Talk:Glossary: Difference between revisions
(update on Simple English issue - we're stuck writing our own definitions for concepts that actually help non-English native speakers resolve or understand conflicts between users; we're unique) |
m (refuting claims of deletion) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:::Unfortunately, despite the fact that these exact concepts are the ones required to discuss [[governance]] with non-English speaking users, or if you are conspiracy-minded, ''because'' those are the concepts required to get them out of an [[unequal power relationship]] and dealing as equals with sysops, the articles on [[contact network]], [[power network]] and [[social network]] were all deleted by [[User:Angela]] or some other relatively unaccountable sysop... so the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is not a reliable place to collaborate on, maybe ''especially'' not, concepts absolutely essential to our [[governance]], to allow us to do [[consensus decision-making]] even with people from quite different cultures. We can't get into, or trust, an [[inquisitor]] culture... | :::Unfortunately, despite the fact that these exact concepts are the ones required to discuss [[governance]] with non-English speaking users, or if you are conspiracy-minded, ''because'' those are the concepts required to get them out of an [[unequal power relationship]] and dealing as equals with sysops, the articles on [[contact network]], [[power network]] and [[social network]] were all deleted by [[User:Angela]] or some other relatively unaccountable sysop... so the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is not a reliable place to collaborate on, maybe ''especially'' not, concepts absolutely essential to our [[governance]], to allow us to do [[consensus decision-making]] even with people from quite different cultures. We can't get into, or trust, an [[inquisitor]] culture... | ||
::::Try http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/contact%20network. Still there! [[User:Angela|Angela]] 06:48, 13 Jan 2004 (EET) | |||
::They raised some [[IP block]]s, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the [[GodKing]] is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of [[Simple English]] that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own [[glossary]], and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all [[GFDL]] anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present [[sysop power structure]] there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday. | ::They raised some [[IP block]]s, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the [[GodKing]] is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of [[Simple English]] that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own [[glossary]], and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all [[GFDL]] anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present [[sysop power structure]] there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday. | ||
Revision as of 04:48, 13 January 2004
The Consumerium glossary is those terms which must be understood or broadened or narrowed in the Wiktionary to enable Consumerium's mission.
- No no and no. Wiktionary is not for debating connotations (meanings of some word), though it is common courtesy to give all definitions of meaning when starting a new page there.Juxo 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)
- Ah, but what meaning comes *first*? Which is implied as most common? There are politics in dictionaries. I agree however that the glossary is not only those terms, and that Wiktionary is not the sole or even best place to enable the Consumerium mission (against Consumerism without values "u" hold dear). And I totally agree that Wiktionary should not believe Consumerium is altering the meanings of words in any way other than by changing public impression and priority. But hopefully we *will* do that.
Re: the glossary and collaborating with essential projects and not enemy projects.
- Forget Wiktionary, we need Simple English. There are now good articles on time horizon, contact network, power network, social network, social capital here, which mention only the features of it we need to talk about to do work here. Full articles in Simple English will hopefully appear on all the concepts in the glossary, right? These can just appear normally since we aren't using any word in any sense other than its normal sense. There's no distortion involved here, just certain articles we want to get corrected faster than others.
- Unfortunately, despite the fact that these exact concepts are the ones required to discuss governance with non-English speaking users, or if you are conspiracy-minded, because those are the concepts required to get them out of an unequal power relationship and dealing as equals with sysops, the articles on contact network, power network and social network were all deleted by User:Angela or some other relatively unaccountable sysop... so the Simple English Wikipedia is not a reliable place to collaborate on, maybe especially not, concepts absolutely essential to our governance, to allow us to do consensus decision-making even with people from quite different cultures. We can't get into, or trust, an inquisitor culture...
- Try http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/contact%20network. Still there! Angela 06:48, 13 Jan 2004 (EET)
- They raised some IP blocks, but, they'll probably block 'em again as soon as a personal friend of the GodKing is offended, and they simply don't have a real workable definition of Simple English that would serve the purposes they claim to serve. So now I recommend we work only on our own glossary, and if they want to nab some text, fine, let 'em, its all GFDL anyway. It would have been nice to be able to fully define something at the SEW and then refer only to a more focused definition here, but, that is just not reliable with the present sysop power structure there, even if it's slightly less oppressive than it was yesterday.
A programming language rarely has more than 30-50 verbs and about a hundred reserved nouns. So this can't get too large. Not if it's to get into all those dictionaries. It must be a small virus.
- 30-50 verbs?.. I can't think of even 20: (define, add/change/remove, repeat, fetch, link, compare, convert, read, write... whatelseisthere) but maybe I'm just not a qualified programmer. How many verbs does the w:Universal Turing machine have? Juxo 15:12 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)
- it's at 55 now (May 4), some from m:simple ideology of Wikitax needed
This is the most important file! Especially safe, fair, done.