Talk:Article hub

This article is listed on Consumerium:proposed deletions for having a name that doesn't tell anyone what it really does, and covering too much stuff. If all these topics don't have a logic place, well, they should.

Excellent overall. Our Lowest Troll has written a marvellous summary of trolling, or at least the sort of heroic trolling that goes on here.

The Research Wiki will contains lots of half-baked stuff and so should not be indexed to the world, agreed. This makes it more troll-friendly and less subject to external pressure.

However, we can only reduce trolling in the Development Wiki once the Consumerium Governance Organization is in place. Most trolling has been to avoid the CGO making the mistakes of Wikimedia, and so it has had to be very critical of Wikipedia to make sure we do not make their mistakes. Once CGO exists and has a formal structure, it will have its own problems and it will no longer be so necessary to make pointed comments and criticisms of other wikis - though the reasons we made those decisions should be documented and remain on the record, new trolling regarding Wikimedia will become irrelvant as our own sysop power structure evolves and we get our own native breed of trolls.

When CGO exists, the time will come to consolidate what is known and get away from issues with personalities, though warnings about toxic personalities and power figures who have unjust authority must remain... the Wikipedia Red Faction can continue trolling Wikimedia and this should be tolerated here until there is a safe base for them that is not being hacked by vandalbots. If there is any libel it is of the trolls - where is there ANY STATEMENT ABOUT ANY WIKIMEDIA SYSOP THAT IS NOT TRUE? There are truths they don't like, and, there are allusions and circumstantial evidence that they don't like, but, under all this pressure, everything has become very exactly stated and detailed - even the arguments between pairs of people are relatively clear and to the point and useful to read.

---

Consider this: all the troll research on Wikimedia, Wikipedia and the way Bomis has created Wikimedia corruption is true. But it would only be considered "opinion" by the usurpers who set up this situation. In a court of law, every last thing said about Wikimedia here would be proven true, and it could be proven to be "research". But in very few cases would anyone ever get around to such a decision: in general, the difference between "opinion" and "research" is who you trust, i.e. which faction, and if you have a bias towards trolls and the New Troll point of view or the sysop power structure and its invented idea of neutral point of view, which means only "that which does not offend sysops so much that they ban those who challenge it" - in other words, systemic bias of insider culture.

Imagine as a test case, the criticism of Bomis going through the Research Wiki process and coming to the Publish Wiki so that it would be advice to not patronize Bomis Corporation, because it is suppressing all the other wikipedias. This request to Boycott Bomis would go somewhere - where? How would it be scored or voted on? What would be the ultimate role of the CGO in adjudicating the score?

---

By 142.177.X.X, moved from the article by Juxo

Note: there is no ontological distinction between research and opinion: research is the opinion of a researcher. And anyone can be a "researcher". Thus, opinions are indistinguishable from other forms of research - except that one could say "facts are research, and analysis is opinion. Critical Point of View articles that don't even pretend to be neutral. These are part of "research" but clearly marked. They are often drawn from outside text, in the form of campaigns for and against some entity, such as company, product group, individual product, area (country, ecoregion) or a piece of advertising which is clearly promotional. An opinion starts as the lowest-credibility form of research and those who provide it will often be engaged with the Lowest Troll to determine if the authors or transmitters or republishers are funded trolls being paid to trash or promote some commercial service.

The above could be rewritten, but, to invent a new third wiki to decide whether Research Wiki stuff should be visible in the Publish Wiki is just insane, so that implication is removed until some viable approach can be agreed. let's look at the issue in depth here:

Research is the opinion of a researcher - even if it quotes others and has the famous neutral point of view, the researcher is still deciding what sources are credible, what not to quote, etc.; if there was no need for critical views, there'd be no need to research that product or service, so all of it should be assumed Critical Point of View unless it is clearly advertising or other propaganda originating from someone with an interest - if we assume that everything is by funded trolls, and must prove it is critical before it gets to Publish Wiki, that's another option, but, one with implications

The comments about something's status or credibility belong in Research Wiki as a sort of structured Talk Page using TIPAESA because that's where people dispute the research. The sources used in that debate should be all over the place, we don't need a separate "Opinion Wiki" just for that - we should be referring to Wikinfo, Disinfopedia, CorpKnowPedia, etc.. in those structured arguments. All the more reason for an interwiki link standard.

The test for getting to Publish Wiki has to be fair and objective, based on some edits, votes and bets system, not based on some sysop power structure for which CGO will end up directly liable. Let's not make the Wikimedia mistake!