User:Jukeboksi/Blog/March2004: Difference between revisions
good concerns
(rather long rambling that overlaps with Consumerium:Retrospection but does not go there yet.) |
(good concerns) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Now there is serious unclarity of which [[Wikis]] we are planning to implement. I hope that [[142.177.X.X]] who introduced this competing [[Research Wiki]]+[[Signal Wiki]] scheme will clarify what is gained in this venture into further internal incoherence in '''this wiki'''. | Now there is serious unclarity of which [[Wikis]] we are planning to implement. I hope that [[142.177.X.X]] who introduced this competing [[Research Wiki]]+[[Signal Wiki]] scheme will clarify what is gained in this venture into further internal incoherence in '''this wiki'''. | ||
:See [[Talk:Wikis]] and [[value]]s. Calling things "Content" or "Opinion" is to make a choice to assign certain values to certain processes applied in each. This is just not right. Processes don't have values. Nor do the institutions built on them. People have values, and people use our wikis for research, and signalling to others, and development. Calling what they do or say "R&D" or "content" or "opinion" is an overlay of YOUR values on THEM. A good system does as little of this as possible. We KNOW we are doing some Development, we KNOW we are doing some Research, we KNOW we are sending a Signal. NO one would dispute those terms. So they do not ask for trouble. | |||
Anyways I've noticed lately that ''internal incoherence'' seems to be an ''universal phenomenon in wikis'' due to that it's so easy to misplace information by making overlapping and competing articles instead of seeking [[consensus]] on one article. Naturally [[trolls]] will insist that the ability to express [[dissensus]] is a great feature of [[wiki]] in general | Anyways I've noticed lately that ''internal incoherence'' seems to be an ''universal phenomenon in wikis'' due to that it's so easy to misplace information by making overlapping and competing articles instead of seeking [[consensus]] on one article. Naturally [[trolls]] will insist that the ability to express [[dissensus]] is a great feature of [[wiki]] in general | ||
:Absolutely. Without this you never get to a [[two-party system]] and [[faction]]s that agree to debate civilly instead of always forking and fighting, which is exactly what is happening at [[Wikipedia]]. [[Trolls]] insist on dissensus and will even sometimes make some visible where it is hidden, to drive this evolution. See [[m:troll]] for a detailed hierarchy of roles based on this. | |||
As to [[Consumerium:Retrospection]] that requires much more concentration on my behalf since I'm the one with the earliest plans in my head to retrospect on. | As to [[Consumerium:Retrospection]] that requires much more concentration on my behalf since I'm the one with the earliest plans in my head to retrospect on. | ||
One thing I've noticed that I should make a note of into [[Consumerium:Retrospection]] once the [[wikis|competing wiki-schemes]] issue becomes more clear is '''the shift from formally correct [[markup]] into | :Probably [[Greenpeace]] and [[Adbusters]] also had early plans, but they did not work out. Why not? What is preventing this service from coming into being? What is the basic error we are all making? Perhaps it is assuming that consumers will drive this, as opposed to [[institutional buying criteria]]. Perhaps it is failure to see the [[healthy signal infrastructure]] as one thing that requires great global cooperation and a mind-set shift even into hardware. Perhaps it is bad [[wiki code]], refusal to see [[price premium]] or [[faction]]al logic, or tying ourselves to a [[permission-based model]], or not being [[troll-friendly]] enough. Who knows? We must explore all of these... and be our own worst critics (thus [[threats]] and [[worst cases]] analysis). | ||
One thing I've noticed that I should make a note of into [[Consumerium:Retrospection]] once the [[wikis|competing wiki-schemes]] issue becomes more clear is '''the shift from formally correct [[markup]] into associatively correct markup''' this is naturally due to the shift from using [[XML]] to [[Wiki code]] | |||
:? They aren't opposites. [[GetWiki]] uses XML properly, as an exchange. [[ConsuML]] will be easy to suck into GetWiki and turn into the [[Research Wiki]] and [[Signal Wiki]] default pages. But then [[trolls]] must get to work before these can be accepted as the [[Consumerium buying signal]]. | |||
:What is "formally correct" and "associatively correct"? You refer to links? That is more a [[wikitext standard]] than a [[wiki code]] problem. | |||
I have a feeling this will go deeper into our [[instructional capital]] needed to run the [[wikis]] or deliever [[Features|The Features planned]] or [[Consumerium Services]] whatever the underlying technology used to markup and store information in the sense that maybe we shouldn't be wasting time and effort into '''modelling business structures''' as was mentioned in the [[past|original concept plans]] | |||
:It may be futile, as they shift so fast and it's so hard to say what goes into a [[company]]. Much easier to say what goes into a [[product]] probably until you get to the [[commodity]] level where the [[commodity markets]] fuzz it up - deliberately! Those markets are all for stolen goods, really. | |||
and shift more into '''modelling consumer experience''' that is to say that the distinction between a [[product]], a [[brand]] and a [[company]] is often superficial in the '''sense of consumer perception''' and though there are ambitious plans written about how [[Consumerium Services]] will affect [[institutional buying criteria]] etc. the main goal is still to affect [[consumer perception]] | |||
:Any marketer will tell you his brand is where the [[value]] is. That is, if a brand is trusted, it generates free money. If not, it generates just liability and must eventually be discarded. Like any [[repute]]. So work done on companies and products and commodities is probably there ultimately just to build up or tear down a brand. Our users will be friends of some brands, enemies of others, so "Praise/Criticism" is appropriate for [[Consumerium:intermediate brand page]] <-- brand can be to product or service or experience or whatever, it's more generic. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
2.3.2004 | 2.3.2004 | ||