Consumerium talk:Philosophy: Difference between revisions
(i think we are making assumptions offhandedly all the time) |
(transparency, reflexivity, both critical, and need to be mentioned in the "philosophy") |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The only assumption we make, is to make no assumptions that we aren't forced to make. | The only assumption we make, is to make no assumptions that we aren't forced to make. | ||
:Actually this is not true, at least for me, i've been making assumptions about many things sometimes failing to anticipate the future development sometimes hitting bulls eye and sometimes i'm just not informed. One example is the I figured there were no services similar to [[Consumerium:Itself]] before I discovered many [[Product registries]] exist already. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 13:11, 14 Mar 2004 (EET) | :Actually this is not true, at least for me, i've been making assumptions about many things sometimes failing to anticipate the future development sometimes hitting bulls eye and sometimes i'm just not informed. One example is the I figured there were no services similar to [[Consumerium:Itself]] before I discovered many [[Product registries]] exist already. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 13:11, 14 Mar 2004 (EET) | ||
-------- | |||
Both of the above points need to be made somehow in the article. If one has no link to [[Transparent Consumerium]] then it isn't clear that [[w:transparency]] is really part of the philosophy. If there's no link to [[Consumerium:Itself]] then it isn't clear that reflexivity is part of the philosophy. And I think in both cases, they are. These are both important [[troll-friendly]] concepts too but you don't have to put that in the philosophy. ;-0 Trolls eat philosophy. Yum yum. | |||
Look at [http://recyclopedia.info/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Recyclopedia:policy en: Recyclopedia:policy]. It's about the simplest reflexivity statement possible. | |||
Latest revision as of 22:36, 14 March 2004
Moved
A fully Transparent Consumerium is a long term goal we may never reach. But if we could, we would. We don't have any special insight into any of this. We just got here first to lay the foundations. You are as likely as we are to be right. That's why this is a wiki, and why you can always "edit this page" if you disagree.
We can't really make it any simpler than that.
Consumerium:Itself contains all the information required to change it. It is reflexive, as wikis tend to be. This is what makes it likely to work, even if the starting place is wrong.
The only assumption we make, is to make no assumptions that we aren't forced to make.
- Actually this is not true, at least for me, i've been making assumptions about many things sometimes failing to anticipate the future development sometimes hitting bulls eye and sometimes i'm just not informed. One example is the I figured there were no services similar to Consumerium:Itself before I discovered many Product registries exist already. --Juxo 13:11, 14 Mar 2004 (EET)
Both of the above points need to be made somehow in the article. If one has no link to Transparent Consumerium then it isn't clear that w:transparency is really part of the philosophy. If there's no link to Consumerium:Itself then it isn't clear that reflexivity is part of the philosophy. And I think in both cases, they are. These are both important troll-friendly concepts too but you don't have to put that in the philosophy. ;-0 Trolls eat philosophy. Yum yum.
Look at en: Recyclopedia:policy. It's about the simplest reflexivity statement possible.