tied for third most relevant? buy local, organic, etc.<br />
* [[w: Sweatshop]] - tied for third most relevant? often the target of<br />
* [[w: Boycott]] - second most relevant? usually shorter term than<br />
* [[w:Moral purchasing]] describes most exactly the consumerium.org mission<br />
* [[w:Local food]]<br />
<br />
Other<br />
* [[w:brand management|brand management]], how products are positioned and gain identity. The "Wikipedia" brand has this concern too, leading to:<br />
* tracking of [[w:Wikipedia:Self-references|Self-references]] of the project to itself, which [[self-references|Consumerium needs too]] so it knows what it is and is becoming. <br />
* [[w:Wikipedia:itself]] which is the view of the english version of [[Wikipedia]] from '''Wikipedia, itself,''' and is used to mediate disputes about its direction and purposes.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unsubstantiated_claims_of_Wikimedia_corruption&diff=4028Talk:Unsubstantiated claims of Wikimedia corruption2004-05-09T12:14:53Z<p>Virtual community: Proof?</p>
<hr />
<div>142, please provide specifics and references for these claims.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=3914Main Page2004-05-09T12:07:09Z<p>Virtual community: rv spam</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
{|cellpadding=2 cellspacing=3<br />
|- valign="top"<br />
|[[Consumerium:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome, newcomers]] to [[Consumerium]], where [[fair trade]], [[political consumerism]], and [[moral purchasing]] trends, which all are essential to our [[Consumerium:philosophy|philosophy]], are coming together to create what we call '''''[[moral purchasing power]]''''':<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium:Itself|Consumerium itself]] is a not-for-profit project to focus that power. <br />
<br />
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 '''[[CorpKnowPedia]]''' we hope to introduce you to.<br />
<br />
There are currently <font color="blue"> {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</font> [http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/Special:Allpages articles] of [[Development Wiki|Consumerium development]] related work<br />
<br />
|width="25%" bgcolor="#f0fff0" style="border:1px solid #6e6e6e;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"|<br />
Help with the <big>[[Consumerium:Executive summary|The Executive Summary page]]</big>.<br />
<br />
For editing practice, try playing in the [[Consumerium:Sandbox|Sandbox]].<br />
|}<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
<small>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</small><br />
<br />
<center><br />
===Selected articles===<br />
<br />
'''[[Links|Looking for info on companies and products now?]]''' - '''[[Features|Planned Features to The Consumer]]''' - '''[[Consumerium Services]]'''<br>'''[[Research Wiki|Planned Research Wiki]]''' - '''[[Publish Wiki|Planned Publish Wiki]]''' - '''[[The Consumerium Exchange]]''' - '''[[Design paradigm|Current Design Paradigm]]''' - '''[[Essential projects]]'''<br><br />
'''[[Fairtrade On Demand]]''', '''[[Consumerium User Stories]]'''<br />
</center><br />
----<br />
<table border=0><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
===New to Consumerium or Wiki?===<br />
* [[Consumerium:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome, newcomers]]<br />
* [[Motivation]]<br />
* [[Features]]<br />
* [[Consumerium:Philosophy|Philosophy]]<br />
* [[Consumerium:FAQ|FAQ]]<br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
===Ready to [[Contributing|contribute]]?===<br />
* [[Research]] <br />
* [[Wikipedia]]<br />
* [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia]<br />
* [[wiktionary:Consumerium translation lists]]<br />
* [[wiktionary:Appendix:Types of companies]] [[(NEW)]]<br />
* [[Consumerium:FAQ]]<br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
===[[Links]]===<br />
* [[Wikipedia|Links To Wikipedia]]<br />
* [[Essential projects]] - don't miss these!<br />
* [[Interesting projects]]<br />
* [[Interesting companies]]<br />
* [[Interesting organisations]]<br />
* [[Interesting software]]<br />
* [[Research|Ongoing works in Wikipedia etc.]]<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
===[[Software]]===<br />
* [[MediaWiki]]<br />
* [[MediaWiki modifications]]<br />
* [[ConsuML]] <br />
* [[Sourceforge]]<br />
* [[XML]]<br />
* [[XML/DTD]]<br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
===[[Hardware]]===<br />
* [[Hardware Requirements]]<br />
* [[Bluetooth]]<br />
* [[Near Field Communication]]<br />
</td><br />
<td><br />
===Other===<br />
* [[Consumerium:Village pump|Village pump]]<br />
* [[Timeline of Consumerium]]<br />
* [[Past]]<br />
* [[Future]]<br />
* [[Goals]]<br />
* [[Stages]]<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
----<br />
Use [[w:Wikipedia]] to link to http://www.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia (and [[m:]] to meta). Avoid unnecessary replicating, we're in the [[GFDL]] part of the world after all :)<br />
----<br />
<sub>Thanks to http://pingviini.net for hosting us. Consumerium [[Development Wiki]] is powered by [http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net MediaWiki], an open source [[wiki]] engine.</sub><br />
__NOEDITSECTION__</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bot&diff=3802Bot2004-05-08T14:15:48Z<p>Virtual community: +_alleged_ recyc. attacks; i agree that MySQL dumps should be salvaged</p>
<hr />
<div>A wiki '''bot''' is a software program that interacts with a [[wiki]] as if it was a real human editor; the most common case is editing wiki pages. It typically must be coded very specifically to a [[content management system]], e.g. [[wiki code]], so it is not usually possible to simply use a generic bot against a new wiki. For instance, a '''Mediawiki bot''' is specific to [[MediaWiki]] (and possibly [[GetWiki]], which is largely compatible).<br />
<br />
Harmless and approved wiki bots have been employed on [[Wikipedia]] and other [[large public wiki]]s, mainly for maintainance and data-importing tasks. See e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots]].<br />
<br />
It was a Wikipedia policy at some point that bot code should be kept secret [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-March/003250.html]. As of 2004, there is at least one publicly available "Wikipedia robot framework" [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/].<br />
<br />
A '''vandalbot''' is a malicious wiki bot that acts like a human [[vandalism|vandal]], to [[blank]], [[revert]] or [[garble]] page titles and content. Vandalbots may cause [[denial of service attack|denial of service]] and heavy server load.<br />
<br />
Some people allege that several typical vandalbot attacks were launched against [[Recyclopedia]] (which is based on [[GetWiki]]) within a week of its launch: these would blank pages and move them to random titles to maximize the difficulty of undoing the damage or tracking references to those pages.<br />
<br />
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take a strong stand against the use of vandalbots or [[crapflood]] techniques to resolve political issues. If it is targetted by such tactics, it must be able to respond legally, politically and technologically in tandem, to stay as resilient as possible.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recyclopedia&diff=3801Talk:Recyclopedia2004-05-08T14:04:50Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>Given that there is persistent censorship of socially responsible and green concepts at [[Wikipedia]], and it seems to be getting worse not better, at least according to Abe Sokolov, perhaps it is time to designate Recyclopedia as our source for general concept articles? They will not be censoring critical concepts because they don't get 1000 google hits when a fascist goes to look, at least.<br />
<br />
And, they could use the traffic. At the very least we should recommend it, not Wikipedia, on the [[front page]]<br />
<br />
''Actually, they can't use the traffic, given that their bandwidth seems to have been exceeded for several weeks now.''<br />
<br />
Is the Recyclopedia content mirrored anywhere? Could someone ask them for MySQL dumps?<br />
<br />
:Not to my knowledge. All I know that the Sysop, Bureaucrat of Recyclopedia is called Bobo and he may be contacted on [[w:Talk:Recyclopedia]] or [[Wikinfo]]. If someone could get a hold of him, we'd be glad to have a copy of Recyclopedia materials --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:10, 25 Apr 2004 (EEST)<br />
<br />
:"Formed as a reaction to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is controlled by an elite of SysOps and their cronies who heavily moderate the kind of things that Recyclopedia is interested in. Recyclopedia is being much more careful to avoid this systematic bias.<br />
<br />
:The creator of this project, bobo (at) enzyme dot org dot nz, whilst having started this project has been busy with other activities and it seems to have taken a life of its own, particularly due to several individuals in particular who are driving it in their own direction."</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bot&diff=3796Bot2004-05-06T23:17:36Z<p>Virtual community: vandal</p>
<hr />
<div>A wiki '''bot''' is a software program that interacts with a [[wiki]] as if it was a real human editor; the most common case is editing wiki pages. It typically must be coded very specifically to a [[content management system]], e.g. [[wiki code]], so it is not usually possible to simply use a generic bot against a new wiki. For instance, a '''Mediawiki bot''' is specific to [[MediaWiki]] (and possibly [[GetWiki]], which is largely compatible).<br />
<br />
Harmless and approved wiki bots have been employed on [[Wikipedia]] and other [[large public wiki]]s, mainly for maintainance and data-importing tasks. See e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots]].<br />
<br />
It was a Wikipedia policy at some point that bot code should be kept secret [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-March/003250.html]. As of 2004, there is at least one publicly available "Wikipedia robot framework" [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/].<br />
<br />
A '''vandalbot''' is a malicious wiki bot that acts like a human [[vandalism|vandal]], to [[blank]], [[revert]] or [[garble]] page titles and content. Vandalbots may cause [[denial of service attack|denial of service]] and heavy server load.<br />
<br />
Several typical vandalbot attacks were launched against [[Recyclopedia]] (which is based on [[GetWiki]]) within a week of its launch. These blanked pages and moved them to random titles to maximize the difficulty of undoing the damage or tracking references to those pages.<br />
<br />
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take a strong stand against the use of vandalbots or [[crapflood]] techniques to resolve political issues. If it is targetted by such tactics, it must be able to respond legally, politically and technologically in tandem, to stay as resilient as possible.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bot&diff=3782Bot2004-05-06T23:16:43Z<p>Virtual community: moving para</p>
<hr />
<div>A wiki '''bot''' is a software program that interacts with a [[wiki]] as if it was a real human editor; the most common case is editing wiki pages. It typically must be coded very specifically to a [[content management system]], e.g. [[wiki code]], so it is not usually possible to simply use a generic bot against a new wiki. For instance, a '''Mediawiki bot''' is specific to [[MediaWiki]] (and possibly [[GetWiki]], which is largely compatible).<br />
<br />
Harmless and approved wiki bots have been employed on [[Wikipedia]] and other [[large public wiki]]s, mainly for maintainance and data-importing tasks. See e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots]].<br />
<br />
It was a Wikipedia policy at some point that bot code should be kept secret [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-March/003250.html]. As of 2004, there is at least one publicly available "Wikipedia robot framework" [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/].<br />
<br />
A '''vandalbot''' is a malicious wiki bot that acts like a human [[vandal]], to [[blank]], [[revert]] or [[garble]] page titles and content. Vandalbots may cause [[denial of service attack|denial of service]] and heavy server load.<br />
<br />
Several typical vandalbot attacks were launched against [[Recyclopedia]] (which is based on [[GetWiki]]) within a week of its launch. These blanked pages and moved them to random titles to maximize the difficulty of undoing the damage or tracking references to those pages.<br />
<br />
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take a strong stand against the use of vandalbots or [[crapflood]] techniques to resolve political issues. If it is targetted by such tactics, it must be able to respond legally, politically and technologically in tandem, to stay as resilient as possible.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bot&diff=3781Bot2004-05-06T23:11:53Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A wiki '''bot''' is a software program that interacts with a [[wiki]] as if it was a real human editor; the most common case is editing wiki pages. It typically must be coded very specifically to a [[content management system]], e.g. [[wiki code]], so it is not usually possible to simply use a generic bot against a new wiki. For instance, a '''Mediawiki bot''' is specific to [[MediaWiki]] (and possibly [[GetWiki]], which is largely compatible).<br />
<br />
It was a Wikipedia policy at some point that bot code should be kept secret [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-March/003250.html]. As of 2004, there is at least one publicly available "Wikipedia robot framework" [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/].<br />
<br />
Harmless and approved wiki bots have been employed on [[Wikipedia]] and other [[large public wiki]]s, mainly for maintainance and data-importing tasks. See e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots]].<br />
<br />
A '''vandalbot''' is a malicious wiki bot that acts like a human [[vandal]], to [[blank]], [[revert]] or [[garble]] page titles and content. Vandalbots may cause [[denial of service attack|denial of service]] and heavy server load.<br />
<br />
Several typical vandalbot attacks were launched against [[Recyclopedia]] (which is based on [[GetWiki]]) within a week of its launch. These blanked pages and moved them to random titles to maximize the difficulty of undoing the damage or tracking references to those pages.<br />
<br />
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take a strong stand against the use of vandalbots or [[crapflood]] techniques to resolve political issues. If it is targetted by such tactics, it must be able to respond legally, politically and technologically in tandem, to stay as resilient as possible.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bot&diff=3780Bot2004-05-06T23:10:48Z<p>Virtual community: lk denial of service attack</p>
<hr />
<div>A wiki '''bot''' is a software program that interacts with a [[wiki]] as if it was a real human editor; the most common case is editing wiki pages. It typically must be coded very specifically to a [[content management system]], e.g. [[wiki code]], so it is not usually possible to simply use a generic bot against a new wiki. For instance, a '''Mediawiki bot''' is specific to [[MediaWiki]] (and possibly [[GetWiki]]).<br />
<br />
It was a Wikipedia policy at some point that bot code should be kept secret [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-March/003250.html]. As of 2004, there is at least one publicly available "Wikipedia robot framework" [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/].<br />
<br />
Harmless and approved wiki bots have been employed on [[Wikipedia]] and other [[large public wiki]]s, mainly for maintainance and data-importing tasks. See e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots]].<br />
<br />
A '''vandalbot''' is a malicious wiki bot that acts like a human [[vandal]], to [[blank]], [[revert]] or [[garble]] page titles and content. Vandalbots may cause [[denial of service attack|denial of service]] and heavy server load.<br />
<br />
Several typical vandalbot attacks were launched against [[Recyclopedia]] (which is based on [[GetWiki]]) within a week of its launch. These blanked pages and moved them to random titles to maximize the difficulty of undoing the damage or tracking references to those pages.<br />
<br />
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take a strong stand against the use of vandalbots or [[crapflood]] techniques to resolve political issues. If it is targetted by such tactics, it must be able to respond legally, politically and technologically in tandem, to stay as resilient as possible.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bot&diff=3779Bot2004-05-06T22:53:28Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A wiki '''bot''' is a software program that interacts with a [[wiki]] as if it was a real human editor; the most common case is editing wiki pages. It typically must be coded very specifically to a [[content management system]], e.g. [[wiki code]], so it is not usually possible to simply use a generic bot against a new wiki. For instance, a '''Mediawiki bot''' is specific to [[MediaWiki]] (and possibly [[GetWiki]]).<br />
<br />
It was a Wikipedia policy at some point that bot code should be kept secret [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-March/003250.html]. As of 2004, there is at least one publicly available "Wikipedia robot framework" [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/].<br />
<br />
Harmless and approved wiki bots have been employed on [[Wikipedia]] and other [[large public wiki]]s, mainly for maintainance and data-importing tasks. See e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots]].<br />
<br />
A '''vandalbot''' is a malicious wiki bot that acts like a human [[vandal]], to [[blank]], [[revert]] or [[garble]] page titles and content. Vandalbots may cause [[denial of service]] and heavy server load.<br />
<br />
Several typical vandalbot attacks were launched against [[Recyclopedia]] (which is based on [[GetWiki]]) within a week of its launch. These blanked pages and moved them to random titles to maximize the difficulty of undoing the damage or tracking references to those pages.<br />
<br />
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take a strong stand against the use of vandalbots or [[crapflood]] techniques to resolve political issues. If it is targetted by such tactics, it must be able to respond legally, politically and technologically in tandem, to stay as resilient as possible.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bot&diff=3778Bot2004-05-06T22:32:55Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>A wiki '''bot''' is a software program that interacts with a [[wiki]] as if it was a real human editor; the most common case is editing wiki pages. It typically must be coded very specifically to a [[content management system]], e.g. [[wiki code]], so it is not usually possible to simply use a generic bot against a new wiki. For instance, a '''Mediawiki bot''' is specific to [[MediaWiki]] (and possibly [[GetWiki]]).<br />
<br />
Harmless and approved wiki bots have been employed on [[Wikipedia]] and other [[large public wiki]]s, mainly for maintainance and data-importing tasks. See e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots]].<br />
<br />
A '''vandalbot''' is a malicious wiki bot that acts like a human [[vandal]], to [[blank]], [[revert]] or [[garble]] page titles and content. Vandalbots may cause [[denial of service]] and heavy server load.<br />
<br />
Several typical vandalbot attacks were launched against [[Recyclopedia]] within a week of its launch. These blanked pages and moved them to random titles to maximize the difficulty of undoing the damage or tracking references to those pages.<br />
<br />
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take a strong stand against the use of vandalbots or [[crapflood]] techniques to resolve political issues. If it is targetted by such tactics, it must be able to respond legally, politically and technologically in tandem, to stay as resilient as possible.<br />
<br />
* [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pywikipediabot/ Python Wikipedia Robot Framework], a publicly-available MediaWiki bot.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalbot&diff=15564Vandalbot2004-05-06T22:09:58Z<p>Virtual community: #REDIRECT bot. Removed some dubious claims.</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[bot]]</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_bot&diff=15583MediaWiki bot2004-05-06T22:04:06Z<p>Virtual community: This redirect is _very_ misleading. Not all MediaWiki bots are vandalbots.</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[bot]]</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bot&diff=3775Bot2004-05-06T22:01:49Z<p>Virtual community: merged from Vandalbot w/ some edits, added general info.</p>
<hr />
<div>A wiki '''bot''' is a software program that interacts with a [[wiki]] as if it was a real human editor; the most common case is editing wiki pages. It typically must be coded very specifically to a [[content management system]], e.g. [[wiki code]], so it is not usually possible to simply use a generic bot against a new wiki. For instance, a '''Mediawiki bot''' is specific to [[MediaWiki]] (and possibly [[GetWiki]]).<br />
<br />
Harmless and approved wiki bots have been employed on [[Wikipedia]] and other [[large public wiki]]s, mainly for maintainance and data-importing tasks. See e.g. [[w:Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots]].<br />
<br />
A '''vandalbot''' is a malicious wiki bot that acts like a human [[vandal]], to [[blank]], [[revert]] or [[garble]] page titles and content. Vandalbots may cause [[denial of service]] and heavy server load.<br />
<br />
Several typical vandalbot attacks were launched against [[Recyclopedia]] within a week of its launch. These blanked pages and moved them to random titles to maximize the difficulty of undoing the damage or tracking references to those pages.<br />
<br />
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take a strong stand against the use of vandalbots or [[crapflood]] techniques to resolve political issues. If it is targetted by such tactics, it must be able to respond legally, politically and technologically in tandem, to stay as resilient as possible.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=4963Wikimedia2004-05-03T21:25:38Z<p>Virtual community: moving para</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=3749Wikimedia2004-05-03T21:24:36Z<p>Virtual community: moving para</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Plato%27s_ontology&diff=3854Plato's ontology2004-05-03T20:32:48Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>What impact has [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Plato%27s_ontology Plato's ontology] and [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Plato%27s_ontology those theories that invoke it] had on the [[sysop]] mindset? Why do they believe that they can force a [[troll]] into some "ideal form" or that they can make them cease to exist? <br />
<br />
Are trolls not eternal? Did they not forge [[w:Mjolnir]]?</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Plato%27s_ontology&diff=3747Plato's ontology2004-05-03T20:31:40Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>What impact has [[Disinfopedia:Plato's ontology]] and those theories that invoke it had on the [[sysop]] mindset? Why do they believe that they can force a [[troll]] into some "ideal form" or that they can make them cease to exist? <br />
<br />
Are trolls not eternal? Did they not forge [[w:Mjolnir]]?</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia&diff=3758Talk:Wikimedia2004-05-01T15:53:43Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div>The specific [[echo chamber]] lies including the [[spun death threat]]s of certain "high-ranking" Wikipedians, don't need to be mentioned here, as it was not Wales himself that necessarily did this (though he doesn't stop it or keep other such stuff from happening). This is however one of the most serious indications that their management problems are unsolvable with present people involved. This problem has been commented on by a lot of other people, including James Day who says "only a fool would fail to remove obvious malicious [[libel]]", e.g. claims about others' motives, [[spun death threat]]s, as part of [[m:James explains law|explaining the many legal issues involved]] in the various Wikimedia projects.<br />
<br />
Removed claims that [[Wikipedia]] is an encyclopedia - it isn't. A "serious encyclopedia" has no visible "stubs", certainly does not let [[ad hominem]] rule over content in selection of articles, doesn't permit massive holes in key areas to persist for years, and doesn't let the [[community point of view]] of its employees overrule the good sense of historians, mathematicians, and etc.<br />
<br />
Removed claims that [[Wiktionary]] is a dictionary - it isn't. A dictionary must define the simplest words in terms of other simple words, and it must define complex words in terms of the simpler words. Wiktionary has no such discipline. It has no [[w:defining vocabulary]] even for [[w:idiom dictionary]] purposes.<br />
<br />
Further, the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] by failing to use [[staging]] or to apply such a defining vocabulary discipline (which would require about 2000 words), cannot serve as a basis for translation for culturally-rich articles. So this too is a fraud.<br />
<br />
Failing to actually BE an encyclopedia and dictionary and basis for translation are the biggest issues anyone could reasonably raise with [[Wikimedia]]'s projects, which are at this point simply [[pilot project]]s that have failed to satisfy the most basic requirements of the products they seek to replace. "Being free" is about all they can claim, and maybe not that, as it seems unlikely they can ever release a CD or print version due to copyright problems. Without, that is, pulling unethical tricks like Wikipedia suing itself, organizing contributors to pretend to fight the board, etc., etc.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
Here is more proof of Wikimedia corruption, as if any is needed. These deletions were not discussed anywhere. "Eloquence" is a [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]]:<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Wiki lawyer": content was: 'A '''Wiki lawyer''' is someone who argues the rules incessantly with the [[sysop power structure]]. Sometimes this is worse than having a [[priestly ...') <br />
::This article refers to an previously unknown term and therefore can be deleted as something that someone just thought up and decided to write an article on<br />
<br />
:::That's not the process on meta. Nor was the article written by the troll whose work was being censored at the time. Likewise this next one on WIPE. Erik Moeller (Eloquence) simply took the opportunity to destroy work that was offensive to himself and his chosen policies. It was political censorship, only:<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "WIPE syndrome") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Troll-friendly") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop power structure") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop vandalism") <br />
::Sysop power structure is de facto in place and serves the majority of users just well driving off vandals and too agressive-possessive [[trolls]]<br />
:::That is not an excuse to make it impossible for anyone to discuss such issues as [[WIPE syndrome]], [[troll-friendly]], [[sysop power structure]] or [[sysop vandalism]]. The only reason to do this is to ensure that no one ever has vocabulary to question these decisions.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Developer vigilantism") <br />
::Hmmh?<br />
:::[[developer vigilantiism]] (yes it is one of those rare words like "skiing" that has an "ii" in it) was actually noted by [[Brion Vibber]] originally. Obviously [[Erik Moeller]] (the name he himself has attached to Eloquence) is in favour of such vigilantiism, and wishes Vibber's issue never to be discussed.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "GFDL text corpus") <br />
::The whole concept of [[GFDL text corpus]] is errored in it's assumption that all [[GFDL]]'d material somehow belongs to a "corpus" that does not distinguish between places of editorship such as [[Wikipedia]], [[Wikinfo]] and [[Disinfopedia]]. All these places have been complained to be "corrupt" simply because they excersise editorial restraint so that all the noise does not render the signal useless, which is exactly what we intend to do a little for [[Research Wiki]] and more for [[Publish Wiki]].<br />
<br />
:::That is legally wrong. [[GFDL Corpus]] does legally exist - it is that body of (almost entirely text) which permits cut and paste copying with no [[copyright]] inhibitions. Now, there are other requirements that apply to a [[GFDL corpus access provider]], and yes, there are editorial standards specific to those providers or their product. It is only when those providers fail to enforce the standards required to ensure them, that they become corrupt in the sense of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. For instance to [[desysop]] the [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]] or [[developer vigilantiism|developer vigilante]], or put controls on [[sysop vigilantiism|sysop vigilante]]s. It is [[Wikimedia]]'s total failure to do this which has led to them being "corrupt". <br />
<br />
:::In any case, the issue is clearly complex enough to require discussion. If you go to [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.phtml?title=GFDL_corpus en: Wikinfo: GFDL corpus] you find they are not so dedicated to destroying the idea of one corpus with some unified standards. But they are not trying to monopolize and control the corpus - notice that Moeller himself is actually the Wikimedia representative for "content relationships", meaning, in a conflict of interest when some [[standard]]s neither Wikimedia nor he himself define are discussed.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Trollherd")<br />
::Trollherd is not relevant to Wikipedia mission in Eloquence's mind. Whether this is bad judgement is up to oneself to decide.<br />
<br />
:::This is not the process of deletion followed generally on meta. This is a [[usurper]], usurping.<br />
<br />
See [[m:Meta:Deletion log]]<br />
<br />
I removed all of the following from the main article, because it is mostly nonsense.<br />
<br />
*Refusing to release [[Most Clicked Links]] information on any [[Wikipedia]], even the small ones, where tracking this information would be quite simple, and would assist authors in supporting real end user interests. [It is claimed that this information is withheld specifically for the use of Bomis' search engine development.]<br />
::They are in no way obliged to reveal this information. If you have a problem with this go create a [[fork]] of [[Wikipedia]]. Some have tried it.<br />
<br />
:::Actually, this claim is completely and totally false. There has been no refusal of any kind to release any data of this kind. Additionally, I can find no evidence that anyone is even asking for this, or<br />
that any one has ever been critical (except here on this page) of us for this imagined fault.<br />
<br />
*Releasing only very limited page visit information - maybe due to the performance cost it adds<br />
<br />
::: Again, completely false. There is no truth to this at all.<br />
<br />
*Treating use of [[ISO]] language codes in [[mediawiki]]'s [[interwiki link standard|interwiki link conventions]] as if they are invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language".<br />
<br />
::But the interwiki links point to the page in another language<br />
<br />
:::This complaint is completely incoherent. If the original complainant could explain himself, I'm sure that any such problem would be eagerly addressed.<br />
<br />
*Banning, harassing, [[outing|attempting to "out"]] and permitting (if not deliberately attempting) [[framing]] users who point out any of the above. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extreme of [[echo chamber]] assertions being cited in Wikipedia articles as if they were true.<br />
<br />
:The most common criticism of Wikipedia is that the community is too open and welcoming and tolerant of people who have no willingness to work together in a healthy way with others. Such people are indeed angered when, after months of agonizing deliberations and attempts to find ways to compromise, they are eventually banned. Most wikipedians seem to feel that Jimbo has always been too lenient about such matters.<br />
<br />
*Not supporting the default [[standard wiki URI]] that [[Wikipedia]] itself uses, in [[Mediawiki]] releases to other parties. This makes the URIs of non-Wikipedia pages more difficult to remember and impossible to recall offhand, and shifting with each mediawiki release. Since Wikipedia's don't likewise shift, this makes it almost certain that Wikipedia pages will be linked to, not those other pages. This complaint may be out-of-date: there's some documentation about apache-modrewrite rules.<br />
<br />
*Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extremes of assuming that the '''Wikipedia mailing list''' consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts (witness James Day and Jimbo Wales debating). (may be wikipedia-specific?)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[w:User:Enforcer]] is making legal threats against Wikimedia: "Investigation of non-compliance with Florida charitabale solicitations law" -- see [[w:User talk:Enforcer]]. Jim Wales has commented [[w:User talk:Jimbo Wales|here]] and [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-May/012309.html here]. The user has been blocked by [[w:User:Eloquence]] with reason: "trolling / libel against Wikimedia foundation"</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia&diff=3722Talk:Wikimedia2004-05-01T15:43:02Z<p>Virtual community: update</p>
<hr />
<div>The specific [[echo chamber]] lies including the [[spun death threat]]s of certain "high-ranking" Wikipedians, don't need to be mentioned here, as it was not Wales himself that necessarily did this (though he doesn't stop it or keep other such stuff from happening). This is however one of the most serious indications that their management problems are unsolvable with present people involved. This problem has been commented on by a lot of other people, including James Day who says "only a fool would fail to remove obvious malicious [[libel]]", e.g. claims about others' motives, [[spun death threat]]s, as part of [[m:James explains law|explaining the many legal issues involved]] in the various Wikimedia projects.<br />
<br />
Removed claims that [[Wikipedia]] is an encyclopedia - it isn't. A "serious encyclopedia" has no visible "stubs", certainly does not let [[ad hominem]] rule over content in selection of articles, doesn't permit massive holes in key areas to persist for years, and doesn't let the [[community point of view]] of its employees overrule the good sense of historians, mathematicians, and etc.<br />
<br />
Removed claims that [[Wiktionary]] is a dictionary - it isn't. A dictionary must define the simplest words in terms of other simple words, and it must define complex words in terms of the simpler words. Wiktionary has no such discipline. It has no [[w:defining vocabulary]] even for [[w:idiom dictionary]] purposes.<br />
<br />
Further, the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] by failing to use [[staging]] or to apply such a defining vocabulary discipline (which would require about 2000 words), cannot serve as a basis for translation for culturally-rich articles. So this too is a fraud.<br />
<br />
Failing to actually BE an encyclopedia and dictionary and basis for translation are the biggest issues anyone could reasonably raise with [[Wikimedia]]'s projects, which are at this point simply [[pilot project]]s that have failed to satisfy the most basic requirements of the products they seek to replace. "Being free" is about all they can claim, and maybe not that, as it seems unlikely they can ever release a CD or print version due to copyright problems. Without, that is, pulling unethical tricks like Wikipedia suing itself, organizing contributors to pretend to fight the board, etc., etc.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
Here is more proof of Wikimedia corruption, as if any is needed. These deletions were not discussed anywhere. "Eloquence" is a [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]]:<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Wiki lawyer": content was: 'A '''Wiki lawyer''' is someone who argues the rules incessantly with the [[sysop power structure]]. Sometimes this is worse than having a [[priestly ...') <br />
::This article refers to an previously unknown term and therefore can be deleted as something that someone just thought up and decided to write an article on<br />
<br />
:::That's not the process on meta. Nor was the article written by the troll whose work was being censored at the time. Likewise this next one on WIPE. Erik Moeller (Eloquence) simply took the opportunity to destroy work that was offensive to himself and his chosen policies. It was political censorship, only:<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "WIPE syndrome") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Troll-friendly") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop power structure") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop vandalism") <br />
::Sysop power structure is de facto in place and serves the majority of users just well driving off vandals and too agressive-possessive [[trolls]]<br />
:::That is not an excuse to make it impossible for anyone to discuss such issues as [[WIPE syndrome]], [[troll-friendly]], [[sysop power structure]] or [[sysop vandalism]]. The only reason to do this is to ensure that no one ever has vocabulary to question these decisions.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Developer vigilantism") <br />
::Hmmh?<br />
:::[[developer vigilantiism]] (yes it is one of those rare words like "skiing" that has an "ii" in it) was actually noted by [[Brion Vibber]] originally. Obviously [[Erik Moeller]] (the name he himself has attached to Eloquence) is in favour of such vigilantiism, and wishes Vibber's issue never to be discussed.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "GFDL text corpus") <br />
::The whole concept of [[GFDL text corpus]] is errored in it's assumption that all [[GFDL]]'d material somehow belongs to a "corpus" that does not distinguish between places of editorship such as [[Wikipedia]], [[Wikinfo]] and [[Disinfopedia]]. All these places have been complained to be "corrupt" simply because they excersise editorial restraint so that all the noise does not render the signal useless, which is exactly what we intend to do a little for [[Research Wiki]] and more for [[Publish Wiki]].<br />
<br />
:::That is legally wrong. [[GFDL Corpus]] does legally exist - it is that body of (almost entirely text) which permits cut and paste copying with no [[copyright]] inhibitions. Now, there are other requirements that apply to a [[GFDL corpus access provider]], and yes, there are editorial standards specific to those providers or their product. It is only when those providers fail to enforce the standards required to ensure them, that they become corrupt in the sense of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. For instance to [[desysop]] the [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]] or [[developer vigilantiism|developer vigilante]], or put controls on [[sysop vigilantiism|sysop vigilante]]s. It is [[Wikimedia]]'s total failure to do this which has led to them being "corrupt". <br />
<br />
:::In any case, the issue is clearly complex enough to require discussion. If you go to [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.phtml?title=GFDL_corpus en: Wikinfo: GFDL corpus] you find they are not so dedicated to destroying the idea of one corpus with some unified standards. But they are not trying to monopolize and control the corpus - notice that Moeller himself is actually the Wikimedia representative for "content relationships", meaning, in a conflict of interest when some [[standard]]s neither Wikimedia nor he himself define are discussed.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Trollherd")<br />
::Trollherd is not relevant to Wikipedia mission in Eloquence's mind. Whether this is bad judgement is up to oneself to decide.<br />
<br />
:::This is not the process of deletion followed generally on meta. This is a [[usurper]], usurping.<br />
<br />
See [[m:Meta:Deletion log]]<br />
<br />
I removed all of the following from the main article, because it is mostly nonsense.<br />
<br />
*Refusing to release [[Most Clicked Links]] information on any [[Wikipedia]], even the small ones, where tracking this information would be quite simple, and would assist authors in supporting real end user interests. [It is claimed that this information is withheld specifically for the use of Bomis' search engine development.]<br />
::They are in no way obliged to reveal this information. If you have a problem with this go create a [[fork]] of [[Wikipedia]]. Some have tried it.<br />
<br />
:::Actually, this claim is completely and totally false. There has been no refusal of any kind to release any data of this kind. Additionally, I can find no evidence that anyone is even asking for this, or<br />
that any one has ever been critical (except here on this page) of us for this imagined fault.<br />
<br />
*Releasing only very limited page visit information - maybe due to the performance cost it adds<br />
<br />
::: Again, completely false. There is no truth to this at all.<br />
<br />
*Treating use of [[ISO]] language codes in [[mediawiki]]'s [[interwiki link standard|interwiki link conventions]] as if they are invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language".<br />
<br />
::But the interwiki links point to the page in another language<br />
<br />
:::This complaint is completely incoherent. If the original complainant could explain himself, I'm sure that any such problem would be eagerly addressed.<br />
<br />
*Banning, harassing, [[outing|attempting to "out"]] and permitting (if not deliberately attempting) [[framing]] users who point out any of the above. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extreme of [[echo chamber]] assertions being cited in Wikipedia articles as if they were true.<br />
<br />
:The most common criticism of Wikipedia is that the community is too open and welcoming and tolerant of people who have no willingness to work together in a healthy way with others. Such people are indeed angered when, after months of agonizing deliberations and attempts to find ways to compromise, they are eventually banned. Most wikipedians seem to feel that Jimbo has always been too lenient about such matters.<br />
<br />
*Not supporting the default [[standard wiki URI]] that [[Wikipedia]] itself uses, in [[Mediawiki]] releases to other parties. This makes the URIs of non-Wikipedia pages more difficult to remember and impossible to recall offhand, and shifting with each mediawiki release. Since Wikipedia's don't likewise shift, this makes it almost certain that Wikipedia pages will be linked to, not those other pages. This complaint may be out-of-date: there's some documentation about apache-modrewrite rules.<br />
<br />
*Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extremes of assuming that the '''Wikipedia mailing list''' consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts (witness James Day and Jimbo Wales debating). (may be wikipedia-specific?)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[w:User:Enforcer]] is making legal threats against Wikimedia: "Investigation of non-compliance with Florida charitabale solicitations law" -- see [[w:User talk:Enforcer]]. Jim Wales has commented [[w:User talk:Jimbo Wales|here]]. The user has been blocked by [[w:User:Eloquence]] with reason: "trolling / libel against Wikimedia foundation"</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia&diff=3721Talk:Wikimedia2004-05-01T11:21:25Z<p>Virtual community: legal threats</p>
<hr />
<div>The specific [[echo chamber]] lies including the [[spun death threat]]s of certain "high-ranking" Wikipedians, don't need to be mentioned here, as it was not Wales himself that necessarily did this (though he doesn't stop it or keep other such stuff from happening). This is however one of the most serious indications that their management problems are unsolvable with present people involved. This problem has been commented on by a lot of other people, including James Day who says "only a fool would fail to remove obvious malicious [[libel]]", e.g. claims about others' motives, [[spun death threat]]s, as part of [[m:James explains law|explaining the many legal issues involved]] in the various Wikimedia projects.<br />
<br />
Removed claims that [[Wikipedia]] is an encyclopedia - it isn't. A "serious encyclopedia" has no visible "stubs", certainly does not let [[ad hominem]] rule over content in selection of articles, doesn't permit massive holes in key areas to persist for years, and doesn't let the [[community point of view]] of its employees overrule the good sense of historians, mathematicians, and etc.<br />
<br />
Removed claims that [[Wiktionary]] is a dictionary - it isn't. A dictionary must define the simplest words in terms of other simple words, and it must define complex words in terms of the simpler words. Wiktionary has no such discipline. It has no [[w:defining vocabulary]] even for [[w:idiom dictionary]] purposes.<br />
<br />
Further, the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] by failing to use [[staging]] or to apply such a defining vocabulary discipline (which would require about 2000 words), cannot serve as a basis for translation for culturally-rich articles. So this too is a fraud.<br />
<br />
Failing to actually BE an encyclopedia and dictionary and basis for translation are the biggest issues anyone could reasonably raise with [[Wikimedia]]'s projects, which are at this point simply [[pilot project]]s that have failed to satisfy the most basic requirements of the products they seek to replace. "Being free" is about all they can claim, and maybe not that, as it seems unlikely they can ever release a CD or print version due to copyright problems. Without, that is, pulling unethical tricks like Wikipedia suing itself, organizing contributors to pretend to fight the board, etc., etc.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
Here is more proof of Wikimedia corruption, as if any is needed. These deletions were not discussed anywhere. "Eloquence" is a [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]]:<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Wiki lawyer": content was: 'A '''Wiki lawyer''' is someone who argues the rules incessantly with the [[sysop power structure]]. Sometimes this is worse than having a [[priestly ...') <br />
::This article refers to an previously unknown term and therefore can be deleted as something that someone just thought up and decided to write an article on<br />
<br />
:::That's not the process on meta. Nor was the article written by the troll whose work was being censored at the time. Likewise this next one on WIPE. Erik Moeller (Eloquence) simply took the opportunity to destroy work that was offensive to himself and his chosen policies. It was political censorship, only:<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "WIPE syndrome") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Troll-friendly") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop power structure") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop vandalism") <br />
::Sysop power structure is de facto in place and serves the majority of users just well driving off vandals and too agressive-possessive [[trolls]]<br />
:::That is not an excuse to make it impossible for anyone to discuss such issues as [[WIPE syndrome]], [[troll-friendly]], [[sysop power structure]] or [[sysop vandalism]]. The only reason to do this is to ensure that no one ever has vocabulary to question these decisions.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Developer vigilantism") <br />
::Hmmh?<br />
:::[[developer vigilantiism]] (yes it is one of those rare words like "skiing" that has an "ii" in it) was actually noted by [[Brion Vibber]] originally. Obviously [[Erik Moeller]] (the name he himself has attached to Eloquence) is in favour of such vigilantiism, and wishes Vibber's issue never to be discussed.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "GFDL text corpus") <br />
::The whole concept of [[GFDL text corpus]] is errored in it's assumption that all [[GFDL]]'d material somehow belongs to a "corpus" that does not distinguish between places of editorship such as [[Wikipedia]], [[Wikinfo]] and [[Disinfopedia]]. All these places have been complained to be "corrupt" simply because they excersise editorial restraint so that all the noise does not render the signal useless, which is exactly what we intend to do a little for [[Research Wiki]] and more for [[Publish Wiki]].<br />
<br />
:::That is legally wrong. [[GFDL Corpus]] does legally exist - it is that body of (almost entirely text) which permits cut and paste copying with no [[copyright]] inhibitions. Now, there are other requirements that apply to a [[GFDL corpus access provider]], and yes, there are editorial standards specific to those providers or their product. It is only when those providers fail to enforce the standards required to ensure them, that they become corrupt in the sense of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. For instance to [[desysop]] the [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]] or [[developer vigilantiism|developer vigilante]], or put controls on [[sysop vigilantiism|sysop vigilante]]s. It is [[Wikimedia]]'s total failure to do this which has led to them being "corrupt". <br />
<br />
:::In any case, the issue is clearly complex enough to require discussion. If you go to [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.phtml?title=GFDL_corpus en: Wikinfo: GFDL corpus] you find they are not so dedicated to destroying the idea of one corpus with some unified standards. But they are not trying to monopolize and control the corpus - notice that Moeller himself is actually the Wikimedia representative for "content relationships", meaning, in a conflict of interest when some [[standard]]s neither Wikimedia nor he himself define are discussed.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Trollherd")<br />
::Trollherd is not relevant to Wikipedia mission in Eloquence's mind. Whether this is bad judgement is up to oneself to decide.<br />
<br />
:::This is not the process of deletion followed generally on meta. This is a [[usurper]], usurping.<br />
<br />
See [[m:Meta:Deletion log]]<br />
<br />
I removed all of the following from the main article, because it is mostly nonsense.<br />
<br />
*Refusing to release [[Most Clicked Links]] information on any [[Wikipedia]], even the small ones, where tracking this information would be quite simple, and would assist authors in supporting real end user interests. [It is claimed that this information is withheld specifically for the use of Bomis' search engine development.]<br />
::They are in no way obliged to reveal this information. If you have a problem with this go create a [[fork]] of [[Wikipedia]]. Some have tried it.<br />
<br />
:::Actually, this claim is completely and totally false. There has been no refusal of any kind to release any data of this kind. Additionally, I can find no evidence that anyone is even asking for this, or<br />
that any one has ever been critical (except here on this page) of us for this imagined fault.<br />
<br />
*Releasing only very limited page visit information - maybe due to the performance cost it adds<br />
<br />
::: Again, completely false. There is no truth to this at all.<br />
<br />
*Treating use of [[ISO]] language codes in [[mediawiki]]'s [[interwiki link standard|interwiki link conventions]] as if they are invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language".<br />
<br />
::But the interwiki links point to the page in another language<br />
<br />
:::This complaint is completely incoherent. If the original complainant could explain himself, I'm sure that any such problem would be eagerly addressed.<br />
<br />
*Banning, harassing, [[outing|attempting to "out"]] and permitting (if not deliberately attempting) [[framing]] users who point out any of the above. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extreme of [[echo chamber]] assertions being cited in Wikipedia articles as if they were true.<br />
<br />
:The most common criticism of Wikipedia is that the community is too open and welcoming and tolerant of people who have no willingness to work together in a healthy way with others. Such people are indeed angered when, after months of agonizing deliberations and attempts to find ways to compromise, they are eventually banned. Most wikipedians seem to feel that Jimbo has always been too lenient about such matters.<br />
<br />
*Not supporting the default [[standard wiki URI]] that [[Wikipedia]] itself uses, in [[Mediawiki]] releases to other parties. This makes the URIs of non-Wikipedia pages more difficult to remember and impossible to recall offhand, and shifting with each mediawiki release. Since Wikipedia's don't likewise shift, this makes it almost certain that Wikipedia pages will be linked to, not those other pages. This complaint may be out-of-date: there's some documentation about apache-modrewrite rules.<br />
<br />
*Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extremes of assuming that the '''Wikipedia mailing list''' consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts (witness James Day and Jimbo Wales debating). (may be wikipedia-specific?)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[w:User:Enforcer]] is making legal threats against Wikimedia: "Investigation of non-compliance with Florida charitabale solicitations law" -- see [[w:User talk:Enforcer]].</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)&diff=3730Talk:Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)2004-04-30T18:12:59Z<p>Virtual community: update: Jimmy Wales's reply</p>
<hr />
<div>The entire [[m:]] Meta-Wikipedia is devoted to Talk about Wikipedia. Please don't do it here!<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
Only issue worth noting is who we don't want coming over here. It's now getting quite easy to identify who the ideologically motivated censors are:<br />
<br />
[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011420.html This account] correctly quotes the [[sysop vandalism|sysop-vandal]] [[w:User:Pakaran]] and the [[w:racism|overt racist]] [[w:User:RickK]] as conspiring to attack and remove views from a contrary POV, that of [[Reds]].<br />
<br />
According to that account, "The comments by User:Pakaran <br />
are merely an example of a broader, overarching pattern; the abuse of users <br />
who hold unpopular beliefs is practically out in the open now and out of <br />
control." [[w:User:Jimbo_Wales]] calls this [[sysop vigilantiism]], though he himself admits an [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011439.html anti-communist viewpoint] probably due to being American and brainwashed by racists and fascists in primary school.<br />
<br />
Sokolov's list of racists and fascists engaged in this behaviour include[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011443.html "Pakaran, RickK, Adam Carr, PMA, Very Verily, Tim Starling, and Robert Merkel"]. Of these [[w:User:Adam_Carr]] seems most egregious to Sokolov/172. Interesting how this list compares to those listed in the various [[AWR]]. It could not be a coincidence that on a list of ONLY SEVEN USERS, that THREE OF THEM would be also those engaged in ideological censorship earlier, against 142 and others - see [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for instance, where Starling basically admits his whole motivation for adding range blocks to [[mediawiki]] is ideological.<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
There's an interesting discussion on the [http://www.webbyawards.com/peoplesvoice/index.html Webby - People's Voice] message boards about Wikipedia's nominations (under the "Community" and "Best practices" categories). It is partly referenced in a [[w:Wikipedia:Village pump]] thread (subject: Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia).<br />
<br />
If you want to view or contribute comments on the Webby Awards website, go there, log in and look under "community" and "best practices" for comments.<br />
<br />
''From [[w:Wikipedia_talk:Webby Awards]]''<br />
<br />
:"The day will come when I will put out the call for funds to distribute paper copies of Wikipedia to every child in every third world country in the world. This, too, is our mission...to achieve those goals will require us to become famous, to become a household name to every single person on the planet. Why? Because to distribute our work to everyone in the world is going to cost an enormous ton of money,...We're taking part in a revolution here, not playing around with a sideline hobby...I fully intend to get a copy of Wikipedia to every single person on the planet, and I'll do what it takes to get there" - Wales.<br />
<br />
:This would be profitable for the paper and printing industry. What do you suggest then, printing and distributing [[Wikinfo]]? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:15, 27 Apr 2004 (EEST)<br />
<br />
::Wales must be stopped, now, before he and his clique really do rule the encyclopedia world. He used to be just an incompetent hobbyist. Now he wants to be the Bill Gates of content.<br />
<br />
::This would be extremely dangerous for the planet itself, given [[w:GDP]] and other far right wing entries, the unbalanced "community" that "protects" these to remain acceptable to far-right Americans. There's also deliberate censorship of even mildly green entries.<br />
<br />
::The right answer is for an [[independent board]], say from [http://longnow.org longnow] or some bunch of [[NGO]]s, to take over and figure out what an ideal [[developing nation]] village actually cares about, and then make sure at least that is there in [[Simple English]]. Sabotaging this kind of thing is what makes good projects into [[enemy projects]]. The [[GFDL Corpus]] must be taken over by some more responsible group that cares about its users, not its own "community"/cliques.<br />
<br />
:::Feel free to do so, it's [[GFDL]] stupid<br />
<br />
''also from that page''<br />
<br />
Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia <br />
<br />
While I was voting for Wikipedia under the category of community, I ran accross a comment that suggested Wikipedia is not a community and that the encyclopedia was losing its integrity as a pedia because members were making some sort social hierarchy which resulted in the deletion and reverting of articles on the basis of who wrote it instead of the accuracy of the article. Should these accusations be true, then the goal of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has be compromised. What I want to know is, are these supposed deletions and revertions on the basis of the writer of an article indeed occuring? <br />
<br />
:This is true, it's [[ad hominem delete]] and [[sysop vandalism]], which are absolutely counter to any "real encyclopedia" goals.<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
There's an instructive discussion re: Wikipedia and Bomis at [[w:Talk:Fallujah]]. Several users are demanding some sort of disclaimer that Bomis is somehow associated with the U.S. Marine Corps and therefore Wikipedia/Wikimedia cannot be neutral in editing such articles as Fallujah. Jimmy Wales has replied [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012277.html here]</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_(from_142_perspective)&diff=3715Talk:Wikipedia (from 142 perspective)2004-04-30T08:21:18Z<p>Virtual community: interesting discussion at w:Talk:Fallujah</p>
<hr />
<div>The entire [[m:]] Meta-Wikipedia is devoted to Talk about Wikipedia. Please don't do it here!<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
Only issue worth noting is who we don't want coming over here. It's now getting quite easy to identify who the ideologically motivated censors are:<br />
<br />
[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011420.html This account] correctly quotes the [[sysop vandalism|sysop-vandal]] [[w:User:Pakaran]] and the [[w:racism|overt racist]] [[w:User:RickK]] as conspiring to attack and remove views from a contrary POV, that of [[Reds]].<br />
<br />
According to that account, "The comments by User:Pakaran <br />
are merely an example of a broader, overarching pattern; the abuse of users <br />
who hold unpopular beliefs is practically out in the open now and out of <br />
control." [[w:User:Jimbo_Wales]] calls this [[sysop vigilantiism]], though he himself admits an [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011439.html anti-communist viewpoint] probably due to being American and brainwashed by racists and fascists in primary school.<br />
<br />
Sokolov's list of racists and fascists engaged in this behaviour include[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011443.html "Pakaran, RickK, Adam Carr, PMA, Very Verily, Tim Starling, and Robert Merkel"]. Of these [[w:User:Adam_Carr]] seems most egregious to Sokolov/172. Interesting how this list compares to those listed in the various [[AWR]]. It could not be a coincidence that on a list of ONLY SEVEN USERS, that THREE OF THEM would be also those engaged in ideological censorship earlier, against 142 and others - see [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for instance, where Starling basically admits his whole motivation for adding range blocks to [[mediawiki]] is ideological.<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
There's an interesting discussion on the [http://www.webbyawards.com/peoplesvoice/index.html Webby - People's Voice] message boards about Wikipedia's nominations (under the "Community" and "Best practices" categories). It is partly referenced in a [[w:Wikipedia:Village pump]] thread (subject: Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia).<br />
<br />
If you want to view or contribute comments on the Webby Awards website, go there, log in and look under "community" and "best practices" for comments.<br />
<br />
''From [[w:Wikipedia_talk:Webby Awards]]''<br />
<br />
:"The day will come when I will put out the call for funds to distribute paper copies of Wikipedia to every child in every third world country in the world. This, too, is our mission...to achieve those goals will require us to become famous, to become a household name to every single person on the planet. Why? Because to distribute our work to everyone in the world is going to cost an enormous ton of money,...We're taking part in a revolution here, not playing around with a sideline hobby...I fully intend to get a copy of Wikipedia to every single person on the planet, and I'll do what it takes to get there" - Wales.<br />
<br />
:This would be profitable for the paper and printing industry. What do you suggest then, printing and distributing [[Wikinfo]]? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:15, 27 Apr 2004 (EEST)<br />
<br />
::Wales must be stopped, now, before he and his clique really do rule the encyclopedia world. He used to be just an incompetent hobbyist. Now he wants to be the Bill Gates of content.<br />
<br />
::This would be extremely dangerous for the planet itself, given [[w:GDP]] and other far right wing entries, the unbalanced "community" that "protects" these to remain acceptable to far-right Americans. There's also deliberate censorship of even mildly green entries.<br />
<br />
::The right answer is for an [[independent board]], say from [http://longnow.org longnow] or some bunch of [[NGO]]s, to take over and figure out what an ideal [[developing nation]] village actually cares about, and then make sure at least that is there in [[Simple English]]. Sabotaging this kind of thing is what makes good projects into [[enemy projects]]. The [[GFDL Corpus]] must be taken over by some more responsible group that cares about its users, not its own "community"/cliques.<br />
<br />
:::Feel free to do so, it's [[GFDL]] stupid<br />
<br />
''also from that page''<br />
<br />
Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia <br />
<br />
While I was voting for Wikipedia under the category of community, I ran accross a comment that suggested Wikipedia is not a community and that the encyclopedia was losing its integrity as a pedia because members were making some sort social hierarchy which resulted in the deletion and reverting of articles on the basis of who wrote it instead of the accuracy of the article. Should these accusations be true, then the goal of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has be compromised. What I want to know is, are these supposed deletions and revertions on the basis of the writer of an article indeed occuring? <br />
<br />
:This is true, it's [[ad hominem delete]] and [[sysop vandalism]], which are absolutely counter to any "real encyclopedia" goals.<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
There's an instructive discussion re: Wikipedia and Bomis at [[w:Talk:Fallujah]]. Several users are demanding some sort of disclaimer that Bomis is somehow associated with the U.S. Marine Corps and therefore Wikipedia/Wikimedia cannot be neutral in editing such articles as Fallujah.</div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=3720Wikimedia2004-04-29T19:11:39Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=3712Wikimedia2004-04-29T19:09:30Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=3711Wikimedia2004-04-29T19:06:47Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=3710Wikimedia2004-04-29T17:35:17Z<p>Virtual community: found reference</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=3709Wikimedia2004-04-29T16:53:43Z<p>Virtual community: lk interwiki link standard</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=3708Wikimedia2004-04-29T16:40:44Z<p>Virtual community: clarify last point; it's a proposal</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=3705Wikimedia2004-04-29T16:36:32Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia&diff=3704Wikimedia2004-04-29T16:21:02Z<p>Virtual community: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Virtual communityhttps://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia&diff=3719Talk:Wikimedia2004-04-29T16:18:06Z<p>Virtual community: add some stuff, comment</p>
<hr />
<div>The specific [[echo chamber]] lies including the [[spun death threat]]s of certain "high-ranking" Wikipedians, don't need to be mentioned here, as it was not Wales himself that necessarily did this (though he doesn't stop it or keep other such stuff from happening). This is however one of the most serious indications that their management problems are unsolvable with present people involved. This problem has been commented on by a lot of other people, including James Day who says "only a fool would fail to remove obvious malicious [[libel]]", e.g. claims about others' motives, [[spun death threat]]s, as part of [[m:James explains law|explaining the many legal issues involved]] in the various Wikimedia projects.<br />
<br />
Removed claims that [[Wikipedia]] is an encyclopedia - it isn't. A "serious encyclopedia" has no visible "stubs", certainly does not let [[ad hominem]] rule over content in selection of articles, doesn't permit massive holes in key areas to persist for years, and doesn't let the [[community point of view]] of its employees overrule the good sense of historians, mathematicians, and etc.<br />
<br />
Removed claims that [[Wiktionary]] is a dictionary - it isn't. A dictionary must define the simplest words in terms of other simple words, and it must define complex words in terms of the simpler words. Wiktionary has no such discipline. It has no [[w:defining vocabulary]] even for [[w:idiom dictionary]] purposes.<br />
<br />
Further, the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] by failing to use [[staging]] or to apply such a defining vocabulary discipline (which would require about 2000 words), cannot serve as a basis for translation for culturally-rich articles. So this too is a fraud.<br />
<br />
Failing to actually BE an encyclopedia and dictionary and basis for translation are the biggest issues anyone could reasonably raise with [[Wikimedia]]'s projects, which are at this point simply [[pilot project]]s that have failed to satisfy the most basic requirements of the products they seek to replace. "Being free" is about all they can claim, and maybe not that, as it seems unlikely they can ever release a CD or print version due to copyright problems. Without, that is, pulling unethical tricks like Wikipedia suing itself, organizing contributors to pretend to fight the board, etc., etc.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
Here is more proof of Wikimedia corruption, as if any is needed. These deletions were not discussed anywhere. "Eloquence" is a [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]]:<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Wiki lawyer": content was: 'A '''Wiki lawyer''' is someone who argues the rules incessantly with the [[sysop power structure]]. Sometimes this is worse than having a [[priestly ...') <br />
::This article refers to an previously unknown term and therefore can be deleted as something that someone just thought up and decided to write an article on<br />
<br />
:::That's not the process on meta. Nor was the article written by the troll whose work was being censored at the time. Likewise this next one on WIPE. Erik Moeller (Eloquence) simply took the opportunity to destroy work that was offensive to himself and his chosen policies. It was political censorship, only:<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:35 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "WIPE syndrome") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Troll-friendly") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:33 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop power structure") <br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop vandalism") <br />
::Sysop power structure is de facto in place and serves the majority of users just well driving off vandals and too agressive-possessive [[trolls]]<br />
:::That is not an excuse to make it impossible for anyone to discuss such issues as [[WIPE syndrome]], [[troll-friendly]], [[sysop power structure]] or [[sysop vandalism]]. The only reason to do this is to ensure that no one ever has vocabulary to question these decisions.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Developer vigilantism") <br />
::Hmmh?<br />
:::[[developer vigilantiism]] (yes it is one of those rare words like "skiing" that has an "ii" in it) was actually noted by [[Brion Vibber]] originally. Obviously [[Erik Moeller]] (the name he himself has attached to Eloquence) is in favour of such vigilantiism, and wishes Vibber's issue never to be discussed.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "GFDL text corpus") <br />
::The whole concept of [[GFDL text corpus]] is errored in it's assumption that all [[GFDL]]'d material somehow belongs to a "corpus" that does not distinguish between places of editorship such as [[Wikipedia]], [[Wikinfo]] and [[Disinfopedia]]. All these places have been complained to be "corrupt" simply because they excersise editorial restraint so that all the noise does not render the signal useless, which is exactly what we intend to do a little for [[Research Wiki]] and more for [[Publish Wiki]].<br />
<br />
:::That is legally wrong. [[GFDL Corpus]] does legally exist - it is that body of (almost entirely text) which permits cut and paste copying with no [[copyright]] inhibitions. Now, there are other requirements that apply to a [[GFDL corpus access provider]], and yes, there are editorial standards specific to those providers or their product. It is only when those providers fail to enforce the standards required to ensure them, that they become corrupt in the sense of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. For instance to [[desysop]] the [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]] or [[developer vigilantiism|developer vigilante]], or put controls on [[sysop vigilantiism|sysop vigilante]]s. It is [[Wikimedia]]'s total failure to do this which has led to them being "corrupt". <br />
<br />
:::In any case, the issue is clearly complex enough to require discussion. If you go to [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.phtml?title=GFDL_corpus en: Wikinfo: GFDL corpus] you find they are not so dedicated to destroying the idea of one corpus with some unified standards. But they are not trying to monopolize and control the corpus - notice that Moeller himself is actually the Wikimedia representative for "content relationships", meaning, in a conflict of interest when some [[standard]]s neither Wikimedia nor he himself define are discussed.<br />
<br />
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Trollherd")<br />
::Trollherd is not relevant to Wikipedia mission in Eloquence's mind. Whether this is bad judgement is up to oneself to decide.<br />
<br />
:::This is not the process of deletion followed generally on meta. This is a [[usurper]], usurping.<br />
<br />
See [[m:Meta:Deletion log]]<br />
<br />
I removed all of the following from the main article, because it is mostly nonsense.<br />
<br />
*Refusing to release [[Most Clicked Links]] information on any [[Wikipedia]], even the small ones, where tracking this information would be quite simple, and would assist authors in supporting real end user interests. [It is claimed that this information is withheld specifically for the use of Bomis' search engine development.]<br />
::They are in no way obliged to reveal this information. If you have a problem with this go create a [[fork]] of [[Wikipedia]]. Some have tried it.<br />
<br />
:::Actually, this claim is completely and totally false. There has been no refusal of any kind to release any data of this kind. Additionally, I can find no evidence that anyone is even asking for this, or<br />
that any one has ever been critical (except here on this page) of us for this imagined fault.<br />
<br />
*Releasing only very limited page visit information - maybe due to the performance cost it adds<br />
<br />
::: Again, completely false. There is no truth to this at all.<br />
<br />
*Treating use of [[ISO]] language codes in [[mediawiki]]'s [[interwiki link standard|interwiki link conventions]] as if they are invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language".<br />
<br />
::But the interwiki links point to the page in another language<br />
<br />
:::This complaint is completely incoherent. If the original complainant could explain himself, I'm sure that any such problem would be eagerly addressed.<br />
<br />
*Banning, harassing, [[outing|attempting to "out"]] and permitting (if not deliberately attempting) [[framing]] users who point out any of the above. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extreme of [[echo chamber]] assertions being cited in Wikipedia articles as if they were true.<br />
<br />
:The most common criticism of Wikipedia is that the community is too open and welcoming and tolerant of people who have no willingness to work together in a healthy way with others. Such people are indeed angered when, after months of agonizing deliberations and attempts to find ways to compromise, they are eventually banned. Most wikipedians seem to feel that Jimbo has always been too lenient about such matters.<br />
<br />
*Not supporting the default [[standard wiki URI]] that [[Wikipedia]] itself uses, in [[Mediawiki]] releases to other parties. This makes the URIs of non-Wikipedia pages more difficult to remember and impossible to recall offhand, and shifting with each mediawiki release. Since Wikipedia's don't likewise shift, this makes it almost certain that Wikipedia pages will be linked to, not those other pages. This complaint may be out-of-date: there's some documentation about apache-modrewrite rules.<br />
<br />
*Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extremes of assuming that the '''Wikipedia mailing list''' consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts (witness James Day and Jimbo Wales debating). (may be wikipedia-specific?)</div>Virtual community