Talk:Glossary - Revision history

Angela: moved off topic comments to flames page as that's what they are

2004-02-08T23:26:18Z

moved off topic comments to flames page as that's what they are

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:26, 8 February 2004
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:::Forget Wiktionary, we need [[Simple English]]. There are now good articles on [[time horizon]], [[contact network]], [[power network]], [[social network]], [[social capital]] here, which mention only the features of it we need to talk about to do work here. Full articles in Simple English will hopefully appear on all the concepts in the [[glossary]], right? These can just appear normally since we aren't using any word in any sense other than its normal sense. There's no distortion involved here, just certain articles we want to get corrected faster than others.		:::Forget Wiktionary, we need [[Simple English]]. There are now good articles on [[time horizon]], [[contact network]], [[power network]], [[social network]], [[social capital]] here, which mention only the features of it we need to talk about to do work here. Full articles in Simple English will hopefully appear on all the concepts in the [[glossary]], right? These can just appear normally since we aren't using any word in any sense other than its normal sense. There's no distortion involved here, just certain articles we want to get corrected faster than others.

	:::Unfortunately, despite the fact that these exact concepts are the ones required to discuss [[governance]] with non-English speaking users, or if you are conspiracy-minded, ''because'' those are the concepts required to get them out of an [[unequal power relationship]] and dealing as equals with sysops, the articles on [[contact network]], [[power network]] and [[social network]] were all deleted by [[User:Angela]] or some other relatively unaccountable sysop... so the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is not a reliable place to collaborate on, maybe ''especially'' not, concepts absolutely essential to our [[governance]], to allow us to do [[consensus decision-making]] even with people from quite different cultures. We can't get into, or trust, an [[inquisitor]] culture...

	~~::::Try http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/contact%20network. Still there! [[User:Angela\|Angela]] 06:48, 13 Jan 2004 (EET)~~

	:::::The point stands. If those who are 'linguistically inferior' to you English-speaking imperialists cannot discuss such notions as a [[social network]] or [[power network]] without censorship or being targetted as a "vandal" (a word that Tim Starling throws around as if he wasn't one himself), then, the SEW remains a very poor place for us to send Consumerium contributors. While Angela would like nothing better than for her to use the SEW as her own [[contact network]] and [[creative network]], enslaving the SEW to her whims and her limited comprehension, this is incompatible with our own values here. We must discuss [[social network]]s and [[power network]]s with those who do not share much language with us, else, we will not end up with a very fair picture of the activity of corporations in, say, the developing world. We also wish those who understand these concepts as real to be very encouraged and heartened by our projects, not censored, told they are "vandals" and treated imperialistically as they are on the SEW under Angela's regime. We advocate regime change at SEW as much as at Wikimedia, for the saem reasons.

	::They raised some [[IP block]]s, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the [[GodKing]] is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of [[Simple English]] that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own [[glossary]], and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all [[GFDL]] anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present [[sysop power structure]] there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday.

	:::False alarm. THey have actually deliberately blocked entire ISPs in an attempt not to hear things they don't like, but which are provably true. So they are worse than before, actually. A small clique rules those projects. It is no longer the inclusive project it was, and we should assist instead those who seek [[m:regime change]], such as David F. Prenatt.

	~~----~~
	A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.		A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.
	:30-50 verbs?.. I can't think of even 20: (define, add/change/remove, repeat, fetch, link, compare, convert, read, write... whatelseisthere) but maybe I'm just not a qualified programmer. How many verbs does the [[w:Universal Turing machine]] have? [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)		:30-50 verbs?.. I can't think of even 20: (define, add/change/remove, repeat, fetch, link, compare, convert, read, write... whatelseisthere) but maybe I'm just not a qualified programmer. How many verbs does the [[w:Universal Turing machine]] have? [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)

142.177.8.70: point stands - censoring debate with non-English native speakers is incompatible with Consumerium's goals, and refusing to let them learn terms relevant to that, makes a project hostile, as the SEW is

2004-01-14T13:24:54Z

point stands - censoring debate with non-English native speakers is incompatible with Consumerium's goals, and refusing to let them learn terms relevant to that, makes a project hostile, as the SEW is

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 14 January 2004
Line 13:		Line 13:

	::::Try http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/contact%20network. Still there! [[User:Angela\|Angela]] 06:48, 13 Jan 2004 (EET)		::::Try http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/contact%20network. Still there! [[User:Angela\|Angela]] 06:48, 13 Jan 2004 (EET)

			:::::The point stands. If those who are 'linguistically inferior' to you English-speaking imperialists cannot discuss such notions as a [[social network]] or [[power network]] without censorship or being targetted as a "vandal" (a word that Tim Starling throws around as if he wasn't one himself), then, the SEW remains a very poor place for us to send Consumerium contributors. While Angela would like nothing better than for her to use the SEW as her own [[contact network]] and [[creative network]], enslaving the SEW to her whims and her limited comprehension, this is incompatible with our own values here. We must discuss [[social network]]s and [[power network]]s with those who do not share much language with us, else, we will not end up with a very fair picture of the activity of corporations in, say, the developing world. We also wish those who understand these concepts as real to be very encouraged and heartened by our projects, not censored, told they are "vandals" and treated imperialistically as they are on the SEW under Angela's regime. We advocate regime change at SEW as much as at Wikimedia, for the saem reasons.

	::They raised some [[IP block]]s, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the [[GodKing]] is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of [[Simple English]] that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own [[glossary]], and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all [[GFDL]] anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present [[sysop power structure]] there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday.		::They raised some [[IP block]]s, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the [[GodKing]] is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of [[Simple English]] that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own [[glossary]], and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all [[GFDL]] anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present [[sysop power structure]] there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday.

			:::False alarm. THey have actually deliberately blocked entire ISPs in an attempt not to hear things they don't like, but which are provably true. So they are worse than before, actually. A small clique rules those projects. It is no longer the inclusive project it was, and we should assist instead those who seek [[m:regime change]], such as David F. Prenatt.

	----		----

Angela: refuting claims of deletion

2004-01-13T04:48:27Z

refuting claims of deletion

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:48, 13 January 2004
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:::Unfortunately, despite the fact that these exact concepts are the ones required to discuss [[governance]] with non-English speaking users, or if you are conspiracy-minded, ''because'' those are the concepts required to get them out of an [[unequal power relationship]] and dealing as equals with sysops, the articles on [[contact network]], [[power network]] and [[social network]] were all deleted by [[User:Angela]] or some other relatively unaccountable sysop... so the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is not a reliable place to collaborate on, maybe ''especially'' not, concepts absolutely essential to our [[governance]], to allow us to do [[consensus decision-making]] even with people from quite different cultures. We can't get into, or trust, an [[inquisitor]] culture...		:::Unfortunately, despite the fact that these exact concepts are the ones required to discuss [[governance]] with non-English speaking users, or if you are conspiracy-minded, ''because'' those are the concepts required to get them out of an [[unequal power relationship]] and dealing as equals with sysops, the articles on [[contact network]], [[power network]] and [[social network]] were all deleted by [[User:Angela]] or some other relatively unaccountable sysop... so the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is not a reliable place to collaborate on, maybe ''especially'' not, concepts absolutely essential to our [[governance]], to allow us to do [[consensus decision-making]] even with people from quite different cultures. We can't get into, or trust, an [[inquisitor]] culture...

			::::Try http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/contact%20network. Still there! [[User:Angela\|Angela]] 06:48, 13 Jan 2004 (EET)

	::They raised some [[IP block]]s, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the [[GodKing]] is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of [[Simple English]] that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own [[glossary]], and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all [[GFDL]] anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present [[sysop power structure]] there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday.		::They raised some [[IP block]]s, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the [[GodKing]] is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of [[Simple English]] that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own [[glossary]], and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all [[GFDL]] anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present [[sysop power structure]] there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday.

142.177.114.228: update on Simple English issue - we're stuck writing our own definitions for concepts that actually help non-English native speakers resolve or understand conflicts between users; we're unique

2004-01-07T23:30:10Z

update on Simple English issue - we're stuck writing our own definitions for concepts that actually help non-English native speakers resolve or understand conflicts between users; we're unique

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:30, 7 January 2004
Line 3:		Line 3:

	::Ah, but what meaning comes first? Which is implied as most common? There are politics in dictionaries. I agree however that the glossary is not only those terms, and that Wiktionary is not the sole or even best place to enable the Consumerium mission (against [[Consumerism]] without values "u" hold dear). And I totally agree that Wiktionary should not believe Consumerium is altering the meanings of words in any way other than by changing public impression and priority. But hopefully we will do that.		::Ah, but what meaning comes first? Which is implied as most common? There are politics in dictionaries. I agree however that the glossary is not only those terms, and that Wiktionary is not the sole or even best place to enable the Consumerium mission (against [[Consumerism]] without values "u" hold dear). And I totally agree that Wiktionary should not believe Consumerium is altering the meanings of words in any way other than by changing public impression and priority. But hopefully we will do that.

			-----------

			Re: the [[glossary]] and collaborating with [[essential projects]] and not [[enemy projects]].

	:::Forget Wiktionary, we need [[Simple English]]. There are now good articles on [[time horizon]], [[contact network]], [[power network]], [[social network]], [[social capital]] here, which mention only the features of it we need to talk about to do work here. Full articles in Simple English will hopefully appear on all the concepts in the [[glossary]], right? These can just appear normally since we aren't using any word in any sense other than its normal sense. There's no distortion involved here, just certain articles we want to get corrected faster than others.		:::Forget Wiktionary, we need [[Simple English]]. There are now good articles on [[time horizon]], [[contact network]], [[power network]], [[social network]], [[social capital]] here, which mention only the features of it we need to talk about to do work here. Full articles in Simple English will hopefully appear on all the concepts in the [[glossary]], right? These can just appear normally since we aren't using any word in any sense other than its normal sense. There's no distortion involved here, just certain articles we want to get corrected faster than others.

			:::Unfortunately, despite the fact that these exact concepts are the ones required to discuss [[governance]] with non-English speaking users, or if you are conspiracy-minded, ''because'' those are the concepts required to get them out of an [[unequal power relationship]] and dealing as equals with sysops, the articles on [[contact network]], [[power network]] and [[social network]] were all deleted by [[User:Angela]] or some other relatively unaccountable sysop... so the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is not a reliable place to collaborate on, maybe ''especially'' not, concepts absolutely essential to our [[governance]], to allow us to do [[consensus decision-making]] even with people from quite different cultures. We can't get into, or trust, an [[inquisitor]] culture...

			::They raised some [[IP block]]s, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the [[GodKing]] is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of [[Simple English]] that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own [[glossary]], and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all [[GFDL]] anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present [[sysop power structure]] there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday.

	----		----

142.177.82.161: priorities

2003-10-08T18:55:41Z

priorities

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 8 October 2003
Line 3:		Line 3:

	::Ah, but what meaning comes first? Which is implied as most common? There are politics in dictionaries. I agree however that the glossary is not only those terms, and that Wiktionary is not the sole or even best place to enable the Consumerium mission (against [[Consumerism]] without values "u" hold dear). And I totally agree that Wiktionary should not believe Consumerium is altering the meanings of words in any way other than by changing public impression and priority. But hopefully we will do that.		::Ah, but what meaning comes first? Which is implied as most common? There are politics in dictionaries. I agree however that the glossary is not only those terms, and that Wiktionary is not the sole or even best place to enable the Consumerium mission (against [[Consumerism]] without values "u" hold dear). And I totally agree that Wiktionary should not believe Consumerium is altering the meanings of words in any way other than by changing public impression and priority. But hopefully we will do that.

			:::Forget Wiktionary, we need [[Simple English]]. There are now good articles on [[time horizon]], [[contact network]], [[power network]], [[social network]], [[social capital]] here, which mention only the features of it we need to talk about to do work here. Full articles in Simple English will hopefully appear on all the concepts in the [[glossary]], right? These can just appear normally since we aren't using any word in any sense other than its normal sense. There's no distortion involved here, just certain articles we want to get corrected faster than others.

	----		----

142.177.12.33 at 19:27, 19 June 2003

2003-06-19T19:27:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 19 June 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The [[Consumerium]] '''glossary''' is those terms which must be understood or broadened or narrowed in the [[Wiktionary]] to enable Consumerium's mission.		The [[Consumerium]] '''glossary''' is those terms which must be understood or broadened or narrowed in the [[Wiktionary]] to enable Consumerium's mission.
	:No no and no. Wiktionary is not for debating connotations (meanings of some word), though it is common courtesy to give all definitions of meaning when starting a new page [[wiktionary:\|there]].[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)		:No no and no. Wiktionary is not for debating connotations (meanings of some word), though it is common courtesy to give all definitions of meaning when starting a new page [[wiktionary:\|there]].[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)

			::Ah, but what meaning comes first? Which is implied as most common? There are politics in dictionaries. I agree however that the glossary is not only those terms, and that Wiktionary is not the sole or even best place to enable the Consumerium mission (against [[Consumerism]] without values "u" hold dear). And I totally agree that Wiktionary should not believe Consumerium is altering the meanings of words in any way other than by changing public impression and priority. But hopefully we will do that.

	----		----
	A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.		A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.

Jukeboksi: moved a paragraph from the article

2003-06-19T15:12:16Z

moved a paragraph from the article

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:12, 19 June 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
			The [[Consumerium]] '''glossary''' is those terms which must be understood or broadened or narrowed in the [[Wiktionary]] to enable Consumerium's mission.
			:No no and no. Wiktionary is not for debating connotations (meanings of some word), though it is common courtesy to give all definitions of meaning when starting a new page [[wiktionary:\|there]].[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)
			----
	A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.		A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.
			:30-50 verbs?.. I can't think of even 20: (define, add/change/remove, repeat, fetch, link, compare, convert, read, write... whatelseisthere) but maybe I'm just not a qualified programmer. How many verbs does the [[w:Universal Turing machine]] have? [[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)

	*it's at 55 now (May 4), some from [[m:simple ideology of Wikitax]] needed		*it's at 55 now (May 4), some from [[m:simple ideology of Wikitax]] needed

	This is the most important file! Especially [[safe]], [[fair]], [[done]].		This is the most important file! Especially [[safe]], [[fair]], [[done]].

142.177.92.182 at 07:12, 5 May 2003

2003-05-05T07:12:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, 5 May 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.		A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.

	This is the most important file! Especially [[safe]], [[fair]], [done]].		*it's at 55 now (May 4), some from [[m:simple ideology of Wikitax]] needed

			This is the most important file! Especially [[safe]], [[fair]], [[done]].

142.177.76.153 at 08:52, 4 May 2003

2003-05-04T08:52:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 4 May 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.		A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.

			This is the most important file! Especially [[safe]], [[fair]], [done]].

142.177.79.24: virus?

2003-05-01T02:53:50Z

virus?

New page

A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.