Problems with free software and open source models and Sysop Vandal point of view: Difference between pages

Latest revision as of 04:06, 6 July 2004

The Sysop Vandal point of view or Cabal point of view (usually abbreviated SVpov because CPOV is used to mean Critical point of view) is the view of the sysop power structure and (if applicable) GodKing.

Some think it is closely associated with w:scientism, that "those who have technological power, are morally superior by definition" and that this POV simply rationalizes infinite technological escalation by those who think they are fated to always be in possession of technologically superior tools. See also Apache Helicopter point of view and Cruise Missile point of view and Fox News point of view.

The statement There is no cabal is of course from cabal point of view and expresses their desire for control with secrecy and no form of outside accountability. It is basically an in-joke.

By definition, any group of people approves of their own systemic bias and rejects strong opposition to it. This forms a cabal which new trolls, perhaps foolishly, oppose in the assumption that the cabal can be forced to see sanity, by anything short of political opposition. The New Troll point of view is thus usually (but not always) the opposite of the SVpov (strictly speaking it is the exact opposite of usual happy NPOV talk). The NTPOV indicates ethical attempts by trolls to defeat the SVpov by rational and reasoned argument, before the service is subject to real-world opposition (e.g. widespread criticism, legal action, etc.) due to its political importance. In general such attempts fail because of the lack of ethics of the sysop-vandals.

Thus troll activity acts as an important warning to the sysop vandalism advocates - when it slacks off, that indicates either that the wiki has become politically irrelevant, or, that opposition will continue by other means, e.g. lawsuits, or the more standard revolutionary methods for wiki regime change.

Sometimes just using the word cabal as Troll Silent, Troll Deep did triggers hostility and censorship by the cabal itself

The Wikipedia Red Faction Claims to be opposed to the cabal.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Problems with free software and open source models''' for discussion:
+The '''Sysop Vandal point of view''' or '''Cabal point of view''' (usually abbreviated SVpov because [[CPOV]] is used to mean [[Critical point of view]]) is the view of the [[sysop power structure]] and (if applicable) [[GodKing]].
-. ''issue'' - "'''No restrictions on field of use'''" means that software is explicitly licensed for military purposes, spying purposes, selling environmentally and socially destructive products, hiding activities of companies, and anything else that opponents of [[moral purchasing]] may want to do.  There is no legal recourse.  While there are few incentives to subvert operating system or database software, there are ''many'' incentives to subvert or gain advantage in the operations of a [[healthy buying infrastructure]].  With no way to restrict these activities with civil court action, only technical means are available to subvert such subversion - wasting everyone's time in an [[arms race]] that is to no one's advantage.
+Some think it is closely associated with [[w:scientism]], that "those who have technological power, are morally superior by definition" and that this POV simply rationalizes infinite [[technological escalation]] by those who think they are fated to always be in possession of technologically superior tools.  ''See also [[Apache Helicopter point of view]] and [[Cruise Missile point of view]] and [[Fox News point of view]].''
-:''position'' - there should be quite specific hard restrictions on use of any [[Consumerium License]] software, at least, what a [[Consortium license]] tends to contain:  "no using this software to set up your own competing consortium."
+The statement '''There is no cabal''' is of course from '''cabal point of view''' and expresses their desire for control with secrecy and no form of outside accountability.  It is basically an in-joke.
-. ''issue'' - No party with power to sue.  Under [[GPL]] and other free software licenses, "the community" is assumed to exist and have some powers of persuasion, but they have no practical powers to actually force the license terms to be met.  What rights they have are not enforceable since they lack a [[self-funding]] model that would reward enforcers or even require cooperation from contributors whose work is appropriated.  For example, most GPL abusers simply thumb their noses at the FSF, knowing they cannot possibly be sued given limits on FSF resources.  They could settle out of court for less than theya re making from violating the license anyway, in the worst case, or agree to simply work around or re-engineer the software.  By contrast:  Consortium and private licenses, and some open source licenses like the [[BSD]], specify exactly who can and must act to protect license integrity.  And some like [[Java]] have proven successful even at shutting down [[Microsoft]]'s attempted license abuse.
+By definition, any group of people approves of their own [[systemic bias]] and rejects strong opposition to it.  This forms a [[cabal]] which new [[trolls]], perhaps foolishly, oppose in the assumption that the cabal can be forced to see sanity, by anything short of political opposition. The [[New Troll point of view]] is thus usually (but not always) the opposite of the SVpov (strictly speaking it is the exact opposite of [[usual happy NPOV talk]]).  The NTPOV indicates ethical attempts by [[trolls]] to defeat the SVpov by rational and reasoned argument, before the service is subject to real-world opposition (e.g. widespread criticism, legal action, etc.) due to its political importance.  In general such attempts fail because of the lack of ethics of the sysop-vandals.
-:''position'' - the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] should have the power to sue those who abuse the license terms.  Anyone else might have the right to sue for harms done by that abuse, and the CGO should be obligated to provide certain help.  For instance, an organic jam maker whose product is shoved off the shelves by a commercial food enterprise that deliberately tries to create confusion in the Consumerium system with competing software, should be able to make claims and have them supported by the CGO in the courts.
+Thus [[troll]] activity acts as an important warning to the [[sysop vandalism]] advocates - when it slacks off, that indicates either that the wiki has become politically irrelevant, or, that opposition will continue by other means, e.g. [[lawsuit]]s, or the more standard revolutionary methods for [[wiki regime change]].
-. ''issue'' [[bad copy problem]] - impossible to control variants
+Sometimes just using the word '''cabal''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Troll_Silent%2C_Troll_Deep as Troll Silent, Troll Deep did] triggers hostility and censorship by the cabal itself
-. ''issue'' [[self-interested fork problem]] - there are already Adbusters and other groups' versions of this possibly being created, and no doubt stores will come up with "their own".  To prevent this requires cutting a balance so that a self-interested party has every incentive to use Consumerium, but once they have committed to it, have no easy ability to fork it.
+The [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] Claims to be opposed to the cabal.
-. ''issue'' [[bad user interface]] - inevitable since the developers choose what to do next, not the users, and there's no way to discipline their choices without putting together a commercial regime identical to commercial software to convey market intelligence to developers and pay them for doing the right things next.