Jukeboksi: typo

2004-08-06T01:37:05Z

typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:37, 6 August 2004
Line 3:		Line 3:
	[[Trolls]] advocate that [[faction]]s have ways to combine [[edits, votes and bets]] in such a way that only information that the factions can agree on gets through to the [[Publish Wiki]]. This might involve a [[revert currency]] or a system of real world [[campaigner]] commitment to demonstrate the bodily truth, i.e. that there is [[some body]] asserting the truth of the allegations, etc.		[[Trolls]] advocate that [[faction]]s have ways to combine [[edits, votes and bets]] in such a way that only information that the factions can agree on gets through to the [[Publish Wiki]]. This might involve a [[revert currency]] or a system of real world [[campaigner]] commitment to demonstrate the bodily truth, i.e. that there is [[some body]] asserting the truth of the allegations, etc.

	[[Lawyers]], the opposite of trolls, will argue that even a [[no body]] like a corporation enjoying [[corporate ~~priveleges~~]] should be able to use [[libel chill]] and "[[interference with commerce]]" laws to silence or marginalize an [[ethical minority]] that wishes to make it hard or impossible for the [[brand management\|advertising and persuasion process]] to represent products falsely.		[[Lawyers]], the opposite of trolls, will argue that even a [[no body]] like a corporation enjoying [[corporate privileges]] should be able to use [[libel chill]] and "[[interference with commerce]]" laws to silence or marginalize an [[ethical minority]] that wishes to make it hard or impossible for the [[brand management\|advertising and persuasion process]] to represent products falsely.

	To a troll, a fact is what someone bets their body on. To a lawyer, a fact is what the client has paid them to claim is a fact. There is no middle ground. Only one of the who choices provides any [[moral purchasing potential]] at all.		To a troll, a fact is what someone bets their body on. To a lawyer, a fact is what the client has paid them to claim is a fact. There is no middle ground. Only one of the who choices provides any [[moral purchasing potential]] at all.

142.177.94.38: quite trolled, see if you can argue

2004-08-05T16:46:29Z

quite trolled, see if you can argue

New page

'''What to accept as fact''' is the primary issue in [[User_talk:Juxo]] right now where someone believes a [[sysop power structure]] must make this choice and put "non-factual statements" into a separate '''Opinion Wiki''' while the "approved facts" are respected in the [[Research Wiki]] which is on the fast-track to be seen by the public in the [[Publish Wiki]]. It does not seem that such a scheme can ever be made objective or simple.

[[Trolls]] advocate that [[faction]]s have ways to combine [[edits, votes and bets]] in such a way that only information that the factions can agree on gets through to the [[Publish Wiki]]. This might involve a [[revert currency]] or a system of real world [[campaigner]] commitment to demonstrate the bodily truth, i.e. that there is [[some body]] asserting the truth of the allegations, etc.

[[Lawyers]], the opposite of trolls, will argue that even a [[no body]] like a corporation enjoying [[corporate priveleges]] should be able to use [[libel chill]] and "[[interference with commerce]]" laws to silence or marginalize an [[ethical minority]] that wishes to make it hard or impossible for the [[brand management|advertising and persuasion process]] to represent products falsely.

To a troll, a fact is what someone bets their body on. To a lawyer, a fact is what the client has paid them to claim is a fact. There is no middle ground. Only one of the who choices provides any [[moral purchasing potential]] at all.

What to accept as fact - Revision history

Jukeboksi: typo

142.177.94.38: quite trolled, see if you can argue