Talk:Faction

From Talk:142.177.X.X. User:Juxo writes:

Please review Special:Wantedpages. Your articles are pretty dominant in the top 10 and I'm interested in what meaning have you reserved for words like:

• Done (is this a legal term of some sort??)
• Safe (something considered safe in developing countries will likely not be such in developed ones)
• ...

The top 5 are done, safe, fair, evil and organic. Whatever personal meaning I have in mind, will as you say be over-ruled by standards and laws and movements more local. So we might need definitions f this for each ecoregion, say?

But there will still be disagreements within each region. As laid out in glossary, I think that a faction says what is fair and what is say organic. Like political parties, they simplify the discussion and pick issues to debate at any one time. This is how they satisfy the various ideas of done, safe and evil faction members share to at least some degree, or they would not be a faction. So there's a formula or function we do not have yet, which establishes how you see what is "done" or what is acceptable to label "organic".

Maybe a good policy is to deliberately NOT DEFINE such overloaded terms and wait until there *are* factions to debate them.

---

Reds? Greens Pinks? Blues?, are these some terms that only people who enjoy throwing bricks at fast-food restaurants and use the term syndicalised anarchism more then twenty times a day have in their common vocabulary??

Could we please stick to English that the majority of people understand, because developing Consumerium is not about feeling extrovert elite-digi-intellectualism, but creating information tools for consumers

Consumers do not see this level, it is just for reconciling different levels of trust in different sources, and concern about different kind of problems. If someone registers concerns about "Green" things (deforestation), "Red" things (union made), "Pink" things (sweatshop-free), etc., then they will get a personal mix of other concerns based on how much others who share thos concerns care about related things. Those who throw the bricks and use the term syndicalised anarchism will argue about the shades of it and register different levels of concern with different things. It is necessary to have this level, otherwise each faction goes to create its OWN Consumerium!!! Bad idea.

Blues you didn't explain.

Blues are globalization believers, those who read The Economist and believe it, or at least pretend to. Blue for sea, sky, the UN, and liquidity.

---

Faction: 13 links (position nro. 1 on the wanted pages). I think that I understand the consept of faction, but originally in my mind factions were something that would emerge in a self-organizing manner,

To do bottom-up design we must change this name from "wanted" pages - in design you want the most abstract ideas to be defined later - they are not "wanted" at this point and it is foolish to be forced by wikipedia3 into premature def'n.

You're absolutely right. Forging explanations of concepts too early can lead to slowing the project down because of hastily made up defs that make it harder and harder to do good defs in the future. Check out what I did on Reference. It's now a page just for tracking pages that discuss reference or sources of reference. Juxo 23:43 Jun 13, 2003 (EEST)

not by some developers dreaming up boxes we can put people in and then define what they are interested in and how they participate. I mean: just get the infrastructure available that tight or loose consortiums can start to form and let the consortiums define their (extended FOAF-style) relationships to each other...

Yes, agreed, they will form bottom-up. But to help them form we must establish FIRST what complexity they resolve for us SECOND how we expect them to present their shared priorities to the system to help them prioritize themselves and THIRD what parts of our own glossary are up to them not us to define. is also not up to us to tell them they need a consortium form or should just let people self-identify as say "Greens" and then list their concerns. If this leads to a concept of "Green" different from Greenpeace or Green Parties that is an audit issue we can deal with later. We need just this vague colour spectrum indicator to help those with similar values form a self-image useful to link up with other groups "outside".

---

Abe Sokolov on the wikien-l list writes:

"The "red faction" isn't a vandalism problem, but an example of mutual misperception and misjudgment breeding conflict and hostility. On a more practical note, the persistence of the "red faction" in regenerating itself over and over again (almost like Lir and his many incarnations) makes it clear that banning this user, or attempting to chase him away and make him feel unwelcome, are crude, self-defeating solutions. Since the Wiki mailing list is libertarian country, I'll say that it's like slapping on price controls to curb inflation. Or perhaps putting a bandage on a leaking dam. In other words, it's an unworkable straitjacket that will only confound the problem."

This suggests Sokolov understands enough about the issues to help work out features of a faction system here, and identify factionally defined terms.

---

Also re: Wikipedia Red Faction is Daniel Mayer's comment "Wikipedia breaking up into factions is a very, very bad idea." [1] This should prove to all espousing the New Troll point of view that it is in fact a very good idea, as Mayer is the most notorious sysop vandalism advocate and the source of most Wikimedia corruption according to some.