What LumenikiLu is

From Lumeniki
Jump to: navigation, search

"This article contains content copied from the Wikipedia policy guideline entitled "What Wikipedia is not", thus this article is licensed as GFDL (or was it GPL?), attribution-share-alike, or however the Wikipedia article was licensed when the content was copied in or whatever would make this legal. If it can all be CC ShareAlike with attribution, this would be preferred. Lumenos 23:25, August 15, 2009 (UTC)":

This contrasts the policies of LumenikiLu with Wikipedia. Unlike most wikis that specialize in one subject, LumenikiLu is inclusive of much more varieties of content than even Wikipedia. There are only a few rules. The content must be lumenotable (to some readers) and perhaps not detrimental in certain ways (see censorship [below]).



Buried at the bottom of this list you will find "Wikipedia is not censored". Reading further you will see what we mean by "censorship"; you know, boobies, bondage, and stuff. Deleting information from the edit history (ie Lockerbie bombing) are not what we call "censorship".

A lumenikiLu may be censored. This overrides the other policies. These are a few ways that they may be censored but Lumenos is only beginning to consider reasons for censorship:

  • Products whose "advertising" would seem to be detrimental to sentient life because buying them seems to contribute to too much loss of liberty or suffering, for workers or animals. Or if it contributes to more pollution or resource depletion than it is worth. In keeping with the policy on lumenotability, any propaganda advertising someone puts in a lumenikilu will be deleted or converted into an informative review, if Lumenos' desire is carried out, but if a product review would seem to encourage people to buy one of these malignant products, it may be judged more harshly or deleted. Lumenos has not decided whether arguments in favor of buying will be deleted without deleting arguments against buying, because this would produce an intentionally biased review. If so, these reviews should be clearly labeled as not allowing positive information. Behind this question is the question of whether a lumenikilu will serve to liberate readers (at any cost), or whether it will focus on information that is thought (by Lumenos) to serve to liberate sentient life... and whether deleting only the positive aspects of a review about a malignant product would indeed contribute to the liberation of sentient life.
  • Information sources may cease to provide information if it is displayed publicly and they do not want this. Certain things may be assumed about what people may want displayed publicly, unless consent is obtained (unless they change their mind when they see themselves on the Lumenist Hotseat).


Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Why not? (Notice the irony that this is to be found in a guideline.) This is one of the biggest differences between LumenikiLu and Wikipedia. One major purpose of LumenikiLu is to process information from desires and questions, to "howto manuals". Howto info is often the most lumenotable info there is. Otherwise collecting information is like an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Information is a means not an end. Why not use your obsessive-compulsive disorder to produce some theoretically useful information that no one will read? It helps you learn things.

Wikipedia suggests using wikiHow or Wikibooks for this info, instead. You loose so much networking efficiency by doing this. Currently editors can't as easily link to Wikipedia articles from other wikis. These other wikis are obviously much less popular due to the networking externalities. Why the dogmatic insistence on imitating paper "encyclopedias"? This isn't paper, there are much less space limitations. Why would anyone read most articles unless they are trying to do something with the information?

Wikihow also uses a step-by-step format that won't work when readers have different resources to work with. Perhaps this is what Wikipedia wants to avoid as does LumenikiLu. A flow-chart is often needed instead. Lumenos chose the MediaWiki format as the best available way of storing and linking information. The idea is to avoid the inefficiency of redundancy by linking to any information that is usable in more than one context, also so both "howto manuals" are updated at once.


Wikipedia is not a directory. LumenikiLu should contain a directory where more lumenotable info can be found elsewhere. Wikipedia wants us to copy ideas in by rewording them. Lumeniki saves you the effort by letting you link directly; (Wikipedia discourages links in the body of the article, they want them all in the "References" or "External links" sections).


Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. LumenikiLu is a wikiblog and a wikiforum.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, LumenikiLu is a publisher of all things lumenotable.

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Lumeniki often does mirror information because it often disappears. Archive.org does it, why can't we? (There is probably some law...) You can link to lumenotable media files or images. Being funny, beautiful, or otherwise entertaining qualifies as lumenotable.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball [meaning no speculation]. I figure things out all the time by doing nothing but speculation. Every inventor and theorist (eg Einstein) does a great deal of speculating. "Wikipedia, where Einstein is not welcome to ponder the ether wind." Without the lumenotable question there will be no lumenotable discovery.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information[, it is a discriminate collection of useless information]. Just kidding.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox[, unless it is for some hot "liberal" topic like evolution]. Try posting some creationist sources with third-party publishers who say the Bible is perfect truth. These are not "reliable" as WE all know.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But what they mean is Wikipedia is not only a dictionary, "Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." You've just put a definition? Back to work, slave, that is not good enough. LumenikiLu may contain definitions and pronunciations for terms that do not have well known definitions or pronunciations.


Wikipedia is not a democracy [because Wikipedia defines democracy as voting not consensus]. The question is what do you do when you don't have consensus? I see voting in Wikipedia all the time. A one-vote-per user is pointless when you can make as many user names as you want. LumenikiLu may use a sort of meritocracy to resolve disputes: Users who provide the most lumenotable info get their way. Consensus should be tried first, however. Like Wikipedia you don't get paid money, you get paid in power. That is how it really is.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy, LumenikiLu is a model for anarcho-libertarianism.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (Allow them to elaborate:)

Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law.
Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
"I like this one. I think I will ignore it. I tried this and the big bad administrator chopped off my edit. We could get suuuuued, Man?!?! See first and foremost Wikipedia is subject to all the retarded libel laws that exist in the U.S.A. It is first and foremost an United Statian establishment and The Man will squish it if it does not The Man's bidding."

Wikipedia is not a battleground. LumenikiLu is a place for wikibrawling, kinda like Wikipedia advocates here. But the real problem is that there doesn't seem to be a problem with posting information that you know to be false, so long as it has a third-party published source. And Wikipedia won't accept as even notable, a million self-published sources who are making a simple observation (ie these flash drives from China do not work). There will be no discussing intelligent design because WE all know there are no reliable sources who believe in incorporeal beings (maybe alien designers are another matter). Case closed. Wikipedia's inclusion policy says it is not "truth", it is reliable sources. Who are the reliable sources? The one's who tell the truth, silly. We don't need to evaluate each and every claim they make, just so long as they is good people.

Wikipedia is not your web host. LumenikiLu is your host if you got something lumenotable. If not, you can probably link to it from LumenikiLu, and make it part of LumenetiLu. You could use Referata, some other wiki farm, online forum, or personal website as your web host. At this point, the fact that you are interested enough in LumenikiLu to bother, makes you a lumenotable person. If we get a whole lot of business, this down home country attitude is likely to change. Act now and get triple your money back!

Style and format[edit]

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia[, but it seems to want to be]. We don't have the space limitations of paper so there is little need to exclude so much lumenotable information that Wikipedia excludes. Digital data is immediately updatable and correctable. If you want info that is low-cost (for a small number of pages) and requires no electricity, you can print it. If you want portability, there is also digital ink (better for the eyes) or various handheld devices capable of displaying html or text. (I had a $20 mp4 player that could display text documents, it was 1 1/2" x 4" x 3/8".)