https://develop.consumerium.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=142.177.75.54&feedformat=atomConsumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T22:41:26ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.6https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Security&diff=14483Talk:Security2004-02-20T18:14:56Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>wanted to add "...unlike the [[Wikipedia|Wankypedia]], whose [[sysop vandalism|self-appointed censors]] actually want to keep their users ignorant, while aggrandizing themselves." But in the interests of brevity, avoided it.<br />
<br />
This time.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Security&diff=14112Security2004-02-20T18:13:48Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>Many consumers see '''security''' as peace of mind, usually arising from anything from dumb luck to mathematical certainty, of: <br />
* knowing you're well protected. to a consumer, this may include knowing the warranties on products, company name/location, support contact info. <br />
<br />
To consumerium, it means protection from [[worst cases]].<br />
<br />
It does not refer to either "[[hard security]]" or "[[soft security]]" which are discredited ideas. Nor does it refer to any shared feeling that arises from some [[faction]], especially not that of the [[sysop power structure]]. Consumerium carefully separates user interests from contributors' feelings. As in any competent project, contributors put up with some discomfort to achieve a desirable result from the beneficiary.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Security&diff=2495Security2004-02-20T18:12:28Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>Many consumers see '''security''' as peace of mind, usually arising from anything from dumb luck to mathematical certainty, of: <br />
* knowing you're well protected. to a consumer, this may include knowing the warranties on products, company name/location, support contact info. <br />
<br />
To consumerium, it means protection from [[worst cases]].<br />
<br />
It does not refer to either "[[hard security]]" or "[[soft security]]" which are discredited ideas.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Block_IP&diff=14414Block IP2004-02-20T18:11:09Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>To '''block IP''' is a [[governance operation]] which is usually exercised by the [[sysop power structure]]. The resulting '''IP block''' prevents editing from a given Internet location (an [[IP number]]), or, in the case of an '''IP range block''', range of locations. To '''unblock IP''' reverses this, removing a '''block'''. ''See [[Special:Blocked IP addresses]] for a list of blocks currently in effect - which typically apply to editing but not reading.''<br />
<br />
The '''soft security''' model argues that you should block IP as little as possible, but permit various tactics ([[libel]], [[outing]], [[framing]] and other even less ethical tricks) by the [[sysop power structure]] to intimidate and harass users who do not share the [[community point of view]]. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:left-wing politics]].<br />
<br />
The '''hard security''' model argues that you should do little or nothing until the [[power structure]] (or just a [[GodKing]]) is offended. This conserves energy and avoids revealing sensitivities. At that point one can [[demand apology]] and submission to that power structure, or just block IP as a first resort, perhaps to prove power. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:right-wing politics]].<br />
<br />
Many [[large public wiki]]s apply the worst of both worlds, pretending to prefer "soft" security but in reality always waiting for the excuse to apply "hard". Some persistent cases (e.g. [[142.X.X.X]]) demonstrate that either set of tactics will fail, and lead to discrediting a power structure as other contributors realize that any model of '''security''' has contradictions, and favours insiders over outsiders, can only reinforce [[community point of view]], which is also called [[groupthink]].<br />
<br />
To avoid this, the [[troll-friendly]] model argues that you should avoid [[w:technological escalation]] as it invites further escalation which can include worse trolls, hacking, and spreading an issue to many wikis, e.g. the dogged pursuit and [[witchhunt]] of [[142.X.X.X]] contributions across almost the entire Internet. Even a [[friendly troll]] can turn hostile and seriously damage a project's credibility and prospects if handled according to '''hard''' or '''soft''' model. The only characteristic that really can be said to identify a [[troll]] is disinterest in, and rejection of, both of these models. Some claim the troll-friendly model derives from [[w:green politics]] which avoids technological escalation, looks for [[harms reduction]] methods, and fosters the [[political virtues]].<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will have to set some policy on this.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Block_IP&diff=2493Block IP2004-02-20T18:07:08Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>To '''block IP''' is a [[governance operation]] which is usually exercised by the [[sysop power structure]]. The resulting '''IP block''' prevents editing from a given Internet location (an [[IP number]]), or, in the case of an '''IP range block''', range of locations. To '''unblock IP''' reverses this, removing a '''block'''. ''See [[Special:Blocked IP addresses]] for a list of blocks currently in effect - which typically apply to editing but not reading.''<br />
<br />
The '''soft security''' model argues that you should block IP as little as possible, but permit various tactics ([[libel]], [[outing]], [[framing]] and other even less ethical tricks) by the [[sysop power structure]] to intimidate and harass users who do not share the [[community point of view]]. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:left-wing politics]].<br />
<br />
The '''hard security''' model argues that you should do little or nothing until the [[power structure]] (or just a [[GodKing]]) is offended. At that point one can [[demand apology]] and submission to that power structure, or just block IP as a first resort, perhaps to prove power. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:right-wing politics]].<br />
<br />
The [[troll-friendly]] model argues that you should avoid [[w:technological escalation]] as it invites further escalation which can include worse trolls, hacking, and spreading an issue to many wikis, e.g. the dogged pursuit and [[witchhunt]] of [[142.X.X.X]] contributions across almost the entire Internet. Even a [[friendly troll]] can turn hostile and seriously damage a project's credibility and prospects if handled according to '''hard''' or '''soft''' model. The only characteristic that really can be said to identify a [[troll]] is disinterest in, and rejection of, both of these models. Some claim the troll-friendly model derives from [[w:green politics]] which avoids technological escalation, looks for [[harms reduction]] methods, and fosters the [[political virtues]].<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will have to set some policy on this.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=No_old_growth&diff=14482No old growth2004-02-20T18:04:27Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''No old growth''' is a [[standard label]] placed on wood to assure buyers it was not cut from older trees, which are essential to ensure forest integrity and prevent [[erosion]] and [[deforestation]]. There has been some success in forcing major wood vendors, e.g. [[Home Depot]] in the US, in adopting it for all their wood products.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Ad_hominem&diff=2852Ad hominem2004-02-20T18:01:57Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Ad hominem''' is the weakest form of argument. It is an attack on an argument based on who made the argument, rather than based on its merits.<br />
<br />
[[Ad hominem revert]] is an obvious example, one common on [[large public wiki]]s and giving rise to calls for a [[revert currency]] to make such actions "not free". [[Ad hominem delete]] is an example of this weak form raised to [[sysop vandalism]], a particularly stupid phenomenon encouraged mostly by [[Wikimedia]].</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Block_IP&diff=2492Block IP2004-02-20T17:59:08Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>To '''block IP''' is a [[governance operation]] which is usually exercised by the [[sysop power structure]]. The resulting '''IP block''' prevents editing from a given Internet location (an [[IP number]]), or, in the case of an '''IP range block''', range of locations. To '''unblock IP''' reverses this, removing a '''block'''. ''See [[Special:Blocked IP addresses]] for a list of blocks currently in effect - which typically apply to editing but not reading.''<br />
<br />
The '''soft security''' model argues that you should block IP as little as possible, but permit various tactics ([[libel]], [[outing]], [[framing]] and other even less ethical tricks) by the [[sysop power structure]] to intimidate and harass users who do not share the [[community point of view]]. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:left-wing politics]].<br />
<br />
The '''hard security''' model argues that you should do little or nothing until some powerful party (like a [[GodKing]]) is grievously offended, then block IP as a first resort, perhaps to prove power. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:right-wing politics]].<br />
<br />
The [[troll-friendly]] model argues that you should avoid [[w:technological escalation]] as it invites further escalation which can include worse trolls, hacking, and spreading an issue to many wikis, e.g. the dogged pursuit and [[witchhunt]] of [[142.X.X.X]] contributions across almost the entire Internet. Even a [[friendly troll]] can turn hostile and seriously damage a project's credibility and prospects if handled according to '''hard''' or '''soft''' model. The only characteristic that really can be said to identify a [[troll]] is disinterest in, and rejection of, both of these models. Some claim the troll-friendly model derives from [[w:green politics]] which avoids technological escalation, looks for [[harms reduction]] methods, and fosters the [[political virtues]].<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will have to set some policy on this.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=IP_number&diff=14480IP number2004-02-20T17:57:54Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>An '''IP number''' is an Internet address. It consists of four numbers from 0 to 255 separated by decimals, with several special addresses. For instance "127.0.0.1" always means "this Internet address, originating this". So each machine refers to itself by this address, regardless of how others refer to it. There are also [[broadcast address]]es and [[gateway address]]es.<br />
<br />
IP numbers are allocated in C blocks of over 64,000 addresses and D blocks of 256. All numbers which can be routed over the Internet are presently allocated so one must buy addresses one seeks to use, or rent them from the actual owner.<br />
<br />
To [[block IP]] is to prevent communication to a computer from such a number or range of numbers.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_board&diff=4038Independent board2004-02-20T17:53:48Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>An '''independent board''' of advisors and/or directors is one of the requirements to legally take charitable contributions in many countries. All large charities have one. Stupid organizations, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a board, as it might mean their pet projects may someday be audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who are clearly trying to avoid scrutiny.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Framing&diff=14478Framing2004-02-20T17:50:35Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Framing''' is setting up a particular party to be blamed for, or suspected of, another party's actions. It is most commonly done against one's enemies.<br />
<br />
However, very often a [[power structure]] consists of people who have agreed to permit a degree of framing of each other, in order to create some [[strategic ambiguity]]. They put aside their minor discomforts with this in order to achieve a greater objective. Typically, the higher level person in hierarchy takes responsibility or at least "covers for" the lower level person, and so is strongly motivated to exercise at least minimum limitations on their actions. In such circumstances, [[outing]], say of a [[trollherd]], may be useful to get a large number of people looking closely at them, and not at more guilty folks. Such measures can easily frustrate [[soft security]], which is one of many reasons to prefer [[troll-friendly]] policies.<br />
<br />
See also: [[libel]], [[outing]]</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Soft_security&diff=14477Soft security2004-02-20T17:46:19Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[block IP]]</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_security&diff=14476Hard security2004-02-20T17:46:03Z<p>142.177.75.54: redir</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[block IP]]</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=IP_block&diff=14475IP block2004-02-20T17:45:40Z<p>142.177.75.54: redirect to actual action</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[block IP]]</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Block_IP&diff=2491Block IP2004-02-20T17:44:38Z<p>142.177.75.54: many euphemisms, only one actual operational decision</p>
<hr />
<div>To '''block IP''' is a [[governance operation]] which is usually exercised by the [[sysop power structure]]. The resulting '''IP block''' prevents editing from a given Internet location, or, in the case of an '''IP range block''', range of locations. To '''unblock IP''' reverses this, removing a '''block'''.<br />
<br />
The '''soft security''' model argues that you should block IP as little as possible, but permit various tactics ([[libel]], [[outing]], [[framing]] and other even less ethical tricks) by the [[sysop power structure]] to intimidate and harass users who do not share the [[community point of view]]. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:left-wing politics]].<br />
<br />
The '''hard security''' model argues that you should do little or nothing until some powerful party (like a [[GodKing]]) is grievously offended, then block IP as a first resort, perhaps to prove power. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:right-wing politics]].<br />
<br />
The [[troll-friendly]] model argues that you should avoid [[w:technological escalation]] as it invites further escalation which can include worse trolls, hacking, and spreading an issue to many wikis, e.g. the dogged pursuit and [[witchhunt]] of [[142.X.X.X]] contributions across almost the entire Internet. Even a [[friendly troll]] can turn hostile and seriously damage a project's credibility and prospects if handled according to '''hard''' or '''soft''' model. The only characteristic that really can be said to identify a [[troll]] is disinterest in, and rejection of, both of these models. Some claim the troll-friendly model derives from [[w:green politics]] which avoids technological escalation, looks for [[harms reduction]] methods, and fosters the [[political virtues]].<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will have to set some policy on this.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jukeboksi/Blog/February2004&diff=2496User:Jukeboksi/Blog/February20042004-02-20T17:35:46Z<p>142.177.75.54: </p>
<hr />
<div>20.2.2004<br />
<br />
I updated the [[MySQL dump]] today but I'm worried that we don't seem to be making progress in developing what we [[Goals and means of Consumerium|sent out to do]]. It must be time to do some retrospection and try to clean this wiki up and get some '''practical solutions to the remaining problems and open questions instead of writing more [[142.177.X.X/Anti Wikipedia Rants|Anti Wikipedia Rants (AWR)]].'''<br />
<br />
:That would be easier if we were not using [[mediawiki]], which seems to attract diseased flies. <br />
<br />
:OK, perhaps it's time to knock down the open links (notice that there are few open links in the [[wiki management]] discussions! [[Wikipedia]] provides so many bad examples that it's easy to dissect it and come up with long lists of things to watch out for!<br />
<br />
----<br />
17.2.2004<br />
<br />
The [[MySQL dump]] has been online for over three weeks and there is just one download of it, which I guess is a sign indicating that the general crowd following the development around here wish that we focus and carry on what we've been planning for almost a year now.<br />
----<br />
10.2.2004<br />
<br />
:Trolls request that [[User:Juxo]] state some opinion about the issue at [[User_talk:Angela]] (deleting talk files that contain clear warnings about things like use of [[echo chamber]] tactics). Trolls don't object to moving certain advice to not trust certain people to [[142.X.X.X/Flames]] but we do object to simply deleting talk without answering to any of the points therein. (11.2.2004: note the totally different attitude obvious in [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] vs. that in [[142.X.X.X/Angela]] - some people know what the issues are and take responsibility for their own actions, others don't care and just excuse themselves based on what others are doing, and these dialogues help make that crystal clear. [[Conflicts_between_users]] needs some comment also, and [[Talk:Wiki_management]])<br />
<br />
:Also, since Wikipedian Trash seem to be willing to come here, there's no good reason to believe that quality people wasting their time at Wikipedia fighting them might not like to come here also, where there's a more level playing field. And more intelligent beliefs about [[Consumerium Governance]] at least.<br />
<br />
4.2.2004<br />
<br />
It's been looking like for some time now that to make [[Transparent Consumerium]] work we will have to develop into the direction of multiple regional wikis thus [[Consumeria]] (plural), but the real issue to solve is how to arrange them and make them interact smoothly. If all internal content is licensed under [[GFDL]] it would make governance easier because of the ability to fork.<br />
<br />
:No, just sending dissidents off to compete with you doesn't "make governance easier". There should be one regional Consumerium per ecologically and linguistically sane region, and it must work hard to retain a monopoly. To allow corporate spinoffs and competitors with tons of money to take the same content and create an only slightly fudged version destroys the integrity of the whole system. It's a cop-out. A more robust consortium than GFDL allows for must be there. Creative Commons might allow for the kind of use we need for internal content.<br />
<br />
Naturally there will be an international [[Consumerium]] for multinational companies and brands. Also an advantage in Consumeria approach is that server load can be broken down into many small streams and connection costs reduced by hosting locally. <br />
<br />
:Yes, local hosting makes sense, and local variants working in local languages make sense. Permitting arbitrary spinoffs does not. But arbitrary hosting is fine.<br />
<br />
----<br />
2.2.2004<br />
<br />
I'm quite beat now and for the unseen future. There is 40 days remaining to the one-year anniversary of this [[wiki]] so maybe try to get this mess fixed by then.<br />
<br />
:The filling-in process has got stalled due to the need to outline the issues with [[sysop vandalism]] and such. However a benefit is that Consumerium now has the best description of what goes wrong on wiki [[sysop power structure]], and is way ahead of Meatball and Meta-Wikipedia and most others in this regard.</div>142.177.75.54https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:142.177.X.X/Anti_Wikipedia_Rants&diff=3567Talk:142.177.X.X/Anti Wikipedia Rants2004-02-20T17:29:02Z<p>142.177.75.54: it's a fair representation of the critique of Wikipedia by MANY parties</p>
<hr />
<div>You endanger the project by marginalizing critiques of Wikipedia as if they were just one person's opinion:<br />
<br />
[[Wikipedia]] has made very serious mistakes that are destroying it. These include not having an independent board (for [[Wikimedia]]), developing its own software ([[mediawiki]]), running governance with a mailing list, having a [[GodKing]], encouraging [[ad hominem delete]] and other [[sysop vandalism]]. MANY people complain about ALL of these things, and have written eloquent long essays about why they are bad mistakes. If you don't want to read all these, or become an expert in [[Wiki management]] and [[wiki code]], they have to be compressed in one account of every issue. For better or worse, we've got that.<br />
<br />
Unless you want these things done also by the same people in your [[Content Wiki]] and [[Opinion Wiki]], you will have to clearly state what's wrong with these policies, and why you aren't going to let [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] make any of these mistakes.<br />
<br />
Many Wikipedians are stupid, and many are liars, certainly those "in charge" are both. However, that's not relevant, what's relevant is, not letting those people take charge here, and also not repeating the mistakes that let that kind of people take charge.</div>142.177.75.54