User:Jukeboksi/Blog/November2003: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:37, 25 November 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:

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. 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.

24.11.2003

For the very first time, ever, the first hundred or so of the 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.

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 http://www.consumerium.org/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Wantedpages To be on the front page.

20.11.2003

Somehow i understand this so that the people who don't have a home are just looking for a home and the people who already have a home are too busy being envious of other homes or otherwise just not appreciating what they have and in the worst case both. I say that I'm just going to do little this and that to make the place i call home nicer and continue recycling cartons and bottles and papers and biowaste and metals and try hard to keep my fixed line internet from being cut off due to unpaid bills, eat some, drink some and try to do something constructive every now and then. When I get a job I'll figure out what else I do then.

10.11.2003

We were out of service for a little while today due to a power blackout where the server is located.

I just checked the fresh logs and am a little proud to announce that http://www.consumerium.org has been viewed from 54 distinct countries.

8.11.2003

Switching ISPs again. Mail is rerouted and I even managed to get my old mail safe :) Hope to get back to you soon. I saw it as spot the three clobots and stop them or don't. Either way

Ok. Now back online. I even found some ethernet cables which give me 0% packet loss :)

6.11.2003

I gotta sleep 'round now. I'll sleep thight and wake up to edit more clearly and with higher precision (unless someone bothers my sleep) *GRRR*

5.11.2003

I'm sorry for being so inactive for a long time. I'm just really sick and tired of the triple morality and other shit so prevalent here where I live. The triple morality being:

The public public morality, troublessly recordable and broadcastable and widely rocognised
The secret public morality. Known by many but not voiceable without considerable threat to one's character and public reputation
The secret morality, which is allegedly known only to self, and the quality of it is a major problem of the individual in question

Ok. That said I hope to get back on track tomorrow. We need to focus on getting Content Wiki running as soon as possible. The solving of management (Instructional capital) issues prior to it's launch are crucial. If we launch it as beta/test phase we don't necassarily finish the technical issues, but rather migrate the content into the more advanced environment when it's built. Whether Opinion Wiki and Content Wiki should be intgrated into one wiki is unresolved. There are strong arguments for and against. Ease and simplicity being the reasons for one wiki and security and scalability being the arguments for two wikis.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 .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:
@@ 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.
-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.
 --------