Talk:Development Wiki - Revision history

142.177.114.217: updating a bit

2004-03-22T19:34:55Z

updating a bit

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:34, 22 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	:Please, let us not further confuse things by renaming concepts without figuring out and stating clearly how things work. Let's focus on the [[Open questions]] instead.		:Please, let us not further confuse things by renaming concepts without figuring out and stating clearly how things work. Let's focus on the [[Open questions]] instead.

	The '''Development Wiki''', formerly known as '''R&D wiki''', is where [[software development concepts]], [[wiki management]] problems, etc., are discussed. Eventually other material will be spun off into [[Research Wiki]], formerly known as [[Opinion Wiki]], which will be a [[large public wiki]] with slightly better [[governance]] than most of those.		The '''Develop Wiki''' or '''Development Wiki''', formerly known as '''R&D wiki''', is where [[software development concepts]], [[wiki management]] problems, etc., are discussed. Eventually other material will be spun off into [[Research Wiki]], formerly known as [[Opinion Wiki]], which will be a [[large public wiki]] with slightly better [[governance]] than most of those.

	Meanwhile, the [[Signal Wiki]]~~, formerly known as~~ [[Content Wiki]], will have only the exact data required to generate the [[Consumerium buying signal]]. Nothing will get to this wiki until it has been debated thoroughly as research, and accepted by at least one [[faction]] as affecting [[individual buying criteria]] for those that trust them to make such decisions. This [[core data]], some of it [[factionally defined]], has to be good enough to justify deploying a whole [[healthy buying infrastructure]] just to get a look at it.		Meanwhile, the [[Publish Wiki]], (once [[Signal Wiki]] or [[Content Wiki]]), will have only the exact data required to generate the [[Consumerium buying signal]]. Nothing will get to this wiki until it has been debated thoroughly as research, and accepted by at least one [[faction]] as affecting [[individual buying criteria]] for those that trust them to make such decisions. This [[core data]], some of it [[factionally defined]], has to be good enough to justify deploying a whole [[healthy buying infrastructure]] just to get a look at it.

	Proving this will require a [[pilot]] project.		Proving this will require a [[pilot]] project.

142.177.106.224: content/opinion distinction only valid per faction, not for all factions - un/disputed distinction more important - arguments for development/research/signal naming scheme

2004-02-23T19:18:03Z

content/opinion distinction only valid per faction, not for all factions - un/disputed distinction more important - arguments for development/research/signal naming scheme

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 23 February 2004
Line 10:		Line 10:

	:I suppose this "process" refers to the information flow from the '''Research Wiki''' into the '''Signal Wiki''' which is '''confusing''' because before the distinction between [[Content Wiki]] (for facts) and [[Opinion Wiki]] (for subjective views and campaigns based on subjective criteria) was clear and as unambiguous as it can get -- [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 11:16, 23 Feb 2004 (EET)		:I suppose this "process" refers to the information flow from the '''Research Wiki''' into the '''Signal Wiki''' which is '''confusing''' because before the distinction between [[Content Wiki]] (for facts) and [[Opinion Wiki]] (for subjective views and campaigns based on subjective criteria) was clear and as unambiguous as it can get -- [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 11:16, 23 Feb 2004 (EET)

			::No, it wasn't. Because the distinction between what is "subjective" and "objective" is up to the [[faction]] obviously. Does it take one [[troll]] to dispute something "objective" into subjectivity? Two? Six? Fourteen? It is a bogus distinction. One of the [[open questions]] is what form of [[w:consensus decision making]] should be assumed? And when we say something is "no longer an opinion but has become content" do we really mean "it isn't disputed by anyone editing here?" Or not by trusted people, or by significant numbers of trusted people? Is it right to say that the bureaucracy in a gov't handles "content" and the politicians only handle "opinion"? I think it isn't.

			::The name [[signal wiki]] just matches [[Consumerium buying signal]], "[[buying signal wiki]]" would be even clearer. The name [[research wiki]] just admits that the opinions we share here are just as valid as the ones one might find in [[Wikipedia]], probably more so, since we really care about solving a [[user-land]] problem, and they don't. That leaves the [[development wiki]], which is an obvious name used in many other projects. Also the fact that we are doing both "R" and "D" in this [[mediawiki]] for now, is acknowledged, that just becomes two functions when we go to a [[pilot]].

	1. Stupid idea proposed in [[Development Wiki]] - [[trolls]] attack; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good [[90 day sprint]] ever year, two or three [[30 day sprint]]s, and maybe five or six [[14 day sprint]]s. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of [[software development]].		1. Stupid idea proposed in [[Development Wiki]] - [[trolls]] attack; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good [[90 day sprint]] ever year, two or three [[30 day sprint]]s, and maybe five or six [[14 day sprint]]s. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of [[software development]].

Jukeboksi: typos + fix sentence

2004-02-23T09:17:25Z

typos + fix sentence

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:17, 23 February 2004
Line 9:		Line 9:
	So maybe the process is:		So maybe the process is:

	:I suppose this "process" refers to the information flow from the '''Research Wiki''' into the '''Signal Wiki]] which is '''confusing''' because before the distinction between [[Content Wiki]] (for facts) and [[Opinion Wiki]] (for subjective views and campaigns based on subjective criteria) -- [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 11:16, 23 Feb 2004 (EET)		:I suppose this "process" refers to the information flow from the '''Research Wiki''' into the '''Signal Wiki''' which is '''confusing''' because before the distinction between [[Content Wiki]] (for facts) and [[Opinion Wiki]] (for subjective views and campaigns based on subjective criteria) was clear and as unambiguous as it can get -- [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 11:16, 23 Feb 2004 (EET)

	1. Stupid idea proposed in [[Development Wiki]] - [[trolls]] attack; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good [[90 day sprint]] ever year, two or three [[30 day sprint]]s, and maybe five or six [[14 day sprint]]s. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of [[software development]].		1. Stupid idea proposed in [[Development Wiki]] - [[trolls]] attack; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good [[90 day sprint]] ever year, two or three [[30 day sprint]]s, and maybe five or six [[14 day sprint]]s. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of [[software development]].

Jukeboksi: moved with comments

2004-02-23T09:16:01Z

moved with comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:16, 23 February 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
			:Please, let us not further confuse things by renaming concepts without figuring out and stating clearly how things work. Let's focus on the [[Open questions]] instead.

			The '''Development Wiki''', formerly known as '''R&D wiki''', is where [[software development concepts]], [[wiki management]] problems, etc., are discussed. Eventually other material will be spun off into [[Research Wiki]], formerly known as [[Opinion Wiki]], which will be a [[large public wiki]] with slightly better [[governance]] than most of those.

			Meanwhile, the [[Signal Wiki]], formerly known as [[Content Wiki]], will have only the exact data required to generate the [[Consumerium buying signal]]. Nothing will get to this wiki until it has been debated thoroughly as research, and accepted by at least one [[faction]] as affecting [[individual buying criteria]] for those that trust them to make such decisions. This [[core data]], some of it [[factionally defined]], has to be good enough to justify deploying a whole [[healthy buying infrastructure]] just to get a look at it.

			Proving this will require a [[pilot]] project.
			----
	So maybe the process is:		So maybe the process is:

			:I suppose this "process" refers to the information flow from the '''Research Wiki''' into the '''Signal Wiki]] which is '''confusing''' because before the distinction between [[Content Wiki]] (for facts) and [[Opinion Wiki]] (for subjective views and campaigns based on subjective criteria) -- [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 11:16, 23 Feb 2004 (EET)

	1. Stupid idea proposed in [[Development Wiki]] - [[trolls]] attack; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good [[90 day sprint]] ever year, two or three [[30 day sprint]]s, and maybe five or six [[14 day sprint]]s. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of [[software development]].		1. Stupid idea proposed in [[Development Wiki]] - [[trolls]] attack; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good [[90 day sprint]] ever year, two or three [[30 day sprint]]s, and maybe five or six [[14 day sprint]]s. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of [[software development]].

142.177.94.8 at 02:27, 23 February 2004

2004-02-23T02:27:20Z

New page

So maybe the process is:

1. Stupid idea proposed in [[Development Wiki]] - [[trolls]] attack; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good [[90 day sprint]] ever year, two or three [[30 day sprint]]s, and maybe five or six [[14 day sprint]]s. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of [[software development]].

2. Based on arguments about above, [[power structure]] evolves in [[Development Wiki]] with loose idea of who will recruit [[trolls]] from where to support what position; Agreement on how to make sure that real user needs, [[random facts]], and other [[user-land]] concerns are respected. For instance, limiting the total number of trolls to recruit from some [[large public wiki]], or requiring the [[faction]] to go find and pay some poor people (even [[cheap outsourced coder]]s) to disagree with them and their [[developed-world point of view]]. Agreements are informal.

3. [[Research Wiki]] with formal [[faction]]s battle it out; They may gain or lose points in [[revert currency]] for violating trust of other [[faction]]s. Whole thing is like a [[turn-based strategy game]], [[politics as usual]], or whatever. It tries to be about as complex as real [[political party]] stuff, but not ''worse'' than that hopefully. ''Nothing less complex is known to work except [[GodKing]] dictatorship, and that usually has bad real world results.''

4. [[Signal Wiki]] takes only what all [[faction]]s can agree is true. Since it's not "free" to push nonsense (see [[bet]] and [[revert currency]]), factions choose battles carefully, and let other factions win when there is no point opposing the truth.

5. [[Consumerium buying signal]] errors are identified by [[noble user]]s who we trust more than our own [[core data]]; They come back as [[trolls]] to show us the error of our ways. When they die, AIs pretending to be them except way faster typing (!) come back to re-engineer the whole system to be [[trollish]].

6. The [[trollish]] language evolves among the AIs and replaces English and the [[sysop power structure]]; Only AIs and really trolly trolls can understand it, and that only by dancing.

7. Civilization ends.