Editing What to accept as fact
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[Trolls]] advocate that [[faction]]s have ways to combine [[edits, votes and bets]] in such a way that only information that the factions can agree on gets through to the [[Publish Wiki]]. This might involve a [[revert currency]] or a system of real world [[campaigner]] commitment to demonstrate the bodily truth, i.e. that there is [[some body]] asserting the truth of the allegations, etc. | [[Trolls]] advocate that [[faction]]s have ways to combine [[edits, votes and bets]] in such a way that only information that the factions can agree on gets through to the [[Publish Wiki]]. This might involve a [[revert currency]] or a system of real world [[campaigner]] commitment to demonstrate the bodily truth, i.e. that there is [[some body]] asserting the truth of the allegations, etc. | ||
[[Lawyers]], the opposite of trolls, will argue that even a [[no body]] like a corporation enjoying [[corporate | [[Lawyers]], the opposite of trolls, will argue that even a [[no body]] like a corporation enjoying [[corporate priveleges]] should be able to use [[libel chill]] and "[[interference with commerce]]" laws to silence or marginalize an [[ethical minority]] that wishes to make it hard or impossible for the [[brand management|advertising and persuasion process]] to represent products falsely. | ||
To a troll, a fact is what someone bets their body on. To a lawyer, a fact is what the client has paid them to claim is a fact. There is no middle ground. Only one of the who choices provides any [[moral purchasing potential]] at all. | To a troll, a fact is what someone bets their body on. To a lawyer, a fact is what the client has paid them to claim is a fact. There is no middle ground. Only one of the who choices provides any [[moral purchasing potential]] at all. |