Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842
edits
User:Jukeboksi/Blog/June2004: Difference between revisions
m
Jukeboksi moved page User:Juboxi/Blog/June2004 to User:Jukeboksi/Blog/June2004: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Juboxi" to "Jukeboksi"
(anwser to 142.177.X.X) |
m (Jukeboksi moved page User:Juboxi/Blog/June2004 to User:Jukeboksi/Blog/June2004: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Juboxi" to "Jukeboksi") |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
30.6.2004 | |||
Today I'm going to drink beer, befuddled by the complexity of [[Consumerium]] plans and the unsanity of everyday life. | |||
after some beer, on #wikipedia: | |||
here are the basic assumptions i'm relying on: there will be [[Opinion Wiki]] where strict syntax will be required to get aggregate information to [[Publish Wiki]], [[NNPOV|non-neutral-pov]] is the rule. there will be research wiki where all [[NNPOV|non-neutral-pov]] stuff will get axed immediatelly with a kind notice to go mess around in the [[Opinion Wiki]]. [[Publish Wiki]] will import from [[Research Wiki]] pending that someone will bet their own credibility in declaring some information so certain that it needs to be published. also aggregated (via SQL scripts written in a not-yet-decided language) will be used to automatically update the articles in [[Publish Wiki]] with the aggregate information from [[Opinion Wiki]] with highlights and links to the whole mess of opinions --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:53, 30 Jun 2004 (EEST) | |||
:Nonsense. "all [[NNPOV|non-neutral-pov]] stuff will get axed immediately with a kind notice to go mess around in the [[Opinion Wiki]]" BY WHOM?!??!?! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "non-neutral POV" unless you mean "everything that the [[sysop power structure]] does not like". There is NO [[ontological distinction]] here other than "I trust the editor to make this decision". That means the [[faction]]s will always fight over who gets to be the editor, etc.. It's just not viable. This is wrong. There could be a consensus way to mark something "more of an opinion" or "less like research" using [[answer recommendation]] but that requires all the information in the SAME [[large public wiki]]. Our dear [[Lowest Troll]] is accidentally becoming a [[sysop]] in his fantasies and imagines he has the wisdom of a [[GodKing]] to decide what is "not neutral". This is just not going to work. There is no "Opinion Wiki" any more, we have the right structure, we just need a formal way to keep what is "questionable research" out of the [[Publish Wiki]] and that only because the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] doesn't want to get [[lawsuit|sued for it]]. This is a simple achievable goal. Determining what "should be shoved out of sight as mere opinion" is not simple, not achievable, impossible and (most important) [[factionally defined]]. It requires a process to do this, and that is more or less the process of moving something to a talk page. | |||
---- | |||
25.6.2004 | 25.6.2004 | ||
| Line 6: | Line 17: | ||
::Because keeping [[TCE]] type of stuff in it's own [[wiki]], the [[Opinion Wiki]], enables us to aggregate the information by using much simpler SQL. Queries are run periodically to update the opinion information in [[Publish Wiki]]. By implementing the needed collating in SQL we don't need to [[fork off]] from [[MediaWiki]], but can just concentrate on improving the [[Export-import]] functionality. | ::Because keeping [[TCE]] type of stuff in it's own [[wiki]], the [[Opinion Wiki]], enables us to aggregate the information by using much simpler SQL. Queries are run periodically to update the opinion information in [[Publish Wiki]]. By implementing the needed collating in SQL we don't need to [[fork off]] from [[MediaWiki]], but can just concentrate on improving the [[Export-import]] functionality. | ||
:::So, because you are not a great programmer, you propose making a [[bad user interface]] because it is easier to implement? Why not just recruit better programmers that can implement the right user interface? And in SQL there is no reason not to just have a more sophisticated query to distinguish things with certain tags from those without, i.e. "what goes to the [[Publish Wiki]]" etc. | |||
:by "won't be importing talk pages" you mean the [[Publish Wiki]] won't have them? Fine. what is the disagreement here? Also don't forget [[New Troll point of view]], when new information shows up, and new trolls to propagate it, the existing editors must assume they know less about that subject than they need to, since it's not been a previous area of expertise. Therefore they must back down in favour of more [[troll-friendly]] ways of determining what is so. This won't always be "quiet". | :by "won't be importing talk pages" you mean the [[Publish Wiki]] won't have them? Fine. what is the disagreement here? Also don't forget [[New Troll point of view]], when new information shows up, and new trolls to propagate it, the existing editors must assume they know less about that subject than they need to, since it's not been a previous area of expertise. Therefore they must back down in favour of more [[troll-friendly]] ways of determining what is so. This won't always be "quiet". | ||