|
|
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| And definitely read [[m:Troll]] to see what a troll and sysop really are. | | And definitely read [[m:Troll]] to see what a troll and sysop really are. |
| ---- | | ---- |
| Helo 142.177.X.X. Please review [[Special:Wantedpages]]. Your articles are pretty dominant in the top 10 and I'm interested in what meaning have you reserved for words like:
| |
|
| |
|
| * [[Done]] (is this a legal term of some sort??)
| | Talk moved to [[Talk:faction]] |
| * [[Safe]] (something considered safe in developing countries will likely not be such in developed ones)
| |
| * ...
| |
| | |
| ::The top 5 are [[done]], [[safe]], [[fair]], [[evil]] and [[organic]]. Whatever personal meaning I have in mind, will as you say be over-ruled by standards and laws and movements more local. So we might need definitions f this for each [[ecoregion]], say?
| |
| | |
| ::But there will still be disagreements within each region. As laid out in [[glossary]], I think that a [[faction]] says what is [[fair]] and what is say [[organic]]. Like political parties, they simplify the discussion and pick issues to debate at any one time. This is how they satisfy the various ideas of [[done]], [[safe]] and [[evil]] faction members share to at least some degree, or they would not be a faction. So there's a formula or function we do not have yet, which establishes how you see what is "[[done]]" or what is acceptable to [[label]] "[[organic]]".
| |
| | |
| ::Maybe a good policy is to deliberately NOT DEFINE such overloaded terms and wait until there *are* factions to debate them.
| |
| ----
| |
| [[Reds]]? [[Greens]] [[Pinks]]? [[Blues]]?, are these some terms that only people who enjoy throwing bricks at [[fast-food]] [[restaurant]]s and use the term [[syndicalised anarchism]] more then twenty times a day have in their common vocabulary??
| |
| | |
| Could we please stick to English that the majority of people understand, because developing [[Consumerium]] is not about feeling extrovert elite-digi-intellectualism, but creating information tools for [[consumer]]s
| |
| | |
| :Consumers do not see this level, it is just for reconciling different levels of trust in different sources, and concern about different kind of problems. If someone registers concerns about "Green" things ([[deforestation]]), "Red" things ([[union made]]), "Pink" things ([[sweatshop-free]]), etc., then they will get a personal mix of other concerns based on how much others who share thos concerns care about related things. Those who throw the bricks and use the term [[syndicalised anarchism]] will argue about the shades of it and register different levels of concern with different things. It is necessary to have this level, otherwise each [[faction]] goes to create its OWN Consumerium!!! Bad idea.
| |
| | |
| ::[[Blues]] you didn't explain.
| |
| | |
| :::Blues are [[globalization]] believers, those who read ''[[The Economist]]'' and believe it, or at least pretend to. Blue for sea, sky, the UN, and liquidity.
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| [[Faction]]: 13 links (position nro. 1 on the wanted pages). I think that I understand the consept of faction, but originally in my mind factions were something that would emerge in a self-organizing manner,
| |
| | |
| :To do bottom-up design we must change this name from "wanted" pages - in design you want the most abstract ideas to be defined later - they are not "wanted" at this point and it is foolish to be forced by wikipedia3 into premature def'n.
| |
| | |
| ::You're absolutely right. Forging explanations of concepts too early can lead to slowing the project down because of hastily made up defs that make it harder and harder to do good defs in the future. '''Check out what I did on [[Reference]]. It's now a page just for tracking pages that discuss reference or sources of reference. [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 23:43 Jun 13, 2003 (EEST)
| |
| | |
| not by some developers dreaming up boxes we can put people in and then define what they are interested in and how they participate. I mean: just get the infrastructure available that tight or loose [[consortium]]s can start to form and let the consortiums define their (extended FOAF-style) relationships to each other...
| |
| | |
| :Yes, agreed, they will form bottom-up. But to help them form we must establish FIRST what complexity they resolve for us SECOND how we expect them to present their shared priorities to the system to help them prioritize themselves and THIRD what parts of our own [[glossary]] are up to them not us to define. is also not up to us to tell them they need a [[consortium]] form or should just let people self-identify as say "Greens" and then list their concerns. If this leads to a concept of "Green" different from [[Greenpeace]] or [[Green Parties]] that is an [[audit]] issue we can deal with later. We need just this vague colour spectrum indicator to help those with similar values form a self-image useful to link up with other groups "outside".
| |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | ---- |
| Line 72: |
Line 42: |
| And why, why oh why did you have to troll the [[Opinion Wiki]] just now when i have really pressing non-consumerium issues i have to attend to? [[Talk:Opinion Wiki]] was good stuff, thanks for it. | | And why, why oh why did you have to troll the [[Opinion Wiki]] just now when i have really pressing non-consumerium issues i have to attend to? [[Talk:Opinion Wiki]] was good stuff, thanks for it. |
|
| |
|
| :Because we have a good chance right now to work out the way we look at troll-type comments and other 'distributed identities'. Over at [http://www.metaweb.com www.Metaweb.com] there is now active discussion of [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:some_body "some body"] versus [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:no body "no_body"] status, and questions about [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:glossary glossary] and how [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:faction faction]s might compete to define very basic terms, and allocate credibility to articles there. If the discussion happens over at Consumerium at the same time, well, it will very much more likely result in compatible ways. | | :Because we have a good chance right now to work out the way we look at troll-type comments and other 'distributed identities'. Over at [http://www.metaweb.com www.Metaweb.com] there is now active discussion of [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:some_body "some body"] versus [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:no_body "no body"] status, and questions about [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:glossary glossary] and how [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Metaweb:faction faction]s might compete to define very basic terms, and allocate credibility to articles there. If the discussion happens over at Consumerium at the same time, well, it will very much more likely result in compatible ways. |
| | |
| | :Likewise now is the time to work out [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=wikitext_standard wikitext standard]s - there and at [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikitext_standard meta-wikipedia], so there will be choice of software in future, and better tools to process the base of Wikipedia-compatible GNU FDL texts. |