Talk:142.177.X.X: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(yes factions are bottom up, this spectrum is just to help them form and rendezvous with outsiders) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
[[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, | [[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, | ||
::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. | :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. | ||
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". | |||
Revision as of 00:45, 9 June 2003
Why spread all this ? You think qualified contributors are going to like being "studied" like this? You will drive away quality with this approach. But do as you will.
Anyway, read w:General Semantics for reasons not to say "is" so much.
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??)
- Safe (something considered safe in developing countries will likely not be such in developed ones)
- ...
- 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 restaurants 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 consumers
- 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.
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.
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 consortiums 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".