Lumenikilu policies

From Lumeniki
Jump to: navigation, search

Currently implemented policies of LumenikiLu are simply a matter of how LumenikiLu is administered. Other policies would require new software Lumenos is not currently aware of.

See also Lumenikilu principles.

Consensus groups[edit]

It would be preferable to reach a consensus on these issues, but this is not likely in many cases. When all editors cannot reach a consensus it is suggested that users "fork" into smaller groups who can reach a consensus.

When an editor finds that they do not agree with an article, they have the option of creating a new article with their user name in parentheses. For example, if Lumenos had a problem with the article called "Ethics" they could create an article entitled "Ethics (Lumenos)".

If a user has a problem with one section of an article, they could create a heading within an article with their user name in parentheses. Example, Lumenos has a problem with the Consequentialist section of the ethics article so he creates a new heading labeled "Consequentialism (Lumenos)" and places this as a subheading of the section on Consequentialism.

Specific issues[edit]

See What LumenikiLu is.

Content standards: LumenikiLu vs Wikipedia[edit]

Wikipedia has three main content standards for what information can be added:

Original research and personal experience[edit]

Lumeniki allows original research and personal experience. Some examples are philosophical research or personal experience with computers. It is generally recommended to put quotes around your original research and sign it.

Wikipedia has not yet deleted [my original research on speech recognition under Linux], but technically it is against the rules. (This is probably because it isn't something that could get sued for, unlike my whistleblowing on faked capacity of flash drives and mp4 players. See section on self published sources, below.)

Neutrality vs objectivity[edit]

Like Wikipedia, a lumenikilu attempts to follow a neutral point of view (but without the strange neologized definitions of "reliable source" or "notability" which categorically forbid self-published sources creating extreme bias) just like in Wikipedia, it is not strictly required. In other words, things are not necessarily deleted for showing bias so long as it may be providing evidence on lumenotable topics. If someone wants to endorse an opinion, they may wish to add only facts that support their opinion. So long as these facts are objective, they have not violated LumenikiLu policy. However they are not supposed to delete facts that are unfavorable to their opinion (like Lumenos may have done, can't quite remember now). (See section "product and service reviews", below.)

Notable information and verifiable sources[edit]

Wikipedia claims to allow content that that is "notable" and "verifiable". Information is considered notable if it appears in third-party published sources. Information is considered verifiable when these sources are well-known, reliable sources as opposed to "extremist".

LumenikiLu takes a less authoritarian approach. LumenikiLu does not so much attempt to judge the reliability of a source, only its notability. However, this differs from Wikipedia:Notability in that Lumeniki does not depend on "third-party published sources" to determine what is noteworthy. Although this is perhaps the most important policy, Lumenos hasn't exactly decided how to judge what is notable. Data that is notable enough for a lumeniki is called "lumenotable".

If an editor does not state a source, they are the source. One function of Lumeniki is to test the reliablity of sources and this includes its editors, especially since the editors may be censoring important information, even if the article's information is true or "verifiable".

Criticism is never neutral?[edit]

There is some effort to remove sections labeled "criticism" under the pretext that this does not represent neutrality. In LumenikiLu, neutrality means rather that there is a balance of arguments for and against a particular issue. Criticism is often the most notable (lumenotable) information.

One argument they use is that a "criticism" section is no more appropriate than a "praise" section. Praise is no good but a section on something more like "benevolence" or "advantages" might be. I wish to separate the trivial facts from the useful ones. Often evaluations seem to be more useful than random facts, or perceptions.

Self published sources[edit]

Self publish sources are becoming increasingly important and popular with the proliferation of the Internet. Wikipedia bureaucrats are deleting and ignoring a great deal of useful information with the policy that does not allow any means for a self publish source to prove its reliability or notability. The irony is that Wikipedia is all a bunch of self-publishing. Its greatness does not come from being the most accurate source, but rather in having clues that are relevant, timely, and cannot be found in sources where information is meticulously fact-checked. The wikiforum way is to let information be free and let the reader beware.

For a specific example see . I moved the information to Wikinfo and Fred Bauder (the senior-in-charge at Wikinfo) moved it to a separate article for "criticism".

See What LumenikiLu is.

Product and service reviews[edit]

Wikipedia considers links to selling, to be spam. As a wikiforum, Lumeniki can serve the fuction of a bargain hunting forum with better organized product reviews, information, and interviews.

Require new or modified software[edit]

"Lumenos 01:57, July 19, 2009 (UTC) LumenikiLu1 currently uses the wiki software, MediaWiki. This section is about policies Lumenikians would like to impliment, which they do not know how to implement with MediaWiki. For this reason these policies or features are not yet implemented."

Instead of having a more authoritarian editorial policy, LumenikiLu aims to allow the readers to choose how the wiki that they see, is edited, by means of software filters. One method is to have tags denoting content that may be considered offensive for whatever reason.

The second method is to have trust networks (consensus groups) that allow readers to choose which editors control the wiki they will see. This is wired into the search and browsing functions. The first and easiest step is to make it so that if you make an an interwiki link using double brackets, it will automatically link to the Wikipedia or Wikinfo, if the article does not exist in Lumeniki. The search function should return results first from Lumeniki, then from Wikipedia, then from the rest of the internet. They may prefer it search other wikis or sites like Conservopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, which have different editorial policies. But this requires that every consensus group edit a different wiki entirely. LumenikiLu aims to be more modular and free, incorporating all this into one wikiforum.

If Lumeniki gets to the point of having multiple versions of articles because consensus can't be reached on how these article should be, any lumenist can evaluate these and set their list of preferred articles and/or preferred editors. This means that the default wiki article that they will see is the one they prefer or the one preferred by their preferred editors. They may have multiple lists, for example, a list for the "conservative consensus" (instead of going to Conservapedia) and one for "lutz consensus" (instead of going to Encyclopedia Dramatica- warning Encyclopedia Dramatica and its links have been rumored to contain exploits). They can make this list available publicly, for others to use. If you set a preferred editor this means that their preferred article list automatically becomes a part of your preferred article list as soon as they update it. The wiki software would have a setting for readers to paste these preferred article/editor lists. You could have any combination of preferred article/editor lists. So you could choose to use an editors list of preferred articles but not their list of preferred editors', or you could choose to use an editor's preferred editor list but not the preferred editors of their preferred editors, depending on how much you trust those who the people you trust, trust.