Integrity: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (typo/grammar) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Integrity''' is like [[trust]]: if you have about it, it isn't there. So like [[distrust]], which is predictable lack of trust, e.g. [[checks and balances]], there is [[disintegrity]], consistent testing to find lack of integrity. | '''Integrity''' is like [[trust]]: if you have to talk about it, it isn't there. So like [[distrust]], which is predictable lack of trust, e.g. [[checks and balances]], there is [[disintegrity]], consistent testing to find lack of integrity. | ||
[[Consumerium]] can expect to face following challenges to its integrity: | [[Consumerium]] can expect to face at least the following challenges to its integrity: | ||
*accusations of [[m:bias|bias]] | *[[trolls]] who seem to be happy but might at any time bite us on the leg | ||
*plain [[m:liars |liars]] | *accusations of [[m:bias|bias]] and [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=systemic_bias systemic bias] | ||
*plain [[m:liars |liars]] especially those who hide evidence of their lies | |||
*[[m:Internet Authority Disease|Internet Authority Disease]] ([[misintegrity]]) | *[[m:Internet Authority Disease|Internet Authority Disease]] ([[misintegrity]]) | ||
**[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=little_tin_god_sysop bad sysops] | **[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=little_tin_god_sysop bad sysops] (those who cannot rise to [[m:troll|the good type of troll]]) | ||
**[[w:precedent|precedent]] | **[[w:precedent|precedent]] - using one bad decision to justify the next one | ||
**[[w:groupthink|groupthink]] | **[[w:groupthink|groupthink]] - trying to agree with each other, sysop, leader | ||
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=point_of_view POV problems] | *[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=point_of_view POV problems] like silly [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia neutral point of view] | ||
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda] | *[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda] and well-meaning [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques] that discredit us | ||
*accusations that its use of [[electronics]] just leads to more [[e-waste]], that is, it is another [[geek]] site with only purpose being silly [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=virtual_community virtual community], that is, friends for geeks who deserve none, and doesn't do any real [[good]] or stop any real [[evil]] | |||
*claims that the [[glossary]] is not a [[m:natural point of view|valid, natural, point of view]] | |||
How it deals with these will determine if it is trusted for anything else. | How it deals with these challenges will determine if it is trusted for anything else. So far, [[trolls]] say, it does better than any other wikipedia3 site! | ||
Latest revision as of 02:15, 7 May 2003
Integrity is like trust: if you have to talk about it, it isn't there. So like distrust, which is predictable lack of trust, e.g. checks and balances, there is disintegrity, consistent testing to find lack of integrity.
Consumerium can expect to face at least the following challenges to its integrity:
- trolls who seem to be happy but might at any time bite us on the leg
- accusations of bias and systemic bias
- plain liars especially those who hide evidence of their lies
- Internet Authority Disease (misintegrity)
- bad sysops (those who cannot rise to the good type of troll)
- precedent - using one bad decision to justify the next one
- groupthink - trying to agree with each other, sysop, leader
- POV problems like silly Wikipedia neutral point of view
- propaganda and well-meaning propaganda techniques that discredit us
- accusations that its use of electronics just leads to more e-waste, that is, it is another geek site with only purpose being silly virtual community, that is, friends for geeks who deserve none, and doesn't do any real good or stop any real evil
- claims that the glossary is not a valid, natural, point of view
How it deals with these challenges will determine if it is trusted for anything else. So far, trolls say, it does better than any other wikipedia3 site!