Hi Richard, unfortunately I don't think XWiki offers the features you're looking for. I'm not even sure what you mean by "patron blindness" or "autonomous agents" in the context of a wiki. XWiki does support includes though. What exactly is it you're trying to achieve in your system? Best of luck in your search, Guillaume On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Richard Kulisz <[email protected]>wrote:

Hi there,

I'm investigating whether this wiki engine is right for me. I'm looking for three specific design features:

1. able to attach autonomous agents to pages

2. transclusions / includes.

3. capability security model rather than ACLs

features #3 + #1 can easily be made to enact: 3a. patron blindness - users can become patrons of others and their own patron is blind to that, but must deal with the entire sub-hierarchy of users as a collective

which makes this other feature rather important: 3b. patron multiplicity - users can acquire multiple patrons just in case their first patron decides to eradicate them

Oh and I suppose: 4. automatic garbage collection and revisions even of deleted pages

If you know of another wiki engine that supports these better, please let me know. I know that Wagn supports transclusions but I'm rather doubtful that anyone supports a capability security model. Even though ACLs really should have died out in the 70s.

Thanks for reading this far,

Richard _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

On 9/26/13, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]> wrote:

unfortunately I don't think XWiki offers the features you're looking for. I'm not even sure what you mean by "patron blindness" or "autonomous agents" in the context of a wiki.

XWiki does support includes though.

What exactly is it you're trying to achieve in your system?

Sharing + Security. What everyone else fails at pathetically and have pretty much given up on. Okay, let's say you have a wiki with 100 MB of storage. You decide to give access to it to 9 of your friends, giving 10 MB to each of them to do with as they please and keeping 10 MB to yourself. Each of them can make pages off of other pages in their own namespace, so effectively they've each got their own wiki now. You are their patron because you've given them resources and can revoke them at will, nuking them when they misbehave. However, each of them has immediately turned around and made themselves a patron. By publicizing the first secret "password" that gets to their account, which now hits a SECOND login script of their own devising. And each of them has created10 clients with 1 MB of storage which they're administering from what YOU see as basic private accounts. One of those 1 MB accounts is now THEIR account, and the others have been handed off to THEIR friends. So far, it's exactly like if you sell off land, people can subdivide it and sell it off in turn. Or if you give someone a key to a house, they can make copies as needed for their family members. YOU do not get to authorize each and every single person who uses a resource just because you "own" the resource. We do not live in fucking Nazi fascist totalitarian countries and *software security shouldn't be fucking Nazi fascist either*! You can guess what I think of software programmers for having created a Nazi state of affairs as "security" and considering it perfectly adequate. Eventually, as inevitably will happen, one of your clients will be lax in their own admin'ing. So one of the people with a 1 MB account has started posting pro-Nazi propaganda and recruiting neo-Nazis to post more. You don't like this shit so you try to contact the guy you gave that 10 MB space to in order to explain himself. He's on a vacation and can't be arsed to explain himself. So you decide to nuke his account, erasing everything in it. Which *is your right* and is certainly a whole lot easier than trying to wade through and surgically remove only the pro-Nazi shit, wasting your entire life cleaning up other people's shit. And that's okay, because every single last 1 MB client secured a fallback patron and their 1 MB of space quota gets activated, thus they can trivially undelete everything you nuked in one operation just under someone else's space. The main cost they pay is they all have to look for and find yet another fallback patron because their fallback patron just became their primary patron. Of course, the Nazi guy ALSO did this but this time around he falls under the purview of an admin who hasn't gone away and NOW he has to explain himself. This new admin of his notices that *ALL* the guy does is publish Nazi propaganda and so decides that on second thought he doesn't care about the explanation and so just nukes the 1 MB account. Now the Nazi guy is on a third patron, if he's secured one. Eventually he runs out of patrons, or HIS patrons run out of patrons. Meanwhile, everyone else is just slightly inconvenienced and their accounts rearranged, but that's it. The upshot of all this is that the Nazi guy is purged out of the system with nobody really going to any great amount of effort to do so, and no great "collaboration" to do so either. This is about a third of what I'm trying to achieve. The other things I'm trying to achieve is: implementing private and communal property that actually works. And implementing democracy. You know, the basic things that make it so that in real life, we don't have 1 owner = 1 country. Also known as tyranny, dictatorship or absolute monarchy. Which no matter what veneer of benevolence you slap on it is *exactly* what exists in collaborative software. In c2 wiki it started out aiming at totalitarian communism but that failed, so there was a knee-jerk aristocratic response which also failed. In wikipedia, "jimbo" is a big fan of fascistic feudalism, so much so he dismisses the peasants (the actual contributors) out of existence, considering them non-entities. He thinks the aristocrats are the ones who matter since every bit of property out there has been pissed on by an aristocrat, and repeatedly so, and pissing on it is obviously the most important contribution to agricultural lands. I realize that adult politics, economics, and sociology (above the level implemented by a typical 10 year old) are beyond the ken of programmers, that's why I've labeled these basic features of everyday adult life "esoteric". Note that these aren't insoluble problems or even very hard problems. I know exactly HOW to implement them, I just have too many even more important priorities.

Best of luck in your search,

Thanks. At least I know this message made it to the list.

Hi, On Sep 26, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Richard Kulisz <[email protected]> wrote:

On 9/26/13, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]> wrote:

...

unfortunately I don't think XWiki offers the features you're looking for. I'm not even sure what you mean by "patron blindness" or "autonomous agents" in the context of a wiki.

XWiki does support includes though.

What exactly is it you're trying to achieve in your system?

Sharing + Security. What everyone else fails at pathetically and have pretty much given up on.

Okay, let's say you have a wiki with 100 MB of storage. You decide to give access to it to 9 of your friends, giving 10 MB to each of them to do with as they please and keeping 10 MB to yourself. Each of them can make pages off of other pages in their own namespace, so effectively they've each got their own wiki now. You are their patron because you've given them resources and can revoke them at will, nuking them when they misbehave.

However, each of them has immediately turned around and made themselves a patron. By publicizing the first secret "password" that gets to their account, which now hits a SECOND login script of their own devising. And each of them has created10 clients with 1 MB of storage which they're administering from what YOU see as basic private accounts. One of those 1 MB accounts is now THEIR account, and the others have been handed off to THEIR friends.

So far, it's exactly like if you sell off land, people can subdivide it and sell it off in turn. Or if you give someone a key to a house, they can make copies as needed for their family members. YOU do not get to authorize each and every single person who uses a resource just because you "own" the resource. We do not live in fucking Nazi fascist totalitarian countries and *software security shouldn't be fucking Nazi fascist either*! You can guess what I think of software programmers for having created a Nazi state of affairs as "security" and considering it perfectly adequate.

Eventually, as inevitably will happen, one of your clients will be lax in their own admin'ing. So one of the people with a 1 MB account has started posting pro-Nazi propaganda and recruiting neo-Nazis to post more. You don't like this shit so you try to contact the guy you gave that 10 MB space to in order to explain himself. He's on a vacation and can't be arsed to explain himself. So you decide to nuke his account, erasing everything in it. Which *is your right* and is certainly a whole lot easier than trying to wade through and surgically remove only the pro-Nazi shit, wasting your entire life cleaning up other people's shit. And that's okay, because every single last 1 MB client secured a fallback patron and their 1 MB of space quota gets activated, thus they can trivially undelete everything you nuked in one operation just under someone else's space. The main cost they pay is they all have to look for and find yet another fallback patron because their fallback patron just became their primary patron.

Of course, the Nazi guy ALSO did this but this time around he falls under the purview of an admin who hasn't gone away and NOW he has to explain himself. This new admin of his notices that *ALL* the guy does is publish Nazi propaganda and so decides that on second thought he doesn't care about the explanation and so just nukes the 1 MB account. Now the Nazi guy is on a third patron, if he's secured one. Eventually he runs out of patrons, or HIS patrons run out of patrons. Meanwhile, everyone else is just slightly inconvenienced and their accounts rearranged, but that's it. The upshot of all this is that the Nazi guy is purged out of the system with nobody really going to any great amount of effort to do so, and no great "collaboration" to do so either.

This is about a third of what I'm trying to achieve. The other things I'm trying to achieve is: implementing private and communal property that actually works. And implementing democracy. You know, the basic things that make it so that in real life, we don't have 1 owner = 1 country. Also known as tyranny, dictatorship or absolute monarchy. Which no matter what veneer of benevolence you slap on it is *exactly* what exists in collaborative software. In c2 wiki it started out aiming at totalitarian communism but that failed, so there was a knee-jerk aristocratic response which also failed. In wikipedia, "jimbo" is a big fan of fascistic feudalism, so much so he dismisses the peasants (the actual contributors) out of existence, considering them non-entities. He thinks the aristocrats are the ones who matter since every bit of property out there has been pissed on by an aristocrat, and repeatedly so, and pissing on it is obviously the most important contribution to agricultural lands.

I realize that adult politics, economics, and sociology (above the level implemented by a typical 10 year old) are beyond the ken of programmers, that's why I've labeled these basic features of everyday adult life "esoteric".

Note that these aren't insoluble problems or even very hard problems. I know exactly HOW to implement them, I just have too many even more important priorities.

I see 2 options: 1) You work on designing and implementing your ideas on the xwiki engine 2) You look at Federated wiki, the new project from Ward Cunningham, which may achieve what you're looking after Thanks -Vincent PS: I only read your email once so I still don't get fully understand everything, would need to read it several times… ;)

...

Best of luck in your search,

Thanks. At least I know this message made it to the list.

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Richard Kulisz <[email protected]>wrote:

On 9/26/13, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi,

:) Hi back.

...

1) You work on designing and implementing your ideas on the xwiki engine 2) You look at Federated wiki, the new project from Ward Cunningham, which may achieve what you're looking after

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.

Let me see it in reality and then we can discuss to see it in virtual world. Show me a child that knows from the start how to speak, or to walk, or whatever you'd like. Programming isn't breathing; and even in that case there are some conditions changes and screaming involved.

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. _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Ok, so this is a troll ... Of the worst kind I would say :) If you have ideas to save the world and are just able to complain that you miss time and money and others are not nice, well, that's just utterly specious and childish. 2013/9/27 Richard Kulisz <[email protected]>

On 9/27/13, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Let me see it in reality and then we can discuss to see it in virtual world. Show me a child that knows from the start how to speak, or to walk, or whatever you'd like. Programming isn't breathing; and even in that case there are some conditions changes and screaming involved.

My proposed features aren't meant to enable communication with right-wing authoritarians such as yourself. They are meant to enable your exclusion.

Go away while the grownups are talking.

I mean all this literally. I've learned to detect the putrescence of RWA personality disorder from a mile away. And much like Narcissists are mental 6 year olds, RWAs are mental 12 year olds. They are NOT mental adults and I refuse to play pretend with someone else's annoying children. _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

On 9/27/13, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]> wrote:

Indeed, I think this definitely one of the weirdest, most trollish threads I've seen in the community since I arrived :-)

I'm pretty sorry to have been the one who unintentionally ignited it with my answer!

Happy wikiing,

Guillaume

PS: do we have a system for banning users?

No you don't you worthless imbecile. What the fuck do you think I'm complaining about you moron? Build a decent security system and I can build a community of intelligent people (which will exclude you and the other two idiots). Meanwhile, you get to exclude anyone who isn't a gutless castrated yes-man. Then we both go home happy never having to see each other ever again. That way I don't become enraged by your narrow-minded blind idiocy, and *you* get to pretend the whole world is filled to the brim by eager beavers gleefully singing kumbaya like happy fucking niggers. Fuck, but the stupidity of you people is overwhelming.

Hi, I just saw this thread and I have to say, your requirements are really interesting. On 09/23/2013 03:08 AM, Richard Kulisz wrote:

Hi there,

I'm investigating whether this wiki engine is right for me. I'm looking for three specific design features:

1. able to attach autonomous agents to pages

2. transclusions / includes.

3. capability security model rather than ACLs

Zed Shaw discussed this in "the ACL is dead" IIRC, he was using snippets of ruby (obviously touring complete) to express security rules. Bitcoin is of course another notable example since the actual payments are expressed as bytecode and the "payment claims" are inputs which cause that code to return true.

features #3 + #1 can easily be made to enact: 3a. patron blindness - users can become patrons of others and their own patron is blind to that, but must deal with the entire sub-hierarchy of users as a collective

which makes this other feature rather important: 3b. patron multiplicity - users can acquire multiple patrons just in case their first patron decides to eradicate them

I find this use case particularly interesting since it seems you're trying to implement the same friend-to-friend model that's done with ISP peering in Internet routing. This is a very scalable model which I have spent some time studying before beginning on cjdns. The reason I think why these things don't exist is because they can't outperform dictatorships at small scale. When a programmer implements one of these brilliant ideas, the first words out of the customer's mouth are "how can I make a rule so only management group can read these pages?" and we end up using this technology to emulate the ACL. What the customer comprehends is what he asks for, what he asks for is what the programmer must provide and what the programmer provides defined the customer's view of what is possible. Of course it's a bit of a catch 22 but still the programmer has a window of opportunity to define new possibilities through his solution to the customer's problems. So then the question becomes how to redefine the features needed to solve these problems which happen at scale in terms of use cases which people know they need. As far as actual answers I'm afraid I don't have any. Thanks, Caleb

Oh and I suppose: 4. automatic garbage collection and revisions even of deleted pages

If you know of another wiki engine that supports these better, please let me know. I know that Wagn supports transclusions but I'm rather doubtful that anyone supports a capability security model. Even though ACLs really should have died out in the 70s.

Thanks for reading this far,

Richard _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users