Slashdot Mirror

There are too many rules, the environment is too hostile (examine the default template "warning" about being blocked, it's a threat, not a warning), pages are guarded jealously by people who will claim that there is no consensus for any change they don't like, etc.

So, fewer people are editing for whatever reason, and many people who try and edit, are driven away.

Some specific reasons some people don't post are outlined [...] reasons [people] don't edit Wikipedia (in their own words).

At the article Chronicling the abuses, a commentator made the point:

Wikipedia’s articles on anarchism are the demonstration of the weakness of their policies. They have a ‘teach the controversy’ approach which ends up promoting fringe views on the same level as actual scholarship, so the Anarchism subset of the site is heavily slanted towards the ‘anarcho’ capitalist view, when there is no historicity to the claims that anarcho-capitalism has any relations to the anarchist movement in general.

This type of slant (on other articles as well) also drives away editors who can't put up with the shit.

So, Wikipedia, because of, in many cases the policies and guidelines currently in place, fails to be inclusive. It is not "newbie" friendly (who has time to read all the rules...), and so newbies are bitten and leave.

So, what's the solution? Well, I think that's easy. Any big organization has problems of a much larger scale than small organizations. So, break Wikipedia up into subject specific Wikis. The general encyclopedia model has been demonstrated to have flaws. Now lets try again. The people who care about web comics can edit on Comicpedia. Etc. Fewer arguments about notability as well.

You're being silly. The whole point of ladies night is to get more women into a bar, so that the men have available women to hit on. It's most beneficial to the bar owners (who are cynically seeking to draw in lonely men with the lure of drunk women), but the whole concept is done for the benefit of male customers, not because the bar owners want to give women "special privileges". But, yes, you're right that it's unfair to men to price the drinks lower for women. The trade-off is that the bar ends up not being a sausage fest, which directly benefits men. As for why feminists are not complaining about it, it's because they generally find the whole concept to be stupid beyond belief, patronizing, and avoid it. If you do a google search, you'll probably find a few contemptuous essays about the practice, written from a feminist point of view, like this article.

Why would a feminist go to a bar during ladies' night, when she knows she's basically just a product being advertised to men? That's why you don't hear about feminists decrying the horrible sexism of ladies' night.

If you still think that ladies' night is unfair to men, then I'd say that you're not really seeing the big picture here. If there were a Men's Night, you'd be a product being sold to women, and I doubt that you'd really enjoy being treated like that, even if there were some side benefits (such as cheaper drinks). Being constantly harassed by the opposite sex, who feel they are entitled to your attention, when you were just looking to have a drink in peace would be a bit annoying.

Hey, you might dig this. Quite a few interesting conversations on this topic.

It was linked from Pandagon.

This reminds me of the case (again, near Atlanta) of a vegan being arrested and sent to jail for writing down the license plate number of an unmarked cop car that Homeland Security sent to photograph the protester.

Fortunately the ACLU took up the case .

Don't be shocked as the tyrants find more ways to increase their power of tyranny. They are not here to help you, there are not here to protect you -- there are there to protect their own incomes and pensions, and you are powerless to stop...

To show the truth of this, and to point out the absurdity, anyone who is engaged in political protest is targeted in an effort to intimidate -- even the police themselves. When the police publicly protested the slow pace of their contract talks with the city, they too were videotaped, photographed, and harassed . They were very surprised, because they were police themselves.

If you look at that situation in terms of the system being mostly in maintaining itself, then it would be natural for the system to fear and harass anyone pushing for change, even the police themselves.

Hopefully the "new media" of blogs and other internet information will help become an effective counterweight to the immense power of the authoritarian elements of our government. Meanwhile, don't be too surprised at finding other examples of creeping authoritarianism in our country. A grandmother in Atlanta was shot and killed by plainclothes police when they invaded her home no-knock raid at night . She thought they were robbers trying to break in when she wounded three of them and was killed by return fire. All they found in her house was a small amount of marijuana. They tried to get an informant to lie and say that he told them that drugs were being sold there after the whole affair becam a public relations nightmare.

pro-lifers ... who ... adopt kids

Apparently that's no joke, as can be seen here (that's where the subject's title is from).

I dug this up since yesterday they were talking about this on WNYC, and they had some people on the show which commented about this "fact" that people don't mind the spying; well, they said it's all about how this is presented to the people being asked - if you give it the usual anti-terrorism spin, then of course they won't mind. However, if you present to them the actual activities taken by the FBI/etc, then they'll have a totally different reply.

Hmm, I wonder if those bloggers might have posted any response to this story? After all, they've only had 12 hours so far today. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/02014/6287 , http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/13/231623/665 , and http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/004427.html

• Daily Kos
• Eschaton (Atrios)
• Political Animal
• Pandagon
• Hulaballoo (Digby)
• First Draft
• Joe Conason (kinda a blog, it's hosted by Salon.com)

Steve Gardner didn't like Kerry because Kerry didn't like him, allegedly cussing him out when he mowed down a little twelve year old boy who he said had a gun, upon which Kerry rushed out, looked up at Gardner in the boat tub operating the 50 caliber machine guns, called him a son of a bitch, and said, "I ought to court martial you." No, that didn't make for a fast friendship.

But every one of his crewmates but this one man...every one, had glowing words of praise for John Kerry, saying things like: I knew back then in Vietnam that the skipper, John Kerry, was bound for high places. Stand up for John Kerry the same way he stands up for veterans. He took care of all of us...he really did. He made good decisions, I believe proper decisions, and the fact that we all returned alive is a good indication that they were the right decisions. Always, when there's a new guy on the boat, you check him out...It only took me a few days...we knew we had somebody special that cared for us...we bonded! What I saw back then was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues...and he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way. I figured with the abilities he had, he was going to go high, but I didn't have any idea about him running for president. Humble seaman. The decisions that he made saved our lives. He never shot from the hip when it came to decisions...he'd always confront problems head on. I never saw John back down from anything. He wouldn't let you go randomly down the river shooting up everything in sight.

The One And Only

When Swift Boat Veterans For The Truth leapt out to savage Kerry's military record, I thought they'd have more people who actually served with or on Kerry's boat. Here was O'Neill on Monday:

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

Somewhere in there, I thought they'd have actual people who served with Kerry. You know, to add some shred of credibility to the obscenely partisan attack on his record. Via the Boston Herald:

The only of Kerry's crewmates to criticize him, Steve Gardner, yesterday said Kerry "made indecisive moves'' that put their boat in jeopardy.

But Kerry crewmate Drew Whitlow called that charge "totally false.'' "They're entitled to their opinions, (but) I served alongside him,'' Whitlow said.

Yes, of the people to actually serve with Kerry, a single one is now criticizing him. Of the people who had direct knowledge of his actions and activities, only one is speaking out against him. Out of two hundred people plus in this group, only one actually served with Kerry. That, to me, says more about this entire enterprise than anything else.

Daily Kos
Atrios
Pandagon
Whisky Bar

• I happen to work in a bio lab and actually like it when the sales reps come by.

Likes marketing? Evil, definetly. Biology? Then it must be evil biology!

Democracy is fucked. Even w/ paper ballots, look!