https://develop.consumerium.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=142.177.99.10&feedformat=atomConsumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T11:11:31ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.6https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pilot&diff=5022Talk:Pilot2004-09-06T19:46:17Z<p>142.177.99.10: stress points</p>
<hr />
<div>Often the users are chosen specifically to be difficult to support, if the anticipated issue of deployment is the variety of users, <br />
<br />
:i.e. [[trolls]] especially [[funded troll]]s, in [[Research Wiki]] and in [[Consumerium Governance Organization]]<br />
<br />
or, easy to support, if the anticipated issue of deployment is the technology. <br />
<br />
:i.e. [[worn device]]s cooperating arbitrarily with no [[friendly retail]], to see [[Publish Wiki]] output - [[Consumerium buying signal]]<br />
<br />
Which aspects of the project need most proving?</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Pilot&diff=16052Pilot2004-09-06T19:41:17Z<p>142.177.99.10: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''pilot''' project is one that deploys a working system but with the option of taking it out of service, i.e. there is no guarantee that services will be continued forever, and contracts associated usually specify a clear ending date.<br />
<br />
Usually a pilot project unites several [[protototype]]s to see if one process or service can be reliably delivered by a given group of people using those, to a given set of users. Often the users are chosen specifically to be difficult to support, if the anticipated issue of deployment is the variety of users, or, easy to support, if the anticipated issue of deployment is the technology. The point of the '''pilot''' is to show that whatever the hardest issues are, they can be reliably addressed by a full scale operational deployment of the system.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Pilot_project&diff=16051Pilot project2004-09-06T19:38:44Z<p>142.177.99.10: #REDIRECT pilot</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[pilot]]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda&diff=5392Propaganda2004-09-06T18:12:39Z<p>142.177.99.10: by all means write articles on alleged troll corruption and some trolls are not ethical and even trollsturbation but don't pretend that they replace the issues with Wikimedia you hide</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]], it's a response to mindless assertions like that [[usurper]]s can somehow be trusted as '''steward'''s.<br />
<br />
[[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.). <br />
<br />
[[Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. In general its only real response is to encourage [[vandalism]] of pages like this.<br />
<br />
[[w:Nazi Germany]] and [[w:Soviet Russia]] believed the same things of itself, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[power structure]]. This is not necessarily evidence of evil in people, but, perhaps, willingness to go along with evil out of fear. For these reasons:<br />
<br />
In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted. <br />
<br />
It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[libel]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] or others listed in [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]].<br />
<br />
A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[usurper]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[trolls]], help it do so, the [[GodKing]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now: learn to take all criticism in stride, and all bias likewise.<br />
<br />
''If we can't handle what [[User:Trolls]] dishes out, then, how could we ever handle the [[funded troll]]s paid to do this on a daily basis to [[Research Wiki]]? We need clear definitions of what constitutes [[vandalism]] as well.''<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[[w:propaganda|propaganda]]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda detection technical definition]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_glossary propaganda glossary]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia&diff=14493Talk:Wikimedia2004-09-06T18:10:28Z<p>142.177.99.10: all sane people are anti-American, so, what is "it"?</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" (self-declared as [[Erik Moeller]]) 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 that any one has ever been critical (except here on this page) of us for this imagined fault.<br />
<br />
::::It is true they are not "obligated", but given the extreme usefulness of this information to editors of an actual encyclopedia, it must be concluded that not releasing it is motivated by a desire to keep it mostly useless as one, with a small clique in charge of what types of subjects are encouraged vs. discouraged - there being no way to use user interests as a guide to what to work on. A responsible support group would release this information. It is a lie, of course, that "no one is asking for this", it's been asked for at least a dozen times. The reason no evidence of that is easy to find is because it is specifically suppressed. Those who run [[search engine]]s know exactly how useful and valuable this data is, and it is certainly Bomis policy to retain this data for inhouse use:<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 />
:::: Whoever wrote this 'false' comments is himself a liar. There used to be numbers published on per-page visits. Now there are not, there is a list of most visited articles per month, but of course it doesn't go down to more than the top 1000, and it doesn't say where the user clicked from, or to, most often. (the issue above)<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 />
::::It's easy to understand and has been clearly explained in many places at many times, it won't be done again. Whoever says it's "incoherent" is simply too stupid to understand it by example, which means they should not be involved in [[Consumerium Services]] either.<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 />
::When genuine experts in a field are blocked by those with a clear conflict of interest or political bias, that is not an "encyclopedia", it's a social club.<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. <br />
<br />
::This complaint may be out-of-date: there's some documentation about apache-modrewrite rules.<br />
<br />
:::"Some documentation" is not the same as making it the default published URI for a new site.<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 />
::[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-May/000038.html Anthere says] that legally important "features" are added without any consulting of the so-called "foundation", and certainly Wales seems to think himself qualified to actually judge legal questions, which is amazing, when there are contributors like Larry Solum around to ask such questions of! But he has probably been blocked by now...<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"<br />
<br />
:This just proves that any attempt to call this "foundation" to even its bare legal requirements of accountability will be met with censorship, name-calling and [[libel chill]] as a response.<br />
<br />
:Also see [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-May/000038.html this from Anthere] which clearly demonstrates that decisions are made by [[usurper]]s doing [[developer vigilantiism]] ([[Erik Moeller]], [[Tim Starling]]) who don't consult with this "foundation" before making legal and usability and other decisions. The whole thing is a front group for Moeller and Starling now. It has no credibility.<br />
<br />
:How can [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] avoid being hijacked by some similar gang of thugs?<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
''Moved from article'' for unclear reasons. Seems to document some useful history of the project:<br />
<br />
As recently reported at [[w:Talk:Fallujah]]: "His work under the title "<br />
"[[GodKing]]" for several years encouraged new Wikipedia leaders to use cult-like language that discouraged opposition to his views, and to disparage those who offer counterveiling policies. Bomis's owner Jim Wales set the direction away from a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, and presents as a primary pundit against the feasibility of reviewed encyclopedias in numerous interviews." This much is factual and verifiable. Less clear is the impact of this policy, which "driven by Bomis' desire for rapid development, made Wikipedia more available to those who present election-time and war-time misinformation." Obviously this has become an issue in a US election year when there is an ongoing war in [[Iraq]].<br />
<br />
-----------<br />
<br />
Re: "requests such as "Please stop it" from Wales" - obviously such a "request" is very loaded by the threat of [[technological escalation]], and [[English Wikipedia User Secretlondon]] saw it for what it was: censorship. As for what "it" is, what is "it"? [[w:Anti-Americanism]] ? All sane people are anti-American. So every word of "please", "stop" and "it" are loaded by the implications of [[GodKing]] making the request, and [[priestly hierarchy]] enforcing it. It just isn't possible for Wales to make such a "request", it will be interpreted as an "order" or "license" by those who want to attack her. And it was.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=16050Wikimedia Foundation2004-09-06T17:51:25Z<p>142.177.99.10: #REDIRECT Wikimedia</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Wikimedia]]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Steward&diff=16049Steward2004-09-06T17:50:51Z<p>142.177.99.10: what it is, why Wikimedia's are really "usurper"</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''steward''' is someone who actually practices [[w:stewardship]], e.g. [[product stewardship]]. It is not someone who simply takes control and then uses that control to express their own view. <br />
<br />
The claim that the [[sysop power structure]] of [[Wikipedia]] is represented fairly by [[Wikimedia]] is probably true. The claim that this representes the users is probably not. See [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] for more on this.<br />
<br />
Much [[propaganda]] by the [[usurper]]s who created the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] focuses on this claim that they are somehow anointed stewards of the [[GFDL corpus]]. There is no basis for making this claim in the [[GFDL]]. Indeed members of the [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] mostly cannot even read the corpus, and engage in harassment against some [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s. See [[sysop power structure]] and [[sysop vandalism]] and [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] for more on these specific breaches of stewardship.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda&diff=5011Propaganda2004-09-06T17:47:49Z<p>142.177.99.10: dealing with claim that usurpers are actually "stewards" (obvious propaganda, as what they do provably degrades the GFDL corpus in many cases)</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]], it's a response to mindless assertions like that [[usurper]]s can somehow be trusted as '''steward'''s.<br />
<br />
[[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.). <br />
<br />
[[Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. In general its only real response is to encourage [[vandalism]] of pages like this.<br />
<br />
[[w:Nazi Germany]] and [[w:Soviet Russia]] believed the same things of itself, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[power structure]]. This is not necessarily evidence of evil in people, but, perhaps, willingness to go along with evil out of fear. For these reasons:<br />
<br />
In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted. <br />
<br />
It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[libel]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] or others listed in [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]].<br />
<br />
A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[usurper]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[trolls]], help it do so, the [[GodKing]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now: learn to take all criticism in stride, and all bias likewise.<br />
<br />
''If we can't handle what [[User:Trolls]] dishes out, then, how could we ever handle the [[funded troll]]s paid to do this on a daily basis to [[Research Wiki]]? We need clear definitions of what constitutes [[vandalism]] as well.''<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[[w:propaganda|propaganda]]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda detection technical definition]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_glossary propaganda glossary]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sysop_power_structure&diff=16048Talk:Sysop power structure2004-09-06T17:43:36Z<p>142.177.99.10: </p>
<hr />
<div>"3. EVERY revert or block IP action must cost something - there must be a finite pool of "credit" that a sysop uses up by taking these actions, and it must be depleted if the action is ultimately reversed and reversal stands. This is how judges are judged - by how likely their verdicts are to be reversed on appeal. This will discourage sysop vandalism extremely strongly and probably such a system could and should be extended to all users. "<br />
<br />
:This is the [[revert currency]] proposal ultimately. How could we do this and not end up with some people able to more or less create more of it on demand?</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Sysop_power_structure&diff=14305Sysop power structure2004-09-06T17:40:12Z<p>142.177.99.10: when it becomes a command hierarchy it is no longer accountable to "civilians" i.e. users</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]". Those who [[unequal power relationship|lack the technologically granted powers]] will often adopt the label "[[troll]]" as a mark of pride and create [[faction]]s to oppose the trivial [[power structure]] that seeks to [[block IP]]s of their fellows. This is [[politics as usual]] - no different in wikis than elsewhere.<br />
<br />
As with cops, any view of any '''sysop power structure''' is necessarily quite controversial: those within it see themselves as "doing their job" to make a [[wiki mission]] happen. Those outside it see them necessarily more critically:<br />
<br />
:[[Trollism]] defines the '''evil trolls''' as the sysops themselves, while those who admit they are trolls are somehow [[Good Thing|good]] or at least "better" for the admission. More moderate positions are that a sysop is merely a form of troll, the least eloquent, most prone to using technology to bully someone else, and unworthy of inclusion in serious [[troll organization]]s.<br />
<br />
:The [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] viewed the [[social network]] composed of the sysops "is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear." - [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bird Wikipedia talk page], who goes on to suppose that the sysops are "practicing aggressive behaviors learned from their primarily middle class backgrounds, including [[hazing]], [[peer pressure]] and [[class-hatred]]." Accordingly once authority (such as a [[GodKing]] is identified, all forms of hate and abuse that are not specifically prevented by that authority will be accepted. The [[power network]] that results is an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, which can be altered only by [[wiki regime change]] ''which is indeed the goal of the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]].''<br />
<br />
If there is a good '''sysop power structure''', and it is not clear that there is, it certainly it must compensate for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become. <br />
<br />
In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:<br />
<br />
1. at the very least, sysops should/must be required to spend one-third of their time with no sysop status at all - this ensures that they must ask others for help at least some of the time, and, have some experience of end user status<br />
<br />
2. arrangements where sysops do what "off-duty" sysops ask without question, must be detected and discouraged - say by permanent loss of status for both - it must be clear that everything done by any sysop is done on their own best judgement - any "just following orders" or "just doing as asked" excuses are contrary to a [[rule of law]] - becoming a simple unaccountable and permanent [[command hierarchy]] - more akin to a military or [[priestly hierarchy]] than a civilian-controlled police structure.<br />
<br />
3. EVERY [[revert]] or [[block IP]] action must ''cost'' something - there must be a finite pool of "credit" that a sysop ''uses up'' by taking these actions, and it must be ''depleted'' if the action is ultimately reversed and reversal stands. This is how judges are judged - by how likely their verdicts are to be reversed on appeal. This will discourage [[sysop vandalism]] extremely strongly and probably such a system could and should be extended to all users.<br />
<br />
4. [[Faction]] declarations and agreement not to intervene in a [[political dispute]] involving an overtly opposed faction would be quite important - for example, if someone is anti-homosexual, they should not be counted on to serve as a neutral broker in a debate between an anti-homosexual and a homosexual. A [[conflict of values]] can only cause the final decision to be very disputable.<br />
<br />
5. Also if one's own edits are involved, one cannot be assumed to be neutral or personally uninvolved. Every police or court system has [[rules]] to prevent such [[conflict of interest]].<br />
<br />
7. The [[Lowest Troll]] terminology is to be preferred to any that elevates or seems to worship the final-resort sysop (the term [[GodKing]], like "[[politically correct]]", seems to provide a kind of authority to the stupid, even though it was originally intended to mock the level of power or pressure involved).<br />
<br />
== Alternative position ==<br />
<br />
On some wikis, the term [[sysops]] is equivalent to [[power structure]]. This is because the sysops manage (control) the wiki. On Consumerium, the [[sysops]] will be limited to [[cleaning]] duties, such as defending against [[vandalism]]. Hence, on Consumerium, it is hoped that [[sysops]] will not be a [[power structure]]. This will require [[eternal vigiliance]] and [[permanent revolution]] on behalf of the user base, and if a [[power structure]] begins to emerge, the users will take their content and move elsewhere.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Sysop_power_structure&diff=5008Sysop power structure2004-09-06T17:33:51Z<p>142.177.99.10: </p>
<hr />
<div>A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]". Those who [[unequal power relationship|lack the technologically granted powers]] will often adopt the label "[[troll]]" as a mark of pride and create [[faction]]s to oppose the trivial [[power structure]] that seeks to [[block IP]]s of their fellows. This is [[politics as usual]] - no different in wikis than elsewhere.<br />
<br />
As with cops, any view of any '''sysop power structure''' is necessarily quite controversial: those within it see themselves as "doing their job" to make a [[wiki mission]] happen. Those outside it see them necessarily more critically:<br />
<br />
:[[Trollism]] defines the '''evil trolls''' as the sysops themselves, while those who admit they are trolls are somehow [[Good Thing|good]] or at least "better" for the admission. More moderate positions are that a sysop is merely a form of troll, the least eloquent, most prone to using technology to bully someone else, and unworthy of inclusion in serious [[troll organization]]s.<br />
<br />
:The [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] viewed the [[social network]] composed of the sysops "is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear." - [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bird Wikipedia talk page], who goes on to suppose that the sysops are "practicing aggressive behaviors learned from their primarily middle class backgrounds, including [[hazing]], [[peer pressure]] and [[class-hatred]]." Accordingly once authority (such as a [[GodKing]] is identified, all forms of hate and abuse that are not specifically prevented by that authority will be accepted. The [[power network]] that results is an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, which can be altered only by [[wiki regime change]] ''which is indeed the goal of the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]].''<br />
<br />
If there is a good '''sysop power structure''', and it is not clear that there is, it certainly it must compensate for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become. <br />
<br />
In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:<br />
<br />
1. at the very least, sysops should/must be required to spend one-third of their time with no sysop status at all - this ensures that they must ask others for help at least some of the time, and, have some experience of end user status<br />
<br />
2. arrangements where sysops do what "off-duty" sysops ask without question, must be detected and discouraged - say by permanent loss of status for both - it must be clear that everything done by any sysop is done on their own best judgement - any "just following orders" or "just doing as asked" excuses are contrary to a [[rule of law]].<br />
<br />
3. EVERY [[revert]] or [[block IP]] action must ''cost'' something - there must be a finite pool of "credit" that a sysop ''uses up'' by taking these actions, and it must be ''depleted'' if the action is ultimately reversed and reversal stands. This is how judges are judged - by how likely their verdicts are to be reversed on appeal. This will discourage [[sysop vandalism]] extremely strongly and probably such a system could and should be extended to all users.<br />
<br />
4. [[Faction]] declarations and agreement not to intervene in a [[political dispute]] involving an overtly opposed faction would be quite important - for example, if someone is anti-homosexual, they should not be counted on to serve as a neutral broker in a debate between an anti-homosexual and a homosexual. A [[conflict of values]] can only cause the final decision to be very disputable.<br />
<br />
5. Also if one's own edits are involved, one cannot be assumed to be neutral or personally uninvolved. Every police or court system has [[rules]] to prevent such [[conflict of interest]].<br />
<br />
7. The [[Lowest Troll]] terminology is to be preferred to any that elevates or seems to worship the final-resort sysop (the term [[GodKing]], like "[[politically correct]]", seems to provide a kind of authority to the stupid, even though it was originally intended to mock the level of power or pressure involved).<br />
<br />
== Alternative position ==<br />
<br />
On some wikis, the term [[sysops]] is equivalent to [[power structure]]. This is because the sysops manage (control) the wiki. On Consumerium, the [[sysops]] will be limited to [[cleaning]] duties, such as defending against [[vandalism]]. Hence, on Consumerium, it is hoped that [[sysops]] will not be a [[power structure]]. This will require [[eternal vigiliance]] and [[permanent revolution]] on behalf of the user base, and if a [[power structure]] begins to emerge, the users will take their content and move elsewhere.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Sysop_power_structure&diff=5006Sysop power structure2004-09-06T17:28:22Z<p>142.177.99.10: clarifying good vs. evil in context of trolls vs. sysops, trollism view, ..Red Faction view</p>
<hr />
<div>A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]". Those who [[unequal power relationship|lack the technologically granted powers]] will often adopt the label "[[troll]]" as a mark of pride and create [[faction]]s to oppose the power structure. This may be considered to be [[politics as usual]].<br />
<br />
As with cops, any view of any '''sysop power structure''' is necessarily quite controversial: those within it see themselves as "doing their job" to make a [[wiki mission]] happen. Those outside it see them necessarily more critically:<br />
<br />
:[[Trollism]] defines the '''evil trolls''' as the sysops themselves, while those who admit they are trolls are somehow [[Good Thing|good]] or at least "better" for the admission. More moderate positions are that a sysop is merely a form of troll, the least eloquent, most prone to using technology to bully someone else, and unworthy of inclusion in serious [[troll organization]]s.<br />
<br />
:The [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] viewed the [[social network]] composed of the sysops "is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear." - [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bird Wikipedia talk page], who goes on to suppose that the sysops are "practicing aggressive behaviors learned from their primarily middle class backgrounds, including [[hazing]], [[peer pressure]] and [[class-hatred]]." Accordingly once authority (such as a [[GodKing]] is identified, all forms of hate and abuse that are not specifically prevented by that authority will be accepted. The [[power network]] that results is an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, which can be altered only by [[wiki regime change]] ''which is indeed the goal of the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]].''<br />
<br />
If there is a good '''sysop power structure''', and it is not clear that there is, it certainly it must compensate for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become. <br />
<br />
In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:<br />
<br />
1. at the very least, sysops should/must be required to spend one-third of their time with no sysop status at all - this ensures that they must ask others for help at least some of the time, and, have some experience of end user status<br />
<br />
2. arrangements where sysops do what "off-duty" sysops ask without question, must be detected and discouraged - say by permanent loss of status for both - it must be clear that everything done by any sysop is done on their own best judgement - any "just following orders" or "just doing as asked" excuses are contrary to a [[rule of law]].<br />
<br />
3. EVERY [[revert]] or [[block IP]] action must ''cost'' something - there must be a finite pool of "credit" that a sysop ''uses up'' by taking these actions, and it must be ''depleted'' if the action is ultimately reversed and reversal stands. This is how judges are judged - by how likely their verdicts are to be reversed on appeal. This will discourage [[sysop vandalism]] extremely strongly and probably such a system could and should be extended to all users.<br />
<br />
4. [[Faction]] declarations and agreement not to intervene in a [[political dispute]] involving an overtly opposed faction would be quite important - for example, if someone is anti-homosexual, they should not be counted on to serve as a neutral broker in a debate between an anti-homosexual and a homosexual. A [[conflict of values]] can only cause the final decision to be very disputable.<br />
<br />
5. Also if one's own edits are involved, one cannot be assumed to be neutral or personally uninvolved. Every police or court system has [[rules]] to prevent such [[conflict of interest]].<br />
<br />
7. The [[Lowest Troll]] terminology is to be preferred to any that elevates or seems to worship the final-resort sysop (the term [[GodKing]], like "[[politically correct]]", seems to provide a kind of authority to the stupid, even though it was originally intended to mock the level of power or pressure involved).<br />
<br />
== Alternative position ==<br />
<br />
On some wikis, the term [[sysops]] is equivalent to [[power structure]]. This is because the sysops manage (control) the wiki. On Consumerium, the [[sysops]] will be limited to [[cleaning]] duties, such as defending against [[vandalism]]. Hence, on Consumerium, it is hoped that [[sysops]] will not be a [[power structure]]. This will require [[eternal vigiliance]] and [[permanent revolution]] on behalf of the user base, and if a [[power structure]] begins to emerge, the users will take their content and move elsewhere.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Equal_power_relationship&diff=16047Equal power relationship2004-09-06T17:22:04Z<p>142.177.99.10: #REDIRECT unequal power relationship - normally one can tell what is equal only by being subjected to abuse in what is unequal</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[unequal power relationship]]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Propaganda&diff=16046Talk:Propaganda2004-09-06T17:21:15Z<p>142.177.99.10: </p>
<hr />
<div>If we can't handle what [[User:Trolls]] dishes out, then, how could we ever handle the [[funded troll]]s paid to do this on a daily basis to [[Research Wiki]]? We need clear definitions of what constitutes [[vandalism]] as well.<br />
<br />
This sort of thing simulates one of the obvious [[worst cases]] - degarding of the [[GFDL corpus]] by those who simply insert nonsense to discredit those who tell the truth about them. Are [[Consumerium:We|we]] going to fall prey to it, or deal with it?<br />
<br />
If we're going to deal with it, how? Find a [[faction]] that will accept [[User:Trolls]] and modify his/her/its editing behaviour? Have a [[wiki witchhunt]] and try to assign an [[alleged and collective identity]] to such [[trolls]]? Or what? This is exactly what we have to deal with in practice.<br />
<br />
Let's start with the [[best practices]] we have, like [[Lowest Troll]], and see if we can't civilize these people a bit to behave properly in an [[equal power relationship]].</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda&diff=5007Propaganda2004-09-06T17:18:22Z<p>142.177.99.10: revert plus clarifying comment as straight reverts are somewhat disrespectful and to be avoided: if we can't take what User:Trolls dishes out, we can't take it, and should give up - should we?</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]]. [[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.). <br />
<br />
[[Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. Of course [[w:Nazi Germany]] and [[w:Soviet Russia]] believed the same things of itself, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[power structure]]. <br />
<br />
In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted. It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[libel]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] or others listed in [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]].<br />
<br />
A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[usurper]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[trolls]], help it do so, the [[GodKing]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now: learn to take all criticism in stride, and all bias likewise.<br />
<br />
''If we can't handle what [[User:Trolls]] dishes out, then, how could we ever handle the [[funded troll]]s paid to do this on a daily basis to [[Research Wiki]]? We need clear definitions of what constitutes [[vandalism]] as well.''<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[[w:propaganda|propaganda]]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda detection technical definition]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_glossary propaganda glossary]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trolls&diff=16044User talk:Trolls2004-09-06T17:16:00Z<p>142.177.99.10: by all means</p>
<hr />
<div>By all means continue to attempt to discredit [[trolls]] this way. It can only play to increase [[Consumerium:We|our]] credibility in the end.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_trolls&diff=16045Evil trolls2004-09-06T17:07:51Z<p>142.177.99.10: #REDIRECT sysop power structure; the "evil trolls" are by definition those that take block IP powers and use them unfairly instead of proper debate; as for debate, it's all good really</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[sysop power structure]]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jukeboksi/Blog/September2004&diff=5029User:Jukeboksi/Blog/September20042004-09-06T17:05:47Z<p>142.177.99.10: :Can Consumerium:We get Linkola to contribute to visions and best cases?</p>
<hr />
<div>6.9.2004<br />
<br />
Last weekend I got my move to [[w:Tampere|Tampere]] mostly finalized though most of the stuff is now around my room in boxes and bags and I have to sort them out and find a place for all stuff. I should be getting [[w:ADSL|ADSL]] access in one to two weeks time which will help me contribute more<br />
<br />
Yesterday I had a meetup with [[User:Linkola|Linkola]] who is working on his doctorate in http://www.uiah.fi . I'm half way reading through his masters thesis and will write a brief summary of it here. It contains lots of interesting research information about [[consumer]] wishes, hopes, fears and practical information about '''how''' consumers use the information about [[product]]s supplied to them currently. <br />
<br />
:It's very easy to study what they look at. It's very hard to study how it affects them. Focus on [[price premium]] perhaps as the indicator that can be made objective? That is, someone buys the [[green light]] product even though it costs 10 Eurocents more than the [[red light]] - but if it costs 15 they do not buy either, or, they actually buy the red light product. That's the kind of data you need to determine what the actual willingness of people to pay more to satisfy [[individual buying criteria]] is.<br />
<br />
He renewed his commitment to become one of the founding members of Consumerium Association of Finland. He was most interested in getting a [[pilot project]] hastily off the ground and to get to analysing '''how and what information consumers use for making decicions''', so I'm betting that he would be very interested in [[link transit]] data which has been a hot potato around here for quite some while now. <br />
<br />
:Yes, clearly it's of even more use to [[Consumerium Services]] or other serious [[wiki mission]]s than to those [[Wikimedia|bogus pseudo-encyclopedists]] who don't even understand why it's important, or pretend not to (more likely unless they are stupid).<br />
<br />
He also expressed his view that we should start with a limited group of users, but I countered that with the fact that we have for a long time been planning for a system that is accessible to everyone without any limitations of scope as to users. <br />
<br />
:It is obviously better to have wide-open editorial policy that is [[troll-friendly]] and immune to [[propaganda]] or takeover by any one [[faction]] - else who would trust the data? This is just typical academic belief on his part, that somehow cliques can be made trustworthy. It's fairly obvious that without the wide-open policy, none of the design work would have gotten done.<br />
<br />
I understand that having one single group (ie. the members of some association with interest in these things we are to be dealing with) would make for better research material for his doctorate if he decides to include Consumerium in some way in his post-graduate studies. The discussion we had was intense and I found it very pleasing to actually get to talk about these things face-to-face and not via [[wiki]].<br />
<br />
:It would be useful to support a doctoral study on [[moral purchasing]] but we really need a [[Research Wiki]] to actually start to compile [[intermediate page]]s on all the things we care about. We are long past due to do that, and other projects are passing us. We can't rely on [[CorpKnowPedia]] and [[Consumerpedia]] and [[Wikipedia]] and [[Disinfopedia]] to track these things, though, we might from time to time rely on information from all of them. [[Wikinfo]] might be useful to track [[sympathetic point of view]] of various movements like [[no old growth]] or [[dolphin free]], but, not to track corps, since the [[Coca-Cola]] article there must be sympathetic to Coca-Cola! So we have a niche to fill that has not been filled. Perhaps work with [[Indymedia]] on this, as they expose corporate misbehaviour a lot?<br />
<br />
----<br />
2.9.2004<br />
<br />
[http://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=validate&timestamp=20040810005530 Here's] an interesting piece of code developed by Magnus Manske some while ago. It's not used on [[Wikipedia]] but could be very useful for the [[Consumerium Process]]. It allows users to flag some article as validated on a number of issues ie. ''style, legal, completeness, facts, suitability for "final" release ([[Publish Wiki]] in our case)''<br />
<br />
Thanks to [[User:TimStarling]] for pointing out this code. I queried him about Magnuses' code for custom meta-tags such as "no index" (or whatever it's called) because if we could easily and reliably control what gets indexed by search engines and what not we could do with a unified [[Research Wiki]] and [[Publish Wiki]] where articles flagged indexable would be considered "published" and those with "no index" to be still in research stage. Just a thought. Apparently Magnuses' code does not include tags for robots but according to Tim this would not be difficult to implement. The main problem being that once an article is indexed and then some seedy characters add questionable content how does one get Google etc. to stop indexing it. Apparently there is yet no way to remove pages from search engines on request.<br />
<br />
[http://www.textually.org/picturephoning/archives/002729.htm Ericsson and ScanBuy] working on including [[barcode]] capture properties with [http://www.scanzoom.com/ ScanZoom] technology for [[Ericsson]] [[Hardware|camera phones]].<br />
----<br />
1.9.2004<br />
<br />
I'm currently reading the master's thesis of Jouni Linkola, "Shopping Guide to The Future", which is available (in Finnish) at http://mlab.uiah.fi/5medialaunch/jlinkola_lopputyo.pdf there is also a visualization of some main aspects of it at http://personal.inet.fi/surf/graphic/future.html (in Finnish again). The visualization is quite similar to the original [[Motivation]] of [[Consumerium:Itself]]. I'm looking forward to meeting up with Jouni to discuss the synergies between his post-graduate studies apparently also focusing on information services for consumers to be more informed and empowered.<br />
<br />
Also check out the cool [[Consumeter]] shopping bag at http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~antello/designfiction/pictures.htm Watch the associated videos as well if you have broadband.<br />
<br />
:[[design fiction]] is a [[Good Thing]], that's what [[visions]] and [[best cases]] are about ultimately; and [[free circulation of fiction]] is better still.<br />
<br />
:Can [[Consumerium:We]] get Linkola to contribute to [[visions]] and [[best cases]]? Also he might have insight into [[worst cases]], but more likely we have thought through that more. We need one unified [[design fiction]] effort to figure out what our priorities are, and where we're going technically in the long run.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda&diff=5003Propaganda2004-09-06T17:04:06Z<p>142.177.99.10: revert apparent sysop vandalism by sysop power structure of Wikimedia trying to trivialize claims about itself, as usual - without sysop powers this becomes simple and obvious [[vandalism]</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]]. [[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.). <br />
<br />
[[Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. Of course [[w:Nazi Germany]] and [[w:Soviet Russia]] believed the same things of itself, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[power structure]]. <br />
<br />
In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted. It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[libel]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] or others listed in [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]].<br />
<br />
A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[usurper]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[trolls]], help it do so, the [[GodKing]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now.<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[[w:propaganda|propaganda]]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda detection technical definition]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_glossary propaganda glossary]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Indymedia&diff=16043Indymedia2004-09-06T17:02:26Z<p>142.177.99.10: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Indymedia''' [http://indymedia.org .org] exposes a lot of corporate misbehaviour and may be a good source of input to the [[Research Wiki]] - though some of what it says would require validation and fact-checking before it gets through to [[Publish Wiki]], that is true of everything ultimately.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jukeboksi/Blog/September2004&diff=5002User:Jukeboksi/Blog/September20042004-09-06T17:00:27Z<p>142.177.99.10: stay open, work with Indymedia for Research Wiki input? or Adbusters?</p>
<hr />
<div>6.9.2004<br />
<br />
Last weekend I got my move to [[w:Tampere|Tampere]] mostly finalized though most of the stuff is now around my room in boxes and bags and I have to sort them out and find a place for all stuff. I should be getting [[w:ADSL|ADSL]] access in one to two weeks time which will help me contribute more<br />
<br />
Yesterday I had a meetup with [[User:Linkola|Linkola]] who is working on his doctorate in http://www.uiah.fi . I'm half way reading through his masters thesis and will write a brief summary of it here. It contains lots of interesting research information about [[consumer]] wishes, hopes, fears and practical information about '''how''' consumers use the information about [[product]]s supplied to them currently. <br />
<br />
:It's very easy to study what they look at. It's very hard to study how it affects them. Focus on [[price premium]] perhaps as the indicator that can be made objective? That is, someone buys the [[green light]] product even though it costs 10 Eurocents more than the [[red light]] - but if it costs 15 they do not buy either, or, they actually buy the red light product. That's the kind of data you need to determine what the actual willingness of people to pay more to satisfy [[individual buying criteria]] is.<br />
<br />
He renewed his commitment to become one of the founding members of Consumerium Association of Finland. He was most interested in getting a [[pilot project]] hastily off the ground and to get to analysing '''how and what information consumers use for making decicions''', so I'm betting that he would be very interested in [[link transit]] data which has been a hot potato around here for quite some while now. <br />
<br />
:Yes, clearly it's of even more use to [[Consumerium Services]] or other serious [[wiki mission]]s than to those [[Wikimedia|bogus pseudo-encyclopedists]] who don't even understand why it's important, or pretend not to (more likely unless they are stupid).<br />
<br />
He also expressed his view that we should start with a limited group of users, but I countered that with the fact that we have for a long time been planning for a system that is accessible to everyone without any limitations of scope as to users. <br />
<br />
:It is obviously better to have wide-open editorial policy that is [[troll-friendly]] and immune to [[propaganda]] or takeover by any one [[faction]] - else who would trust the data? This is just typical academic belief on his part, that somehow cliques can be made trustworthy. It's fairly obvious that without the wide-open policy, none of the design work would have gotten done.<br />
<br />
I understand that having one single group (ie. the members of some association with interest in these things we are to be dealing with) would make for better research material for his doctorate if he decides to include Consumerium in some way in his post-graduate studies. The discussion we had was intense and I found it very pleasing to actually get to talk about these things face-to-face and not via [[wiki]].<br />
<br />
:It would be useful to support a doctoral study on [[moral purchasing]] but we really need a [[Research Wiki]] to actually start to compile [[intermediate page]]s on all the things we care about. We are long past due to do that, and other projects are passing us. We can't rely on [[CorpKnowPedia]] and [[Consumerpedia]] and [[Wikipedia]] and [[Disinfopedia]] to track these things, though, we might from time to time rely on information from all of them. [[Wikinfo]] might be useful to track [[sympathetic point of view]] of various movements like [[no old growth]] or [[dolphin free]], but, not to track corps, since the [[Coca-Cola]] article there must be sympathetic to Coca-Cola! So we have a niche to fill that has not been filled. Perhaps work with [[Indymedia]] on this, as they expose corporate misbehaviour a lot?<br />
<br />
----<br />
2.9.2004<br />
<br />
[http://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=validate&timestamp=20040810005530 Here's] an interesting piece of code developed by Magnus Manske some while ago. It's not used on [[Wikipedia]] but could be very useful for the [[Consumerium Process]]. It allows users to flag some article as validated on a number of issues ie. ''style, legal, completeness, facts, suitability for "final" release ([[Publish Wiki]] in our case)''<br />
<br />
Thanks to [[User:TimStarling]] for pointing out this code. I queried him about Magnuses' code for custom meta-tags such as "no index" (or whatever it's called) because if we could easily and reliably control what gets indexed by search engines and what not we could do with a unified [[Research Wiki]] and [[Publish Wiki]] where articles flagged indexable would be considered "published" and those with "no index" to be still in research stage. Just a thought. Apparently Magnuses' code does not include tags for robots but according to Tim this would not be difficult to implement. The main problem being that once an article is indexed and then some seedy characters add questionable content how does one get Google etc. to stop indexing it. Apparently there is yet no way to remove pages from search engines on request.<br />
<br />
[http://www.textually.org/picturephoning/archives/002729.htm Ericsson and ScanBuy] working on including [[barcode]] capture properties with [http://www.scanzoom.com/ ScanZoom] technology for [[Ericsson]] [[Hardware|camera phones]].<br />
----<br />
1.9.2004<br />
<br />
I'm currently reading the master's thesis of Jouni Linkola, "Shopping Guide to The Future", which is available (in Finnish) at http://mlab.uiah.fi/5medialaunch/jlinkola_lopputyo.pdf there is also a visualization of some main aspects of it at http://personal.inet.fi/surf/graphic/future.html (in Finnish again). The visualization is quite similar to the original [[Motivation]] of [[Consumerium:Itself]]. I'm looking forward to meeting up with Jouni to discuss the synergies between his post-graduate studies apparently also focusing on information services for consumers to be more informed and empowered.<br />
<br />
Also check out the cool [[Consumeter]] shopping bag at http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~antello/designfiction/pictures.htm Watch the associated videos as well if you have broadband.<br />
<br />
:[[design fiction]] is a [[Good Thing]], that's what [[visions]] and [[best cases]] are about ultimately; and [[free circulation of fiction]] is better still.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Propaganda&diff=4999Propaganda2004-09-06T16:51:30Z<p>142.177.99.10: clarifying - there is no exception, accusations against Wikimedia are TRUE, thus, they cannot be propaganda - and we are in the business of making true claims that others don't like ultimately</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Propaganda''' is not what we do here, although [[trollism]] to some degree is propaganda against [[sysop vandalism]]. [[Research Wiki]] may have some propaganda in it, so we work hard to get rid of it, by getting rid of the opinions of [[no body]] (corporation, ideology, etc.). <br />
<br />
[[Wikimedia]] considers any discussion of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] to be propaganda, because, according to itself, it cannot possibly be guilty. Of course [[w:Nazi Germany]] and [[w:Soviet Russia]] believed the same things of itself, and many ordinary good people went along with the [[power structure]]. <br />
<br />
In general any assertions of wrong-doing by a power structure are considered to be propaganda by people in that power structure, whose opinions of it should not be counted. It is not up to them to say what is propaganda about themselves since they are not in an objective position. If they wish to allege some more specific wrongdoing such as [[libel]], they may of course do so, but, they will have to actually address the claims made one by one, e.g. those that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] or others listed in [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]].<br />
<br />
A better example of '''propaganda''' is the lies spread about [[Consumerium:We|us]] by the [[usurper]]s of other [[large public wiki]]s. Jealous of the fact that Consumerium is actually pursuing a real [[wiki mission]] honestly and lets any contributor, including [[trolls]], help it do so, the [[GodKing]]s of such projects rightfully consider us a threat to their power, and attack us at every turn. This is good practice for the day that [[Monsanto]] accuses us of [[libel]] or that [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] complains that we have hurt his business. To prepare to deal with such claims, we must get very tough now.<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
<br />
*[[w:propaganda|propaganda]]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda detection technical definition]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_glossary propaganda glossary]<br />
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Share-alike&diff=15661Share-alike2004-09-06T16:40:08Z<p>142.177.99.10: complete article on share-alike issues, including viral license debate (same issue different name)</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Share-alike''' is a required reintegration clause of several [[parametric license]]s in [[Creative Commons]] and some monolithic ones like [[GFDL]]. It simply means that anyone improving a work must share the improved work with others who wish to use or improve it. <br />
<br />
It is a key feature of the [[GPL]] too which applies this principle to [[source code]]. It is sometimes called the '''viral license''' feature (see below) - the fact that accepting the license breeds more acceptance of the license. This is considered very desirable by some and very undesirable by others (who started the [[open source]] movement to oppose the '''share-alike''' requirement. ''See also [[problems with free software and open source models]].'' <br />
<br />
The most common '''share-alike''' licenses used are in '''open content''' and in '''free documentation''' efforts, which require such licenses by definition:<br />
<br />
*the [[GFDL]], strictly share-alike, no license but the GFDL can apply to any improvements, and there are strict rules about what can go in [[Secondary Section]]s and [[Invariant Section]]s to which asymmetric rules might apply - this license is used at [[Wikipedia]]<br />
<br />
*the [[CC-by-sa]] license, quite close to the [[GFDL]] but is incompatible with it. ''Things licensed under the CC regime are not part of the [[GFDL Corpus]].'' This license is used at [[Wikitravel]]<br />
<br />
Most efforts use share alike licenses for both code and content, e.g. the '''CC-nc-sa''' license - the closest approximation yet to a [[Green Documentation License]] - is used for [[GetWiki]] code.<br />
<br />
''See [[w:Share_Alike]] for a more general introduction linked to other legal topics.''<br />
<br />
---------<br />
See [[GPL]] and other [[free software]] [[license]]s to understand the details of what is meant by a '''viral license'''. <br />
<br />
This term is '''''not well defined'''' and should be avoided. [[Microsoft]] widely uses the term '''viral''' to portray both free software and consortia as being like [[computer virus]] creators, exploiting the confusion.<br />
<br />
The term is also sometimes used to imply [[required reintegration]], which is the controversial requirement that [[open source]] objects to in both free software and [[Consortium license]] software. When this is what is being discussed, it is far better to use this more specific term and not "'''viral'''".<br />
<br />
Some think they are two separate concerns, but they aren't: [[required reintegration]] *is* a part of making a license viral - without it, new software under new licenses can be produced, thus making the original license not apply, and thus not viral, or "as" viral, as the original.<br />
<br />
--------<br />
[[faction]]al comment:<br />
<br />
[[Reds]] prefer [[Free Software]] apparently because everything "has to be free".<br />
<br />
[[Golds]] prefer [[Open Source]] apparently so they can exploit the commons without obligation to give back.<br />
<br />
[[Trolls]] like sharing, but bite you on the leg if you try to tell them they have to share with you, even if you are doing harm to them.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Sharealike&diff=15660Sharealike2004-09-06T16:39:20Z<p>142.177.99.10: #REDIRECT share-alike as Wikipedia does</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[share-alike]]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Viral_license&diff=13989Viral license2004-09-06T16:38:06Z<p>142.177.99.10: #REDIRECT share-alike - just a synonym</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[share-alike]]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Open_content&diff=15870Open content2004-09-06T16:37:04Z<p>142.177.99.10: making reference to share-alike generic, to avoid confusion with Creative Commons' specific definition of that term (the generic one could be CC-SA *or* GFDL *or* GPL requirements)</p>
<hr />
<div>The term '''open content''' is used to mean various [[share-alike]] licenses (notably [[CC-sa]] variants and the monolithic [[GFDL]]) and potentially a [[Green Documentation License]]. The term is not quite as well defined as [[open source]] or [[free software]] but presumably will be well defined soon, and make reference to [[share-alike]] as the defining central attribute.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Sharealike&diff=4995Sharealike2004-09-06T16:35:33Z<p>142.177.99.10: making clear that "viral license" = "share-alike" = defining attribute of open content and free documentation</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Share-alike''' is a required reintegration clause of several [[parametric license]]s in [[Creative Commons]] and some monolithic ones like [[GFDL]]. It simply means that anyone improving a work must share the improved work with others who wish to use or improve it. <br />
<br />
It is a key feature of the [[GPL]] too which applies this principle to [[source code]]. It is sometimes called the '''viral license''' feature - the fact that accepting the license breeds more acceptance of the license. This is considered very desirable by some and very undesirable by others (who started the [[open source]] movement to oppose the '''share-alike''' requirement. ''See also [[problems with free software and open source models]].'' <br />
<br />
The most common '''share-alike''' licenses used are in '''open content''' and in '''free documentation''' efforts, which require such licenses by definition:<br />
<br />
*the [[GFDL]], strictly share-alike, no license but the GFDL can apply to any improvements, and there are strict rules about what can go in [[Secondary Section]]s and [[Invariant Section]]s to which asymmetric rules might apply - this license is used at [[Wikipedia]]<br />
<br />
*the [[CC-by-sa]] license, quite close to the [[GFDL]] but is incompatible with it. ''Things licensed under the CC regime are not part of the [[GFDL Corpus]].'' This license is used at [[Wikitravel]]<br />
<br />
Most efforts use share alike licenses for both code and content, e.g. the '''CC-nc-sa''' license - the closest approximation yet to a [[Green Documentation License]] - is used for [[GetWiki]] code.<br />
<br />
''See [[w:Share_Alike]] for a more general introduction linked to other legal topics.''<br />
<br />
--------<br />
[[faction]]al comment:<br />
<br />
[[Reds]] prefer [[Free Software]] apparently because everything "has to be free".<br />
<br />
[[Golds]] prefer [[Open Source]] apparently so they can exploit the commons without obligation to give back.<br />
<br />
[[Trolls]] like sharing, but bite you on the leg if you try to tell them they have to share with you, even if you are doing harm to them.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Free_documentation&diff=16034Free documentation2004-09-06T16:30:02Z<p>142.177.99.10: #REDIRECT share-alike; restore; yes, and the GFDL is clearly a share-alike license though not exactly the CC definition of Share Alike (proper noun), it's the same principle, and explained so</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[share-alike]]</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Charitable_status&diff=16026Charitable status2004-09-06T16:28:28Z<p>142.177.99.10: no, it is per country, not just "in the US" - in Canada and Australia the same rules apply. noting politics of charitable status</p>
<hr />
<div>For a [[non-profit organization]] to have '''charitable status''' under the law means that a [[donation]] to that organization results in the issue of a [[tax receipt]] - that is, a [[receipt]] that entitles the [[donor]] to a [[tax deduction]].<br />
<br />
Accordingly, organizations with such '''status''' fall under much closer scrutiny than those without it. This is reasonable because:<br />
<br />
Effectively, citizens of that jurisdiction give up a right to tax some amount on the assumption that the organization acts in their own interests. In the [[United States]] there are also complex rules about whether charities are registered per state or federally, and where they can solicit for donations and how. ''See [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] for some standing issues on this.''<br />
<br />
Sometimes the powers of charitable status are ab/used to reflect political biases, e.g. [[Greenpeace]] is charitable in some countries, not in others, and the difference usually depends on political forces in power in each country.</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GodKing&diff=16033Talk:GodKing2004-09-06T16:25:39Z<p>142.177.99.10: does having a GodKing create a culture of extreme deference? worth discussing</p>
<hr />
<div>[[w:Talk:Fallujah]] reported that Jim Wales' "work under the title "<br />
"[[GodKing]]" for several years encouraged new Wikipedia leaders to use cult-like language that discouraged opposition to his views, and to disparage those who offer counterveiling policies. Bomis's owner Jim Wales set the direction away from a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, and presents as a primary pundit against the feasibility of reviewed encyclopedias in numerous interviews." <br />
<br />
:In other words, if you have a [[GodKing]] maybe you get a [[priestly hierarchy]] without meaning to, and you can never easily recover from that?<br />
<br />
:This bears discussion. Do people [[defer]] more by habit in a culture that was originated by a GodKing?</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia&diff=5012Talk:Wikimedia2004-09-06T16:23:42Z<p>142.177.99.10: moving to talk</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" (self-declared as [[Erik Moeller]]) 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 that any one has ever been critical (except here on this page) of us for this imagined fault.<br />
<br />
::::It is true they are not "obligated", but given the extreme usefulness of this information to editors of an actual encyclopedia, it must be concluded that not releasing it is motivated by a desire to keep it mostly useless as one, with a small clique in charge of what types of subjects are encouraged vs. discouraged - there being no way to use user interests as a guide to what to work on. A responsible support group would release this information. It is a lie, of course, that "no one is asking for this", it's been asked for at least a dozen times. The reason no evidence of that is easy to find is because it is specifically suppressed. Those who run [[search engine]]s know exactly how useful and valuable this data is, and it is certainly Bomis policy to retain this data for inhouse use:<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 />
:::: Whoever wrote this 'false' comments is himself a liar. There used to be numbers published on per-page visits. Now there are not, there is a list of most visited articles per month, but of course it doesn't go down to more than the top 1000, and it doesn't say where the user clicked from, or to, most often. (the issue above)<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 />
::::It's easy to understand and has been clearly explained in many places at many times, it won't be done again. Whoever says it's "incoherent" is simply too stupid to understand it by example, which means they should not be involved in [[Consumerium Services]] either.<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 />
::When genuine experts in a field are blocked by those with a clear conflict of interest or political bias, that is not an "encyclopedia", it's a social club.<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. <br />
<br />
::This complaint may be out-of-date: there's some documentation about apache-modrewrite rules.<br />
<br />
:::"Some documentation" is not the same as making it the default published URI for a new site.<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 />
::[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-May/000038.html Anthere says] that legally important "features" are added without any consulting of the so-called "foundation", and certainly Wales seems to think himself qualified to actually judge legal questions, which is amazing, when there are contributors like Larry Solum around to ask such questions of! But he has probably been blocked by now...<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"<br />
<br />
:This just proves that any attempt to call this "foundation" to even its bare legal requirements of accountability will be met with censorship, name-calling and [[libel chill]] as a response.<br />
<br />
:Also see [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-May/000038.html this from Anthere] which clearly demonstrates that decisions are made by [[usurper]]s doing [[developer vigilantiism]] ([[Erik Moeller]], [[Tim Starling]]) who don't consult with this "foundation" before making legal and usability and other decisions. The whole thing is a front group for Moeller and Starling now. It has no credibility.<br />
<br />
:How can [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] avoid being hijacked by some similar gang of thugs?<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
''Moved from article'' for unclear reasons. Seems to document some useful history of the project:<br />
<br />
As recently reported at [[w:Talk:Fallujah]]: "His work under the title "<br />
"[[GodKing]]" for several years encouraged new Wikipedia leaders to use cult-like language that discouraged opposition to his views, and to disparage those who offer counterveiling policies. Bomis's owner Jim Wales set the direction away from a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, and presents as a primary pundit against the feasibility of reviewed encyclopedias in numerous interviews." This much is factual and verifiable. Less clear is the impact of this policy, which "driven by Bomis' desire for rapid development, made Wikipedia more available to those who present election-time and war-time misinformation." Obviously this has become an issue in a US election year when there is an ongoing war in [[Iraq]].</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Claims_of_corruption&diff=4992Claims of corruption2004-09-06T16:20:39Z<p>142.177.99.10: the link transit progress shows that documenting these issues can result in some progress - it is neither axiomatic that Wikimedia is corrupt nor inevitable, let these issues stand for resolution</p>
<hr />
<div>[[[[Wikipedia]] is the largest [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. It was [[usurper|usurped]] by [[Wikimedia]] in 2003. Since then it has been '''alleged''' to have become increasingly corrupt and unresponsive to contributors and users. Evidence of '''Wikimedia corruption''' includes:<br />
<br />
=== structural corruption ===<br />
<br />
*many [[GFDL violation]]s notably re [[attribution]] and access to source text and all improvements. ''See [[text liberation]] for more on this issue<br />
*no actual end user (as opposed to "developer" or "sysop" or "editor") rep on the "board"; no [[independent board]] members not affiliated with operations<br />
*'''Wikimedia Foundation''' not consulted when legally important decisions made, e.g. [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000384.html in response to Wikipedia being blocked in China], which is the biggest issue it has ever faced, the Jimmy Wales unilaterally "hereby authorize [[Andrew Lih]] to make a statement on our behalf", based on [[usual happy NPOV talk]]. This was less than one day after the "election" of [[Wikimedia Board of Trustees]] who evidently had no opinion that mattered, on this all-important question.<br />
*false claims added to [[Wikimedia]] article here, and true claims removed; several attempts to revert these claims without answering to them, proving there is no adequate response<br />
*[[technological escalation]] against [[Recyclopedia]] and threatened against [[Wikinfo]] - attempted coverup with extremely selective event reporting in [[Wikipedia]], false claims in article nominally about Recyclopedia but seeming to serve only to spread the story that did not include [[denial of service attack]]s with [[vandalbot]]s<br />
*users not consulted when user environment changes - suggesting only certain kinds or status of users "count"<br />
*solicitation of donations beyond Florida state lines - may violate US federal law<br />
*[[outing]] and concomitant [[libel]] based on [[echo chamber]] claims<br />
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vandalism]] most notably by [[Auntie Angela]] and [[Hephaestos]]<br />
*tolerance of extensive [[sysop vigilantiism]] and contemplation of more serious [[developer vigilantiism]]<br />
*[[ad hominem delete]] without process, recently spread to [[Meta-Wikipedia]]<br />
*[[ad hominem revert]] allowed to stand<br />
*U.S. and U.K. centric editorial policy, set by people who speak only English<br />
*total censorship of [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] - not even history now visible due to intimidation of this group<br />
*attempted [[libel chill]] by labelling contents of this page "[[slander]]".<br />
<br />
=== recently dealt with ===<br />
<br />
*withholding of information regarding [[link transit]] at [[Wikipedia]] which would be very useful to editors, but also quite profitable for a [[search engine]] like [[Bomis]]; several attempts to raise this issue have been suppressed; in September 2004 [[User:TimStarling]] did some code to start to deal with it.<br />
<br />
=== individual corruption by officers ===<br />
<br />
*Wales intimidating [[English Wikipedia User Secretlondon]] for being "too anti-American"<br />
*[[libel chill]] by Wales, attempting to silence critics of his decisions and appointments, or even just those who point out [[GFDL violation]]s by Wikimedia, e.g. accusing people who say [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] as being guilty of '''libel against Wikimedia''' on the [[Wikipedia mailing list]]<br />
*[[Daniel Mayer]] was appointed to the position of Chief Financial Officer on July 4, 2004; this individual is hardly credible as a reporter of facts or a guardian of any principles, given his long standing participation in [[echo chamber]] and [[libel pit]] activities; it strongly detracts from credibility of [[Wikimedia]] and [[Wikipedia]] when such a person is in charge of the books<br />
<br />
''For issues with developers and others without official status, see [[Talk:alleged Wikimedia corruption]].''</div>142.177.99.10https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Diebold&diff=16028Diebold2004-09-06T16:15:05Z<p>142.177.99.10: revert; the Disinfopedia article contains LOTS of documentation that back the claim that Diebold is "very often accused..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Diebold''' is a voting machine company with close ties to the current US Republican administration that is very often accused of vote rigging and lying about vulnerabilities in its systems, which are based on [[Microsoft Access]].<br />
<br />
''See [[Disinfopedia]]'s extensive [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Diebold_Election_Systems Diebold Election Systems] coverage.''</div>142.177.99.10