User talk:Juxo

From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
Revision as of 13:52, 2 January 2004 by (talk) (quotes from Angela advocating the opposite policy on Wikipedia as she advocates here - lol - typical lack of integrity)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Helo you. What do you have in mind?

I just came over to look around in answer to the invitation at Wiktionary. It looks like an interesting beginning. Information overload may not give me the time to contribute, but I'll certainly visit from time to time. Eclecticology

I have sent an email to intlwiki-l (the international mailing list of Wikipedia) (See below)

Good luck and have fun.

Youssefsan 21:56 Mar 21, 2003 (EET)


Juxo, a user of Wiktionary started a new site dedicated to consumers. It is under GFDL for articles and GPL for codes.

It use wikipedia software with a lot of redirection to Wikipedia.

I think it is very interesting.



Glad to be here. I think this is an important project, and I'm particularly happy that you've decided to pump your research into Wikipedia. Most of my contributions will probably be on the Wikipedia end of things. What you really need at this point is two or three other serious contributors in addition to yourself. That way you can stimulate each other to work in various directions, and staying on top of less than helpful visitors is much easier. Have you ever heard of MeatballWiki? It's dedicated to researching online communities, particularly wikis. SeedPosting is helpful for anyone trying to build a new community. -- Stephen Gilbert 15:52 Jun 17, 2003 (EEST)

Hey Juxo, I checked around a bit and I think I can reproduce the editing problem w/ ja/zh text you were having on Wiktionary. In Safari 1.0 (v85): visit eg edit page for Data structure... click one of the links such as 'edit help', then click the back button. Now, hit 'preview' and find that it corrupted the data on submission. This may not be the only way to do it, but it's quite consistent. --Brion

Hmm... Talking to myself, a clear sign of insanity.

I guess that if we had enough resources we could accomondate sustainably some 10-12 billion SUs and though they wouldn't work either unless they network somehow propably mimicking formation of living organisms like one SU of one person is a cell and the cells form something that forms other more complicated stuff or something. To compensate this type of ultrainvidiula anarchy crap one could consider throwing in the ultra-capitalist concept of The Stock and Currency Exchange of The Planet that would naturally run 24/7 unless shut down for some strange reason like people collectively want to take some time off to eat and play with their loved ones. I guess that the trader/analyst type of folk don't get any good sleep or quality time with the kids in the current situation anyways so they wouldn't object to working 24 hrs a day. Hmm... since people tend to work less efficiently and finally collapse totally unless they sleep this might lead the Capital Routing-industry into the hands of multinationals, that could arrange to have people in multiple timezones, but I don't give a fuck about that shit currently and i don't know is it even an such a bad thing.

There is of course a terrible hassle to get all the owners of all Stock exchanges to agree on how much they want from the mergers and also getting the whole when to blow the whistle on the trading thingy solved would propably prove impossible. Nations and Religions and whatelseisthere have different traditions like chinese would want to play the market on July 4 and vice-versa so there it goes. It just could prove a uniting and interesting experience if consumers worldwide would decide to go totally psycho on non-infrastructural services that keep on running for mystic reasons when the marketplace is closed. I mean how difficult can it be to stop building crappy shoes or something on sub-minimum wage for a while and go home to relax and so forth??? The Big Money doesn't dig this at all cause it would be just a little too simple to implement this this this... w:Tobin tax if there was this hub for transactions. --Juxo 10:39 Aug 30, 2003 (EEST)

"Keep on running for mystic reasons"... exactly...

No one really knows their own faction until they are told about it by someone who doesn't share it. You seem to be among the Pinks. Well, that's fine, but there are disgusting things to discuss, and disgusting things to stop, and some methods will be involved that you may not want to know about.

Now this is just the thing why I originally objected to coding factions in Silly colorology. Though I understand it is necessary to generalize and stereotypitize things in order to stay even a little bit not authistic I still dislike being categorized like this.
We all do. To avoid being so categorized, stay out of conflicts between users. But the second that one gets into these, one has to declare bias, and bias has to have some standard way to declare it. Let's start with biases that are obvious in the real world power structure, as political partys etc.

Consider how differently the Greens, Reds and Blues look at these same problems, and ask yourself if you can get the job done without them. If you think you can, well, you're wrong, Pinks have serious blinders that will prevent them from getting anywhere near best cases if they don't see that they have to get beyond their own biases.

Make your decisions, and trolls will return if they are made correctly. If not, well, trolls save everything they write, obviously, and Adbusters is trying to do a project like this too.

Yes. You are referring to The GreenScan project. It was wery good to make us aware of them and vice versa. I'm that much of a blues person that I can see that performance increases on most meters from having competition around to kick you in the butt to move it faster ;> Luckily everything here is licenced under GFDL so even if we fail to properly implement the Consumerium Services our work is not automatically in vain and can be reused by similar efforts.
OK, good, that's the point. We all are sometimes Pinks and sometimes Blues probably, but, when push comes to shove, we probably are one or the other, and revert to factionally defined terms of some faction or other... at least for "tribal" purposes... the tendency to form virtual community could be very constructive if we treat this "colour thing" as a sort of game.
Defining concepts is important too, but my current stance is that now would be the time to focus on resolving the outstanding practical issues and narrowing our aim to something we could pull off in practice without getting engulfed in the swamp of disinformation and fatiguing out on charges of bias.
That's unlikely with the worst Wikipedians now coming over here to damage this project. See sysop power structure for some proposals on dealing with that kind of trash long-term, and sysop vandalism for problems that arise if you don't. This project is going to be even more sensitive than Wikipedia and could fail much more easily, especially if the wrong people come here early.

Ultimatum given by 142.177.X.X

Create a Consumerium:Proposed_deletion page, right now.

Nope. This is an R&D Wiki and I've made no guarantee to act in any kind of democratic way here. I'll keep on deleting Consumerium Data Whorehouse anytime it appears again because I in my opinion it does not qualify for an article name.
So this is NOT "R&D", this is "Juxo's Opinion Wiki" ultimately? This is assuming that you understand naming and org problems better than everyone else who contributes, which is God's Eye View at its worst, and certainly not R&D. You may bring on a democratize or destroy decision sooner rather than later, which is not bad... we'll do some work to establish assumptions in common or not, and if they don't apply, well, you will have some competition. No reason pretending this is personal, or that it is not dead serious. You're a good guy, you should have a chance to make a stand on what you really believe.

I've thought about the problem of keeping consumer personal preferences safe a long time ago and the possible solutions I came up with were:

  • Store the data encrypted and give the key only to the consumer. This way the data persists in the network and can be made available for server side processing (quite necessary for plain XHTML UI) and disposed of after the consumer has left the network.
  • Store the data within the Consumer Agent residing in the consumers personal mobile terminal. The consumer agent can then give snipplets of the preferences and other data to the network on a on-demand basis.

No one serious is going to work like this.

The most serious are going to require at least a Votes for deletion page to actively debate what is relevant, and what not. Certainly on refactoring decisions/naming. Anything else is GodKing-ism or God's Eye View.

Obviously, you haven't worked on large projects with many developers before, or you would know that off-putting naming is the ONLY way to do certain things, like, create straw man entities that you don't want in the final release.

You resist because of "Reputation". You do not see the power of trolls yet. ;-)

You are going to lose control of this project if you keep this up. Let's have a deletions process like any other large public wiki. ANd, next time any ceasefire is proposed, consider it carefully.

This is not a large wiki. We have usually way under 100 edits per day. What we really should focus on is drafting management protocol for Content Wiki and Opinion Wiki
Fine. Wiki Management is now under discussion.
The arrival of some of the dreaded "Wikipedians" requires discussion of some serious matters like the free circulation of fiction and conceptual metaphor. If you adopt Wikipedia's policies or non-policies on these things, you will fail. If you listen to "Wikipedians" about them, you will fail. It is that simple. For balance, these articles include links to Wikipedia versions of those concepts, so that anyone from WIkipedia who objects can research the subject and make their changes there. Until then it's fair to hold them to what is said about it at least in the text under their own control.
"the dreaded Wikipedians" - lol.
Trolls didn't say that, you did. Trolls simply think all "Wikipedians" are "dreaded". There is no subset of "Wikipedians" who are dreaded, it's anyone who accepts that label for themselves who is dreaded, for good reasons. Sunir Shah has interesting views on this and how Wikipedia has invaded his life. And certainly other people are lied about there too. Eventually someone will sue the whole mess out of existence, thankfully. No decent person wants to be a "Wikipedian", that simply associates oneself with a libel pit and a GodKing. That said, there is no need to bring those quarrels here, if you refrain from changing quotes so as to change the meaning, as you did here above.
So dread w:User:Juxo, he's one of those dreaded wikipedians
See Talk:Wiki Management for some suggestions regarding keeping the issues separate. Unlike Wikipedia which has abandoned its mission to be "a serious encyclopedia", Consumerium has not yet abandoned its mission to provide moral purchasing power
Actually to be precise my original intent implicated in no way giving anyone moral purchasing power, but increase the moral purchasing potential by making information more readily available. I am broke right now so i have no purchasing power thus no moral purchasing power either, but that'll change midnight when i get my salary transferred to my account :) -Juxo 19:55, 22 Dec 2003 (EET)
, and until it does, trolls will fight to keep it on track and prevent it from becoming another noxious "virtual community" <-- note, ALL "virtual community" is noxious, there is no such thing as a "noxious virtual community", since that's simply redundant. You may agree or disagree but you may not represent us as having propagated the concept of a "noxious virtual community", since that allows for a NON-noxious one. See?
Thanks for your welcome Juxo. :) Angela 02:55, 22 Dec 2003 (EET)
The arrival of one "Angela" necessitates some policy proposals to deal with "Angelas in general", e.g. sysop vandalism. Those proposals are now roughed out, in sysop power structure (some best cases in there), democratize or destroy (to head off some worst cases, recruit the better Wikipedia contributors to intimidate the worst away), with other proposals like use real names and such. Trolls will not interfere if Angela wants to say something intelligent about those. If she engages in the mindless sabotage she practiced on other wikis, however, it's revert time.
She chose to say nothing intelligent, but only to suck up to you by using a single phrase she knows in your language. This is typical behaviour for her. Good riddance. Those who suck up to authority are going to be a special kind of problem here, there is no need to invite it early.

What is this place? Lir (wiki)

It isn't a "place". It's supposed to be a service emphasizing accountability and transparency with a sysop power structure committed to same.

In compensation for driving off User:Angela, which there was no choice about, trolls recommend recruiting w:User:Mirwin, w:User:Netesq, w:User:Ed_Poor, w:User:Jrincayc (especially), w:User:Anthere, w:User:Mydogategodshat, w:User:The_Cunctator, w:User:GrahamN, as Wikipedia contributors who have never contributed to any echo chamber nor committed any sysop vandalism, and in fact, protested it when it happened. These are the ones Consumerium needs to recruit. And it will continue to need to drive off the sysop-vandals, racists, anti-accountability quackers and such.

As yet another proof of Angela's lack of integrity, here she is at m:Talk:Draft_privacy_policy strongly opposing deleting user_talk pages, and of course, she asked for that to be done for her here. Someone takes your position, Juxo:
"The user pages are not part of the encyclopedia, they should be deleted upon request. Keeping them viewable by everyone against the user's will is, in my opinion, a misuse of the GFDL." - tristanb (not logged in) 00:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
to which Angela responds:
"I disagree. User talk pages are there to support the development of the encyclopedia, and as such include information that is relevant to particular articles. Perhaps that should have gone on the article talk page, but often it doesn't, and the talk pages provide a very useful history of how particular articles and issues were developed. The user talk page is not supposed to be something private. If you want a private discussion with someone, you can do that by e-mail, so I see no reason why these pages should be made part of the privacy policy. The same might not apply to user pages. Angela 01:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)"
All the information about why she had to be driven off, was quite relevant to the development of moral purchasing potential. Then she goes on again to talk about how important the talk filse are:
"I don't think you would have to remove the comments completely though in order for someone to vanish. This could be done through a name change. Also, agreeing to delete a user talk page doesn't really solve anything if comments they would rather vanish from also appear on article talk pages, which is quite likely to be the case. Article talk pages are obviously not going to be deleted, so there needs to be a solution that can apply to both these and to user talk pages. I can't see any strong reason to treat these differently. I'm also not sure you can state different privacy rules for banned users. It's possible that they might be the ones most wanting to hide their past on Wikipedia after they are made to leave. Angela 23:07, 29 Dec 2003 (PST)"
It's amazing, really, how bald-facedly she says one thing one place and another in another. She's appalling, and she really is the worst of them.