Talk:Faction: Difference between revisions

Talk:Faction (edit)

Revision as of 06:39, 15 August 2004

4,500 bytes added , 15 August 2004

some TIPAESA discussion

Support a unified GFDL Corpus

50

edits

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 Also re: [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] is [[Daniel Mayer]]'s comment "Wikipedia breaking up into factions is a very, very bad idea." [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013471.html]  This should prove to all espousing the [[New Troll point of view]] that it is in fact a very ''good'' idea, as Mayer is the most notorious [[sysop vandalism]] advocate and the source of most [[Wikimedia corruption]] according to some.
+------------
+Timing: when do we have to block IP of our first non-simple vandal? Liar, bully, bigot, paid provocateur? That's when we have to make decisions:
+*Issue: figuring out what these "bad things" mean is controversial, and seems to label people rather than behaviour or specific incidents or posts
+**position: Assigning labels to individuals is damaging to creative discussion
+***argument: Not every post is associated with an "individual", and no individual leads their whole life online, and certainly not in this forum - there are some forms of creative discussion that simply belong somewhere else
+**position: Assigning labels to individuals happens anyway: [[Vandals]] and [[Trolls]] get named that by other people. Or get called "anti-Semite" or "thug" or "liar" or something. There is no clear way for them to adopt any other more accurate or expressive label.
+***argument: a '''faction''' lets someone be labelled, but it also lets them change that label, and decide who they see themselves as accountable to, where [[social inclusion]] is at issue
+*Issue: the roles of factions in simplifying and focusing common arguments
+**position: Self-applying labels so as to identify with a faction that holds a well defined viewpoint is productive, as it saves time re-explaining well defined concepts
+***argument: we've seen a lot of the arguments before; many are well worn and arise due to various differences in life experience and economic interests that are really hard to eliminate, and certainly won't be settled online here.
+***argument: if we allow someone to identify the predictable and imitative part of their argument, that makes the creative and original part stand out, and it helps them identify if maybe better rhetoric or evidence already exists that would make it easier for them to make the same point - but that's up to them
+**position: Identifying factions allows them to claim viewpoints as factional, so protecting them from [[sysop vandalism]]
+***argument: this seems to be the default anyway as people gang up to resist [[ad hominem revert]]s - over time, people will notice that certain people who say what they think are reasonable things are reverted more often than others who say what they think are less reasonable things, and that will form factions whether they are acknowledged or not.
+****evidence: multi-party [[representative democracy]] evolved in every country that tried to start with [[direct democracy]] or [[participatory democracy]]; it therefore must be assumed to solve some essential problems
+*Issue: [[factionally defined]] terms are often specifically chosen to created [[forced conjunction]] or deny the importance of major distinctions the "other side" sees as crucial, like denying "choice" or "life" as values in the [[abortion]] debate by trying to get neutrals to use a label which puts the emphasis on one or the other
+**position: forcing all factions to agree on neutral titles is one of the great successes of [[neutral point of view]]. Neutral titles are good policy and make it much easier to find [[troll bridges]].
+**position: [[Consumerium:Itself]] can't expect to do any better than the people who devote their lives to [[dispute resolution]] and policy debate in the real world. For instance, you can't expect to achieve more agreement on what global [[sustainable industries]] are than say [[Green Party policy]] would reflect already - if they, who care about it and believe in it the most, can't exactly define it, then, it's irrational to believe that [[Consumerium:We]] can.
+***argument: this terminology is weak, because the subject matter is new and difficult
+****evidence: the difficulty of even just getting all [[Green Party policy]] and [[greenspeak]] in one place and up to date has prevented it from happening so far!
+**position: If [[Green Party policy]] really does help unify Green Party policy, then [[Greens]] at least could claim to "know how to do this" advancing of terminology. They can then try convincing everyone else to use [[greenspeak]] at least when talking about economics and industries. ONLY WHEN THAT WORKS CAN THEY CLAIM TO HAVE ANY EXPERTISE HERE.
+***argument: this is actually one of the EASIER problems in factionally defined terms, since Greens take so much terminology from well known fields - they use terms from the [[w:list of ecology topics]], [[w:list of ethics topics]] as is, whereas other factions typically try to just invent their own.