Editing Talk:Article hub

''This article is listed on [[Consumerium:proposed deletions]] for having a name that doesn't tell anyone what it really does, and covering too much stuff.  If all these topics don't have a logic place, well, they should.''


Excellent overall.  Our [[Lowest Troll]] has written a marvellous summary of [[trolling]], or at least the sort of [[heroic trolling]] that goes on here.

The [[Research Wiki]] will contains lots of half-baked stuff and so should not be indexed to the world, agreed.  This makes it more [[troll-friendly]] and less subject to external pressure.

However, we can only reduce [[trolling]] in the [[Development Wiki]] once the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] is in place.  Most trolling has been to avoid the CGO making the mistakes of [[Wikimedia]], and so it has had to be very critical of [[Wikipedia]] to make sure we do not make their mistakes.  Once CGO exists and has a formal structure, it will have its own problems and it will no longer be so necessary to make pointed comments and criticisms of other wikis - though the reasons we made those decisions should be documented and remain on the record, new trolling regarding [[Wikimedia]] will become irrelvant as our own [[sysop power structure]] evolves and we get our own native breed of [[trolls]].

When [[CGO]] exists, the time will come to consolidate what is known and get away from issues with personalities, though warnings about toxic personalities and power figures who have unjust authority must remain... the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] can continue [[trolling]] [[Wikimedia]] and this should be tolerated here until there is a safe base for them that is not being hacked by [[vandalbot]]s.  If there is any [[libel]] it is of the [[trolls]] - where is there ANY STATEMENT ABOUT ANY WIKIMEDIA SYSOP THAT IS NOT TRUE?  There are truths they don't like, and, there are allusions and circumstantial evidence that they don't like, but, under all this pressure, everything has become very exactly stated and detailed - even the arguments between pairs of people are relatively clear and to the point and useful to read.

--------------

Consider this:  all the [[troll]] research on [[Wikimedia]], [[Wikipedia]] and the way Bomis has created [[Wikimedia corruption]] is true.  But it would only be considered "opinion" by the [[usurper]]s who set up this situation.  In a court of law, every last thing said about Wikimedia here would be proven true, and it could be proven to be "research".  But in very few cases would anyone ever get around to such a decision:  in general, the difference between "opinion" and "research" is who you trust, i.e. which [[faction]], and if you have a bias towards [[trolls]] and the [[New Troll point of view]] or the [[sysop power structure]] and its invented idea of [[neutral point of view]], which means only "that which does not offend sysops so much that they ban those who challenge it" - in other words, [[systemic bias]] of [[insider culture]].

Imagine as a [[test case]], the criticism of Bomis going through the [[Research Wiki]] process and coming to the [[Publish Wiki]] so that it would be advice to not patronize [[Bomis Corporation]], because it is suppressing all the [[GFDL corpus access provider|other wikipedias]].  This request to [[Boycott Bomis]] would go somewhere - where?  How would it be scored or voted on?  What would be the ultimate role of the [[CGO]] in adjudicating the score?
----

By [[142.177.X.X]], moved from the article by [[User:Juxo|Juxo]]

Note:  there is no [[ontological distinction]] between research and opinion:  research is the opinion of a researcher.  And anyone can be a "researcher".  Thus, opinions are indistinguishable from other forms of research - except that one could say "facts are research, and analysis is opinion.  [[Critical Point of View]] articles that don't even pretend to be [[NPOV|neutral]].  These are part of "research" but clearly marked.  They are often drawn from outside text, in the form of [[campaign]]s for and against some entity, such as [[company]], [[product group]], [[product|individual product]], [[area]] ([[country]], [[ecoregion]]) or a piece of [[advertising]] which is clearly promotional.  An opinion starts as the lowest-credibility form of research and those who provide it will often be engaged with the [[Lowest Troll]] to determine if the authors or transmitters or republishers are [[funded troll]]s being paid to trash or promote some commercial service.