Talk:Consumerium social club - Revision history

142.177.106.200: Clary Shirky

2004-05-27T22:10:08Z

Clary Shirky

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 27 May 2004
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Does listing [[interests of Consumerium contributors]] or [[Consumerium:contributor interests]] imply that a [[Consumerium Social Club]] ([[proper name]]) already exists? Or is this a way to figure out who's in what [[faction]]?		Does listing [[interests of Consumerium contributors]] or [[Consumerium:contributor interests]] imply that a [[Consumerium Social Club]] ([[proper name]]) already exists? Or is this a way to figure out who's in what [[faction]]?

			--------------

			[[Clay Shirky]] is now talking a lot about [[Nomic World]], a concept of his that users should be citizens of [[online service]]s (he even mentions [[large public wiki]]s as an example) and should control how they are run, and what is "property" within them.

142.177.93.91 at 21:34, 27 March 2004

2004-03-27T21:34:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 27 March 2004
Line 4:		Line 4:

	What's clear is, the cheerleaders and the student council aren't the same folks, and shouldn't be selected by the same method.		What's clear is, the cheerleaders and the student council aren't the same folks, and shouldn't be selected by the same method.

			:A [[social club]] (cheerleaders) and a [[faction]] (student council) are obviously different.

	--------------		--------------

	Also see [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:social_club Metaweb social club] which has a more elaborated discussion and analogies.		Also see [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:social_club Metaweb social club] which has a more elaborated discussion and analogies.

			---------------

			Much of this is out of date, now that [http://recyclopedia.info/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Wikimedia Wikimedia] exists and its (corrupt, conflicted) board structure is clear. There is now no chance to get an [[independent board]] at Wikimedia, which simply shows how critical these early decisions on terminology and roles are.

			--------------

			Does listing [[interests of Consumerium contributors]] or [[Consumerium:contributor interests]] imply that a [[Consumerium Social Club]] ([[proper name]]) already exists? Or is this a way to figure out who's in what [[faction]]?

142.177.6.158: more analogies

2004-01-09T16:41:15Z

more analogies

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 9 January 2004
Line 7:		Line 7:
	--------------		--------------

	Also see [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:social_club Metaweb social club] which has a more elaborated discussion ~~of the division of powers~~.		Also see [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:social_club Metaweb social club] which has a more elaborated discussion and analogies.

142.177.6.158: link fix

2004-01-09T16:40:42Z

link fix

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 9 January 2004
Line 7:		Line 7:
	--------------		--------------

	Also see [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:social_club Metaweb social club] which has a more elaborated discussion of the division of powers.		Also see [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:social_club Metaweb social club] which has a more elaborated discussion of the division of powers.

142.177.6.158: link

2004-01-09T16:40:02Z

link

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 9 January 2004
Line 4:		Line 4:

	What's clear is, the cheerleaders and the student council aren't the same folks, and shouldn't be selected by the same method.		What's clear is, the cheerleaders and the student council aren't the same folks, and shouldn't be selected by the same method.

			--------------

			Also see [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:social_club Metaweb social club] which has a more elaborated discussion of the division of powers.

142.177.6.158: social rights vs. mission/political rights?

2004-01-09T14:17:56Z

social rights vs. mission/political rights?

New page

Might be worthwhile to indicate what rights exist for the social club that have nothing to do with the service. For instance, they might have the right to send maybe one or two messages to members who have not specifically blocked them, if only to pass on another email address or forum where they can continue to stay in contact. One reason people resent [[IP block]] measures, even if they don't actually care any more about the issue, is that they are cut off from any ability to respond to questions they've been asked, or continue any relationships they have, and this just has the effect of making them look flaky or even more rude. That is of course not their fault, as they no longer have power to respond. So maybe agreeing to the social club's idea of civility is one way to guarantee that social access continues even if someone is just not paying attention to, or damaging to, the actual political or economic mission?

After all, when someone is fired, we don't force all their colleagues to stop going to lunch with them. But if someone has used a pseudonym or engaged in an ambiguous discourse, it may be hard to know you are going to lunch with the same person you had a relationship with. So that ambiguity also plays against people just leaving to do something else - or taking others who might even be on their side, with them. All this tends to give sysops way too much power... they can abuse authority like crazy, and people will stay due to inertia and the uncertainty of who they're following to go do something else. This is an under-explored problem in identity...

What's clear is, the cheerleaders and the student council aren't the same folks, and shouldn't be selected by the same method.