User:Jukeboksi/Blog/June2004 - Revision history

Jukeboksi: Jukeboksi moved page User:Juboxi/Blog/June2004 to User:Jukeboksi/Blog/June2004: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Juboxi" to "Jukeboksi"

2017-07-06T15:23:17Z

Jukeboksi moved page User:Juboxi/Blog/June2004 to User:Jukeboksi/Blog/June2004: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Juboxi" to "Jukeboksi"

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 6 July 2017
(No difference)

Jukeboksi: Juboxi moved page User:Juxo/Blog/June2004 to User:Juboxi/Blog/June2004: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Juxo" to "Juboxi"

2013-06-14T13:03:58Z

Juboxi moved page User:Juxo/Blog/June2004 to User:Juboxi/Blog/June2004: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Juxo" to "Juboxi"

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:03, 14 June 2013
(No difference)

142.177.82.176: nonsense - trolls cannot do this, only a sysop pretends to know what "non neutral point of view" might be, and to do this correctly requires no sysops, just a consensus of trolls

2004-06-30T17:13:42Z

nonsense - trolls cannot do this, only a sysop pretends to know what "non neutral point of view" might be, and to do this correctly requires no sysops, just a consensus of trolls

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, 30 June 2004
Line 6:		Line 6:

	here are the basic assumptions i'm relying on: there will be [[Opinion Wiki]] where strict syntax will be required to get aggregate information to [[Publish Wiki]], [[NNPOV\|non-neutral-pov]] is the rule. there will be research wiki where all [[NNPOV\|non-neutral-pov]] stuff will get axed immediatelly with a kind notice to go mess around in the [[Opinion Wiki]]. [[Publish Wiki]] will import from [[Research Wiki]] pending that someone will bet their own credibility in declaring some information so certain that it needs to be published. also aggregated (via SQL scripts written in a not-yet-decided language) will be used to automatically update the articles in [[Publish Wiki]] with the aggregate information from [[Opinion Wiki]] with highlights and links to the whole mess of opinions --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:53, 30 Jun 2004 (EEST)		here are the basic assumptions i'm relying on: there will be [[Opinion Wiki]] where strict syntax will be required to get aggregate information to [[Publish Wiki]], [[NNPOV\|non-neutral-pov]] is the rule. there will be research wiki where all [[NNPOV\|non-neutral-pov]] stuff will get axed immediatelly with a kind notice to go mess around in the [[Opinion Wiki]]. [[Publish Wiki]] will import from [[Research Wiki]] pending that someone will bet their own credibility in declaring some information so certain that it needs to be published. also aggregated (via SQL scripts written in a not-yet-decided language) will be used to automatically update the articles in [[Publish Wiki]] with the aggregate information from [[Opinion Wiki]] with highlights and links to the whole mess of opinions --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:53, 30 Jun 2004 (EEST)

			:Nonsense. "all [[NNPOV\|non-neutral-pov]] stuff will get axed immediately with a kind notice to go mess around in the [[Opinion Wiki]]" BY WHOM?!??!?! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "non-neutral POV" unless you mean "everything that the [[sysop power structure]] does not like". There is NO [[ontological distinction]] here other than "I trust the editor to make this decision". That means the [[faction]]s will always fight over who gets to be the editor, etc.. It's just not viable. This is wrong. There could be a consensus way to mark something "more of an opinion" or "less like research" using [[answer recommendation]] but that requires all the information in the SAME [[large public wiki]]. Our dear [[Lowest Troll]] is accidentally becoming a [[sysop]] in his fantasies and imagines he has the wisdom of a [[GodKing]] to decide what is "not neutral". This is just not going to work. There is no "Opinion Wiki" any more, we have the right structure, we just need a formal way to keep what is "questionable research" out of the [[Publish Wiki]] and that only because the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] doesn't want to get [[lawsuit\|sued for it]]. This is a simple achievable goal. Determining what "should be shoved out of sight as mere opinion" is not simple, not achievable, impossible and (most important) [[factionally defined]]. It requires a process to do this, and that is more or less the process of moving something to a talk page.

	----		----
	25.6.2004		25.6.2004

Jukeboksi at 14:53, 30 June 2004

2004-06-30T14:53:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 30 June 2004
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Today I'm going to drink beer, befuddled by the complexity of [[Consumerium]] plans and the unsanity of everyday life.		Today I'm going to drink beer, befuddled by the complexity of [[Consumerium]] plans and the unsanity of everyday life.

			after some beer, on #wikipedia:

			here are the basic assumptions i'm relying on: there will be [[Opinion Wiki]] where strict syntax will be required to get aggregate information to [[Publish Wiki]], [[NNPOV\|non-neutral-pov]] is the rule. there will be research wiki where all [[NNPOV\|non-neutral-pov]] stuff will get axed immediatelly with a kind notice to go mess around in the [[Opinion Wiki]]. [[Publish Wiki]] will import from [[Research Wiki]] pending that someone will bet their own credibility in declaring some information so certain that it needs to be published. also aggregated (via SQL scripts written in a not-yet-decided language) will be used to automatically update the articles in [[Publish Wiki]] with the aggregate information from [[Opinion Wiki]] with highlights and links to the whole mess of opinions --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:53, 30 Jun 2004 (EEST)
	----		----
	25.6.2004		25.6.2004

Jukeboksi at 13:43, 30 June 2004

2004-06-30T13:43:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:43, 30 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
			30.6.2004

			Today I'm going to drink beer, befuddled by the complexity of [[Consumerium]] plans and the unsanity of everyday life.
			----
	25.6.2004		25.6.2004

142.177.94.100: get the design right first, then screw it up based on who is a bad programmer or not - but start with the right design

2004-06-26T15:35:25Z

get the design right first, then screw it up based on who is a bad programmer or not - but start with the right design

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 26 June 2004
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::Because keeping [[TCE]] type of stuff in it's own [[wiki]], the [[Opinion Wiki]], enables us to aggregate the information by using much simpler SQL. Queries are run periodically to update the opinion information in [[Publish Wiki]]. By implementing the needed collating in SQL we don't need to [[fork off]] from [[MediaWiki]], but can just concentrate on improving the [[Export-import]] functionality.		::Because keeping [[TCE]] type of stuff in it's own [[wiki]], the [[Opinion Wiki]], enables us to aggregate the information by using much simpler SQL. Queries are run periodically to update the opinion information in [[Publish Wiki]]. By implementing the needed collating in SQL we don't need to [[fork off]] from [[MediaWiki]], but can just concentrate on improving the [[Export-import]] functionality.

			:::So, because you are not a great programmer, you propose making a [[bad user interface]] because it is easier to implement? Why not just recruit better programmers that can implement the right user interface? And in SQL there is no reason not to just have a more sophisticated query to distinguish things with certain tags from those without, i.e. "what goes to the [[Publish Wiki]]" etc.

	:by "won't be importing talk pages" you mean the [[Publish Wiki]] won't have them? Fine. what is the disagreement here? Also don't forget [[New Troll point of view]], when new information shows up, and new trolls to propagate it, the existing editors must assume they know less about that subject than they need to, since it's not been a previous area of expertise. Therefore they must back down in favour of more [[troll-friendly]] ways of determining what is so. This won't always be "quiet".		:by "won't be importing talk pages" you mean the [[Publish Wiki]] won't have them? Fine. what is the disagreement here? Also don't forget [[New Troll point of view]], when new information shows up, and new trolls to propagate it, the existing editors must assume they know less about that subject than they need to, since it's not been a previous area of expertise. Therefore they must back down in favour of more [[troll-friendly]] ways of determining what is so. This won't always be "quiet".

Jukeboksi: anwser to 142.177.X.X

2004-06-26T08:55:36Z

anwser to 142.177.X.X

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:55, 26 June 2004
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Perhaps I hastily presented this reintroduction of [[Opinion Wiki]] in a wrong way indicating that it would have '''something to do with forming the opinion on what to publish and what not.''' This is absolutelly not the case, but it is meant to provide a place dedicated to voicing our opinions on things. In all [[large public wiki]]s this is done on the [[User_talk:Juxo/Blog/June2004\|talk page]] of the article and all [[CPOV]] stuff is quietly moved to that talk page. In the scheme of organising things that has clarified in my head we won't be importing talk-pages though it is constructive to place a link to the talk-page of research wiki if there has been heated discussion on what is [[NPOV]] in each case.		Perhaps I hastily presented this reintroduction of [[Opinion Wiki]] in a wrong way indicating that it would have '''something to do with forming the opinion on what to publish and what not.''' This is absolutelly not the case, but it is meant to provide a place dedicated to voicing our opinions on things. In all [[large public wiki]]s this is done on the [[User_talk:Juxo/Blog/June2004\|talk page]] of the article and all [[CPOV]] stuff is quietly moved to that talk page. In the scheme of organising things that has clarified in my head we won't be importing talk-pages though it is constructive to place a link to the talk-page of research wiki if there has been heated discussion on what is [[NPOV]] in each case.

	:So why is this not just called [[talk pages in Research Wiki]] rather than being called "Opinion Wiki"? If you want to use [[MediaWiki]] you have to call it what mediawiki calls it. If you want to have namespaces like critique:Research_wiki_page fine, but same concept.		:So why is this not just called [[talk pages in Research Wiki]] rather than being called "Opinion Wiki"? If you want to use [[MediaWiki]] you have to call it what mediawiki calls it. If you want to have namespaces like critique:Research_wiki_page fine, but same concept.

			::Because keeping [[TCE]] type of stuff in it's own [[wiki]], the [[Opinion Wiki]], enables us to aggregate the information by using much simpler SQL. Queries are run periodically to update the opinion information in [[Publish Wiki]]. By implementing the needed collating in SQL we don't need to [[fork off]] from [[MediaWiki]], but can just concentrate on improving the [[Export-import]] functionality.

	:by "won't be importing talk pages" you mean the [[Publish Wiki]] won't have them? Fine. what is the disagreement here? Also don't forget [[New Troll point of view]], when new information shows up, and new trolls to propagate it, the existing editors must assume they know less about that subject than they need to, since it's not been a previous area of expertise. Therefore they must back down in favour of more [[troll-friendly]] ways of determining what is so. This won't always be "quiet".		:by "won't be importing talk pages" you mean the [[Publish Wiki]] won't have them? Fine. what is the disagreement here? Also don't forget [[New Troll point of view]], when new information shows up, and new trolls to propagate it, the existing editors must assume they know less about that subject than they need to, since it's not been a previous area of expertise. Therefore they must back down in favour of more [[troll-friendly]] ways of determining what is so. This won't always be "quiet".

142.177.103.70 at 22:49, 25 June 2004

2004-06-25T22:49:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 25 June 2004
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Perhaps I hastily presented this reintroduction of [[Opinion Wiki]] in a wrong way indicating that it would have '''something to do with forming the opinion on what to publish and what not.''' This is absolutelly not the case, but it is meant to provide a place dedicated to voicing our opinions on things. In all [[large public wiki]]s this is done on the [[User_talk:Juxo/Blog/June2004\|talk page]] of the article and all [[CPOV]] stuff is quietly moved to that talk page. In the scheme of organising things that has clarified in my head we won't be importing talk-pages though it is constructive to place a link to the talk-page of research wiki if there has been heated discussion on what is [[NPOV]] in each case.		Perhaps I hastily presented this reintroduction of [[Opinion Wiki]] in a wrong way indicating that it would have '''something to do with forming the opinion on what to publish and what not.''' This is absolutelly not the case, but it is meant to provide a place dedicated to voicing our opinions on things. In all [[large public wiki]]s this is done on the [[User_talk:Juxo/Blog/June2004\|talk page]] of the article and all [[CPOV]] stuff is quietly moved to that talk page. In the scheme of organising things that has clarified in my head we won't be importing talk-pages though it is constructive to place a link to the talk-page of research wiki if there has been heated discussion on what is [[NPOV]] in each case.

			:So why is this not just called [[talk pages in Research Wiki]] rather than being called "Opinion Wiki"? If you want to use [[MediaWiki]] you have to call it what mediawiki calls it. If you want to have namespaces like critique:Research_wiki_page fine, but same concept.

			:by "won't be importing talk pages" you mean the [[Publish Wiki]] won't have them? Fine. what is the disagreement here? Also don't forget [[New Troll point of view]], when new information shows up, and new trolls to propagate it, the existing editors must assume they know less about that subject than they need to, since it's not been a previous area of expertise. Therefore they must back down in favour of more [[troll-friendly]] ways of determining what is so. This won't always be "quiet".

	----		----
	24.6.2004		24.6.2004

Jukeboksi: argumentation for Opinion Wiki

2004-06-25T11:01:28Z

argumentation for Opinion Wiki

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:01, 25 June 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
			25.6.2004

			Perhaps I hastily presented this reintroduction of [[Opinion Wiki]] in a wrong way indicating that it would have '''something to do with forming the opinion on what to publish and what not.''' This is absolutelly not the case, but it is meant to provide a place dedicated to voicing our opinions on things. In all [[large public wiki]]s this is done on the [[User_talk:Juxo/Blog/June2004\|talk page]] of the article and all [[CPOV]] stuff is quietly moved to that talk page. In the scheme of organising things that has clarified in my head we won't be importing talk-pages though it is constructive to place a link to the talk-page of research wiki if there has been heated discussion on what is [[NPOV]] in each case.
			----
	24.6.2004		24.6.2004

Jukeboksi: we have a disagreement here, 142.177.X.X

2004-06-25T10:52:23Z

we have a disagreement here, 142.177.X.X

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 And I'm determined that opinioned edits will have a distinct wiki ([[Opinion Wiki]] which will then in time implement [[TCE]] functionality. In a discrete wiki this can be done with accessing '''SQL''' directly instead of modifying [[MediaWiki]] code, which leads to simple design and implementation.
-::This is just wrong.  All edits are "opinionated", especially with the subject matter we're going to deal with.  Trying to move everything YOU think is opinionated elsewhere will just result in the [[politics as usual]].  What would move is necessarily [[factionally defined]], there's no objectivity there.  The right answer is a method for [[edits, votes and bets|objective scoring or voting or betting], like [[answer recommendation]] for instance.  Qualitative argument (talk page style) can be structured as [[TIPAESA]] but proliferating wikis is just wrong.  Only one decision is being made:  whether to publish the research or not.  That requires more focus, not more spread out text all over the place.
+:This is just wrong.
 ----
 .6.2004