View source for APM:License


'''Unless otherwise declared''' content on this wiki is under the license of <br>
'''CC-BY-SA-NC with educational content explicitly exempt from NC'''

= Related =

== No "gag order" contracts ==

'''My policy is to never sign any nondisclosure agreements (NDAs).''' <br>
<small>(And if you are a broad thinker then it should be your policy as well.)</small> <br>
I need no potentially gargantuan boulders in the way of openly sharing my thinking. <br>
A wiki like this one is a network that holds together by it's internal interlinking. <br>
and if you blast big and/or numerous enough permanent "off-limits-to-write-about holes" into it then <br> 
it eventually irreversibly disconnects and falls apart. 

Getting to much declared off limits (or rather too little declared within limits) ...
* Blacklist: None is off limits except what is declared to be
* Whitelist: All is off limits except what is declared not to be – this is just beyond bad
... can cross some sort of [[percolation limit]] beyond which the context of the content(pages) rips apart leaving a holey/porous mess. <br>
This is similar to what you have in dementia or amnesia. 
<small>(Related impactful entertainment: <ref name="EVE">'''Time of Eve''' (イヴの時間, ''Ivu no Jikan'') – Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_Eve Time of Eve]</ref>)</small>

Wikis (like [[Main Page|the one you are reading]]) at some point become a mental crutch for me. <br>
One could in some sense maybe even call it an extension of the brain. <br>
So analogies to damaged states of the brain may not be entirely unreasonable.

Nearing and crossing the "fall-apart percolation limit": <br>
* Things get harder and less pleasant to read, and less read. 
* Comprehensibility for readers drops rapidly.
* This fosters incomprehension and even worse miscomprehension and 
* eventually negatively effects the authors reputation leading to discreditation.

== Privacy and anonymity vs transparency dilemma ==

Do not misunderstand. <br>
'''I do value other peoples, groups, (and of course my own) privacy.''' <br>
I do try to keep secrets (no matter whether implicit or explicit declared as such) that where shared with me secret. Within reason. <br>
'''But I absolutely need to remain able to use my own judgement for that. This is not negotiable.''' <br>
Not to speak of non disclosure agreements with a whitelisting model.

=== The two extremes ===

'''Maximalist transparency:''' <br>
I absolutely do not subscribe to the mindset of: <br>
"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". <br>
– This mindset does not see value in the existence of secrets. <br>
– This mindset does not allow for any privacy (personal secrets), anonymity (secret identity), or pseudonymity (possibly secret identity). <br>
All of which can be perfectly reasonable and even essentially important given the right context.

'''Maximalist privacy and anonymity:''' <br>
But I also absolutely do not subscribe to the polar opposite maximalist mindset since <br>
refusal to entrust any secrets to any kind of groups necessarily leads to total anarchy. <br>
Some secrets must not remain unexposed.

'''Middle ground?''' <br>
There is a need for balancing between these two clearly bad extremes. <br>
Reaching and staying at a stable middle ground is <br>
the eternal struggle of management of rules from family all the way up to global governance.

Unfortunately (and hopefully unsurprisingly) finding reaching and staying at a middle ground is <br>
nothing to solve and explain in just a few sentences.<br>
It is one of the major challenges of humanity <small>and probably all intelligent life in the multiverse (if it "exists")</small>.

=== Necessities in software improvement ===

'''"Why not keep a private wiki and only share what you are allowed to?" you may say?''' <br>
I absolutely do not have the timely resources to keep a private mirror wiki. <br>
Not to say I am not trying but It's a nigh useless mess. <br>
But that's not even the point in regards to non disclosure agreements as you should understand by now.

To manage the privacy+anonymity / transparency tightrope-walk properly (within one ownes judgement) <br>
what is really needed is massive improvements in software that <br> 
allow for smart management of a middle ground.

As it seems to stand now current software solutions 
* either do not allow for this at all
* or allow for just a bit at the cost of a huge timely effort.

Concretely: There is no wiki software yet that is all of: 
* a private personal "desktop wiki" – See: [[zim wiki]] <ref name="ZIM"> Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zim_(software) Zim (software)] </ref>
* a public personal wiki (like this wiki here that you are reading right now – or personal homepage-wikis)
* a public globally-open wiki (like Wikipedia) allows for a seamless private "desktop wiki" writing and 
* the rest of all the the possible combinations – adding groups as agents which may access and maybe contribute (beyond personal and globally-open) 
seamlessly combined in one.

'''Globally open digital areas need to deal with the war-zone that is the open internet.''' <br>
* spam attacks (fist thing you get flooded with if you provide an open platform)
* vandalism (intentional and unintentional), 
* system damaging content (commuter viruses, trojans, worms), 
* content harming humans in psychological ways
* content harming humans in physical ways (necessarily indirectly)
* the list is long ...

Also [[self hosting]] is important to get back to a middle ground. <br>
You do not want your [[data taken hostage]]. <br>
* Neither for technical reasons ([[Gaps in software]])
* Nor for economical induced [[centralization]] reasons 
Related: [[The problem with current day programming and its causes#Likely causes (high abstraction level)]]

A particular project to look out for that might <br>
allow us to get closer to the middle ground again <br>
may be [[Holochain]].

== External links ==

* [[Percolation limit]]
* [[Zim wiki]]
* [[Holochain]]
* [[Self hosting]]
* [[Data taken hostage]]

== References ==

<references/>