Integrity: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Integrity''' is like [[trust]]:  if you have about it, it isn't there.  So like [[distrust]], which is predictable lack of trust, e.g. [[checks and balances]], there is [[disintegrity]], consistent testing to find lack of  integrity.
'''Integrity''' is like [[trust]]:  if you have about it, it isn't there.  So like [[distrust]], which is predictable lack of trust, e.g. [[checks and balances]], there is [[disintegrity]], consistent testing to find lack of  integrity.


[[Consumerium]] can expect to face following challenges to its integrity:
[[Consumerium]] can expect to face at least the following challenges to its integrity:
*accusations of [[m:bias|bias]]
*accusations of [[m:bias|bias]] and [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=systemic_bias systemic bias]
*plain [[m:liars |liars]]
*plain [[m:liars |liars]] especially those who hide evidence of their lies
*[[m:Internet Authority Disease|Internet Authority Disease]] ([[misintegrity]])
*[[m:Internet Authority Disease|Internet Authority Disease]] ([[misintegrity]])
**[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=little_tin_god_sysop  bad sysops]
**[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=little_tin_god_sysop  bad sysops] (those who cannot rise to [[m:troll|troll]])
**[[w:precedent|precedent]]
**[[w:precedent|precedent]] - using one bad decision to justify the next one
**[[w:groupthink|groupthink]]
**[[w:groupthink|groupthink]] - trying to agree with each other, sysop, leader
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=point_of_view POV problems]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=point_of_view POV problems] like silly [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia neutral point of view]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda]
*[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda propaganda] and well-meaning [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=propaganda_techniques propaganda techniques] that discredit us
*claims that the [[glossary]] is not a [[m:natural point of view|valid, natural, point of view]]
*accusations that its use of [[electronics]] just leads to more [[e-waste]], that is, it is another [[geek]] site with only purpose being silly
[http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=virtual_community virtual community], that is, friends for geeks who deserve none, and doesn't do any real [[good]] or stop any real [[evil]]


How it deals with these will determine if it is trusted for anything else.
How it deals with these challenges will determine if it is trusted for anything else.