Re: [xwiki-users] esoteric features

On 9/26/13, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: :) Hi back. Federated Wiki supports aristocracy. Everyone is "free" to have a wiki (or own land) if they're a programmer or technical-type. This is like everyone is free to own land so long as they're a noble or they've paid a noble for the privilege. This is morally wrong, very very morally wrong. I don't support programmer aristocracy which is the political ideology behind so-called "free software". I support democracy, and anarchist democracy at that. Software will never be democratic until someone with 0 minutes of setup and 0 minutes of education or training in programming can start to program. I do not desire "low" barriers to programming, I desire ZERO barriers to programming. You start with a child who's never seen a computer before, and with either an OS or browser, they can start programming that very minute. It's possible and I know how to make it happen. It was done with LOGO for goodness' sake. The second criterion is that someone with absolutely no technical knowledge or training can lodge a ticket for a feature or idea and have it be taken seriously. Perhaps because they put money behind it, perhaps because *others* put their money behind it. Currently, that is never possible unless you have hundreds or thousand of euro to spend. Consider how far society would go if you needed to spend hundreds or thousands of euro to have an auto mechanic even CONSIDER putting in an airbag into your auto. I've taken a closer look at Federated Wiki and Ward has proven that he is completely clueless. In the first video I saw, he said "this is the future of sharing" and yet he held up as an example COPYING, which is the OPPOSITE of sharing. Ward uses words the way other people use words, very sloppily. And he builds ideas out of those sloppy concepts. The same way that you talk about life and life forms and living without being able to produce a formal definition of life. He doesn't actually *comprehend* the concepts that he uses and so is incapable of judging whether they are useful or useless, right or wrong, good or evil. He knows only that other people use them so they "must" be useful. Kind of like everyone drives a car in the USA, or everyone uses Microsoft Windows, so they "must" be good. In this case, he uses the WORD sharing but he actually MEANS anti-sharing. Specifically, he means sharing at the META-level and ANTI-sharing on the level. The objects in the wiki (the paragraphs) are kept strictly segregated while their structure and information content is replicated by acts of human will at the meta-level of human actions. The ONLY sharing that ever goes on is due to CONTINUOUS and DELIBERATE EFFORT by human beings. Such a system can hardly be said to promote or facilitate sharing, for all of Ward's claims. The fact that Ward calls "sharing" what is in fact anti-sharing should ring alarm bells in the minds of anyone who values sharing. And also in the minds of anyone who values logical consistency, integrity, comprehension, understanding, expertise, and many other things besides. As far as I'm concerned, Ward is a clueless idiot. Regarding your other suggestion Vincent, that's not very helpful. I already said that I have other priorities. As just a small example, I know how to eradicate child abuse from the face of the Earth for all eternity. It can be done on a budget of 100 million euro. Do you have that amount of money? Will you tell me that I should "just do it myself"? And do you know why I don't bother with that project? It's because it's just one of many projects floating in my head, and by no means the most important one. So where do you think "instilling post-feudal social relations in collaborative media" fits into the greater scheme of things when "eradicating child abuse for all eternity" is small potatoes? It's baby potatoes.