Talk:Wikis

You are suggesting that The Consumerium buying signal is generated solely from Signal Wiki which would imply that Campaigns are maintained in the Signal Wiki instead of Opinion Wiki (which you strangely equate with Research Wiki)

I dont think it implies that necessarily. All text that would show up on the Consumerium buying signal or influence it would be in Research Wiki. But this would be compiled into a few short sharp legally defensible messages that would fit on small screens and be in the Signal Wiki. The difference between a campaign and other information would be that, if you were receptive to the campaign, the signal wiki would more or less take that message directly from the campaign. But there'd still be debate about the validity of aspects or priorities of the campaign in the Research Wiki.

If this (campaigns, which manifest opinions of various factions mixed in with facts) is the idea, then I would like to know what purpose does Research Wiki serve, free circulation of fiction or what.

It's where multiple factions are allowed to clash without having to agree. What goes on the user's screen or in his headset must be at least agreed to the point where people are not actively filing lawsuits against each other to prevent it. By agreeing say to one regime of edits, votes and bets that was "democratic enough" for them to accept as a condition of participation.

And further on how would the flow of information from the Research Wiki to Signal Wiki managed.

This is a hard problem, and probably factionally defined. Greens may want to push through literally all information quoted from ecology papers, but Pinks may find this pedantic, etc. But really the flow is a legal problem.

Bear in mind that the original idea to distinguishing Consumerium Services into two Wikis, the Opinion Wiki with stricter semantics, higher access security and more controlled datastructures and Content Wiki with stricter syntax to enable Automatic comparisons detailed in The features page. Now with four wikis proposed and lot's of confusion to which goes where and what goes forward I'm thinking that why do we even need two wikis???

No one has proposed four. Development Wiki is this one here we are using. Research Wiki is Opinion Wiki and supports the factions using edits, votes and bets to battle out what is "true enough to publish" to the web user, who can compare views himself, and do his own "research". Because it is FOR research, it should be called that. It does not need "higher security", it needs responsible factions. The comparison wiki that you call Content Wiki and I call Signal Wiki is focused, as you say, with stricter syntax, the legal controls I mention above (ability to companies to challenge what is said, at which point we show them the Research Wiki and where it all came from, and invite them to participate as ordinary users), and directly facilitates comparison (which is certainly part of the Consumerium buying signal).

Could you explain functioning (eg. how are features such as feedback) and wiki management of Signal Wiki and Research Wiki done. You have numerous times semi-vandalised us by AWR and general critique that all wiki's are run terribly, so please tell us how to do it right!

The key is to think only about the user's choices and not about the features at all, which are obviously only there to support the user's choices. In a supermarket, which is where the end user is normally doing their Consumerium Service access. Throwing in bogus Features, Hardware requirements and strange technology driven names that imply there is some technological way to distinguish 'opinion' from 'content' from 'R&D' is just confusing. Our view?

It is the feedback, as you suggest, that matters the most, and nothing that does not make feedback work better should be done. This means a light-handed sysop power structure that is troll-friendly, which is easy when the wiki is small, and which you are good at. It means knowing what sysop vandalism and sysop vigilantiism are, and realizing that they are usually the products of allowing people to assume roles like a real-life power structure. Which is a bad idea if their priorities are not those of the other contributors.

As for AWR, there are not nearly enough of them, and if you like, all the things Wikimedia is doing wrong and all the people they have turned into so-called trolls with their troll-formative injustice, can be collected in one wiki. But this would a large public wiki in itself! So, let's not, we should only comment on phenomena here, and examples required to illustrate them.

No one knows much about wiki management yet. But when dealing with real life policy problems like we do, there is no reason to believe that it would be any less complex than the real world political party system, so we must have a limited and disciplined reflection of that model to allow for debate without everything becoming personal. That is certainly where Wikipedia and Disinfopedia fail, as they are both effectively one-party states. <-- why do we need this link? Read two-party system, it is a stage in the development of a polity. <-- why do we need this link? Because that is a concept that you cannot find correctly described at w:polity. Why not? Read all the AWR and you may figure it out. But suffice it to say that the open links you find in articles like w:civics are not a coincidence, they prove there is systematic bias that prevents these subjects from being covered.

Not only can we not tolerate that bias here, we must have the OPPOSITE bias - STARTING with the w:political virtues probably, which is a philosophy that "they" actively reject. Those who do that must be driven off by trolls since that is the only alternative to the actual political virtues. So that's the main management advice.

Beyond that, being bottom-up and picking words VERY carefully, making sure they fit into a unified glossary with meanings that various factions can agree on, is second priority.

Third priority? Cutting ewaste - making sure that the healthy signal infrastructure is multi-purpose (or it will never be deployed) and that it does not do more harm or require more attention than absolutely necessary. For instance, don't design something to require hands-on if it can be headset based instead. Don't design something to use tantallum if you have other ways to do it. The usual ISO 14000 type priorities.

No project has more than three priorities, so lump anything else under either software development concepts or healthy buying infrastructure (looking at the signal infrastructure ONLY AS A WAY TO DO BUYING/COMPARING signals, which is not the only thing that it can do long-term) and we'll muddle along.

But there is no point comparing quality to dogshit. Consumerium Governance Organization is quality. Wikimedia is dogshit and will require its owners to pick up after it forever. The main reason to have some cautionary AWR here is to make clear to "Wikipedians" that their tricks don't work here, no echo chamber or spun threat or sysop vigilantiism tactics are tolerated, so, they should go elsewhere to express their frustration over their small penis or ugliness or whatever. As long as mediawiki is in use, there is risk that the wrong people will come over, so, they must be discouraged from staying. The reason for forks like GetWiki is in order to get the code away from those people, set requirements without those people, and to find ways to exclude those people systematically without it being obvious to them. Meanwhile they turn mediawiki into their own one-party state model with all its permission-based model, which is very much like prison.

Do you really think that people who live in a prison could build Consumerium?