https://develop.consumerium.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=142.177.99.104&feedformat=atomConsumerium development wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T20:38:22ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.6https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Troll_Timeline&diff=13818Troll Timeline2004-07-28T21:07:52Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Consumerium]] '''timeline'''<br />
<br />
*[[2002]]<br />
::Earliest [[troll]] murmurings on various [[blog]]s like [[Greenpeace]], wanting a way to link [[barcode]] to [[NGO]] opinions at [[point of purchase]]<br />
::[[Adbusters]] proposes a program of this kind<br />
*[[2003]]<br />
::[[March]] - [[Consumerium]] starts<br />
::summer - [[glossary]] and [[Consumerium Concepts]] emerge<br />
::[[September]] - discussions on how to change [[mediawiki]] to support Consumerium begin<br />
::[[October]] - [[types of countries]], [[pricing]], and use of [[Simple English]] to send buy signals<br />
*[[2004]]<br />
::[[March]] - [[trollist]] ideology spreads, notably via [[Wikipedia red faction]]<br />
::[[May]] - [[faction]] model begins to spread, notably to [[OurAnswer]]<br />
::detailed critique of [[Wikimedia corruption]] to guide [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] to avoid the same mistakes, many of them obvious<br />
::[[July]] - some design proposals and requirements statements start to be [[good enough]] even for [[trolls]]</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Corporate_practice&diff=15368Corporate practice2004-07-28T21:00:50Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Corporate practice''' includes [[best practices]] and [[worst practices]] of that corporate entity. It is important for [[Consumerium Services]] to try to document both, so that we are never entirely accepting nor entirely critical of any corporate entity.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Good_Thing&diff=15363Good Thing2004-07-28T20:59:50Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>What is a '''Good Thing'''? It is the opposite of a '''Bad Thing'''. Every group of people has their own list of what they consider to be unambiguously '''Good''' and accordingly a list of opposing Bad principles.<br />
<br />
''In general, we do not care if something discussed here "is or is not a '''Good Thing'''". We care if it is [[good enough]]. This applies to both our own software designs and requirements statements, and [[corporate practice]]s we are here to expose and change. If it's good enough, we aren't fighting it, because we can't fight everything, at least, not everything at once!''<br />
<br />
''The rest of this is about the general struggle to define [[w:goodness and value theory|goodness]] within the frame of our [[Consumerium Services]]:''<br />
<br />
In every [[language]], and every [[glossary]] within that language, there are certain terms that are invoked as a means of '''not arguing about their value'''. For instance, to say something is "[[fair]]" is to say it is good enough and should not be investigated or changed or disputed any more. In other words, it is a '''Good Thing''' to be "[[fair]]" whatever fair means in this context: no one uses "fair" to mean "unacceptable" though they might use it to mean "barely acceptable", e.g. the scale [[poor, fair, good, very good, excellent]] in which just being fair is not very '''good''', but '''good enough'''. Likewise, "[[to be]] '''unfair'''" is necessarily always a '''Bad Thing'''. Using these words is not debating: it is just restating [[dogma]].<br />
''Some think [[to be]] is the culprit - see [[E Prime]] for more on this.''<br />
<br />
Regardless of these general moral disputes, things must get done and there is a limited time to debate morality: A small group must accept more things as '''good enough''' than a large group that has more resources to investigate and improve them. But what a large group must agree to, just to hold together, tends to be rather rigid in nature and eventually impossible to challenge. <br />
<br />
For instance, [[sysop power structure]] is considered to be a '''Good Thing''' from a [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] in part because the project seems to depend on the "contributions" of many such [[sysop vandalism|vandals with blocking and deleting power]]. No one participating in this structure is able to conceive of simply eliminating these people and knowing (or hoping) that others will come along to replace them with less bias and more skills. If you believe such people would come along, then, the [[power structure]] is a [[bad thing]], and [[wiki regime change]] is a '''good thing'''. If you believe they won't come along, then, the opposite.<br />
<br />
It is very hard to get people to work with others whose belief in any given '''Good Thing''' match too closely someone else's idea of a '''Bad Thing'''. Accordingly [[faction]]s help get people together whose ideas of morality match more closely, so they can unite to identify [[worst practices]] that they would use the [[Consumerium Services]] to try to eliminate off Earth.<br />
<br />
Eventually, one will probably realize that one's faction doesn't have all of the answers, and that it is time to look more carefully at another set of views. But this usually comes only after one has stated and defended one's own views and attitudes as a '''Good Thing''', and been motivated to fight against at least one '''Bad Thing'''. So dogma might be a natural part of [[unthought]] and just a normal stage that people move through in cooperating.<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
The phrase '''Good Thing''' was first used in this way in the excellent history book [[w:1066 And All That]] by [[w:Punch Magazine]], which is British history explained, including the various ways different things became Good or not over time.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Good_enough&diff=4579Good enough2004-07-28T20:57:37Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>Something that is '''good enough''' is not necessary a [[Good Thing]] but rather is just not the most important thing to argue about at the moment.<br />
<br />
[[Trolls]] notably have difficulty accepting anything as being '''good enough''' and may need encouragement in this acceptance from other [[faction]]s.<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must be the ultimate arbiter of what is '''good enough''' to actually get [[Consumerium Services]] running and the [[Consumerium buying signal]] influencing [[point of purchase]] decisions. It can and should schedule regular re-examination of concepts that are perhaps not '''good enough''' for [[Transparent Consumerium]] or for [[Distributed Consumerium]], and should have plenty of time in advance to re-examine the whole [[healthy buying infrastructure]].<br />
<br />
A list of things that are already '''good enough''' to build [[software]] on:<br />
<br />
:[[Develop Wiki]] - [[mediawiki]] is good enough to coordinate development with<br />
:[[Faction]] model - this can evolve as actual people arrive with actual basic differences, and realize their ideas about what is a [[Good Thing]] vary and the [[worst practices]] they hate most also vary<br />
:[[Trollist]] ideology - well established, this is a [[troll-friendly]] wiki, so what? Let this truth trigger [[wiki regime change]] to destroy [[Wikimedia corruption]], and let it happen slowly so [[trolls]] can enjoy the pain of the [[sysop power structure]] as it dies<br />
:[[Lowest Troll]] has proven himself good enough and fair enough to run at least the development side, though he may not be right to run [[Research Wiki]] or [[Publish Wiki]] and certainly can't determine "what is just an Opinion" on his or her own<br />
:[[healthy signal infrastructure]] model - there are enough requirements here to constrain the problem and help choose working parts, that's all that we need, nothing could be unhealthier than having no [[Consumerium Services]] at all<br />
:[[healthy buying infrastructure]] subset of that model - basically this must evolve by rendezvous as [[essential projects]] start to converge with this one<br />
:[[E Prime]] and [[glossary]] probably are good enough now in English only, that is, there are only so many essential concepts, or basic words in any [[language]], what these need now is [[translation]], e.g. into [[French]], [[Finnish]], [[Spanish]], to identify ways the words have subtle differences<br />
:''add more things that are good enough''<br />
<br />
---------<br />
If you disagree, just move the thing to [[Talk:Good enough|the talk page]]. If you disagree with that move, well, too bad, it's obviously not good enough yet, so work on improving it before you add it to this list again.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_enough&diff=15367Talk:Good enough2004-07-28T20:49:05Z<p>142.177.99.104: proposing a list of things that are already good enough to build Consumerium Services on</p>
<hr />
<div>Let us make clear what is [[good enough]] in the present thinking, and what needs more baking, or more challenging. "We" (whoever "we" are) might well find ourselves agreeing on more than we think. But we are focusing a little too much on disagreement at the moment. Let's look for where we agree for a while.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Good_enough&diff=4572Good enough2004-07-28T20:47:38Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>Something that is '''good enough''' is not necessary a [[Good Thing]] but rather is just not the most important thing to argue about at the moment.<br />
<br />
[[Trolls]] notably have difficulty accepting anything as being '''good enough''' and may need encouragement in this acceptance from other [[faction]]s.<br />
<br />
[[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must be the ultimate arbiter of what is '''good enough''' to actually get [[Consumerium Services]] running and the [[Consumerium buying signal]] influencing [[point of purchase]] decisions.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=To_be&diff=15365To be2004-07-28T20:45:03Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>Most [[language]]s include a verb '''to be'''. Those who advocate [[E Prime]] consider this verb a [[Bad Thing]]. [[Trolls]] find no clear arguments why this verb might actually "be" a [[Good Thing]], and would ask others to comment:<br />
<br />
[[Faction]]s might actually consider '''to be''' to mean something different based on their [[factionally defined]] attitudes, e.g. [[Pinks]] might think of it as based on [[social capital]] and trust, [[Greens]] might think of it as a form of [[ecological wisdom]] and refuse to accept that things "are" except via an [[ecological lens]], etc.. It is not clear if [[becomes, remains, equals]] is any better.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Thing&diff=15364Bad Thing2004-07-28T20:41:56Z<p>142.177.99.104: #REDIRECT Good Thing; in general, if things have exact opposites, try to explain them in ONE article, not two</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Good Thing]]</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Good_Thing&diff=4573Good Thing2004-07-28T20:41:15Z<p>142.177.99.104: Good Thing / Bad Thing is a normal stage in idea evolution</p>
<hr />
<div>What is a '''Good Thing'''? It is the opposite of a '''Bad Thing'''. Every group of people has their own list of what they consider to be unambiguously '''Good''' and accordingly a list of opposing Bad principles.<br />
<br />
In every [[language]], and every [[glossary]] within that language, there are certain terms that are invoked as a means of '''not arguing about their value'''. For instance, to say something is "[[fair]]" is to say it is good enough and should not be investigated or changed or disputed any more. In other words, it is a '''Good Thing''' to be "[[fair]]" whatever fair means in this context: no one uses "fair" to mean "unacceptable" though they might use it to mean "barely acceptable", e.g. the scale [[poor, fair, good, very good, excellent]] in which just being fair is not very '''good''', but '''good enough'''. Likewise, "[[to be]] '''unfair'''" is necessarily always a '''Bad Thing'''. Using these words is not debating: it is just restating [[dogma]].<br />
''Some think [[to be]] is the culprit - see [[E Prime]] for more on this.''<br />
<br />
Regardless of these general moral disputes, things must get done and there is a limited time to debate morality: A small group must accept more things as '''good enough''' than a large group that has more resources to investigate and improve them. But what a large group must agree to, just to hold together, tends to be rather rigid in nature and eventually impossible to challenge. <br />
<br />
For instance, [[sysop power structure]] is considered to be a '''Good Thing''' from a [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] in part because the project seems to depend on the "contributions" of many such [[sysop vandalism|vandals with blocking and deleting power]]. No one participating in this structure is able to conceive of simply eliminating these people and knowing (or hoping) that others will come along to replace them with less bias and more skills. If you believe such people would come along, then, the [[power structure]] is a [[bad thing]], and [[wiki regime change]] is a '''good thing'''. If you believe they won't come along, then, the opposite.<br />
<br />
It is very hard to get people to work with others whose belief in any given '''Good Thing''' match too closely someone else's idea of a '''Bad Thing'''. Accordingly [[faction]]s help get people together whose ideas of morality match more closely, so they can unite to identify [[worst practices]] that they would use the [[Consumerium Services]] to try to eliminate off Earth.<br />
<br />
Eventually, one will probably realize that one's faction doesn't have all of the answers, and that it is time to look more carefully at another set of views. But this usually comes only after one has stated and defended one's own views and attitudes as a '''Good Thing''', and been motivated to fight against at least one '''Bad Thing'''. So dogma might be a natural part of [[unthought]] and just a normal stage that people move through in cooperating.<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
The phrase '''Good Thing''' was first used in this way in the excellent history book [[w:1066 And All That]] by [[w:Punch Magazine]], which is British history explained, including the various ways different things became Good or not over time.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Bittorrent&diff=15362Bittorrent2004-07-28T20:29:04Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Bittorrent''' is a [[peer to peer network]] like [[Overnet]] or [[Kazaa]].<br />
<br />
It may play some role in [[Distributed Consumerium]] eventually, if it lives.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Magnificent_trolling&diff=4844Magnificent trolling2004-07-28T20:27:53Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>:''"where there is trust, there is opportunity for magnificence"'' - anonymous<br />
<br />
So-called '''magnificent trolling''' is [[heroic trolling]] somehow achieved by very despised trolls who drive off even GodKings and discredit biased [[ontology]] and the most biased ontologists, which is later seen to be a [[Good Thing]]. <br />
<br />
The [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] seems to engage in heroic trolling and to recognize that there is some potential for magnificence in their activities to oppose and end [[Wikimedia corruption]]. That is, those who engage in resistance alongside the (self-proclaimed) [[Reds]] and seek [[wiki regime change]] seem to trust each other to a somewhat higher degree than those who go along with [[sysop vandalism]].</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Magnificent_trolling&diff=4571Magnificent trolling2004-07-28T20:27:17Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>:''"where there is trust, there is opportunity for magnificence"'' - anonymous<br />
<br />
So-called '''magnificent trolling''' is [[heroic trolling]] somehow achieved by very despised trolls who drive off even GodKings and discredit biased [[ontology]] and the most biased ontologists, which is later seen to be a [[Good Thing]]. <br />
<br />
The [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] seems to engage in heroic trolling and to recognize that there is some potential for magnificence in their activities to oppose and end [[Wikimedia corruption]]. That is, those who engage in resistance alongside the (self-proclaimed) [[Reds]] seem to trust each other to a somewhat higher degree than those who go along with it.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Magnificent_trolling&diff=4570Magnificent trolling2004-07-28T20:26:43Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>:''"where there is trust, there is opportunity for magnificence"'' - anonymous<br />
<br />
So-called '''magnificent trolling''' is [[heroic trolling]] somehow achieved by very despised trolls who drive off even GodKings and discredit biased [[ontology]] and the most biased ontologists, which is later seen to be a [[Good Thing]]. <br />
<br />
The [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] seems to engage in heroic trolling and to recognize that there is some potential for magnificence in their activities to oppose and end [[Wikimedia corruption]]. That is, those who engage in it seem to trust each other to a somewhat higher degree than those who go along with it.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Worst_practices&diff=15657Talk:Worst practices2004-07-28T20:24:27Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>OK [[Reds]] and [[Pinks]], please explain how present [[worst practices]] are causing all the disasters we see, so that others can join your [[faction]]s!<br />
<br />
The [[Greens]] and [[Trolls]] have more or less laid out the case for their views, now, where are the rest?<br />
<br />
Seems [[animal cruelty]] is hated by some [[Greens]] and some [[Pinks]] but for different reasons.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Worst_practices&diff=4568Talk:Worst practices2004-07-28T20:24:15Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>OK [[Reds]] and [[Pinks]], please explain how present [[worst practices]] are causing all the disasters we see, so that others can join your [[faction]]s!<br />
<br />
The [[Greens]] and [[Trolls]] have more or less laid out the case for their views, now, where are the rest?<br />
<br />
Seems [animal cruelty] is hated by some [[Greens]] and some [[Pinks]] but for different reasons.</div>142.177.99.104https://develop.consumerium.org/w/index.php?title=Magnificent_trolling&diff=4569Magnificent trolling2004-07-28T20:22:37Z<p>142.177.99.104: </p>
<hr />
<div>:''"where there is trust, there is opportunity for magnificence"'' - anonymous<br />
<br />
So-called '''magnificent trolling''' is [[heroic trolling]] somehow achieved by very despised trolls who drive off even GodKings and discredit ontologists, which is later seen to be a Good Thing. The [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] seems to engage in heroic trolling and to recognize that there is some potential for magnificence in their activities to oppose and end [[Wikimedia corruption]].</div>142.177.99.104