From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
Revision as of 22:10, 30 March 2004 by (talk) (questions about relationship; is this a symptom of splitting Research Wiki by faction?)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

So Consumerpedia is a name for a new thing combining Research Wiki and Publish Wiki in one place? If it's just the Research Wiki, then, why is it separate? Inventing names is a bad idea, though, if "Consumerpedia is the most trusted source used by Consumerium Services" that is not entirely bad. But if that's the plan, then, you must get, and it's a disaster not to do that before you announce the public name!

And what format is this data in? Consumerium:intermediate pages? Or some free-form thing that can't be processed automatically, so is useless to make a Consumerium buying signal?

Also, if everything there is GFDL, with no Consumerium License of any other kind effect, then, it can be used to enable lots of different services that may compete with Consumerium Services, including, used by lying brand management types to spread good news about very bad products.

But there's probably little choice if the point is to suck in Wikipedia's coverage of these things.  But if so, why not use Recyclopedia?  That's a better approach probably, though their focus is more narrow on vegan and some anarchist stuff, that's almost certainly the right place to start.

Only Pinks think that social justice can or should be achieved before natural capital is safe, so Consumerpedia may be really the Pinkpedia, while Recyclopedia might be the Greenpedia.

Is it reasonable to let the Research Wikis be different based on your faction or institutional buying criteria? If so it's quite powerful but might mean we are moving more quickly to Distributed Consumerium, starting with factions not starting with languages. Which is OK by trolls, if it's managed right.