|
|
| Line 126: |
Line 126: |
| :It isn't a "place". It's supposed to be a service emphasizing accountability and transparency with a [[sysop power structure]] committed to same. | | :It isn't a "place". It's supposed to be a service emphasizing accountability and transparency with a [[sysop power structure]] committed to same. |
|
| |
|
| ------
| |
|
| |
| In compensation for driving off [[User:Angela]], which there was no choice about, trolls recommend recruiting [[w:User:Mirwin]], [[w:User:Netesq]], [[w:User:Ed_Poor]], [[w:User:Jrincayc]] (especially), [[w:User:Anthere]], [[w:User:Mydogategodshat]], [[w:User:The_Cunctator]], [[w:User:GrahamN]], as Wikipedia contributors who have never contributed to any [[echo chamber]] nor committed any [[sysop vandalism]], and in fact, protested it when it happened. These are the ones Consumerium needs to recruit. And it will continue to need to drive off the sysop-vandals, racists, anti-accountability quackers and such.
| |
|
| |
| :As yet another proof of Angela's lack of integrity, here she is at [[m:Talk:Draft_privacy_policy]] strongly opposing deleting user_talk pages, and of course, she asked for that to be done for her here. Someone takes your position, Juxo:
| |
|
| |
| ::"The user pages are not part of the encyclopedia, they should be deleted upon request. Keeping them viewable by everyone against the user's will is, in my opinion, a misuse of the GFDL." - tristanb (not logged in) 203.96.104.226 00:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::to which Angela responds:
| |
|
| |
| :::"I disagree. User talk pages are there to support the development of the encyclopedia, and as such include information that is relevant to particular articles. Perhaps that should have gone on the article talk page, but often it doesn't, and the talk pages provide a very useful history of how particular articles and issues were developed. The user talk page is not supposed to be something private. If you want a private discussion with someone, you can do that by e-mail, so I see no reason why these pages should be made part of the privacy policy. The same might not apply to user pages. Angela 01:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)"
| |
|
| |
| ::All the information about why she had to be driven off, was quite relevant to the development of [[moral purchasing potential]]. Then she goes on again to talk about how important the talk filse are:
| |
|
| |
| :::"I don't think you would have to remove the comments completely though in order for someone to vanish. This could be done through a name change. Also, agreeing to delete a user talk page doesn't really solve anything if comments they would rather vanish from also appear on article talk pages, which is quite likely to be the case. Article talk pages are obviously not going to be deleted, so there needs to be a solution that can apply to both these and to user talk pages. I can't see any strong reason to treat these differently. I'm also not sure you can state different privacy rules for banned users. It's possible that they might be the ones most wanting to hide their past on Wikipedia after they are made to leave. Angela 23:07, 29 Dec 2003 (PST)"
| |
|
| |
| ::It's amazing, really, how bald-facedly she says one thing one place and another in another. She's appalling, and she really is the worst of them.
| |
|
| |
| :::Funnily enough, I thought the same thing myself - ie that I was contradicting myself, not that I was "the worst of them" etc. My current thoughts on the matter following my experience here are that a talk page and user page is something more personal than what you write on article pages.
| |
|
| |
| ::::Here we agree, it is more personal, but that does not mean that it is entirely or only personal. For instance it is common to bring up issues with someone's editing habits with them on the talk page, or general questions about their intentions, etc., there. Often these are well documented challenges to what they have done, where they stand, etc. [[w:User:RK]] for example managed to rack up a lot of such challenges which he would delete, then whine about the fact that people wanted to document his various abuses. He succeeded in many manipulations and in subverting all those who wanted to apply accountability to his various lies and abusive claims, and many think he succeeded in this simply because he was successful at covering his own trail and removing the evidence that he was doing the same thing over and over and over again. So the solution that various conscientious users including [[w:User:MyRedDice]] tried to apply was the "/ban page", which Wales did not support, and then the "Community case" page, which again he did not support, and in the end, Wales has let RK run riot. Trolls tend to think that RK now runs the Wikipedia by default, and that others such as [[w:User:Maveric149]] have pulled very similar tricks in the not too recent past, although it's not clear whether they still attempt to do so. A culture of zero accountability and personal control over all information about oneself is not necessarily conducive to making good trust decisions.
| |
|
| |
| :::User and article talk pages already follow different rules. For example, a user is, in nearly all cases, allowed to refactor and delete comments on their own user/talk page in a way that would not be regarded as acceptable on article talk pages.
| |
|
| |
| ::::True.
| |
|
| |
| Therefore, it makes sense for those differences to apply to deletion of the pages as well. People are more attached to their pages than to their comments on article pages, and I think it is this level of attachment that would cause someone to feel uncomfortable about leaving an undeleted user page behind when they exercise their [[MeatBall:RightToLeave|right to leave]].
| |
|
| |
| ::::Maybe true. However, that was not what you advocated earlier, and, you were I think rightfully mocked for advocating a policy somewhere, leaving that assertion in place, and then advocating an opposite policy somewhere else when you wanted a different outcome. This combined with the exchange with [[w:User:Cyan]] where you were ''clearly'' demanding the same type of "community censorship" to be applied at the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] as at the Full English (a request [[w:User:Tim_Starling]] eventually granted), and then denying that in our exhange on the SEW, is a valid reason to conclude that you are two-faced in these policy discussions and intervention requests. That is still our conclusion.
| |
|
| |
| :::It doesn't solve the problem of not vanishing from article talk, but if the user feels separated from these in a way they don't from their own pages, then there is reason to treat the pages differently. Deletion of your user/talk page may also be a way of psychologically breaking away from a wiki, which has a stronger effect than just walking away. Perhaps when people leave they need this as some sort of final statement that they have left, and not only that, but a statement that they no longer wish to be associated with it at all.
| |
|
| |
| ::::But they reappear. By your own rules, again demonstrated in your reverts to valid edits at Wikipedia, people do not have the right to reappear with some new identity let alone the original. Your "witch-hunts" clearly deny that right. So if they may reappear and there is a need to compare exchanges of their past incarnations with the current ones, then, one needs the old talk.
| |
| Thus it should never be deleted, to allow the witchhunters, such as yourself, to identify the "heresy" and point out to others proof that "it's the same person". Failure to provide that is simply usurping a right to identify one IP or name with another by instinct. Which of course is what you actually do want, and what you actually do usurp, whenever you make unilateral decisions and operational distinctions that result in banning any IP that you don't like. Morwen at least admits she has "itchy trigger finger" and that there is no concept of "due process" - but that is not what the mythology of Wikipedia claims...
| |
|
| |
| :::The history of user talk pages can be fascinating and offer huge insights into the working of the wiki, but this isn't what they are there for. The aim is to build an encyclopdia or a guide for consumers or whatever the aim of a particular wiki is, not to provide insights into how the community works or to document how individuals played a part in that.
| |
|
| |
| ::::But "to build an encyclopedia" is not ''your'' aim. Your aim is to make certain people that you like feel comfortable, and make others that you do not like invisible or even make it impossible for them to participate. You are one of those who believe in a "virtual community". So you stand simultaneously for a lack of "insights into how the community works" and no right or ability "to document how individuals played a part in that." This is the classic definition of a [[w:carceral state]] - an unexamined and unexaminable power structure capable of presenting any image of itself that it wants to, while simultaneously claiming the right and ability to investigate and judge any ordinary contributor/citizen. So you actually want a "virtual police state". Wikipedia is your paradise. But it is not an encyclopedia.
| |
|
| |
| :::So, I now feel that the privacy policy at Wikipedia, and probably on other wikis too, should state that a user/talk page will be deleted on request after someone leaves. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 16:50, 2 Jan 2004 (EET)
| |
|
| |
| :::p.s. Thanks for deleting my talk page Juxo.
| |
|
| |
| ::::Fair enough, you've changed your position. But if you don't note that fact over at meta.wikipedia.org, then, it will be obvious to all that you advocate one position when you want something, and another when someone else wants it.
| |
|
| |
| Follow up to the above discussion:
| |
|
| |
| :I recall seen some case of [[Wikipedia]]ns having experienced problems beyond the realm of Wikipedia due to having at some point revealed their real identity and/or contact information on their User-page, which resulted in them leaving the pedia and perhaps returning with an another username. Unfortunatelly since people have characteristic style of writing and tend to focus on same articles as before this may not help out in the situation that someone is getting harrassed or threatened because of their information or views.
| |
|
| |
| ::This situation is increasingly common there, which is one reason why pseudonyms and accountable-anonymous (visible IP numbers) are popular. However with the current regime at Wikipedia it is necessary to subvert the sysops by various technical means, fuzzing identity, running proxy servers on private IPs, etc., which is going to enable abuses as much as it enables dissidents. This is not the solution trolls prefer, but it is the one that we must apply if we don't wish to let advocates of a [[w:carceral state]] control the Wikipedia and thus the direction of the [[GFDL text corpus]]. The alternative is not for us to go away - the alternative is for us to respond to technological censorship with further escalation, e.g. to the legal or direct military realm.
| |
|
| |
| ::If someone's "information" includes outright lying about groups or whole ethnicities or religions, as [[w:User:RK]]'s does, or their "views" include the assertion or implication that certain ethnicities or religions resort preferentially to violence and so must or should be repressed in advance (certainly that is a common Zionist belief and RK is a common Zionist), then, of course they are likely to be "harrassed or threatened because of their information or views." Those exact views are killing people in Palestine now. So why should people in the USA not be killed for them? On 9/11, some were, and this is going to continue as long as RK's view gets through to the media, and the troll view does not. Those who are censored, tend to realize that they are going to have to submit to a regime or fight it with violence (legal means is violence, since the law is backed by violence), and, many will simply fight.
| |
|
| |
| :And point the blame to those "dreaded wikipedians" eg. the ones with access to logs it is even more easy for them to match historical data way beyond IP-numbers to point out that someone new is infact someone old. I just have to trust they don't abuse this. I personally see no problem with deleting talk_pages when they have back-history of clearly offensive edits by other users having a personal problem with the user elsewhere.
| |
|
| |
| ::They abuse it constantly. Angela also advocated only revealing IP logs to developers in cases of "vandalism" (not trolls who are a distinct category), but has again used this to identify people with views that she doesn't like.
| |
|
| |
| ::I see no problem with deleting talk pages containing actual offensive edits with "a personal problem". The issue between Angela and the trolls however is not personal, but obviously political, and our edits may offend her, and you, but, it would be offensive to most [[w:fair trade]] advocates not to be warned that they were dealing with someone who advocated a [[w:carceral state]] well in advance of having to deal with them on a real issue. For this and other good reasons political [[faction]] really should be declared in advance, and it should be factions, not "just anyone" and not "sysops" who decide that edits do or do not represent a valid action. That is why parties exist in legislatures, too, and the situation in wikis is easily as complicated. The [[Content Wiki]] will have this problem worse than any other, and just shoving the controversial material to an [[Opinion Wiki]] doesn't solve the most basic problem, which is that there is an investment in identifying the trustworthiness of any one edit, and that there must be some group that validates these, or refuses to do so, that is neutral politically and does not permit things through on "reputation", and does not revert things due to "reputation", but applies ONLY a "due process".
| |
|
| |
| ::There are MANY advocates of that at Wikipedia, but, they are drowned out by the Angelas. Perhaps she is not "the worst of them" since she talks about it, even to trolls it seems, but, she is certainly engaged in witch-hunts that may actually violate the GFDL, when combined with the various measures taken by the sysops and developers she influences. Certainly trolls will work hard to make sure that everyone who, for instance, restricts access to source texts that were licensed under GFDL, pays a serious price for it in their "real lives"... is that "harassment"? If so, it's harassment they have completely earned. Which is what most people call "justice".
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| However, that was not what you advocated earlier
| |
| :No, I change my mind every half an hour. Women's prerogative. ;)
| |
|
| |
| ::If so, then, you cannot conceivably be trusted with any enforcement oriented responsibilities, period. Which is in fact our position exactly about you and your abilities. Stick to writing and editing. Stay out of "who has a voice".
| |
|
| |
| :It wasn't my first change of heart on the issue. I once fully defended [[w:user:BuddhaInside]]'s right to blank his talk page, and later argued strongly against that before he was banned. I also said RK had the right to remove criticisms from his talk page and that the [[w:User talk:172 sysop status|172 desysop page]] should be deleted, whilst later arguing that [[records are a good thing]] and the trail of RK's behaviour ought to be documented.
| |
| ::And you have no problem with this kind of thing, or see why people consider this sort of changes of view on demand to be self-serving or politically self-selected? The GFDL does not say "...and submit to the sole editorial judgement of User:Angela". Which would not matter if others had equal power to yourself. Give up your sysop power, permanently, on every wiki, and cease to ask for ANY policy decision to be made or applied, i.e. talk only about the content of matters on talk pages, and we have no issue. You are out of your depth. GET out of it. STAY out of it. Leave depth to those who know depth, and can see the implications of policy decisions, what they mean for the future, and have some experience defining the missions of a [[large public wiki]].
| |
|
| |
| But if you don't note that fact over at meta.wikipedia.org...
| |
| :I copied the above to Meta at the same time I wrote it here, almost identically worded.
| |
|
| |
| Angela also advocated only revealing IP logs to developers in cases of "vandalism"
| |
| :Have I actually said this? If so, I must have changed my mind. I advocate the revealing of IP logs in ''any'' circumstance where a dual identity is suspected.
| |
| ::Look up the privacy debate, where you said something clearly contradictory. We all have a "dual identity", I *suspect* you are a mindless twit in real life as much as you are as a sysop. That is a controversy, so I demand the IP logs to find out who you are and get you fired etc...
| |
|
| |
| ...advocates of a [[w:carceral state]] control the Wikipedia
| |
| :I don't advocate such a thing though I can see why you might think I do.
| |
| ::You behave exactly like any jailer, or censor, and believe you know best what others need to read, and what they don't, resisting ANY rational debate about it. If you accept any position it's a temporary ceasefire until you can get an authority to put you in charge. People like you DESTROY nonprofit projects. EVERY project they get involved in.
| |
|
| |
| The issue between Angela and the trolls however is not personal...
| |
| :Really?? Why do you keep bringing my name into it then? If it is about some "political issue", you ought to be addressing that rather than making random death threats to people you don't like. I see doing that as very much a personal issue.
| |
|
| |
| ::If such "random death threats", or really any death threats other than a vague "here are some buildings full of people doing bad things to stay away from" or "here are some bad things not to do or you may die in an accident" (i.e. political) observation, were occuring "randomly", then, they probably would be personal or taken personally. However, absolutely no troll we know of has made any "death threats to people [we] don't like," random or not. You may see it as you like, but, we didn't do it. You are basically saying we are stupid - if we wanted to kill someone, we would not be talking about it on a public wiki with traceable IPs. The assertions of "death threats" are provable lies, and, you are simply too stupid or vile to actually look into the facts. It is not a discussion we intend to have again. You are libelling whoever you have claimed "is" those people who made those so-called "death threats" and are very likely to face that claim in court, if you persist in such allegations. We trolls like to notify people who are libelled out, that they're libelled - that is part of our "trouble-making" as you put it...
| |
|
| |
| ::"Your name" is in it because *you* have attached "your name" to it as a sysop at both Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia, both of which had good potential to provide non-controversial background material to projects of Consumerium, but now do not, and that is at least in part because of you. Thus to politically SUPPORT THIS project, one must politically OPPOSE YOU. Is that clear? It is not personal. You declared yourself an enemy by inventing new and bad editorial policies at Simple, and "enforcing bans" at English. You are being treated no differently than any other enemy, and have no right to complain, as these are exactly the rules that you apply for this yourself, in those venues.
| |
|
| |
| :It's when you do this that people get defensive and therefore likely to resort to whatever means they have (deletions, IP bans etc) to stop that from occurring. You seem to be forgetting that before you turned this into a personal attack on me I was writing things like "All RK wants is for you to be banned...which is something I don't want to see" [http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls&diff=1354065&oldid=1353919].
| |
|
| |
| ::You advocate lots of policies that you, when personally discomforted, later change your mind on. What you say about anything political or policy-wise is therefore meaningless. I am not interested in "whatever means they have".
| |
|
| |
| ::If everyone resorted to "whatever means they have" simply because they happened to "get defensive", we'd all be dead, since some of those people have enough nuclear weapons to kill us all and poison this planet. So this logic is not something a sane person accepts. And RK got his wish, and he now runs your precious "Wikipedia" user interface, which merely degrades the [[GFDL text corpus]] at this point. There has been much non-controversial text hidden from GFDL users for no rational reason, certainly none "an encyclopedia" should be using, and, this will certainly come to the attention of GNU and contributors who thought they were contributing to "an encyclopedia".
| |
|
| |
| :I don't see someone changing their opinion from not wanting someone banned to applying an IP block to that same person as a [[political dispute]].
| |
|
| |
| ::Depends on their rationale, but as yours is not consistent, well, one is free to conclude you are a political enemy with a consistent clash of values. The deletion log at Simple is enough to prove this, even without anything else. It does not seem you widely consulted anyone else about the policies or deletions, or have done any examination of the stupid policies (use only 1000 words, less than half of what would be required to make the Simple actually usable as any basis for real work) that now seem to be standard there. You're just an idiot pretending to be a professional editor. You are probably that in real life too, and a failed editor, and trying to practice your stupidity on a project where people are FORCED to deal with you, and cannot FIRE you as you deserve. At work you likely also suck up to the boss, but since the boss cares about the final output product, you can't get away with what you get away with at the Wikipedias.
| |
|
| |
| :Rather than continuing the rant about how I'm a member of the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]] or whatever, why not try to find some solution rather than just making it into something personal by saying [[Sysop vandalism|sysops are bad]],
| |
| [[Enemy projects|Wikipedians are bad]] etc. They quite clearly aren't.
| |
|
| |
| ::But they ARE. They are INHERENTLY BAD PEOPLE who seek control of things - for instance, you make up phrases we rarely use ("sysops are bad", "Wikipedians are bad") and pass them off as if they were titles of articles we did write - describing REAL phenomena like [[sysop vandalism]] (according to sysops, NO sysop can EVER be a vandal - isn't that amazing? Like NO COP CAN EVER BE A CRIMINAL). Note that NO sysop has had their powers taken away for abusing it on a non-sysop, only on other sysops. So YES, they/you quite clearly ARE BAD PEOPLE. That is hardly a minority view. There are many groups in the world that clearly understand that killing the bad people who run developed nations governments and military, democratically elected or not, is the only way they will ever get fair treatment. So they do that. You invent names for such people like "terrorist" or "troll" but in fact they are all the same people - just different weapons, same politics. We all do what we have to do with the weapons we have, right? Why? Thank God its not just because we "get defensive", but only when we actually can PROVE that people DIE as a result of what you do. Yes even you: your mission for the Simple English Wikipedia is so useless that all energy put into that for purposes of say educating refugees or unschooled mothers in poor nations will be lost, subverted by your nonpolicy. So there are people who might be saved, that you are killing.
| |
|
| |
| ::The only solution to Wikipedia wasting the time of good contributors is the FINAL SOLUTION - to DESTROY IT and force the contributors into another fork to contribute. Once cells are metastatized into cancer, they remain cancerous...
| |
|
| |
| :The people you constantly list as the people you like are often sysops themselves. If it isn't a personal thing, refer to general principles you dislike rather than people.
| |
|
| |
| ::Already done. Spent too much time on that. Every time someone agrees, they get politically targetted by the clique, etc., so certainly you'd like nothing better than for the discussion to continue for another WHOLE YEAR as IP ranges that agree become visible or invisible, you can invent your "identities" etc. - but that won't happen. It's over, this is a political year, and the garbage has been identified. Now it's time to take out the garbage (like from here), and then do garbage collection into a valid project that pursues its mission by valid means. "Wikipedia", "Wikimedia" and probably also "Mediawiki" will have to be destroyed or marginalized in the process, but that's just the way it goes. Lots of wasted effort. But, probably as necessary as Linux was to get past the problems of GNU's Unix, which also was led by an ideological control freak.
| |
|
| |
| :At [[Talk:Political dispute]] for example, surely I'm not the only person in the world to have done whatever it is you accuse me of doing, so why not write that in general terms? State that people who revert text for ad hominem reasons are wrong to do so. Don't just rant about one person. It's going to be pretty meaningless to people coming here who know nothing of Wikipedia to keep seeing this mysterious user:angela being mentioned all over the place!
| |
|
| |
| ::No, anyone who knows you, knows you're the worst example, especially given your sabotage at Simple. When you're gone, and that means REALLY gone, like for a few months without your saying a word about any of these disputes you claim don't exist, then, maybe, it will make sense to generalize references to you. Permitting you to participate in that editing AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU SUPERVISE VAST AD HOMINEM DELETIONS FROM SIMPLE and probably ENGLISH too? No. That's too much. Go away. If there's one person worth a "rant about" and a "warning against", it's CERTAINLY you. You are MUCH worse than RK, who was only an idiot pushing his POV by putting mostly-valid text in invalid places. He refused sysop powers. You embrace and abuse them, then cover up by trying to reduce examples that show ALL your faults (you are the anti-editor archetype more or less) to "people who revert text for ad hominem reasons are wrong to do so".
| |
|
| |
| ::"People who revert text for ad hominem reasons are wrong to do so." There it's said. You've ignored it, and even if you agree with it now that is only "because" you are firmly in control of some text base you already brain damaged to the point of being unsaveable. So this is nowhere near "enough."
| |
|
| |
| ::Profound, pure, undiluted hate is a wonderful thing to experience, if it in fact comes from a genuine rejection of something abstract and via one's values. The best Christians can for instance truly hate The Devil and feel quite good about that, even if The Devil is an anonymous IP number or made up pseudonym.
| |
|
| |
| ::There will be no more debates about Wikipedia - it is an enemy project, it is wasting vast amounts of talented people's time and damaging other talented peoples' reputations (is it REALLY valid to have a full page on Mel Gibson's alleged anti-semitism and NOTHING about the innovation of a Bible film in Aramaic word for word from the text? REALLY?) and therefore it will be destroyed. Every person who has attached their reputation to it will suffer, years from now, the word "Wikipedia" will mean "libel" the way that "dotcom" now means "fraud".
| |
|
| |
| ::We will also do our level rational best to convince Consumerium not to use Mediawiki in the [[Content Wiki]] and [[Opinion Wiki]] phase, but to wait for better software that will almost certainly come out of the Metaweb project - they are using Mediawiki also for testing and R&D purposes, but they refer to their pages as "intermediate page format" implying strongly that they will be providing drastically better tools to suck in those pages and spit out useful semantic webs. Since this will work for that format, it'll work for Wikipedia pages too, and obsolete all the Wikipedian filth, including any need to have any conservation with such as yourself. Try to remember the wise words of Ferris Beuller:
| |
|
| |
| ::"It's understanding that lets people like us, deal with people like yourself."
| |
|
| |
| ::And so it is for trolls, and you Angela-type filth who think your judgement is supreme, you "masters of truth and justice". We understand you. And we hate you. Now get lost. You have all that you need to leave the net and make a serious change in yourself - if you reject all hate, for instance, then you may go be a Buddhist or something. If not, at least you might now know why so many brown and darker people around the world have been killing white colonists. For insisting on "more talk" while doing power play after power grab and more and more removing the grounds of privacy, economic and technology power from them, and allocating it to your friends. For being part of this, you of course deserve to die, and you will, but it won't be trolls who do it. We have bigger fish to fry. Now go to hell. It's waiting for folks like you.
| |
|
| |
| :::My mistake. I thought I could reason with you. Clearly not. Goodbye.
| |
|
| |
| ::::"Reason" only applies to those with enough integrity to check their premises, and apply their own principles to themselves. Any attempt at reason without that, is a fraud. Game over. Good riddance.
| |
|
| |
|
| ------------- | | ------------- |
Helo you. What do you have in mind?
I just came over to look around in answer to the invitation at Wiktionary. It looks like an interesting beginning. Information overload may not give me the time to contribute, but I'll certainly visit from time to time. Eclecticology
I have sent an email to intlwiki-l
(the international mailing list of Wikipedia)
(See below)
Good luck and have fun.
Youssefsan 21:56 Mar 21, 2003 (EET)
Hello
Juxo, a user of Wiktionary started a new site
dedicated to consumers. It is under GFDL for articles
and GPL for codes.
It use wikipedia software with a lot of redirection
to Wikipedia.
I think it is very interesting.
Regards,
Youssef
Glad to be here. I think this is an important project, and I'm particularly happy that you've decided to pump your research into Wikipedia. Most of my contributions will probably be on the Wikipedia end of things. What you really need at this point is two or three other serious contributors in addition to yourself. That way you can stimulate each other to work in various directions, and staying on top of less than helpful visitors is much easier. Have you ever heard of MeatballWiki? It's dedicated to researching online communities, particularly wikis. SeedPosting is helpful for anyone trying to build a new community. -- Stephen Gilbert 15:52 Jun 17, 2003 (EEST)
Hey Juxo, I checked around a bit and I think I can reproduce the editing problem w/ ja/zh text you were having on Wiktionary. In Safari 1.0 (v85): visit eg edit page for Data structure... click one of the links such as 'edit help', then click the back button. Now, hit 'preview' and find that it corrupted the data on submission. This may not be the only way to do it, but it's quite consistent. --Brion
Hmm... Talking to myself, a clear sign of insanity.
I guess that if we had enough resources we could accomondate sustainably some 10-12 billion SUs and though they wouldn't work either unless they network somehow propably mimicking formation of living organisms like one SU of one person is a cell and the cells form something that forms other more complicated stuff or something. To compensate this type of ultrainvidiula anarchy crap one could consider throwing in the ultra-capitalist concept of The Stock and Currency Exchange of The Planet that would naturally run 24/7 unless shut down for some strange reason like people collectively want to take some time off to eat and play with their loved ones. I guess that the trader/analyst type of folk don't get any good sleep or quality time with the kids in the current situation anyways so they wouldn't object to working 24 hrs a day. Hmm... since people tend to work less efficiently and finally collapse totally unless they sleep this might lead the Capital Routing-industry into the hands of multinationals, that could arrange to have people in multiple timezones, but I don't give a fuck about that shit currently and i don't know is it even an such a bad thing.
There is of course a terrible hassle to get all the owners of all Stock exchanges to agree on how much they want from the mergers and also getting the whole when to blow the whistle on the trading thingy solved would propably prove impossible. Nations and Religions and whatelseisthere have different traditions like chinese would want to play the market on July 4 and vice-versa so there it goes. It just could prove a uniting and interesting experience if consumers worldwide would decide to go totally psycho on non-infrastructural services that keep on running for mystic reasons when the marketplace is closed. I mean how difficult can it be to stop building crappy shoes or something on sub-minimum wage for a while and go home to relax and so forth??? The Big Money doesn't dig this at all cause it would be just a little too simple to implement this this this... w:Tobin tax if there was this hub for transactions. --Juxo 10:39 Aug 30, 2003 (EEST)
- "Keep on running for mystic reasons"... exactly...
No one really knows their own faction until they are told about it by someone who doesn't share it. You seem to be among the Pinks. Well, that's fine, but there are disgusting things to discuss, and disgusting things to stop, and some methods will be involved that you may not want to know about.
- Now this is just the thing why I originally objected to coding factions in Silly colorology. Though I understand it is necessary to generalize and stereotypitize things in order to stay even a little bit not authistic I still dislike being categorized like this.
- We all do. To avoid being so categorized, stay out of conflicts between users. But the second that one gets into these, one has to declare bias, and bias has to have some standard way to declare it. Let's start with biases that are obvious in the real world power structure, as political partys etc.
Consider how differently the Greens, Reds and Blues look at these same problems, and ask yourself if you can get the job done without them. If you think you can, well, you're wrong, Pinks have serious blinders that will prevent them from getting anywhere near best cases if they don't see that they have to get beyond their own biases.
Make your decisions, and trolls will return if they are made correctly. If not, well, trolls save everything they write, obviously, and Adbusters is trying to do a project like this too.
- Yes. You are referring to The GreenScan project. It was wery good to make us aware of them and vice versa. I'm that much of a blues person that I can see that performance increases on most meters from having competition around to kick you in the butt to move it faster ;> Luckily everything here is licenced under GFDL so even if we fail to properly implement the Consumerium Services our work is not automatically in vain and can be reused by similar efforts.
- OK, good, that's the point. We all are sometimes Pinks and sometimes Blues probably, but, when push comes to shove, we probably are one or the other, and revert to factionally defined terms of some faction or other... at least for "tribal" purposes... the tendency to form virtual community could be very constructive if we treat this "colour thing" as a sort of game.
- Defining concepts is important too, but my current stance is that now would be the time to focus on resolving the outstanding practical issues and narrowing our aim to something we could pull off in practice without getting engulfed in the swamp of disinformation and fatiguing out on charges of bias.
- That's unlikely with the worst Wikipedians now coming over here to damage this project. See sysop power structure for some proposals on dealing with that kind of trash long-term, and sysop vandalism for problems that arise if you don't. This project is going to be even more sensitive than Wikipedia and could fail much more easily, especially if the wrong people come here early.
Ultimatum given by 142.177.X.X
Create a Consumerium:Proposed_deletion page, right now.
- Nope. This is an R&D Wiki and I've made no guarantee to act in any kind of democratic way here. I'll keep on deleting Consumerium Data Whorehouse anytime it appears again because I in my opinion it does not qualify for an article name.
- So this is NOT "R&D", this is "Juxo's Opinion Wiki" ultimately? This is assuming that you understand naming and org problems better than everyone else who contributes, which is God's Eye View at its worst, and certainly not R&D. You may bring on a democratize or destroy decision sooner rather than later, which is not bad... we'll do some work to establish assumptions in common or not, and if they don't apply, well, you will have some competition. No reason pretending this is personal, or that it is not dead serious. You're a good guy, you should have a chance to make a stand on what you really believe.
I've thought about the problem of keeping consumer personal preferences safe a long time ago and the possible solutions I came up with were:
- Store the data encrypted and give the key only to the consumer. This way the data persists in the network and can be made available for server side processing (quite necessary for plain XHTML UI) and disposed of after the consumer has left the network.
- Store the data within the Consumer Agent residing in the consumers personal mobile terminal. The consumer agent can then give snipplets of the preferences and other data to the network on a on-demand basis.
No one serious is going to work like this.
- Oh?
- The most serious are going to require at least a Votes for deletion page to actively debate what is relevant, and what not. Certainly on refactoring decisions/naming. Anything else is GodKing-ism or God's Eye View.
Obviously, you haven't worked on large projects with many developers before, or you would know that off-putting naming is the ONLY way to do certain things, like, create straw man entities that you don't want in the final release.
- No.
- You resist because of "Reputation". You do not see the power of trolls yet. ;-)
You are going to lose control of this project if you keep this up. Let's have a deletions process like any other large public wiki. ANd, next time any ceasefire is proposed, consider it carefully.
- This is not a large wiki. We have usually way under 100 edits per day. What we really should focus on is drafting management protocol for Content Wiki and Opinion Wiki
- Fine. Wiki Management is now under discussion.
- The arrival of some of the dreaded "Wikipedians" requires discussion of some serious matters like the free circulation of fiction and conceptual metaphor. If you adopt Wikipedia's policies or non-policies on these things, you will fail. If you listen to "Wikipedians" about them, you will fail. It is that simple. For balance, these articles include links to Wikipedia versions of those concepts, so that anyone from WIkipedia who objects can research the subject and make their changes there. Until then it's fair to hold them to what is said about it at least in the text under their own control.
- "the dreaded Wikipedians" - lol.
- Trolls didn't say that, you did. Trolls simply think all "Wikipedians" are "dreaded". There is no subset of "Wikipedians" who are dreaded, it's anyone who accepts that label for themselves who is dreaded, for good reasons. Sunir Shah has interesting views on this and how Wikipedia has invaded his life. And certainly other people are lied about there too. Eventually someone will sue the whole mess out of existence, thankfully. No decent person wants to be a "Wikipedian", that simply associates oneself with a libel pit and a GodKing. That said, there is no need to bring those quarrels here, if you refrain from changing quotes so as to change the meaning, as you did here above.
- So dread w:User:Juxo, he's one of those dreaded wikipedians
- See Talk:Wiki Management for some suggestions regarding keeping the issues separate. Unlike Wikipedia which has abandoned its mission to be "a serious encyclopedia", Consumerium has not yet abandoned its mission to provide moral purchasing power
- Actually to be precise my original intent implicated in no way giving anyone moral purchasing power, but increase the moral purchasing potential by making information more readily available. I am broke right now so i have no purchasing power thus no moral purchasing power either, but that'll change midnight when i get my salary transferred to my account :) -Juxo 19:55, 22 Dec 2003 (EET)
- , and until it does, trolls will fight to keep it on track and prevent it from becoming another noxious "virtual community" <-- note, ALL "virtual community" is noxious, there is no such thing as a "noxious virtual community", since that's simply redundant. You may agree or disagree but you may not represent us as having propagated the concept of a "noxious virtual community", since that allows for a NON-noxious one. See?
- Thanks for your welcome Juxo. :) Angela 02:55, 22 Dec 2003 (EET)
- The arrival of one "Angela" necessitates some policy proposals to deal with "Angelas in general", e.g. sysop vandalism. Those proposals are now roughed out, in sysop power structure (some best cases in there), democratize or destroy (to head off some worst cases, recruit the better Wikipedia contributors to intimidate the worst away), with other proposals like use real names and such. Trolls will not interfere if Angela wants to say something intelligent about those. If she engages in the mindless sabotage she practiced on other wikis, however, it's revert time.
- She chose to say nothing intelligent, but only to suck up to you by using a single phrase she knows in your language. This is typical behaviour for her. Good riddance. Those who suck up to authority are going to be a special kind of problem here, there is no need to invite it early.
What is this place? Lir (wiki) 67.1.101.21
- It isn't a "place". It's supposed to be a service emphasizing accountability and transparency with a sysop power structure committed to same.
http://www.wikitravel.org/en/article/Consumerium
suggests Consumerium and Wikitravel may work together. Please review and add what you can to it. Probably all the links mentioned are important, perhaps we need a brainstorm about this, including people who've been in both projects...?
You should lead that, as you're the most visible figure and have an identity.
A personal story and a request for Juxo
A couple years ago, I was personally involved in an effort to create a database of hardware that was compatible with free software (i.e. does it have open specs? does it have drivers? are they released as free software or binary? etc.) A whole bunch of software people got involved. They started designing a database--should we use a relational database or an object database? We should let people input all the components of their computer and see whether they're compatible. They had design discussions, built software prototypes, etc. At this point, they got a personal rebuke from Richard Stallman: you've been working for six months on a database of hardware compatibility, and all you've produced was a piece of software. The project fell apart, because they had no idea how to proceed on to the only important part: gathering the data.
The moral of my story is that, while implementing barcode scanning is fun, it leaves the hardest and most important part of the problem (getting data about companies, products, etc.) totally untouched. This is the only part of the problem I want to touch, at least for now. I want to gather data, from all the sources on the essential projects and interesting projects and many other places. Is there any way that you can provide me an area where I can start on this?
- barcode scanning was an essential requirement back in the day when the original concept saw the daylight. It was inspired by information on Bluetooth since the greed and stupidity of mobile operators was proven in the UMTS-auctions that backfired seriously damaging the telecoms sector and the sinking ship took a lot of IT-companies with it leaving lot's of people unemployed. With bluetooth one needs no central operator and operating bluetooth links costs nothing.
- The basic problem in being a conscientious consumer here-and-now is that most of the staff at stores may be part-time workers (working in stores is common with students) or they just don't have the means of acquiring more information exept what is written on the product labels so the idea was that if there is an information system dedicated to storing information that does not fit on the label or just isn't the kind of information that producers want to include in the labels or totally different media such as video or audio then Consumers know that they or the store staff can access so the motivation behind starting to develop this information system we call Consumerium for the time being.
- In Information Technology there is a word interrogate that is used to express queries into a database ie. interrogating the db which is what you could do with Consumerium if/when it gets built but who'd want to interrogate a store clerk over some seemingly miniscule piece of information when most likely the clerk would have to respond that they (store staff) don't know, and have no system where to lookup what the consumer wants to know --Juxo 12:57, 13 Mar 2004 (EET)
- Yup. Propose we move what's at Main Page to Main Page Developer, and create a Main Page Researcher and Main Page Consumer right now, today. And that we change http://consumerium.org Front Page to quickly direct folks to the right one, and encourage mostly recruitment of the researchers we need. DanKeshet, you were involved in the creation of w:voting systems, if the logs are right, and that project involved creating many standard pages with roughly the same things said about each system. That is the same problem as the Consumerium:intermediate pages with their common Consumerium:intermediate page format. These are the pages that a Consumerium:Researcher compiles, and a Consumerium:Consumer consults. Whether they consult them in the same form the researchers compile them is not important right now, that's the Consumerium buying signal problem. We can work on that at Main Page Developer while the rest proceeds in parallel.
- Whew. OK, all there now except Consumerium:Consumer. Front Page and Main Page Consumer are more or less just invitations for our New Troll User:DanKeshet to innovate. We try to be troll-friendly here.
- Also, highly recommended to check out Pubwan. It may have good ideas for this.
More on encyclopedia of consumer products, companies, etc.
Juxo,
I understand what you say about conscientious consumers and part-time workers. I have been one of those part-time workers and I find it annoying when customers assume you know something about one of the 10,000 products in the store even though you didn't get one day of training.
- In Finland people are often even shy about requesting any information from the store staff in case the store staff doesn't know the anwser to the question and is put in an awkward situation for both.
While I understand how cool it would be if the whole thing could work like you outline,
Consumerium:Retrospection offers a little insight into how the concept has evolved from a technocratic project mainly consisting of automated processing of information into a "wiki way"-direction, but it still needs tuning. I am anticipating a five to ten year development time. I hope this does not put you off. --Juxo 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)
I am not interested in working on (planning, developing, discussing, etc.) a system for accessing a database unless the database is populated.
- I understand. No-one is taking the lead to generate software unique to Consumerium so far which taking into account how radically the plot has changed is sort of a good thing because work put into making proprietary software would have stopped us from evolving the concept further because of respect to the coders hard work. But since we don't have a single line of code we are free to change the plans.--Juxo 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)
I am interested, however, in helping populate the database. Juxo, should I work on that database here on Consumerium (if so, where?) or should I set up a different place? DanKeshet 10:16, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)
- Here we try to generate a WikiWikiWeb that will provide all the needed information to guide building of production wikis. If you mean Company or Product specific data, this is not the place that information will go to one of the wikis when we set them up. But sadly for those who are in a hurry it is still not time to set the wikis up because we don't have a practice (or instructional capital as 142.177.X.X likes to call it) for managing the wikis and neither a set plan on how information flows and we are not even sure what should go where and do we need two wikis or just one wiki.
- Information you have that might be of interest to a larger "population" then the one here in this R&D Wiki should go to Wikipedia just link the interesting articles from Research (work needed on articles listed there) or Wikipedia (when an article is fairly complete) Feel free to write new articles here. We are in desperate need of contributors that are willing to use an identity instead of horrendeous trolling. I have been making up the guidelines and rules up as I go along and this wiki is a mix of anarchy and autocracy, which won't work for the production wikis. Recyclopedia seems like a subset of the GFDL corpus dedicated to "alternative" views and things. Wikinfo might grow to be a formidable access point into the whole "encyclopedic GFDL corpus".
- Short anwser: Write it here unless explicitly forbidden in rules or guidelines and it'll flow into the right slot eventually. Be bold in creating new articles. --Juxo 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)