User talk:Juxo

From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
Revision as of 18:24, 5 August 2004 by (talk) (no way, and now that you've revealed your assumptions, it's easy to say WHY no way can Research Wiki and "opinion" be separated)
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. suggests Consumerium and Wikitravel may work together. Please review and add what you can to it. Probably all the links mentioned are important, perhaps we need a brainstorm about this, including people who've been in both projects...?

You should lead that, as you're the most visible figure and have an identity.

A personal story and a request for Juxo

A couple years ago, I was personally involved in an effort to create a database of hardware that was compatible with free software (i.e. does it have open specs? does it have drivers? are they released as free software or binary? etc.) A whole bunch of software people got involved. They started designing a database--should we use a relational database or an object database? We should let people input all the components of their computer and see whether they're compatible. They had design discussions, built software prototypes, etc. At this point, they got a personal rebuke from Richard Stallman: you've been working for six months on a database of hardware compatibility, and all you've produced was a piece of software. The project fell apart, because they had no idea how to proceed on to the only important part: gathering the data.

The moral of my story is that, while implementing barcode scanning is fun, it leaves the hardest and most important part of the problem (getting data about companies, products, etc.) totally untouched. This is the only part of the problem I want to touch, at least for now. I want to gather data, from all the sources on the essential projects and interesting projects and many other places. Is there any way that you can provide me an area where I can start on this?

barcode scanning was an essential requirement back in the day when the original concept saw the daylight. It was inspired by information on Bluetooth since the greed and stupidity of mobile operators was proven in the UMTS-auctions that backfired seriously damaging the telecoms sector and the sinking ship took a lot of IT-companies with it leaving lot's of people unemployed. With bluetooth one needs no central operator and operating bluetooth links costs nothing.
The basic problem in being a conscientious consumer here-and-now is that most of the staff at stores may be part-time workers (working in stores is common with students) or they just don't have the means of acquiring more information exept what is written on the product labels so the idea was that if there is an information system dedicated to storing information that does not fit on the label or just isn't the kind of information that producers want to include in the labels or totally different media such as video or audio then Consumers know that they or the store staff can access so the motivation behind starting to develop this information system we call Consumerium for the time being.
In Information Technology there is a word interrogate that is used to express queries into a database ie. interrogating the db which is what you could do with Consumerium if/when it gets built but who'd want to interrogate a store clerk over some seemingly miniscule piece of information when most likely the clerk would have to respond that they (store staff) don't know, and have no system where to lookup what the consumer wants to know --Juxo 12:57, 13 Mar 2004 (EET)
Yup. Propose we move what's at Main Page to Main Page Developer, and create a Main Page Researcher and Main Page Consumer right now, today. And that we change Front Page to quickly direct folks to the right one, and encourage mostly recruitment of the researchers we need. DanKeshet, you were involved in the creation of w:voting systems, if the logs are right, and that project involved creating many standard pages with roughly the same things said about each system. That is the same problem as the Consumerium:intermediate pages with their common Consumerium:intermediate page format. These are the pages that a Consumerium:Researcher compiles, and a Consumerium:Consumer consults. Whether they consult them in the same form the researchers compile them is not important right now, that's the Consumerium buying signal problem. We can work on that at Main Page Developer while the rest proceeds in parallel.
Whew. OK, all there now except Consumerium:Consumer. Front Page and Main Page Consumer are more or less just invitations for our New Troll User:DanKeshet to innovate. We try to be troll-friendly here.
Also, highly recommended to check out Pubwan. It may have good ideas for this.

More on encyclopedia of consumer products, companies, etc.


I understand what you say about conscientious consumers and part-time workers. I have been one of those part-time workers and I find it annoying when customers assume you know something about one of the 10,000 products in the store even though you didn't get one day of training.

In Finland people are often even shy about requesting any information from the store staff in case the store staff doesn't know the anwser to the question and is put in an awkward situation for both.

While I understand how cool it would be if the whole thing could work like you outline,

Consumerium:Retrospection offers a little insight into how the concept has evolved from a technocratic project mainly consisting of automated processing of information into a "wiki way"-direction, but it still needs tuning. I am anticipating a five to ten year development time. I hope this does not put you off. --Juxo 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)

I am not interested in working on (planning, developing, discussing, etc.) a system for accessing a database unless the database is populated.

I understand. No-one is taking the lead to generate software unique to Consumerium so far which taking into account how radically the plot has changed is sort of a good thing because work put into making proprietary software would have stopped us from evolving the concept further because of respect to the coders hard work. But since we don't have a single line of code we are free to change the plans.--Juxo 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)

I am interested, however, in helping populate the database. Juxo, should I work on that database here on Consumerium (if so, where?) or should I set up a different place? DanKeshet 10:16, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)

Here we try to generate a WikiWikiWeb that will provide all the needed information to guide building of production wikis. If you mean Company or Product specific data, this is not the place that information will go to one of the wikis when we set them up. But sadly for those who are in a hurry it is still not time to set the wikis up because we don't have a practice (or instructional capital as 142.177.X.X likes to call it) for managing the wikis and neither a set plan on how information flows and we are not even sure what should go where and do we need two wikis or just one wiki.
Information you have that might be of interest to a larger "population" then the one here in this R&D Wiki should go to Wikipedia just link the interesting articles from Research (work needed on articles listed there) or Wikipedia (when an article is fairly complete) Feel free to write new articles here. We are in desperate need of contributors that are willing to use an identity instead of horrendeous trolling. I have been making up the guidelines and rules up as I go along and this wiki is a mix of anarchy and autocracy, which won't work for the production wikis. Recyclopedia seems like a subset of the GFDL corpus dedicated to "alternative" views and things. Wikinfo might grow to be a formidable access point into the whole "encyclopedic GFDL corpus".
Short anwser: Write it here unless explicitly forbidden in rules or guidelines and it'll flow into the right slot eventually. Be bold in creating new articles. --Juxo 14:34, 16 Mar 2004 (EET)

When I learned about this Wiki, I thought my first entry would be on the SINALTRAINAL boycott of Coca-Cola, since I saw no entry for Coca-Cola listed. I was distressed to later see that someone had already added information on this boycott, and you had deleted it, and that they (and perhaps someone else) had felt this was a bit heavy-handed. Of course, this is just one case, but being the first thing I come across on this wiki, it does not give me a good signal. I can see not wanting people to make direct accusations against a company being a liability issues, but there are simpler ways to handle it, I think. Like perhaps removing that line with a comment about how it has to be attributed. Since you deleted the article, I have no idea what it said anyhow, I simply have to guess what it said. Venceremos 12:30, 30 Mar 2004 (EEST)

Yes. I deleted Coca-Cola just as I have deleted Gus Kouwenhoven and CIV because we are in a planning and development stage and yet have no Research Wiki because we haven't figured out the Consumerium Process which governs it and Publish Wiki. User:DanKeshet has started a very similar project of it's own called the Consumerpedia, it is also wiki and GFDL so we consider it a friendly project even an essential project. According to our Rules this Development Wiki is no place to put info of companies, so I'm copying the article to Consumerpedia and blanking it here.
I don't see anywhere on the Rules page where it says this "is no place to put info of companies". It says "Don't write that Company X or Person Y is evil." I have not written that any company is evil, I wrote that eight Coca-Cola union leaders in Colombia have been killed, which is a fact, and that the Colombian union that covers Coca-Cola is calling for a boycott until Coca-Cola "makes a commitment to respect the human rights of workers". I did not say Coca-Cola was responsible for the murders.
My primary concern here is that it seems to me people are being misled into thinking that this IS a "place to put info of companies" even though you say that this "is no place to put info on companies". You say that the Rules page says this, but it does not, it says to not say a company is evil. Since apparently people keep coming here and making this error, perhaps this is a sign that people think this is a place to put information on companies. Perhaps you should be more explicit in your warning. If your Rules page had said what you SAY it said, which it does not - that this "is no place to put info on companies", I would not have posted anything on Coca-Cola. You seem to have Kafkaesque, unknown rules that people who are unable to derive them from the existing rules are continually breaking, and then you draconianly delete their stuff. Perhaps you should be more communicative about what people should put up here, and what they should not. Venceremos 07:26, 31 Mar 2004 (EEST)
Venceremos, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, and our Lowest Troll is ABSOLUTELY WRONG here. It is that attitude which led to Consumerpedia going off in some other direction with perhaps no possibility to even collaborate on some rational standards like a standard wiki URI (certainly Consumerpedia's is a much WORSE URI even than Consumerium's ridiculous strings that change too often).
The Research Wiki should have been part of this project, User:DanKeshet was willing to work on that, and because of top-down ideology or lack of seeming support, he's off elsewhere. Well, fine, that ghettos this as a technology-development project that will probably fail. Only trolls really worked to build Main Page Consumer, Main Page Researcher, Main Page Developer so we didn't end up with multiple wikis with divergent policies.
Review the "ultimatum" above and you'll see it's a quite general problem. There MUST be test cases in a development wiki, else there's nothing for Consumerium User Stories to refer to. We can make up user names but not company or commodity names. Juxo wants an omelette but won't break any eggs. Time for that to end. Please stay and help trolls make this thing work.

Hi Juxo,

Just to let you know I have moved your Wiktionary page "Types of companies" to "Wiktionary:Types of companies" to show it is not an entry in the main body of Wiktionary. -- Paul G (Wiktionary sysop) 12:03, 29 Mar 2004 (BST)


What are your policies going to be with respect to courtesy and respect? I ask because a user is posting all manner of mean comments about me, calling me a "liar" for example, on my talk page. Is that o.k. with you? Is that a proper methods for rational discussion? Matterhorn 03:22, 11 May 2004 (EEST)

This user "Matterhorn" deserves no respect whatsoever, and is provably a liar. What is more they may be part of a Wikimedia attempt to destabilize wikis which opponents of the Wikipedia sysop power structure and supporters of a fairly-mediated GFDL Corpus happen to work. All this "user" has done has been to make false statements about Wikimedia activities, defending them, and has CONTRIBUTED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE GOALS OF CONSUMERIUM. This by contrast to the trolls who have authored and edited a great deal of useful material. If it's a choice between Matterhorn and the trolls, make it wisely. BUt it is only Matterhorn's insistence on defining policy or truth re: Wikimedia that makes it so. Also see User_talk:Matterhorn where User:Atag more or less admits being part of the cabal that illegally took Recyclopedia down. These people would seem to be the usual suspects, and at least associated with Tim Starling and Erik Moeller, who employ the same tactics.

Hej hej,

thanxx for overtaking the VeganWiki invitation to the Interesting Projects page. Actually I'm only waiting for one or two founders to join before setting up one in English. If you have an idea, don't hesitate to get in touch: or just leave a note at and we'll give Consumerium a mention, that's for sure :) `a++ Tim

oi -- Cimon Avaro

Too many issues on this page.

Time to refactor to discuss various issues separately like:

arm's length or close relationship between Develop Wiki and Research Wiki?

Good question. This develop wiki has been very much about bashing all wiki governance practices as flawed in some crucial manner. --Juxo 08:37, 5 Aug 2004 (EEST)

status of Consumerpedia ?

Umm... well 0 edits in last 30 days and besides i've copied most of the relevant stuff to here or CorpKnowPedia

status of CorpKnowPedia ?

This is a good question. I haven't disussed this with Jhedstroem who runs the place. It seems that he aka The Professor and I are quite tied with ca. 300 edits to boths account over there. It is quite clear that our "charter" exeeds that of CorpKnowPedia, but I trust we can negotiate our relation so that no-one feels ripped off. --Juxo 08:37, 5 Aug 2004 (EEST)

Main Page Researcher, Main Page Consumer and other gateways to the Consumerium Services (how many should there be, etc.)

Consumers see the Publish Wiki with links to the "Live wikis" which include Research Wiki which is for researchers and Opinion Wiki which is for campaigners. So why do I still want separate wikis for opinions and facts. It's simply because it makes managing the whole myriad of wikis simpler
What? Creating a new and unnecessary one makes things simpler? Not really. And there are no campaigners who will not claim to be researchers and very few researchers who are not already campaigners for *something*. So this separation only gives the sysop power structure an arbitrary way to force people into two groups defined only by a GodKing's whims and such, the same way sysops are differentiated from trolls or vandals by a divine technological escalation. This is entirely wrong and chills the whole debate about "What is research" and "what is opinion" which is required to make the whole thing work.

IMHO and another thing is that it's much simpler to merge two or more wikis then it is to split one wiki up so if it turns out that having separate places for facts and opinions is not a workable idea it won't be much of an hassle to merge the contents if article naming is carefully thought out in advance. --Juxo 08:37, 5 Aug 2004 (EEST)

Large public wikis don't seem to have a lot of trouble splitting when they fork off but I have NEVER seen two of them merge. This is just wrong. And since when are page names EVER "carefully thought out in advance"? How many different hierarchical naming schemes have you gone through on YOUR hard drive? Now multiply that by all the others everyone else has gone through. These are evolving standards and we need all wisdom on them at once -
differentate researcher from campaigner by revert currency scores and reflect them in article titles, but don't do it by competing name-spaces.