Criticisms of HypertWiki - Revision history

Woozle: Reverted edits by DomchIrono (Talk); changed back to last version by Woozle

2009-01-16T23:56:07Z

Reverted edits by DomchIrono (Talk); changed back to last version by Woozle

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:56, 16 January 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[http://debrrolro.hostinginfive.com/sitemap.htm page] [http://quacasit.hostinginfive.com/article955.htm jessica simpson hot picture] [http://deerheni.oamm.info/article611.htm hampton roads realtor association] [http://nefuwalt.oamm.info/new1488.htm hot pants models] [http://rotrplif.hostinginfive.com/new803.htm dulse nova scotia]
	Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.		Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.
	==Issues==		==Issues==

DomchIrono: http://debrrolro.hostinginfive.com/sitemap.htm

2009-01-16T23:50:43Z

http://debrrolro.hostinginfive.com/sitemap.htm

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 16 January 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[http://debrrolro.hostinginfive.com/sitemap.htm page] [http://quacasit.hostinginfive.com/article955.htm jessica simpson hot picture] [http://deerheni.oamm.info/article611.htm hampton roads realtor association] [http://nefuwalt.oamm.info/new1488.htm hot pants models] [http://rotrplif.hostinginfive.com/new803.htm dulse nova scotia]
	Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.		Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.
	==Issues==		==Issues==

Woozle: Reverted edits by 200.221.10.104 (Talk); changed back to last version by Woozle

2007-10-14T17:38:04Z

Reverted edits by 200.221.10.104 (Talk); changed back to last version by Woozle

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 14 October 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~trtrocelt~~
	Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.		Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.
	==Issues==		==Issues==

200.221.10.104 at 16:59, 14 October 2007

2007-10-14T16:59:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 14 October 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			trtrocelt
	Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.		Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.
	==Issues==		==Issues==

Woozle: tentative rule: rewording and explanation

2007-01-12T02:33:19Z

tentative rule: rewording and explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 12 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.		Some criticisms which I had posted here were deleted, apparently by the author, so it would seem reasonable to conclude that those objections have been retracted.
			==Issues==
	In the course of the discussions with that person, however, some interesting issues have come up:		In the course of the discussions with that person, however, some interesting issues have come up:
	* Are personal emails considered confidential by default?		* Are personal emails considered confidential by default?
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Social rules (as I understand it) are governed by unwritten but semi-obvious contracts between people – such as "I will continue to trust you as long as you don't abuse that trust." If I post "confidential" writing, I may be violating that trust – but if I feel that the writer is being abusive to me, I don't really ''care'' too much if they trust me.		Social rules (as I understand it) are governed by unwritten but semi-obvious contracts between people – such as "I will continue to trust you as long as you don't abuse that trust." If I post "confidential" writing, I may be violating that trust – but if I feel that the writer is being abusive to me, I don't really ''care'' too much if they trust me.

	'''A tentative rule''': Anyone has the right to confront accusations ''in a public venue'', whether those accusations were made privately or publicly. The accused may choose to respect the accuser's privacy and post such accusations with anonymous attribution; if the accusations are abusive, though, the accused ~~may choose~~ to identify the accuser in order to provide a modicum of deterrence ~~for~~ further abuse.		'''A tentative rule''': Anyone has the right to confront accusations ''in a public venue'', whether those accusations were made privately or publicly. The accused may choose to respect the accuser's privacy and post such accusations with anonymous attribution; if the accusations are abusive, though, it is not unreasonable for the accused to identify the accuser in order to provide a modicum of deterrence against further abuse. (This is a nicely balanced (even Solomonesque) solution because if the accusation is justified, the accusation is more likely to reflect badly on the accused than on the accuser.)

	<center>''"Ultimately, everybody will find out everything."'' – saying at Google [http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/2007/01/01/transparency-is-inevitable/]		<center>''"Ultimately, everybody will find out everything."'' – saying at Google [http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/2007/01/01/transparency-is-inevitable/]

Woozle: tentative rule, and siddhartha quote

2007-01-12T01:45:04Z

tentative rule, and siddhartha quote

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:45, 12 January 2007
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Social rules (as I understand it) are governed by unwritten but semi-obvious contracts between people – such as "I will continue to trust you as long as you don't abuse that trust." If I post "confidential" writing, I may be violating that trust – but if I feel that the writer is being abusive to me, I don't really ''care'' too much if they trust me.		Social rules (as I understand it) are governed by unwritten but semi-obvious contracts between people – such as "I will continue to trust you as long as you don't abuse that trust." If I post "confidential" writing, I may be violating that trust – but if I feel that the writer is being abusive to me, I don't really ''care'' too much if they trust me.

	<center>''"Ultimately, everybody will find out everything."'' – saying at Google [http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/2007/01/01/transparency-is-inevitable/]</center>		'''A tentative rule''': Anyone has the right to confront accusations ''in a public venue'', whether those accusations were made privately or publicly. The accused may choose to respect the accuser's privacy and post such accusations with anonymous attribution; if the accusations are abusive, though, the accused may choose to identify the accuser in order to provide a modicum of deterrence for further abuse.

			<center>''"Ultimately, everybody will find out everything."'' – saying at Google [http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/2007/01/01/transparency-is-inevitable/]

			''"Three things can not hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the Truth."'' – Siddhartha Gautama
			</center>
	==Related Links==		==Related Links==
	* '''2006-12-29''' [http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/16345307.htm Some rethink posting of private info]		* '''2006-12-29''' [http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/16345307.htm Some rethink posting of private info]

Woozle: alternate boundary line

2007-01-05T11:46:26Z

alternate boundary line

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 5 January 2007
Line 11:		Line 11:
	* If someone emailed me threats of physical harm, those emails would (as I understand it) be considered evidence, and therefore not confidential. Where is the boundary line between threats and criticism?		* If someone emailed me threats of physical harm, those emails would (as I understand it) be considered evidence, and therefore not confidential. Where is the boundary line between threats and criticism?
	** Is it when the criticism becomes abusive?		** Is it when the criticism becomes abusive?
			** Is it when I reach the point where I no longer care about maintaining the other person's trust in me?
	* Some people apparently regard "open letters" as inherently hostile. Do most people agree with this? If so, why?		* Some people apparently regard "open letters" as inherently hostile. Do most people agree with this? If so, why?

Woozle: open letters

2007-01-05T11:45:28Z

open letters

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 5 January 2007
Line 11:		Line 11:
	* If someone emailed me threats of physical harm, those emails would (as I understand it) be considered evidence, and therefore not confidential. Where is the boundary line between threats and criticism?		* If someone emailed me threats of physical harm, those emails would (as I understand it) be considered evidence, and therefore not confidential. Where is the boundary line between threats and criticism?
	** Is it when the criticism becomes abusive?		** Is it when the criticism becomes abusive?
			* Some people apparently regard "open letters" as inherently hostile. Do most people agree with this? If so, why?

	I think part of the complication here may be because there are two different sets of rules involved: statutory rules (law) and social rules (etiquette).		I think part of the complication here may be because there are two different sets of rules involved: statutory rules (law) and social rules (etiquette).

Woozle: google saying

2007-01-05T00:27:30Z

google saying

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:27, 5 January 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Social rules (as I understand it) are governed by unwritten but semi-obvious contracts between people – such as "I will continue to trust you as long as you don't abuse that trust." If I post "confidential" writing, I may be violating that trust – but if I feel that the writer is being abusive to me, I don't really ''care'' too much if they trust me.		Social rules (as I understand it) are governed by unwritten but semi-obvious contracts between people – such as "I will continue to trust you as long as you don't abuse that trust." If I post "confidential" writing, I may be violating that trust – but if I feel that the writer is being abusive to me, I don't really ''care'' too much if they trust me.

			<center>''"Ultimately, everybody will find out everything."'' – saying at Google [http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/2007/01/01/transparency-is-inevitable/]</center>
	==Related Links==		==Related Links==
	* '''2006-12-29''' [http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/16345307.htm Some rethink posting of private info]		* '''2006-12-29''' [http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/16345307.htm Some rethink posting of private info]

Woozle: more about extra license

2007-01-04T19:30:00Z

more about extra license

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 4 January 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	* Are personal emails considered confidential by default?		* Are personal emails considered confidential by default?
	* Are personal emails considered to be copyrighted (another means of requiring confidentiality)?		* Are personal emails considered to be copyrighted (another means of requiring confidentiality)?
	* If someone criticizes me in writing, does that have any effect on whatever presumed confidentiality may exist – in other words, must I still keep those criticisms ''of me'' confidential?		* If someone criticizes me in writing, does that have any effect on whatever presumed confidentiality may exist – in other words, must I still keep those criticisms ''of me'' confidential? Do I not have some extra license towards posting confidential writing when that writing is criticism of myself? If I value that criticism, then I might want to keep it confidential in order to avoid a chilling effect – but if I am finding the criticism baffling, then does it not seem somehow reasonable to post it publicly? Possible benefits:
			*# stop the flow of baffling criticism
			*# maybe someone else will understand the criticism and explain it to me
			*# perhaps someone will side with me, and give me better arguments to use against said criticism
			*: The worst-case scenario being that someone explains it to me and I realize that it was valid, ''and'' I have now alienated the person who sent it to me – but I never would have understood it if I hadn't posted it, so this still seems like a gain.
	* If someone emailed me threats of physical harm, those emails would (as I understand it) be considered evidence, and therefore not confidential. Where is the boundary line between threats and criticism?		* If someone emailed me threats of physical harm, those emails would (as I understand it) be considered evidence, and therefore not confidential. Where is the boundary line between threats and criticism?
	** Is it when the criticism becomes abusive?		** Is it when the criticism becomes abusive?