Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Criticised by Its Co-founder
wikinerd writes "Wikipedia is under criticism by its co-founder Larry Sanger who has left the project. He warns of a possible future fork due to Wikipedia's Anti-Elitism and he presents his view on Wikipedia's (lack of) reliability. New wikis on various subjects have already emerged, with some of them being complete forks of Wikipedia. Critical articles on Wikipedia are also being published by other sources."
I still can't find a damn FlexLM crack kit. Wikipedia, which I assumed would have the commented source code came up with nothing. Even the online groups on the shadow internet have nothing!
Mod me off topic, but I just want to point out how long it has been since slashdot last linked to a kuro5hin.org article. Kuro5hin was suffering from a lack of quality last spring, but recently seems to be going through something of a renaissance. Just look at how many front page articles have been posted in December alone. I even got one posted about Public Schools, a sure sign of the apocalypse if ever there was one.
You're complaining about objectivity--when you're a rabid right-wing maniac who believes that Fox News is God's own truth and a Microsoft apologist who thinks that Microsoft can do no wrong?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The parent with its ideas of experiment and failure in the pursuit of an ideal reminds me of the Gettysburg Address.
--
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, United States of America
But there was no documented rape in the case of Abu Ghraib. The wording of the section was about societies in which rape and torture was an accepted policy of the military and government, and how rape and torture of citizens in such societies are often more emotionally affected. That does not describe the U.S. The Abu Ghraib link was simply not relevant, not only because there are no documented cases of actual rape, but because it's not standard government policy to rape its political dissidents. Saddam Hussein, however, did this commonly.
Read my post. I said it was definitely an abuse situation, but it simply didn't apply to this section of the page. Your attempt to portray it as a political issue is exactly why I removed the link from the section and why it was a good thing that I did. On a page about humiliation of military prisoners, the Abu Ghraib link would absolutely apply. There was no attempt to "censor" anything, unless you believe every edit made on a page which you disagree with is censorship, while every edit you do agree with is not.
Knee-jerk cries of censorship are exactly what Wikipedia's co-founder discussed as a problem on Wikipedia.
The linked page most certainly does contain allegations that male "MPs" raped female prisoners. Obviously it will always be difficult to establish for certain wether such accusations are true but that does not make them irrelevant.
What about the allegations that US soldiers sodomized US prisoners with chemical lamps ?
There are a lot of photos that were considered too shocking for the press and public to see.
was. Past tense. If you didn't even notice that the wording had changed because you were claiming that it exempted Abu Ghraib from discussion, you weren't paying enough attention to be taken seriously, and if you noticed but deliberately avoided mentioning it here then you are deliberately deceiving.
and how rape and torture of citizens in such societies are often more emotionally affected
An incorrect extrapolation from what is -- again -- a wording that has not existed in the article for nearly a month. Your insistent focus on the society, rather than the act itself of sexual torture, seems to be only so you can wave the flag and say "It doesn't apply to America! Iraq, yes! Let's point the finger at Iraq! World War II Japan, yes! Let's point the finger at them! But despite the fact that we have photographic proof of U.S. soldiers committing sexual torture, circulated by the soldiers themselves as mementos, it shouldn't even be mentioned, because it doesn't count unless the society approves it, and by gosh, the USA doesn't approve torture!" I'm not even going to get into the Congressmen who responded to the proof of torture by saying "Well, so what, if they're in those prisons to begin with they're no angels and besides, we're not as bad as Saddam Hussein so what's wrong with some electric shocks and threats of mutilation?" to question the assertion that the USA doesn't accept torture as normal.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.