Consumerium talk:Consumerians by fields of interest: Difference between revisions
(anwser) |
(there is no such thing as a "Consumerian", if you want a Consumerium social club, call it that. But mandatory cliques are called factions and are only for serious disputes) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* clarify the nature and extent of Consumerium in a way some may find less abstract than a Mission Statement. | * clarify the nature and extent of Consumerium in a way some may find less abstract than a Mission Statement. | ||
::Please read [[Consumerium Social Club]]. We have tried for a long time to resist the [[community point of view]] biases common at Wikipedia, which are responsible for a good deal of the [http://recyclopedia.info/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Wikimedia_corruption corruption that results] when there is [http://recyclopedia.info/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Wikimedia_point_of_view one priveleged group that all knows each other] and socializes with each other. | |||
::Your idea is very sound. But please rename it [[interests of Consumerium contributors]] or something else that does not imply we are a clique. Thx - [[trolls]], who are not "Consumerians", not "Wikipedians", and wish to allow people to contribute without having to declare this kind of information about themselves. [[Mandatory clique]]s have a name here: they're called [[faction]]s, and they're used only to resolve serious disputes that we have no other fair way to resolve. | |||
* take an informal inventory of humyn resources potentially available to a project of Consumerium's nature, whatever that is. | * take an informal inventory of humyn resources potentially available to a project of Consumerium's nature, whatever that is. | ||
If the Consumerium finds any of these topics to be off-topic, it is requested to waive non-subtractivity and summarily remove them from the list. This should facilitate the first objective without a huge compromise of the second, unless of course my view of humyn nature is even more overly optimystic than even I had thought. Please forgive me for deficiencies in my understanding of Mediawikian outlining protocol. | ::It's sound to want to know what [[individual capital]] you have handy and who might know where to find what [[instructional capital]]. | ||
::Also, it is policy to use [[Recyclopedia]] links rather than [[Wikipedia]] links to subject fields, since, given the converge in value systems with them. | |||
If the Consumerium finds any of these topics to be off-topic, it is requested to waive non-subtractivity and summarily remove them from the list. | |||
::Any user can do this obviously. | |||
This should facilitate the first objective without a huge compromise of the second, unless of course my view of humyn nature is even more overly optimystic than even I had thought. Please forgive me for deficiencies in my understanding of Mediawikian outlining protocol. | |||
::Please stop inventing cliques. There is a [[wikitext standard]] pioneered by [[Mediawiki]]. There are [[naming convention]]s pioneered by [[Wikipedia]]. There is no "Mediawikian". There is no "Consumerian". There are "Wikipedians" and that is a ''bad'' thing, and provably so. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Or is this all redundant given [[Consumerium Concepts]]? | Or is this all redundant given [[Consumerium Concepts]]? | ||
:No. [[Consumerium Concepts]] lists all sorts of legacy terms from "the XML" era. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 22:18, 27 Mar 2004 (EET) | :No. [[Consumerium Concepts]] lists all sorts of legacy terms from "the XML" era. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 22:18, 27 Mar 2004 (EET) | ||
::[[XML dump]], [[XML import]] and [[XML exchange]] still matters - the [[wikitext standard]] doesn't solve all problems. | |||
Revision as of 21:12, 27 March 2004
I am introducing this shameless replication of a Wikipedian concept in an effort to...
- clarify the nature and extent of Consumerium in a way some may find less abstract than a Mission Statement.
- Please read Consumerium Social Club. We have tried for a long time to resist the community point of view biases common at Wikipedia, which are responsible for a good deal of the corruption that results when there is one priveleged group that all knows each other and socializes with each other.
- Your idea is very sound. But please rename it interests of Consumerium contributors or something else that does not imply we are a clique. Thx - trolls, who are not "Consumerians", not "Wikipedians", and wish to allow people to contribute without having to declare this kind of information about themselves. Mandatory cliques have a name here: they're called factions, and they're used only to resolve serious disputes that we have no other fair way to resolve.
- take an informal inventory of humyn resources potentially available to a project of Consumerium's nature, whatever that is.
- It's sound to want to know what individual capital you have handy and who might know where to find what instructional capital.
- Also, it is policy to use Recyclopedia links rather than Wikipedia links to subject fields, since, given the converge in value systems with them.
If the Consumerium finds any of these topics to be off-topic, it is requested to waive non-subtractivity and summarily remove them from the list.
- Any user can do this obviously.
This should facilitate the first objective without a huge compromise of the second, unless of course my view of humyn nature is even more overly optimystic than even I had thought. Please forgive me for deficiencies in my understanding of Mediawikian outlining protocol.
- Please stop inventing cliques. There is a wikitext standard pioneered by Mediawiki. There are naming conventions pioneered by Wikipedia. There is no "Mediawikian". There is no "Consumerian". There are "Wikipedians" and that is a bad thing, and provably so.
Or is this all redundant given Consumerium Concepts?
- No. Consumerium Concepts lists all sorts of legacy terms from "the XML" era. --Juxo 22:18, 27 Mar 2004 (EET)
- XML dump, XML import and XML exchange still matters - the wikitext standard doesn't solve all problems.