[Home]LimitTemptation

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories
When you remove the challenge and even allow anyone to trivially repeat your accomplishments, there is no cred in misbehaving. LimitTemptation.

Contrast why we DissuadeReputation instead of PunishReputation, thereby limiting temptation for reprisal.

See also SoftSecurity.

Examples

According to lore, MIT used to provide an open computer lab called the IncompatibleTimesharingSystem where no passwords were required to "log in." This limited the temptation to hack other's accounts. They also provided a handy system call crash that would crash the machine, also limiting the temptation to bring down the box. The current policy is about same as any university Unix system: locked down as much as is feasible.

Could this be because the game of gaining cred for crashing was replaced with the game of getting away with it with no one knowing it was you? Bonus points for choosing a choice moment to be disruptive. I figure there is a lesson here about channelling certain energies. Simply removing or limiting temptation wouldn't be enough.

Two things, I think: 1. MIT required the changes, and 2. fear of the machines being abused to attack other hosts (DOS attacks).

Prove me wrong!

From Wiki:SearchForTruth...

You're always wrong on a wiki. That doesn't prove your position is invalid because life isn't bivalently logical. But as long as you demand conflict, you will get it. Don't demand that people try to prove you wrong. As long as you humbly teach what you know, and cautiously suggest only what you barely know, people will naturally fill in the details and the counterexamples because people can't resist teaching what they know in turn. -- SunirShah

Two types of limitations:

  1. imposing restrictions--actively curtailing abilities of people. e.g. Making it illegal to fly airplanes on Saturdays.
  2. failing to enable--passively not implementing "features." e.g. Not bothering to manufacture airplanes at all.

LimitTemptation's philosophy says that imposing restrictions is an AntiPattern, but it sheds no light on failing to enable. It isn't really a "feature" insomuch as a dimension of flexibility. The difference is weakening versus empowering. You can choose not to empower somebody.

This is like the two types of lying: 1. outright falsifying information, 2. not relating information you know even though someone wants it.

That is precisely why I have been calling for not imposing limits to what contributors can do. If they like, let them use UserName. Let them post anonymously if they desire. Do not create special admins. This full accessibility has worked for years on WardsWiki. -- AnonymousDonor

I question whether it worked on WardsWiki. I'm not satisfied with the social/political limits of the PPR wiki, and I think it can be improved. (In another forum--I no longer intend to "save" the PPR.) The UserName feature (and the anonymity it allows) was not present until quite recently. --CliffordAdams

True, UserName is new, but the general attitude of not restricting contributors is not. Plus, UserName has not hurt WardsWiki in the six or so months it has been available.

I am curious about your comment on the social/political limits on WardsWiki. I have never seen a problem with the culture, people, social mores, etc. My biggest frustration is lack of tools to sift the content to make it more meaningful to me. Categorization, more ways of looking at RecentChanges, etc. -- AnonymousDonor

Perhaps the world should not have email viruses, OS exploits, trolls, forgers, and distributed denial-of-service programs. Perhaps we could "all just get along". In that case, you know where to find "wikibase".

Personally, I expect you'll have as much success as the MIT AI hackers --CliffordAdams

CategorySoftSecurity

Discussion

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Search: