Talk:Interwiki faction standard

There should also be a "null" faction for users to choose to remain outside of the faction system if such an system is implemented here. The Faction tag idea initially seems to make a lot of sense as it would provide the framework for choosing what gets imported into Publish Wiki.

Well there is no reason to even care about being in or not in any faction unless and until you are accused of being a "troll". At which point you have a choice: Accept you are one of the "trolls", and whatever abuse or treatment that authorizes on the large public wiki where you are called that, or, assert you are actually not idiosyncratic or ornery but instead share at least some views with others, and that this can be defined as a faction.

The reason to prefer political labels is because they are well known all over the place, and easily the most common form of targetting. So a right-winger says to someone who says "all wealth should be distributed to the workers" that "you are a troll", and a left-winger says to someone who says "wealthy people earned what they have, they can eat well without guilt in front of a person starving to death and owe them nothing" and say "you are a troll". So these two trolls, who have exactly reasonable views according to their own faction, should have a way of declaring themselves to "belong to" or at least "agree with" others of their ilk, and cluster together to protect what they think are their "rights".

And I also once again state my opposition of defining factions in terms of colours as that would lead to Silly colorology wherein factions disagree and fight over who gets what color eg. it seems likely that many wanna-be factions would like to be Blacks and Whites and all colors are already loaded with many levels of meanings, associations and interpretations; it's been like that for ages --Juxo 12:49, 14 Jul 2004 (EEST)

Well, the factions can call themselves whatever they want. An interwiki faction standard would be tricky, yes. But if they use well known labels (and no one seems to object to "Red" for "Communists" and "Green" for "Ecologists" or "Blue" for globalists or even "Pink" for feminists) there's a chance at least. Maybe these are more averages compiling groups of many factions than actual factions in a given wiki. It's an open question.

But is there a political spectrum or not? If so then mapping it onto a colour spectrum is not controversial.

A colour spectrum is one dimensional. Political field is a field and thus cannot be assigned a colour according to a colour spectrum. --Juxo 21:44, 14 Jul 2004 (EEST)

Nonsense. A colour spectrum is about 2.5-dimensional. Go use a paint program and you will see hue, saturation and lightness and red, green and blue and brightness and contrast and colour balance controls and a selection wheel that is clearly 2-dimensional at least.

Umm. To be precice RGB is a light system as opposed to for instance CMYK, which is a color system. My mistake I should have said light when I wrote colour. Anyways this is off the point. All lights have a specific wave length in the spectrum, but as there can be many lights at the same time producing an infinite number of combinations they can be mapped to as many dimensions within a discreet value system i think, not sure though. --Juxo 17:38, 15 Jul 2004 (EEST)