Kids making Incorporated Akkadians

Talk:Main Page

From KIAwiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Discussion about the page itself.

Page Simplification

I think this page needs to be a lot simpler and a lot cleaner. Much of the information on it should be on a more specialist 'about' page or other pages. This page should have a brief intro of what KIA and prominent links to pages that help users find what they are looking for, or find what content we have here, such as the KIA Library, and a list of articles. --Anton 19:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some things I could do on the skinning side would be to hide the 'Main Page' title, I find it annoying. I could also add links to the navigation menu in the side bar to things like the library, and when we compile one, the articles list, as well as other important hub pages. --Anton 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph is kind of redundant now, the top menu links to the different areas of the site quite effectively. The second paragraph and the four proposed topic areas seem dated now. KIA's political stance probably needs to be less prominent, more on an about page. In any case, it is more my political stance and that of the websites, rather than KIA itself which doesn't actually have one. Membership should probably be page of its own, possibly also linked to from the navigation menu. Free Cultural Sorcery already is a page of its own, although that page misses the paragraphs about KIAwiki and Creative Commons logos. Those could be moved there. This would leave the logo, and intro sentence such as a modified form of the "The KIA Illuminated Adepts group is a decentralised order of sorcery, dedicated to an anti-authoritarian stance and supports Individual Sovereignty" sentence. To this could be added a link to the Library, Articles and Membership pages, which should be centered and in a large font. I have a feeling this could make the site easier to use and less confusing. Perhaps we also need a 'posting guidelines' page to provide a guide to such practical matters of how pages should be named and articles/content organised etc. --Anton 20:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pertaining and Double Relate

Noctifer has written,"...freedom of information relating to sorcery, magic, magick, witchcraft and related arcane activities and disciplines,...". I note the closeness of the two forms of the word 'relate'. Using an alternative word may ease the flow of the statement.

I believe the word Anton was after was 'pertaining' when he wrote 'partaking' in the open sorcery section.
Further thought brings;
"...complete freedom of information pertaining to sorcery, magic, magick..." a more certain and direct word than relating, mayhap. --Feather 19:52, 31 August 2008 (CDT)
"...freedom of information pertaining to sorcery, magic, magick, witchcraft and related arcane activities and disciplines,...".--Feather 20:32, 2 September 2008 (CDT)
Hmm, yes, I am prone to typo's. I am certain I meant pertaining and not partaking. It is amazing I had not noticed this mistake myself, although it often hard for a writer to notice their own mistakes, hence the need for proof readers. The two tenses of relate in the same sentence does make for poor style, so I'd go with pertaining for the time being, unless anyone can suggest an improved wording for the whole sentence or paragraph. --Anton 12:34, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
I love the improvement, thank you for showing me that you are here and working on the things which i can see are valuable and valuably revised.--Noctifer 14:27, 7 September 2008 (CDT)

Other items.

KIAwiki Policies

"Welcome ... to the KIA Illuminated Adepts network. We are dedicated to providing a specialist networking website for sorcerers, witches, magicians and other occultists, promoting anti-authoritarian politics, and engaging in projects to assist in the building of our community and empower each other as individuals." -- Network Main Page

I would like to presume that this is the basis from which this Wiki commences to grow and establish itself. That is, I am pasting it here because i would like to discuss how it should affect all operational process at the Kiamagic wiki, and i have ideas about how this ought to be done based on a some observation of people that i have known involving themselves in, and other more hierarchical projects, involvement myself in a number of hierarchical projects online, and my ideals about what this wiki could become, if there were sufficient interest and it were allowed (i think that it does have the potential). subsequent posts to this Talk Page will be built upon this premise, and thus if it ever turns out not to be true, then this and what follows it may be removed as a lump sum without objection. --Noctifer 08:26, 27 August 2008 (CDT)

To address part of this, policy so far has been to keep spammers out. The 'type' of folks whom have arrived here have made room for each other. Nothing else has been needed. If there is a question about a point in an article someone has written, it is addressed in the talk page betwixt the one who has offered their opinion and the one writing the article. The words 'should dictate policy' sound awfully odd together. *grin*
This 'is' a wiki, but it is a KIAwiki. I can appreciate what we may need to do in the future of it, let us not be hasty in its muzzling?
--Feather 19:18, 31 August 2008 (CDT)
are there likely to be other KIAwikis?--Noctifer 14:44, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
Oh, yes, quite. It is the nature of the critter. :) --Feather 20:26, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
There could be if some KIA member wanted to set up another one. The content is all released on GNU FDL, and the KIA logo is Creative Commons share alike. is mine, but I am not supposed to be 'the' leader, so other people can create their own KIA websites. If they use MediaWiki they could use the export tools on this wiki to import pages (with full revision history) to theirs. Of course, they wouldn't have to call their wiki a KIAwiki, just that they are free to do so if they choose. --Anton 08:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
the 'Wild West of Wikis' makes it somewhat unclear to me when it is better to potentially waste time by engaging in picayune discussion on minor points of editing and when something should be revised only on the Talk: page per se. if there is an Info page on this and how to distinguish the one from the other, please point it out. I am sometimes too BOLD even for chaos-wiki protocols and should become more aware of how those closer to convention here view this.--Noctifer 15:58, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
Could you elaborate on what you are attempting to convey here? Your use of cliché makes certain things clear to me. This not a 'wild west'. This not popular anarchy. This is as real as the breath we breathe. --Feather 20:46, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
sorry about any unclarity. what i was getting at was that i would like to assist by assimilating the proper protocols for this wiki as regards when to take to a Talk: page discussion about a very brief or even medium length article to which i would like to add quite a bit. at what point, or for what type/size of article, should i begin to leave everything "as is" on the page and merely suggest my revisions to the Talk: page? I thought that perhaps this was made clear in Wikipedia, though i have not enough experience there as an editor to be aware of it, and, within an "anti-authoritarian" or "anarchistic" environment i am even less certain how to decide this. can you orient me?--Noctifer 22:25, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
Though we use a wiki engine, I will stress again, this is not wikipedia. I can tell you only what I would do. I would make the suggestion or intent to edit on the talk page. If I receive no objection or question, then I would edit the page. As well, there is Anton's rule of thumb; "It is much better if, as a rule of thumb, we all simply made use of the Talk: pages for any major revisions that may be problematic..." --Feather 12:36, 10 September 2008 (CDT)
This does not mean we won't be open to developing some more formal guidelines should the need arise, just that at the moment it seems like fixing something that isn't broken. If a dispute arises over a page, we can work out the best way to resolve it... --Anton 08:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Magic-Oriented Terminology Set for KIAwiki

without objections, i suggest that the fact that this is a specialist networking site for those who do magic and other occult activities should dictate policy, and that, to the reverse of conventional wikis like, specialty terminology such as "magic" be given their paranormal meaning as a PRIORITY over conventional significance. therefore where conventional wikis specify "magic (paranormal)", to indicate its occult significance, in KIAwiki it should be "magic (stage)" which gives the unusual meaning, for example. --Noctifer 08:26, 27 August 2008 (CDT)

Noctifer, yes, I agree. [[[Magic]] should just be a general page about magic as occultists understand it. We should have little need to label anything as "(paranormal)" on this site. Of course, this does not preclude a paragraph on the Magic page being dedicated to specific occultists usage of the word, and Crowley and others who follow his usage do use it to mean Magic (Paranormal), in distinction to his spelling of Magick. The article Magick should probably then concentrate on Crowley's usage (since he was presumably the first), but also may mention others that have adopted his spelling. --Anton 13:11, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
generally agreed. I have tried to set the foundaton for this kind of discernment there where i did not already find it. my focus on magic through the course of the past few decades (both in research and in survey) lead me to some different conclusions about the general usage of terminology than some others espouse (without basis?). I am now negotiating these in KIAwiki and in SourceryForge because i see these as exemplary and wonderful projects. yum!--Noctifer 14:44, 7 September 2008 (CDT)

Effacement Protection in Anarchistic Environs

I have been witness while knowing editors in to the turmoil caused by the "Skeptic Squad" who are allowed free rein to cover over or destroy all those things with which they have a disagreement (almost exclusively occult, spiritual, religious, and paranormal). this results in their targets being repeatedly defaced or effaced. their chilling effect is such that i will have nothing to do with those wikis which allow their tactics, and my interest in mentioning it here is that i think a wiki dedicated to serving magicians ought have something in place to prevent these. this is an age-old problem of sociopolitics, and it is one posed to anarchistic systems and proponents of them endlessly: how will you, while serving anarchistic principles, protect against gangs and thugs from dominating and having their way? we should adequately address this problem in this wiki, and at least conceptually deal with it prior to its becoming an issue.Noctifer 12:04, 28 August 2008 (CDT)

Anarchy as a political system is not the same as lawlessness. That is simply authoritarian propaganda, and the view of childish rebels who don't understand what it is they purport to support. In the words of Proudhon, "Anarchy is Order, whereas Government is Civil War." With this in mind it is important to understand that in a true Anarchy, there are still laws and rules. Likewise,, and the KIAwiki hosted on it, will not be free for alls. By upholding Anarchist principles, we mean precisely that we will uphold the sovereignty of the individual over their own minds and bodies, and oppose the use of this website to promote authoritarian causes. Authoritarian causes being defined as causes that threaten the sovereignty of the individual over their own minds and bodies in some way. --Anton 13:11, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
generally agreed. I was taught to distinguish anarchism from anarchy but i realize that this is an many ways an artificial distinction brought about because of the demonization of anarchism as some kind of bomb-toting terrorists. thank you for making this anti-authoritarian and anarchistic rather than something far more ambiguous. few who promote either Kaos or Thelema or even Hermetica seem to understand the value and virtue of these systems/principles.--Noctifer 14:44, 7 September 2008 (CDT)

CR-edits Idea Suggestion

I came up with a solution to the gang problem which would be merit-based in its function. what would be required is participation in the project in order to *earn the right to revise/edit/replace/efface*. creating a page from scratch and filling it in earns one some kind of (cr)edits which make it possible to analyze/tear down-and-rebuild the work of others. this does lead to a limited stratification, but one which could easily be remediated to the status of equality by doing a bit more work on the project. those whose only interest is to tear down would thereby be limited in their abilities.Noctifer 08:34, 29 August 2008 (CDT)

I don't think we have the need to implement anything quite so formal just yet as there aren't that many of us posting/editing. Besides since I am simply using the MediaWiki engine, I'm kind of restricted to its functionality. I could write a plugin but this would take time and I'm not convinced it would be worth it. It is much better if, as a rule of thumb, we all simply made use of the Talk: pages for any major revisions that may be problematic, and brought cases for page deletion to myself, unless it is obviously spam, in which case Feather also currently has the right to delete pages.
generally agreed. I came up with that as a suggestion for fixing's problems with its consistent anti-esoteric effacement problem. I then set about making other suggestions in orderly and kaotik ways and left a trail that others might follow if they have an interest. I'll terminate my involvement with those by dropping the URLs to KIAwiki and SourceryForge wikis.--Noctifer 15:08, 7 September 2008 (CDT)

Anti-Authoritarian, Individual Sovereignty, Citation and Standards

one of the issues which i do not see has yet been addressed here in KIAwiki is cite-tagging and citation in general. I respectfully suggest that *requiring* citation is a form of hierarchical dominance and control. it is one thing to allow it, to make it possible, such that reference to other works of import is effected, but it is quite another to require citing in order that a given page or portion/assertion be maintained. the issue of what constitutes an 'anti-authoritarian' system of authors is a confusing and interesting one, and an elimination of citing would of course relegate the wiki to the status of a Castle in the Clouds (something of uncertain value). the fact is that knowledge is typically hierarchical in its established array, and so attempting to reflect it may prove difficult if not impossible guided by anti-authoritarian principles.Noctifer 08:46, 29 August 2008 (CDT)

Okay, I can see where the confusion lies here. I did not at any point provide a clear definition of Authoritarian or Individual Sovereignty. Hopefully I have further clarified that above with my comment about Anarchy. I agree about citations. I never at any point said I required them. Unless I accidentally copied something from wikipedia without intending to. Certainly most pages here are lacking citations. Even where we have copied pages wholesale from wikipedia, we have removed the citations because I didn't have the template required to display them nicely. It might be nice to implement that template, or copy it from wikipedia. It would certainly make copying their pages a lot easier. The main tool that will be used here for maintaining a level of quality will be 'Peer Review' for the time being. --Anton 13:11, 3 September 2008 (CDT)
LOL! well i did (badly) try to step up to the plate and fill in Individual Sovereignty for you, though i noticed later that it was significantly different from, and not at all in conformance to's page on the topic. my notions are borne on my own ideals and have relatively little rational basis in cited sourcing. I saw that there is an anarchistic significance to this concept that lay somewhat parallel to and astride what i conceived, but i imagine that your notions may be slightly different than my own. here is where the "authority/authoritarian/anti-authoritarian" terminology begins to break down, as i understand it, and so i am glad you are attentive to it in this discussion.
Thanks for starting that page. I have since added some thoughts to it as a way of introduction. The wikipedia page on the subject is an interesting reference, but their NPOV policy means that equal credence is given to authoritarian arguments and they are unable to take a stance. We of course are free here to take a stand against tyranny in our collaborative effort. --Anton 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
that said, what i would like to bring up here is the issue of authority generally and outside conventional wiki protocols and (possibly) conventional philosophic standards. the way that i understand it, authority is individually-based. if a cabal of individuals agree as to a definition then that has superior importance for their project(s) than some citation to a dead philosopher that society hoists up as representative or sacrosanct. I may be twisting your meanings or inserting my own somewhat here in consideration of these philosophic concepts, since my own lexicon at points breaks sharply from the main, but i will continue nonetheless and see how you take my meaning.
what in part i am trying to point toward here is an interpretation of wiki with respect to citation which doesn't appeal to societal standards for its knowledge. this necessarily sets it as a corporate enterprise adrift from conventional society and its knowledge. is this a good thing? I suggest to you that in fact it is. anti-authoritarian by this (simplistic) meaning is therefore what does not accept social authority but personal convincingness (perhaps in part based on ability to cite on Talk: pages?) for what comes through to wiki information. if you have some other or different notion (and presumably you will) of what it means, i look forward to your construction of that page's content as well as the revision on what i slapped into Individual Sovereignty, though i did very much like what i made for it.--Noctifer 15:08, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
Yes I broadly agree, but this doesn't mean we can't reference the view points of dead historical figure's (Austin Osman Spare for example), if we think what they say is relevent, just that we can also reach our own consensus about subjects. I wouldn't like the wiki to make factual claims for things that aren't demonstrably true, but we can present POV where it is obvious that it is POV, or corresponds to the stated POV of the project. Ultimately I think it might be good to eventually link to some real campaigns fighting for different aspects of individual sovereignty, anti-prohibition movements, pro-bdsm rights, sexual freedom rights groups etc., to show that this idea is still relevant and not just some philosophical idea. --Anton 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

General Wiki Comparisons

as an aside i would like to comment on the rationality i am encountering here and on SourceryForge as compared with the anti-occult slant in this is refreshing. thanks for your pointers about protocol.--Noctifer 15:43, 7 September 2008 (CDT)

General Editing Timestamp Request

One other note, Noctifer, when writing comments in the Talk: pages, can you remember to use the 'signature with timestamp' button, as this helps with understanding the flow of conversation. I've tried to reorder this in a more chronological way, but am not entirely sure I succeeded as it all seemed a bit muddled. --Anton 12:34, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

I am becoming more familiar with the technology and do not now see how four tildes and punching the sig button differ from one another. if they don't i'll do one of the two. ;)--Noctifer 14:27, 7 September 2008 (CDT)
They don't differ. I wrote that in response to a section that appeared unsigned, although to be fair this may have been a result of Feather's editting. My appologies. Four tildes are acceptable. Sig button also adds two hyphens before the tildes. Do what thou wilt.
I answered him in the middle of two paragraphs. Sorry, that.--Feather 09:24, 9 September 2008 (CDT)
whew! that explains that! thanks for the feedback. I did noticed that there is not some kind of 'signature field box' which i may configure like there is on Wikipedia, in which i may prepend the 2 dashes myself, or post-pend my legal name in parens, which is my standard. am i missing something?--Noctifer 14:17, 9 September 2008 (CDT) (nagasiva yronwode)
Have you looked here? There is a nickname box wherein you may specify your sig with or with out a link to your user page. --Feather 12:51, 10 September 2008 (CDT)
looked, but not what i was talking about. if i type four tildes it just postpends my username. in Wikipedia it postpends a string i define at some spot elsewhere. no biggie just curious. ;)--Noctifer 01:39, 13 September 2008 (CDT)

Personal tools