Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,854
edits
XML/DTD: Difference between revisions
removing named individuals. We are supposed to think about developing the concept and system, not targetting Company X and Person Y
(splitting out person issue with rewritten rationale, non-XML name space coordination) |
(removing named individuals. We are supposed to think about developing the concept and system, not targetting Company X and Person Y) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Identifying individual people unambiguously is more controversial, a two-edged sword. Some activists like [http://amnesty.org Amnesty] and [http://greenpeace.org Greenpeace] do it often, for what they consider clear moral purposes. Other projects like [http://wikipedia.org Wikipedia] have less clear purposes and thus less excuse for "outing" or "shaming". This is not an easy issue for consumerium: | Identifying individual people unambiguously is more controversial, a two-edged sword. Some activists like [http://amnesty.org Amnesty] and [http://greenpeace.org Greenpeace] do it often, for what they consider clear moral purposes. Other projects like [http://wikipedia.org Wikipedia] have less clear purposes and thus less excuse for "outing" or "shaming". This is not an easy issue for consumerium: | ||
On the one hand certain individuals like [[ | On the one hand certain individuals like [[person X]] and [[person Y]] are engaged in a vast number of unpopular activities, and many would choose to have nothing to do with an enterprise that they profited from. Being sure that the activity is associated with them is impossible without some clear way of identifying individuals and their interests - there is danger that innocents will be targetted if identification is not clear. On the other hand, there is reason to fear "witchhunts" and "dossiers" on ordinary individuals, and automation of person-tracking and identification certainly makes this easier. | ||
However, some means of standardizing references to persons seems to be underway in some projects, e.g. wikipedia, anyway. Consumerium may not be able to igore them. There are also reasons to identify "noble" individuals for merit or recognition, e.g. [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=James_Gustave_Gus_Speth disinfopedia's naming of reliable sources e.g. James Speth]. This can be important to validate information to be used in buying decisions, e.g. [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIPAESA as the 'authority' in TIPAESA structures]. | However, some means of standardizing references to persons seems to be underway in some projects, e.g. wikipedia, anyway. Consumerium may not be able to igore them. There are also reasons to identify "noble" individuals for merit or recognition, e.g. [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=James_Gustave_Gus_Speth disinfopedia's naming of reliable sources e.g. James Speth]. This can be important to validate information to be used in buying decisions, e.g. [http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIPAESA as the 'authority' in TIPAESA structures]. | ||