Please sign and share the petition 'Tighten regulation on taking, making and faking explicit images' at Change.org initiated by Helen Mort to the w:Law Commission (England and Wales) to properly update UK laws against synthetic filth. Only name and email required to support, no nationality requirement. See Current and possible laws and their application @ #SSF! wiki for more info on the struggle for laws to protect humans.
The Develop Wiki, formerly known as Development Wiki or R&D wiki, is where software development concepts, wiki management problems, etc., are discussed. It will always reliably be found at develop.consumerium.org by any reasonable protocol (HTTP, FTP, IRC etc.).
Meanwhile, the Publish Wiki will have only the exact data required to generate the Consumerium buying signal. Nothing will get to this wiki until it has been debated thoroughly as research, and accepted by at least one faction as affecting individual buying criteria for those that trust them to make such decisions.
- Name choice: The name Signal Wiki better matches Consumerium buying signal, "buying signal wiki" would be even clearer.
- Name choice: research wiki just admits that the opinions we share here are just as valid as the ones one might find in Wikipedia, probably more so, since we really care about solving a user-land problem, and they don't.
- Name choice: this is "develop.consumerium.org" so development wiki should be called Develop Wiki. Also the fact that we are doing both "R" and "D" in this mediawiki for now, is acknowledged, that just becomes two functions when we go to a pilot.
- Because the distinction between what is "subjective" and "objective" is up to the faction obviously, one of the open questions is what form of w:consensus decision making should be assumed. Since factions decide when something is "no longer an opinion but has become content" that means "it isn't disputed by anyone editing here?" Or not by trusted people, or by significant numbers of trusted people? Is it right to say that the bureaucracy in a gov't handles "content" and the politicians only handle "opinion"? I think it isn't.
1. Stupid idea proposed in Develop Wiki - trolls attack, gnawing it; Slightly less stupid ideas evolve like bacteria into undisputed gnawlij; Years of stupidity and trashing ideas might lead to one good 90 day sprint ever year, two or three 30 day sprints, and maybe five or six 14 day sprints. Maybe three to five man years of work per year of software development.
2. Based on arguments about above, power structure evolves in Development Wiki with loose idea of who will recruit trolls from where to support what position; Agreement on how to make sure that real user needs, random facts, and other user-land concerns are respected. For instance, limiting the total number of trolls to recruit from some large public wiki, or requiring the faction to go find and pay some poor people (even cheap outsourced coders) to disagree with them and their developed-world point of view. Agreements are informal.
3. Research Wiki with formal factions battle it out; They may gain or lose points in revert currency for violating trust of other factions. Whole thing is like a turn-based strategy game, politics as usual, or whatever. It tries to be about as complex as real political party stuff, but not worse than that hopefully. Nothing less complex is known to work except GodKing dictatorship, and that usually has bad real world results.
4. Publish Wiki takes only what all factions can agree is true. Since it's not "free" to push nonsense (see bet and revert currency), factions choose battles carefully, and let other factions win when there is no point opposing the truth.
5. Consumerium buying signal errors are identified by noble users who we trust more than our own core data; They come back as trolls to show us the error of our ways. When they die, AIs pretending to be them except way faster typing (!) come back to re-engineer the whole system to be trollish.