User:Jukeboksi/Blog/November2003 - Revision history

Jukeboksi: Jukeboksi moved page User:Juboxi/Blog/November2003 to User:Jukeboksi/Blog/November2003: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Juboxi" to "Jukeboksi"

2017-07-06T15:23:18Z

Jukeboksi moved page User:Juboxi/Blog/November2003 to User:Jukeboksi/Blog/November2003: 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/November2003 to User:Juboxi/Blog/November2003: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Juxo" to "Juboxi"

2013-06-14T13:03:59Z

Juboxi moved page User:Juxo/Blog/November2003 to User:Juboxi/Blog/November2003: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Juxo" to "Juboxi"

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

Jukeboksi: a lazy day

2003-11-30T23:49:23Z

a lazy day

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:49, 30 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
			30.11.2003

			Awww. I've just been lazy today after yesterdays hard work of organizing [[Features]] properly. I guess the next important step I should do is to write [[Preferences]] but I'm not rushing into it since the prefs can be arranged and grouped in several ways and there are possibilities to cause confusion. I've been doing some casual contributions to [[Wiktionary]], which is actually the only way available untill there are more advanced tools available for editors. Trying to systematically cover some areas is really frustrating with the current software.
			----
	29.11.2003		29.11.2003

Jukeboksi: Features. check.

2003-11-29T23:07:30Z

Features. check.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 29 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
			29.11.2003

			Ok. [[Features]] is now has links for each implementable feature and a link to where each feature will likely be implementated. It is also much more compact providing for better browsing experience.
			----
	28.11.2003		28.11.2003

Jukeboksi: wrote m:Consumerium

2003-11-28T18:30:04Z

wrote m:Consumerium

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:30, 28 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
			28.11.2003

			Today I wrote [[m:Consumerium]] mainly from the point-of-view of [[MediaWiki]] and [[Consumerium]] with appropriate links to this Wiki to briefly describe the considerations we have tackled and future considerations. It is in no way complete and I'll work on it some more bit by bit.
			----
	25.11.2003		25.11.2003

142.177.81.73 at 01:41, 25 November 2003

2003-11-25T01:41:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:41, 25 November 2003
Line 7:		Line 7:
	If there are ''any'' terms that are not '''''obviously''''' well-defined to anyone who knows this [[moral purchasing]] issue well, then, we should make a simple one-paragraph link to explain simply how "what links here" (to that concept) relates to the [[Consumerium buying signal]], and provide an out-link to [[w:Wikipedia]]. PLEASE DON'T put out-links in the text of ANY article - it makes it impossible to find where they are being referenced, and sends readers to Wikipedia by surprise.		If there are ''any'' terms that are not '''''obviously''''' well-defined to anyone who knows this [[moral purchasing]] issue well, then, we should make a simple one-paragraph link to explain simply how "what links here" (to that concept) relates to the [[Consumerium buying signal]], and provide an out-link to [[w:Wikipedia]]. PLEASE DON'T put out-links in the text of ANY article - it makes it impossible to find where they are being referenced, and sends readers to Wikipedia by surprise.

	After that's done, let's write a bot to go through the remaining ~~articles~~ and just have it create a page with "An aspect of [[what links here]] and [[what else links here]]... See [[w:name_of_this_article]] for details." That's fine.		After that's done, let's write a bot to go through the remaining open links and just have it create a new page with "An aspect of [[what links here]] and [[what else links here]]... See [[w:name_of_this_article]] for details." That's fine.

	I know it's a pain to have 500 short articles that don't add much value, but, they add some value (encouraging people to explore common conceptual roots or common dependencies), and they keep readers here. There's a reason we don't have more than three or four people in this [[creative network]] - most of our best advertised pages are sending people elsewhere. That's necessary in the beginning when we're trying to educate people.		I know it's a pain to have 500 short articles that don't add much value, but, they add some value (encouraging people to explore common conceptual roots or common dependencies), and they keep readers here. There's a reason we don't have more than three or four people in this [[creative network]] - most of our best advertised pages are sending people elsewhere. That's necessary in the beginning when we're trying to educate people.

142.177.81.73: we need a bot, or a new MediaWiki feature

2003-11-25T01:41:18Z

we need a bot, or a new MediaWiki feature

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:41, 25 November 2003
Line 6:		Line 6:

	If there are ''any'' terms that are not '''''obviously''''' well-defined to anyone who knows this [[moral purchasing]] issue well, then, we should make a simple one-paragraph link to explain simply how "what links here" (to that concept) relates to the [[Consumerium buying signal]], and provide an out-link to [[w:Wikipedia]]. PLEASE DON'T put out-links in the text of ANY article - it makes it impossible to find where they are being referenced, and sends readers to Wikipedia by surprise.		If there are ''any'' terms that are not '''''obviously''''' well-defined to anyone who knows this [[moral purchasing]] issue well, then, we should make a simple one-paragraph link to explain simply how "what links here" (to that concept) relates to the [[Consumerium buying signal]], and provide an out-link to [[w:Wikipedia]]. PLEASE DON'T put out-links in the text of ANY article - it makes it impossible to find where they are being referenced, and sends readers to Wikipedia by surprise.

			After that's done, let's write a bot to go through the remaining articles and just have it create a page with "An aspect of [[what links here]] and [[what else links here]]... See [[w:name_of_this_article]] for details." That's fine.

	I know it's a pain to have 500 short articles that don't add much value, but, they add some value (encouraging people to explore common conceptual roots or common dependencies), and they keep readers here. There's a reason we don't have more than three or four people in this [[creative network]] - most of our best advertised pages are sending people elsewhere. That's necessary in the beginning when we're trying to educate people.		I know it's a pain to have 500 short articles that don't add much value, but, they add some value (encouraging people to explore common conceptual roots or common dependencies), and they keep readers here. There's a reason we don't have more than three or four people in this [[creative network]] - most of our best advertised pages are sending people elsewhere. That's necessary in the beginning when we're trying to educate people.

142.177.81.73 at 01:37, 25 November 2003

2003-11-25T01:37:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:37, 25 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	24.11.2003		25.11.2003

	OK, good, after today's trolling, vandalizing, sysop uppitiness and etc., we have made good progress, and there are now exactly 342 open links in this [[R&D wiki]]. That is remarkably small for the complexity of this problem and what we are trying to change. Please review all 342 at this link:		OK, good, after today's trolling, vandalizing, sysop uppitiness and etc., we have made good progress, and there are now exactly 342 open links in this [[R&D wiki]]. That is remarkably small for the complexity of this problem and what we are trying to change. Please review all 342 at this link:
Line 7:		Line 7:
	If there are ''any'' terms that are not '''''obviously''''' well-defined to anyone who knows this [[moral purchasing]] issue well, then, we should make a simple one-paragraph link to explain simply how "what links here" (to that concept) relates to the [[Consumerium buying signal]], and provide an out-link to [[w:Wikipedia]]. PLEASE DON'T put out-links in the text of ANY article - it makes it impossible to find where they are being referenced, and sends readers to Wikipedia by surprise.		If there are ''any'' terms that are not '''''obviously''''' well-defined to anyone who knows this [[moral purchasing]] issue well, then, we should make a simple one-paragraph link to explain simply how "what links here" (to that concept) relates to the [[Consumerium buying signal]], and provide an out-link to [[w:Wikipedia]]. PLEASE DON'T put out-links in the text of ANY article - it makes it impossible to find where they are being referenced, and sends readers to Wikipedia by surprise.

	I know it's a pain to have 500 short articles that don't add much value, but, they add some value (encouraging people to explore common conceptual roots or common dependencies), and they keep readers here. There's a reason we don't have more than three or four people in this [[creative network]] - most of our best advertised pages are sending people elsewhere.		I know it's a pain to have 500 short articles that don't add much value, but, they add some value (encouraging people to explore common conceptual roots or common dependencies), and they keep readers here. There's a reason we don't have more than three or four people in this [[creative network]] - most of our best advertised pages are sending people elsewhere. That's necessary in the beginning when we're trying to educate people.

			But now, we need to establish our own slant on as many as 500 concepts that have to be well understood to make this [[healthy buying infrastructure]] [[self-funding]] and unstoppable even by [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] - ah I can spell that now! Making [[Richard Stallman]] happy with it is much harder I think.

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

142.177.81.73: there are now 342 open links, this is quite reasonable for this stage, and none of them are defined or being used much differently than in Wikipedia, so, we need only one paragraph on each w/ outlink

2003-11-25T01:34:33Z

there are now 342 open links, this is quite reasonable for this stage, and none of them are defined or being used much differently than in Wikipedia, so, we need only one paragraph on each w/ outlink

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:34, 25 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
			24.11.2003

			OK, good, after today's trolling, vandalizing, sysop uppitiness and etc., we have made good progress, and there are now exactly 342 open links in this [[R&D wiki]]. That is remarkably small for the complexity of this problem and what we are trying to change. Please review all 342 at this link:

			http://www.consumerium.org/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Wantedpages&limit=500&offset=0

			If there are ''any'' terms that are not '''''obviously''''' well-defined to anyone who knows this [[moral purchasing]] issue well, then, we should make a simple one-paragraph link to explain simply how "what links here" (to that concept) relates to the [[Consumerium buying signal]], and provide an out-link to [[w:Wikipedia]]. PLEASE DON'T put out-links in the text of ANY article - it makes it impossible to find where they are being referenced, and sends readers to Wikipedia by surprise.

			I know it's a pain to have 500 short articles that don't add much value, but, they add some value (encouraging people to explore common conceptual roots or common dependencies), and they keep readers here. There's a reason we don't have more than three or four people in this [[creative network]] - most of our best advertised pages are sending people elsewhere.

			--------

	24.11.2003		24.11.2003

142.177.82.78 at 10:12, 24 November 2003

2003-11-24T10:12:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:12, 24 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	24.11.2003		24.11.2003

	For the very first time, ever, ~~all~~ the ~~pages on~~		For the very first time, ever, the first hundred or so of the
	http://www.consumerium.org/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Wantedpages		http://www.consumerium.org/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Wantedpages
	have only obvious definitions that can be probably one paragraph with some internal links explaining relevance of the concept to [[Consumerium]] and then just linking off to [[Wikipedia]] or [[Disinfopedia]] or something for greater depth.		have only obvious definitions that can be probably one paragraph with some internal links explaining relevance of the concept to [[Consumerium]] and then just linking off to [[Wikipedia]] or [[Disinfopedia]] or something for greater depth.

	~~This means that~~ all non-obvious terms mentioned on more than 3 pages are now defined at least to draft quality. This is a quite important milestone and it means it's now time to dig through every concept that is uniquely defined here and try to simplify it somewhat, so that people from all those 54 countries with even just [[Simple English]] will start to understand what we are doing.		To be exact, all non-obvious terms mentioned on more than 2 pages are now defined at least to draft quality. This is a quite important milestone and it means it's now time to dig through every concept that is uniquely defined here and try to simplify it somewhat, so that people from all those 54 countries with even just [[Simple English]] will start to understand what we are doing.

	There are also incidentally used terms and some whose relevance to Consumerium is not obvious, but, a review of "What links here" for each of them would be of some value in figuring out why they're mentioned. Really we need the following		There are also incidentally used terms and some whose relevance to Consumerium is not obvious, but, a review of "What links here" for each of them would be of some value in figuring out why they're mentioned. Really we need the following