Do we need (an editable) libcomglossary?

It struck me that the newbie exploring the libcom

forums might come across many acronyms and quite a bit of terminology which may leave the enquirer

slightly more confused than informed. Hence the [membership editable] libcomglossary. I've set up what one could look like here:

http://libcomglossary.pbwiki.com/

Of course, I leave it entirely up the membership as to if it's a useable proposition.

I like the idea. But are you really offering us the chance to write descriptions of each other in their.

or example: ICC - isn't it just tempting fate there???

International Communist Currant - everyone knows that!

Isn't that the point?

I don't think that there is that much specific libcom terminology, unless its political stuff in which case there already is a glossary I believe.

It might be nice to have an "internet speak" section perhaps, it took me a while to work out what stuff like AFAIK meant

ICC - International Cricket Council?

If you were to poll the average tube train, I would give you a fiver for everyone who mentioned 'communist' in their answer. OK, there is context - but not mentioning the ICC's full name isn't going to make them go away.

But I can see your point. Having reams of ICC stuff on decadence or whatever might be slightly off-putting to those seeking clear, non-technical and concise answers.

In which case I would suggest limiting any entries to the max of 250 words

I think wikis are great ideas. There's already one on infoshop http://www.infoshop.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Just incase anyone doesnt know we have a Glossary of all the words we use on the site (linked to from the bottom of each page):

http://www.libcom.org/notes/glossary.php

hmmm we decided not to get a wiki cos we have too many CMSs as it is. However we could set up a permanent thread in Thought which we link to the glossary so people can post any updates/improvements and then we will put them into the glossary rkn links to above.

we did have that thread in introductory - but someone made it unsticky - why?

i think it should be there

it got full of crap. ok but not sticky I don't think, we just link it prominently from the glossary page, and delete posts as we deal with them.

Why should you want it there? Even libcommunity users can get confused.

C18 ? (I seem to remember not so long ago). And why would I post there when it's the more knowledgeable members who would be the ones contributing.

John., that's all very well, but the entry still needs to be approved by somebody before it gets put into the sites glossary. The membership therefore has to rely upon that person's judgment as to if the entry is accepted or declined. If declined, why did it get declined - or if it was accepted, was it accepted as originally submitted, or was there some arbitary editing, or some sort of negotiated editing so the end product could be closer to the 'position'? The emphasis on my proposition is on the 'member edited' part of it. Member editing is much closer to the libertarian principle of member control of a process rather than relying upon the 'objectivity' of a single person or a committee assumed to consist of the 'hard as steel and clear as glass.'

But anyone can sign up to libcom, and as its a wiki page anyone who can access it can change everything. So some cock can just get a libcom account and wipe the lot, or change it to complete shite.

ps John. what's a CMS?

Content Management System - a database driven bit of the site. They're a bastard to keep updated, not to mention messy (numerous different logins etc.)

we currently have:

blog

news

forums

library

gallery

we can't have any more for the time being

I still haven't worked out what IIRC means.

True, that's why back-ups are done on a regular basis. Basically, the wiki wouldn't work without it being a libcom.org thing. Something would have to be inserted in the general conditions of membership that made obvious maliciousness a reason for forum membership to be cancelled. Then a new password would have to be issued. As regards ' complete shite', would that be a personal opinion?

if i recall correctly

This is good, if rather information over-loaded. Are you associated with them? Do they have any problems regarding abuse of the wiki?

Remember correctly - not recall

POM - this isnt a member edited site, its a site run by a closed collective and always has been. It reflects our ideas and what we see fit. The forums are the only bit where people have almost free-reign on what can be talked about (i.e. we remove fash posts, people discussing how to make bombs etc.). We have never claimed to represent anyone else, instead we are providing a service. There is no group or membership which is why we dont see the need for anything like this.

So when you say 'our' this is meant as the AF? If so, every member should be aware that every contribution is gauged, and in engineering parlance, is determined as 'no go' or 'go'. If you fit within some predetermined conditions you are considered a 'go'. If not, you are considered a 'no go.'

so does Microsoft.

Comfortably elitist. Your opinion counts as nothing - unless you agree with ours.

No i mean Microsoft.

And when i say Microsoft I actually mean on the behalf of Microsoft, we are the contracted brand consultants.

And when i say 'brand', i mean Satan.

rather obtuse mate GYST (Get Your Shit Together)!

No, this site has nothing to do with the AF. Where did you get that idea? 2/9 members of our collective are associated with the AF. 1/9 is associated with the SF (used to be 2 but the other got chucked out for being too cool ). The other 6 arent being pimped by anyone.

So does my doctor, so does the newsagent, so do lollipop-ladies, so does father christmas - whats your point?

You dont have to agree with anything here, just hit ALT+F4 if you dont like it. We run a website, which has our views on it. There are other websites which have their views on it.

Sorry jacque... I was just messing No one got chucked out. Someone left.

Wow! So you have a whole nine members. I was mistaken you seven were associated wih the AF. My apologies. '

er.... something to do with capitalism?

Actually I agree with many opinions here. But I'm still confused as to what 'our' means. Are you 'collectively' against capitalism? Are you anarchist liberatarians? Are you against the control of thought?

You're such an.... encompassing person, of wide humanistic ideals, um, can you suggest somewhere, please, please, please, where I can expound 'their' deviant views?

A little 'massaging' of the truth?

Sorry Jack, I thought that membership comings and goings were a matter worthy of seriousness. My apologies