Slashdot Mirror

"Nobody was talking about McCain a month ago."

That's wrong.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category:John_McCain

You're trying to pretend no one was talking about McCain in the middle of the Republican primaries. You sound ridiculous.

"I find it astonishing that this McCain guy is even being talked about."

I find it astonishing that someone is so biased and ignorant that they think people discussing THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is astonishing.

"With the totally ignored cries that the call girl agency which did Spitzer in was long known by U.S. Intelligence to be a Mossad front, and that he was fed to the lions to get a wall-street watchdog like Spitzer out of the way before the shenanigans with the Fed and JP Morgan and Bear Stearns which broke a week later, shows again that if you are clean, you aren't allowed to come to power of any sort."

I doubt they'd have been able to "feed him to the lions" if he wasn't paying for whores.

"That's just sick."

What's really sick is that even in the face of your overwhelming bias and ignorance, you get the same vote I do. THAT is sick.

I'll check back for related questions to fill in any blanks later :)

lets not forget http://wikinews.org/

How do you guarentee it's accurate.

It's a religion; therefore, I guarantee it isn't accurate.

The CoS is harmful to society, and to its own members. Its institutional purpose is, as stated by its founder, its own prevalence and expansion, mainly in an economic way. It considers the religion, the belief, the faith to be not an end, as it should, but a means, a mere tool. Indeed, it is degrading towards its own religious base and all those who believe in it.

This humiliating manipulation alone is enough to consider it insulting at best, malign at worst. But its crimes do not stop there.It has attacked freedom of expression routinely; it has attacked freedom of religion by going against those who follow the faith but not the institution; it has attacked freedom of movement, of association, of thought.

Furthermore, it has attacked the right to life, the right to the pursuit of happiness, and all other fundamental human rights.

They may not be Anonymous, but a lot of them resemble Guy Fawkes.

Since there's a lot of pictures and videos from these protests all over the world here's a few good links.

http://forums.enturbulation.org/
- A bit of planning, a early rough estimate of attendees around the world, post protest media being uploaded all the time.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_international_report:_%22Anonymous%22_holds_anti-Scientology_protests_worldwide
- Wikinews with pics/vids/links related to 10feb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanology
- About the project so far (sources only from credible media)

http://www.partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology
- Anonymous own wiki on the project, mainly used to gather information, results, future plans and events.

I accuse Fuzheado of nothing--I was speaking in general terms. But now that you ask, I was never highly impressed with Fuzheado's credentials as an administrator. I knew of him but I was involved with Wikipedia nearly as long as he, and many administrators had more experience and have, in my opinion, more salient criticisms of Wikipedia to make. Kelly Martin, for instance.

Well now, at least we can say deletion is more than just about companies trying to promote themselves or some attempt at spam. So let's now focus more on the examples of bad deletions I'm giving rather these companies with clear conflicts of interest. While you were "never highly impressed with Fuzheado's credentials", we can agree he is part of this debate and cannot be dismissed as a company shill or an ignorant outsider wanting to snipe at Wikipedia.

In terms of other criticisms, I'm quite aware of them such as the cabals and secret lists and bannings, but those are other topics for another time and ones which I don't have enough personal experience with. Just because there are other problems doesn't mean this one isn't significant as well as affecting a lot more people.

The webcomics thing was years ago--it couldn't have been after 2006 and I'm fairly sure it was in 2005.

So it was in 2005. So what? The debate continues in 2007, as well as the call for boycott , so it's an ongoing problem.

It's difficult to judge the notability of webcomics since just about anyone can start one and ask all their friends to write a Wikipedia article about it.

If those friends and readers add up to hundreds of thousands or even millions and there are references in prominent websites dealing with webcomics, then I'd say keep. Read more below for my answer of how I would change notability guidelines.

It's also interesting that you don't mention the high schools deletion debates, which were of similar vintage but were resolved in favor of the inclusionists.

What is there to say? That sometimes obscure subjects get included. How about you not mentioning anything about Mzoli's Meats, an example of an article that is only kept because Jimbo was the author. Maybe this is the whole point. Rules aren't being applied fairly and consistently. Which matters a lot when you have a many people getting their work trashed.

As for the trivia sections, trivia is by definition "information of little importance or value"--and given that most trivia sections are indeed filled with trivial and unreferenced facts, the best solution (in terms of both style and substance) is to merge the less trivial bits into the prose of the article and delete the rest.

That's your opinion of what's "the best solution (in terms of both style and substance)". I like them. They are important and interesting to me and many were referenced. This thread in another Slashdot article tells me others cared about them too.

"Articles for deletion" discussions are not supposed to be votes anyway. Slim majorities in favor of deletion are by policy and tradition closed with the result of keeping the article due to "no consensus", and it's generally required now to provide a cogent argument to the discussion instead of just stating whether you believe the article should be kept or deleted. Furthermore, the process is intended to gauge consensus within the Wikipedia community. If we allowed one-use IP addresses and newly-created accounts to influence these things, they would cease to be a useful gauge of consensus. They would simply become an exercise in stuffing the ballot box.

I disagree

Hello all,
Currently I'm doing the Chef part of my life at this time. What is being described here is very old stuff http://www.foodarts.com/ and all this stuff is just commonplace technique nowadays. Adria, Achatz, Andres I have met or worked with. It's really not that amazing when you think that we as culinarians are (actually they are), just being creative instead of the things that a lot of people have been eating all along but in a different form. For instance: Grant Achatz (whom i think is Awesome) guinness that's thickened with Gelatin is just "Jello" "tm" but flavored with beer. Ferran Adria is the guy you seek if you want to know/learn stuff He invented this whole thing in first place about 10 or 12 years ago and it took the world by storm. He makes drops of olive encase in suger bags. Hell, there is a gut in chicago that invented a computer printer that makes edible and taste-infused menu's that you eat to before you order your food: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Chicago_chef_invents_edible_menu. Anyway, my whole point is: We as chefs, are very creative, funny and dedicated to bring the food world into the computer world accepept as munchies on a late night!

Dude, I've never been banned from wikipedia. That's probably because I've tried very hard to stay under the radar and only edit occasionally.

I have, however, seen plenty of examples of people who were. It's bad enough that Wikinews is investigating it.

Wikipedia is a very good idea that has grown too big for itself.

From the blog post you cite:

If you want to make comments, make them over at Wikinews. It's not that I don't want to have the last word here (oops... I just had the last word, and it feels GREAT), it's that I think your comments will be more effective closer to the broken systems. Also, I'm tired of fishing your colorful metaphors out of my spam trap. I just chlorinated this thing.

He was trying to raise awareness for the linked article, and fuel a debate there; he didn't want to split it by having it take place in multiple fora across the web. Also, he probably didn't want his blogging system slashdotted.

Smog is slowing global warming according to this PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html and other studies. We need to prevent solar radiation from hitting the ground until the green house gases are lowered. If humans are really causing global warming, then the temperature will slowly go down. Once the temperature begins to lower AND statistically can be proven, then the smog can slowly be lowered over decades.

We have to keep our smog emissions up or we'll cause more global warming, not less by reducing green house gases!
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/PBS_show_asserts_greenhouse_gases,_atmospheric_pollutants_dimming_future

As usual, the masses get an oversimplified solution to a complex problem when the science is inconclusive. None of these problems or solutions will ever be discussed or provided in enough detail outside a conference setting to not be dumbed down. Certainly don't completely trust a movie, newspaper article, or even a magazine article. Heck, it they can't spell every name correctly in the article, why would you expect them to get the science correct within the word limit too? A scientist will provide an upper and lower estimate for an outcome and document the assumptions that go into those predictions. Sadly, a journalist will condense that into the "could" phrase paired with the worst case possible, because that will get your attention. They will use alarming headlines EVEN if those headlines are the best guess, but simply the worst case.

Politicians will grab onto either the worse or best case dependent on their goals, who lobbies and contributes the most. If they can't discuss both sides at length and only say their sides talking points, hold onto your wallet, it is going to cost you money and may be really bad for us all.

And don't discount that scientist don't get publicity without always saying that "more study is needed" to determine other unknowns. That's a trick I used in grad school to get grant money with my adviser. More study is always needed ... so he could make mortgage payments next semester and I could afford new jeans.

Be a critical thinker and reader.

I have met old professional writers who literally hate the Internet and wish it never existed. They seem particularly worried about amateurs writing stuff. But that's their opinion and you know what they say about opinions. They aren't amateurs, they don't love writing, they just profit from it. I would very much prefer a novel or scientific paper written by amateurs rather than professionals. Why? Because, even if the amateurs's creation contains a few mistakes or omissions here and there, I know that it was nurtured with love, while the professionals's creation is as cold as money (not that money is necessarily bad, but it IS cold). It works with software, it works with encyclopedias, it works with news, it works with hardware, it works with fabbers, it works with science, and certainly it also works with writing. Professional writers can yell as much as they want, but Internet writing is here to stay. They are the old generation and together with all centralised models of production (RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft...) will have to either evolve or die, while the Internet enables communities of amateurs, the cooperative generation, to produce high-quality content in an open fashion for the love of it.

Oh, yes. Only good. No one would ever corrupt humanitarian programs.

What is happening in MyanMar.

What Myanmar is.

We, at demonoid, had a system problem which will force us to restore everything from backup. The disks are pretty much empty right now and until we are able to upload the backup and set up everything up, we have to close down.We will be back as soon as possible. Sorry for the inconvenience and don't worry, everything will be fine.

Some within the company have suggested that it all simply is a case of heavy maintenance.

Really.

Really.

Really.

OK, those are cheap shots... but it was still a little funny, right?

Really.

Really.

Really.

OK, those are cheap shots... but it was still a little funny, right?

They've got a fair selection of stories - you can even write your own (which people may see as an advantage or a disadvantage), and it's free content. They even make a printable PDF edition.

They've got a fair selection of stories - you can even write your own (which people may see as an advantage or a disadvantage), and it's free content. They even make a printable PDF edition.

Wait a second... does this mean that people who contribute to WikiNews aren't considered journalists, but mudslinging bloggers who have adwords accounts are?

I call BS on this regulation. Maybe journalists ought to be defined by a certification course on journalistic ethics similar to CITI for researchers?

Cheers!

As a followup to Jimbo Wales's post I'll set forth some of the reasons why the story is baseless and Slashdot has been trolled.

First, regardless of Dr. De Braeckeleer's credentials, he doesn't know how to read a Wikipedia history file. His piece starts with a complaint that information had vanished, but two or three mouse clicks would have led him to what he wanted in a historical version of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operatio n_Entebbe&diff=137747616&oldid=137745019

Then he jumped to a conclusion that something sinister had happened because the page happened to be edit protected when he read it. Here's a historical version of the page as it appeared at press time, along with the notes of both the protecting administrator (who performed a routine action to quell an editing dispute) and me freeing it up for editing immediately after the story ran. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operatio n_Entebbe&diff=next&oldid=137748352

I also affirmed at the original story's comment lines that SlimVirgin had never edited the "Operation Entebbe" article. As a sysop I can read deleted edits and nothing has been deleted from that page. The main history file itself is open for viewing for anyone who wants to search for SlimVirgin's username. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operatio n_Entebbe&limit=500&action=history

Immediately after I posted those explanations someone came along and said she had edited the "Pan Am Flight 103" article, as if that were relevant to the accessibility of the other article. Okay, she did edit...two full years ago. I've looked up the page with my sysop tools and there are no deleted edits hidden away there. There's nothing sinister in the logs: some edits did get deleted a year ago and fully restored. The Flight 103 article has never even been edit protected. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan_Am_F light_103&offset=20060121160944&limit=500&action=h istory

It's not surprising that SlimVirgin edited that page a bit. She's made over 60,000 total edits and she's among the 50 most prolific contributors to Wikipedia. Common sense ought to say that's a lot more activity than a spy would need to engage in, if the aim was to infiltrate the site. And isn't a basic tenet of espionage to keep a low profile? SlimVirgin tussles on policy issues all the time and has sitebanned quite a few rules-violating editors. That's an effective way for an honest volunteer to collect a small army of offsite trolls, but it's a terrible way for a secret agent to keep a cover. If she actually were a spy and I were her boss, I'd be calling her out on the carpet right now.

Yes, Wikipedia does see some infiltration attempts from the CIA. They dabble in baseball articles and complain that their jobs are boring. Here's a report from Wikinews: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_States_Departme nt_of_Justice_workers_among_government_Wikipedia_v andals

And for a glimpse of how ineffective they are on a subject that really matters to them, have a look at the "Q clearance" article history. A lot of edits resolve to government IP addresses and claim Wikipedia's image of the badge is illegal. htt

Or follow the story here, complete with links to the source articles at Reuters, AP, etc.

This event has also been WikiNews'd , as "Fox News security hole exposes 1.5 million users' personal information".

FARK.com also reported on WikiNews's article.

According to http://news.com.com/Man+sues+Microsoft+over+allege d+Xbox+360+glitch/2100-1043_3-5982759.html?tag=nl this Reuters Story on CNET, which no longer exists, someone is suing over the overheating.This article has a little more info.http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Microsoft_sued_du e_to_case_of_Xbox_360s_overheating

Nullity

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_computer_scien tist's_new_%22nullity%22_idea_provokes_reaction_fr om_mathematicians

Since there seems to be an idea that my post was Flamebait (perhaps it is, but it was certainly not meant to be), I will simply state this:

Yes, I should have probably stated facts and references instead of just stating my opinions. Since I thought much of this information was fairly easily available and common knowledge, I didn't think I would get too much opposition. However, just doing a quick search on Google reveals more extremist Web sites on both sides of the issue rather than anything I would consider moderate.

There has been a lot more moderate and reasoned reporting on the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, as well as documentaries from the CBC, than on most Web sites I have found. You can check out Ideas http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/calendar/index.html (I don't have any specific references to any shows, but it's an excellent plug non-the-less). You can also check out http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page, which brings a more independent perspective compared to US news channels for example (critically judge everything of course, and keep and open mind). It should be stated though, that the late owner of Global News (another Canadian broadcaster) publicly stated that CBC is anti-semitic. Anybody who is familiar with the CBC would quickly realize that this is just political fear mongering.

Yes I am quite aware of the complexities of the issues of the Middle East and Israel. No I am not imminently afraid of going to jail for a hate crime. As I stated though, it is a _concern_, based on the political environment, that I could at least be accused of a hate crime, and possibly even have to go to court. I would definitely be more comfortable staying at least semi-anonymous rather than having some political organization call me anti-semitic or accuse me of a hate crime. It is a concern, however real it to be.

I assure you I have no love for the dictatorships in the Middle East or elsewhere, and that I fully support the US invasion of Afghanistan (although Iraq is another story).

I suppose we could get into the semantics of what I mean by "stealing" land. In reality, if some one came to my house and said I have to leave, then yes I would consider that stealing (to put it at its simplest).

I do have a VERY strong impression that a lot of posters here are just political zealots. I don't think anybody here could convince me that taking land from the Palestinians is good just because of political and religious history.

I do respect the moderation, and will be more careful and thoughtful with what I post. I may very well have been over-confident since this was so far my first "Flambait" posting (I've only been posting for about a month). I will take all opinions regarding this post into consideration. The more moderate and reasoned the opinions, the more they will have weight on me (and others).

I get too much work from the .NET realm to ever diss Microsoft, because some of their stuff works quite well and saves me quite a bit of time. Some other products... forget it. I think however that when a corporation takes on more than (arbitrary number) say 40 workers, it becomes evil. And now Microsoft has fallen into that evil, and is joining with the empire that emits more greenhouse gasses than the USA, spies on our military, threatens minorities, pollutes recklessly, threatens the US with nuclear weapons, and is building up its military to challenge the US and Europe. Is the new evil empire a Microsoft-China alliance?

"Or the Apache killing these unarmed men in a farmers field, working on a tractor."

I notice you selected the SNIPPED version. Here's a link to the full version.
Watch old boy play "hide the SA7", using his buddies and their equipment as cover. Note the whole interaction between the people, including the initial conversation by the car and the rapid ditching of the weapon in the field. I contemptuously defy anyone to link these behaviors to tractor repair. I work on ag equipment and tractors, and there is nothing among my parts stash or tool collection that is the size and shape of a handheld SAM tube. That is no grain drill section (note the dangling end cap when he runs), PTO shaft, or similar.

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001763.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wdJo-eoLxI (search 'helicopter kills" and compare versions)

"Or executing a wounded Iraqi"

How would/do/have YOU act/acted when you suspect(ed) an enemy fighter may be "playing possum"?

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/U.S._Navy_finds_soldie r_shot_wounded_Iraqi_at_Fallujah_in_self_defense

"A known tactic of anti-Iraqi forces (AIF) is to feign injury or death, and the marine could reasonably claim they were still a threat."

"Blowing up Mosque's doesn't look so good either."

Nor does using them for military purposes, which removes their protected status under the GC.

"Or this apparent murder of civilians driving by in their cars."

All we have is a "stovepiped" view from a cam, with no overall context as to what actions were taking place nearby. Note the cameraman, "Doc" comments that no unarmed people were harmed, and he would probably have been in a position to view the cleanup. Those vehicles could have done a driveby or similar off-camera, but we don't know either way.

"The famous "Awe Dude" air-strike on a crowd of civilians."

Post-strike assertions go both ways, but the ground controller called it in during the ground battle.
What did he see that we didn't?
All we see from the video is a group of people moving purposefully in one general direction.

Ideology-based conjecture is not proof.

Always showing up 2 years late to the party with old ideas and software that makes people nostalgic for the days when a hundred other better companies tried the EXACT SAME THING.

However, Wikinews - http://en.wikinews.org/ - is a newspaper. Have you considered writing a story on the matter? Remembering of course to keep it firmly neutral.

However, Wikinews - http://en.wikinews.org/ - is a newspaper. Have you considered writing a story on the matter? Remembering of course to keep it firmly neutral.

Remember, the world doesn't run to US laws.

In Australia it is legal to circumvent copy protection and region protection ... refer to this starting point for information and links.

So in all your grand comments, remember the world is 95% not US

Remember - you bought a disk, some holes, some ink, some plastic and paper - the only part that's not yours is the movie. You are allowed to use that disk for a coaster, microwave it, read it off a bit at a time and look at it all. That's the facts... by most of the worlds laws.

The vote machine I voted on in Noisy-le-Sec was not impressive, and quite similar to the machine shown in the photo:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Image:IVotronic_img_34 52.jpg

While the UI is not quite impressive for tech-familiar people, I saw older people intimidated by the whole thing, asking for the help of the room administrators to help them vote (i.e.: please, could you vote this candidate for me?). This WAS bad UI. Even as a developper and being familiar with OS UIs, I'm still surprised by the need to confirm twice (with different buttons) my vote.

In fact, I just learned that our mayor removed the voting machine for the second turn of election: Apparently, a majority of people here disliked either the UI or the apparent (and probably real) unriability of the machine.

Next time, we will go back to little papers.
A good thing, for the time being.

Note that, apparently, the Ministry of Interior had labeled the machines "good and reliable for use"... The minister being no one but M. Sarkozy, one of the candidates...
: /

Just look at the thing:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Image:IVotronic_img_34 52.jpg

It looks like total crap, no wonder that people have difficulties by using it. Why in Bill's name did they start a new design for that kind of machines, ffs. we have had ATM's around for years, just stick to it, they work and people know how they work.

Why not? They've got government-backed (the religious branch of it, anyway) paramilitaries going around killing people for being "immoral", and their supreme court says it's okay. If it's not state terrorism, and a sign of totalitarian regime, I don't know what is.

Ugh. Come on, dude. Google is your friend when it comes to this kind of thing. It is not horribly difficult to find the incident that the GP was referring to. Even if the sources are biased, it serves as a launchpad to discover the truth. As for your "one isolated incident" rhetoric, that also happens to be one of the great things about the internet. You can find out things that some people don't necessarily want you to know. As for what to make of it all, you have to judge the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

So instead of contributing my time and effort to open community-based news sites such as Wikinews or The Independent Media Center I can instead donate my time to Wired and drive up profits for the fine folks behind "Teen Vogue" and "GQ?" Sign me up!

Too bad they didn't have this for Wired Magazine in the 1990s. It would have been fun to write in 17 different fluorescent-colored fonts per page.

That's what it sounds like to me.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page

and put clauses in the Patriot Act reauthorization requiring that Congress receive audit information about the FBI's use of the Act.

But Bush appended a signing statement to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act stating he "did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers." http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bush_declares_immunity _from_Patriot_Act_oversight/

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/10-year-old_child_take s_grandmother's_car_for_85_Km_drive

And there was also another incident a little while back in Australia involving a young girl climbing into the drivers seat, which released the hand brake and ran over her mother while slamming into the house across the road. Not fun.

Sure the ad wants to point out the 'next generation' is here today.. but geez, its not that clever. Its just ad marketeers suffering from look what we can do with technology and little creativity.

to wikinews: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Microsoft_goes_after_t eacher_in_Russia%2C_Putin_and_Gorbachov_protest

now they are sueing a SPAMmer? Maybe since they got bought by Fox things have changed. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bloggers_investigate_s ocial_networking_websites

No, I meant more like these-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4097267. stm - Missle defence shield test fails
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/national /main666433.shtml - Missle defense fails again
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair09232006.html - Star Wars Goes Online...Crashes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/824828.stm - Test failur fuels skepticism
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2924 - US missile defence test dodges decoys
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N5/long4_5.5w.html - Missile Defense System Test Fails
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Second_U.S._anti-missi le_defence_system_test_fails -Second U.S. anti-missile defence system test fails

Congratulations piratebay for a nicely pulled off publicity stunt. Of course they have no intentions of buying Sealand, but they sure wouldn't mind some attention and action back to the site after the big traffic drop they suffered from in the 2006 raid, which they still haven't fully recovered from.

Wikinews had a viewable obituary for him since 16 September 2005!!! Thanks to the efforts of Nicholas Gerda and many others.

Wikinews had a viewable obituary for him since 16 September 2005!!! Thanks to the efforts of Nicholas Gerda and many others.

To spend over 5 years at the Hanoi Hilton is a terrible thing. Champianing corrosive values from religious hate mongers shows a certain lack of depth of our global reach; And, it is way to close minded for me. I do not know what would cause the honorable senator to trample on the First Amendment Right of everyone, but I resent it. A Real Republican is for LESS government, not more government. I was ready to vote for this guy in the California Presidential Primary, now I wonder.

"Hate Is NOT A Good Family Value" - Unknown

Here is the Wikinews link I referred to in the submission. I hadn't found the AP article yet.