Talk:Article hub: Difference between revisions
noting proposed deletion/refactoring
No edit summary |
(noting proposed deletion/refactoring) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''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. | Excellent overall. Our [[Lowest Troll]] has written a marvellous summary of [[trolling]], or at least the sort of [[heroic trolling]] that goes on here. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 12: | ||
-------------- | -------------- | ||
Consider this: all the [[troll]] research on [[Wikimedia]], [[Wikipedia]] and the way | 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. | |||
:The above could be rewritten, but, to invent a new third wiki to decide whether [[Research Wiki]] stuff should be visible in the [[Publish Wiki]] is just insane, so that implication is removed until some viable approach can be agreed. let's look at the issue in depth here: | |||
::Research is the opinion of a researcher - even if it quotes others and has the famous [[neutral point of view]], the researcher is still deciding what sources are credible, what not to quote, etc.; if there was no need for critical views, there'd be no need to research that product or service, so all of it should be assumed [[Critical Point of View]] unless it is clearly advertising or other propaganda originating from someone with an interest - if we assume that everything is by [[funded troll]]s, and must prove it is critical before it gets to [[Publish Wiki]], that's another option, but, one with implications | |||
::The comments about something's status or credibility belong in [[Research Wiki]] as a sort of structured [[Talk Page]] using [[TIPAESA]] because that's where people dispute the research. The sources used in that debate should be all over the place, we don't need a separate "Opinion Wiki" just for that - we should be referring to [[Wikinfo]], [[Disinfopedia]], [[CorpKnowPedia]], etc.. in those structured arguments. All the more reason for an [[interwiki link standard]]. | |||
::The test for getting to [[Publish Wiki]] has to be fair and objective, based on some [[edits, votes and bets]] system, not based on some [[sysop power structure]] for which [[CGO]] will end up directly liable. Let's not make the [[Wikimedia]] mistake! | |||