Talk:142.177.X.X

Why spread all this ? You think qualified contributors are going to like being "studied" like this? You will drive away quality with this approach. But do as you will.

Anyway, read w:General Semantics for reasons not to say "is" so much.

And definitely read m:Troll to see what a troll and sysop really are.

---

Helo 142.177.X.X. 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.

---

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".

---

Have I said this before? No actually I havent't. Your trollishness has done a good thing for I think I have a clerler definition of what we are supposed to be doing and in what order.

To achieve our goal, we must:

1. Design markup to describe mostly non-abstarct things about Production processes and stuff related to it, concentrating mostly on the unambiguous things for pragmatic reasons (avoidance of disinformation).
2. Get some wise people to lay down instructional capital that all parties can accept, that defines on what grounds each type of information is input, audited, linked, shared, duplicated, edited, contested, vetoed and removed and by whom.
3. Develop software that allows us to maintain integrity of the instructional capital,Current and Historical Data without being encumbered by the work and provide all parties with suitable UI for their role.
4. Acquire financial capital (funds, cashflow) for routine operations and individual capital (talent) to aid deployment.
5. retain social capital (trust, relationships, connections) of all factions as we try to achieve consensus on standards above. No faction can feel so excluded that they go off to "start their own".

Actually they might try: I've been surfing around the net for small-to-medium businesses that focus on Bluetooth and I've seen lots of these "Imagine that you can push advertising material, electronic coupons etc. to your customers at the point-of-sale"-rantings, without any other goals then to further brainwash people wanting more things they don't actually need :(