Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Semi-Protection Begins
seanvaandering writes "Admins began applying their recently announced 'Wikipedia semi-protection' feature this week. The first articles to be semi-protected were George W. Bush, Hitler, and Jesus Christ, barring the newest 1% of all users and anonymous visitors from modifying the article (apparently Satan didn't make the cut). Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?"
I'm sure theres a joke there when you lump George W. Bush, Hitler and Jesus together...
...but I'm not going to crack it because there are 2 kinds of zealots out there waiting to lynch me for it.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
I can't believe He Man didn't make the cut after the Penny Arcade comic about wikipedia.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
No.
It marks the end of the free encyclopedia that can be edited by any idiot. Now, it can only be edited by 99% of idiots and most importantly, those specific people that spend the time actually editing the articles.
The 1% is not denied of creating an article relating to the article they're denied of writing. You could create an article named 'The Alternative View of Hitler's Past".
These measures may slow the casual trolling and idiocy but it will do nothing to deter or prevent the more dedicated trolls.
I run a small not-for-profit educational and science facility which receives many visitors. One kind visitor decided he was doing us a favour by adding a Wiki article about our small organisation. Soon after an unfortunate soul suffering from a bi-polar disorder and who we've had problems with before "attacked" our Wiki entry, at first adding unpleasant claims about us, then simply blanking the article. The Wiki entry had become a very important first-referrer for us and our website, and so we wasted a lot of our time dealing with the issue. In the end I submitted our entry to the Vote for Deletion list, but even this turned out to be contentious, and lead to even more problems. After months our article was finally removed, but not before it had caused problems out of all proportion to what it really is.
I believe the Wikipedia is a great idea in theory but mostly unworkable in reality.
No.
This has been gone over several times now. This will be used to bridge the gap between no protection at all and total lockage (i.e. only an administrator can lock it).
In fact, I expect this will promote more freedom, since pages which would have been put to administrator-only locking will now be under this type of protection, where most users can still edit the page.
Reading the policy, it's not very aggressive. So it's not _that_ bad. It's only for selected articles prone to vandals, and you only have to have an account more than 4 days.
I think it's very sensible and over time will become more aggressive. I think it's quite akin to how slashdot started. Slashdot started with good intentions. Then the trolls came. Slashdot had to figure out a way to deal with trolls, and over the period of years, has the trolls mostly under control. If you browse at -1 you can see how many trolls really post on slashdot. Wikipedia's first step really needs to be just to get the trolls under control. Once you weed out that crowd and have (semi) mature individuals serious about the content, it's much easier to improve the quality of wikipedia. I think we want wikipedia's only inaccurate content to be true unintentional mistakes. Not trolls and edit wars.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
This is post is a near word-for-word copy of my entry on Digg. The irony is that I originally submitted the story to Slashdot first, and they rejected it!
It was a joke.
Wikipedia really needed to do something like this, and banning anonymous changes to a few reasonably stable articles seems like a decent compromise. The articles can still be edited by most people who are into wiki.
That being said, all this outcry over a couple articles being changed is way over hyped. That nature study that showed that it was nearly as accurate (in science articles) as the online encyclopedia britannica just confirmed that.
The articles that are semi-protected are mostly huge writeups that are more or less complete by now, it's not like they would be edited much anyway, it would be a different thing if the page about George W Bush was to be semi-protected as a stub, i.e. when it needed a huge flow of information to be made. A good reason for unprotecting a page would be if huge discoveries had been made about it and it needed much input, like if someone proved Jesus was a hoax.
It's also a good thing to have to keep the vandals out, it's been rampant since the John Siegenthaler controversy.
Some articles (like the ones in question) are already very comprehensive and offer a good amount of information. There is usually no need to actually edit those articles anymore, so it's all in the best interest of keeping the content good by locking out noobs from vanadalising.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Sorry, but _there are_ other big wikipedias out there even without any control to american laws. Even CIA can't change pages on that (but they could kidnap wales of course).
Second, locking big pages that are changed daily by pranks does not mean you can't change them. Is registration such a big step? Even your IP is not really anonymous unless you use a proxy like tor.eff.org. Just give wikipedia and get editor yourself before moaning here on /.
I don't understand the criteria - delusional megalomaniacs? People who have caused the most damage to the world? Most clueless followers?
Articles like "George Bush" and "Hitler" are precisely the articles which need this protection THE LEAST!! Those articles must be on like a thousand users watchlists, there's no way vandalism even lasts a few minutes there. It is small obscure articles that aren't watched by anyone hardly that have vandalism last for months and need this kind of protection most! That is impossible however because there are thousands of times more of those articles than there are high profile ones. That is why all totaly anon editing needs to be stopped and a mandatory wait period of say, a week for new users wanting to begin editing articles needs to be put in place. Wiki is already VAST, it doesn't need huge numbers of new articles anymore, it needs to fix the errors in the article it already has and that is the only way it can be semi-reliably accomplished. (full disclosure:I have over 3000 wiki edits and am very familliar with the system used there)
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
"End of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" sounds very ominous, but 4 days is nothing. Any halfway serious contributor should have no problem with that waiting period, especially since it is only applied to a small handful of articles. Plus the policy states that it should be applied reactively and not proactively in anticipation that an article may be vandalized. All said, a minor change that has been blown up because of the connection to the Seigenthaler ruckus.
I wrote this sick microstory for slashdot, but you're right... it's perfect for Wikipedia too :-)
and probably the reason they're adding protection :-) :-)
Anyway this is what I had in mind for slashdot today:
The computers had been doing their jobs for hundreds of years. The mission computers coordinating thousands of subservient slaves charged with occasionally activating the ships propulsion systems or checking the vital signs of the colonist's suspended animations cocoons - everything had performed its set duties without fail. The mission was just about to reach its conclusion as the ship entered the orbit of an earth-like world thousands of lightyears away from the lonely planet of humanities gestation. The mission computers sent orders to the computers in charge of the suspension cocoons to begin with the reanimation process. One program, a last minute addition to the vast store of binary codes comprising the mission software had cheerfully run to its conclusion hundred years ago only shortly after the ship left the lunar docks. It had gleefully run down the roster of colonists and deactivated the life support of every single black, colored, asian or jew and then turned to the ship's library and performing likewise cleansing. The new world was pristine. Among the colonist there were people that were determined that it would stay that way, at all cost.
Looking at the menu of the ship's library, Maya Grunwald shook her head in disbelieve. She had woken to a nightmare. None of the people that had been close to her had survived suspended animation. While the first whisps of suspicion had cast a chill down her spine her careful review of the colonists roster all but confirmed it. A look at what remained of the ship's library only followed. Hartmut Prieger entered the room with purposes grabbed her by the hair and shoved her head against the wall knocking her unconcious. As a white female her genetic contribution to the Volk was too valuable to squander.. however she would never have the opportunity to administer her mental poison to her offspring.
Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?
No. It marks the beginning of someone taking responsibility for spreading false information.
I'm surprised John Seigenthaler Sr. hasn't been protected yet, I'd imagine there are lots of really funny guys who'd edit it just out of spite.
I wish they would switch the email feature on, so that Wikipedians are informed of changes who do not log in every day.
"Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?"" NO. The sole aim of all this is to give credibility to the content. So all the hippies can give it a rest.
Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
This wikipedia-related article is a stub. You can improve Slashdot by deleting it.
- There's no place like 127.0.0.1
I wonder how long before these semi-protected entries will grow so large in number that editors won't be able to handle it all
Wikipedia doesn't censor texts. Users do.
Those mechanisms aren't intended to kill the "anyonecanedit", but the "anyonecanvandalize"
~The fear for the blood tends to create the fear for flesh~
>> Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?"
We can hope so.
Letting everyone contribute means your standards sink to the lowest common demoninator, which is lieing, cheating, self-promotion, and the demonstration of ignorance.
Rather like Slashdot.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Obviously it's the end of the wiki anyone can edit, because anyone can no longer edit those parts of it. It's not the beginning of that because it already happened a few weeks ago, with the recent "experimental" ending of the 14,000 new page creations a month by those without an account (about 1/3 of all new pages). That's likely to have a far larger effect on decreasing content creation and improvement.
Possible negative consequences include creeping de-wikification, if this spreads to pages which are called "finished" or just spreads to a lot of pages.
Possible positive effects include reduced vandalism, though if a few pages are affected, it seems unlikely to have a significant effect on total vandalism levels.
So long as it is contained to a hundred or two pages it seems unlikely that semi-protection will do significant harm. It is likely to decrease the chance of seeing silly vandalism on a few hot target pages.
Personally, I'm more worried about one person choosing to discard 14,000 pages a month based on the story of the day. It seems fairly unlikely, unfortunately, that we'll see Mr. Seigenthaler apologising for the lasting harm he's indirectly caused by provoking that reaction over a silly joke making unbelievable claims about him. So, the correctable and somewhat quality-controlled version of the web is that much weaker.
For anyone who missed it in the fuss at the time: the offensive content in the Seigenthaler article was first removed by an anonymous contributor. What one put in, another removed. Which is exactly how it's supposed to work.
If you intentiously change articles in wikipedia and adding stuff no one can verify, you do in fact have chance of altering our view on the world and its history! Since no one can can verify it, no one will replace it, and if someone is reading exactly that part, they will believe it and that information have a chance of becoming a part of the acceptable view on our world.
There should be an equation for article editing. An article should be given a value ranking its popularity and users should be given a rank, ranking their contributions to the wiki community. Only highly valued contributers should be able to modify high ranking entries.
If you want to edit Hitler you must frist be a proven, intelligent, useful contributer. If you want to write an entry on the superconduction uber widget, knock yourself out. My 2
Check it out.
Democracy is democratic until it gets too popular.
I've had some zealots come in and delete things I have written. I try to be fair-and-balanced, but when people start deleting things to keep them slanted, what can be done?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Say it is time to elect a new world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:
Candidate A associates with crooked politicians, and consults with anthologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.
Candidate C is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first, no peeking, then scroll down for the answer.
Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt
Candidate B is Winston Churchill
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler
Sorry it doesn't involve bush, but it shows you can never judge a book by its cover!
And another ones for kicks:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Because she gave birth to Beethoven.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
I've thought for a long while that the Wikipedia could do with an injection of trust. For example using the vertical model of pyramid style that the kernel gets so that all changes are not automatically accepted or perhaps approved.
Or signing with the GPG approach so you can gauge the trust you put in a page by how far removed from you they are in terms of the shortest chain of trust from you to them in terms of signatures.
If you really wanted to get complex about it you could filter a person's view of content based on the trust levels they set.
I was working on the article on Pieter Villem Botha, a former President of South Africa. Reading through the article I found it said that Botha ordered the bombing of an ANC ("African National Congress") meeting in South Africa...
I know there are allegations floating around that the South African Secret Service was involved with a bombing like that so where it said in the article "It has been proven that..." I changed that to "It has been alleged that...".
Five minutes later, some helpful individual reverted the article back to its former state and claimed I was vandalizing the page.
I went back to the article and changed it back to that the bombing is alleged to have been Botha's work when someone cut in again and added a link to the infamous "Truth and Reconcilation Council" that had somehow proven beyond doubt that Botha was guilty of doing that.
Now the problem is, whatever the "TRC" comes up with, it will always be the ANC's version of what happened, largely and mainly because the ANC is funding and staffing it, meaning the link to the "hard evidence" is worth crap. However someone who doesn't know any better will swallow the pitch, hook and sinker.
A group of ideological crazed people with admin rights on Wikipedia have set their minds to the proliferation of the political correct version of history and they'll tolerate zero deviation from that.
And this is, in a nutshell, why Wikipedia does not work.
I was going to post this with my slashdot ID but I don't want people to associate my slashdot ID with what I use on Wikipedia. If somebody would donate a mod point to this article I would be much obliged.
Hi, I'm the writer of the History of Alaska article on Wikipedia, which appeared on Wikipedia's main page on September 27th. Wikipedia's Director of Featured articles, Raul654, who decides what featured articles go on the main page, has a policy of not using protection on featured articles on the main page. I'm not sure about semi-protection, but when History of Alaska was on the main page, it received a lot of vandalism. On one occasion, someone replaced the Prehistory section with obvious vandalism. I think it might have been something like "native americans suk and brains mom's a whore," and rather than reverting to the last version, another Wikipedia user instead removed the comment, and this went unnoticed for several hours! When I awoke that afternoon, I had to readd the entire prehistory section! This made me wonder how much content is lost, temorarily or permanently, for a time through errors when reverting vandalism in a hurry without checking through the edit history. With vandalism not occuring as often, people will have more time to look through the edit history, I would hope.
Several commenters have suggested that moderation would be a better approach, but I believe this would be fundamentally flawed in the context of a wiki. Changes to a wiki must be synchronous - i.e. each change occurs after an another, in order to keep a linear history of versions.
If there is a moderation queue, it means articles will be locked pending moderation of the last change. If an edit were to occur during this period it would have to be automatically merged into the versions awaiting moderation. This would be near impossible.
Hah! Why is his article protected? People trashing it by writing "Ronnie is on roids!" or what? =)
just drop the "wiki", if it isn't supposed to be editable by the users...
I don't feel like it...
Actually, I just semi-protected it : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special% 3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=He-Man .
No. Next question, please.
To do list for Windows
Aside from the principles of the thing - that's three articles out of 800,000 that can't be edited by *everyone* - and with the number of members growing at a rate of 5 to 10% per month - anyone who has been a member for a week or so will out of the 'newest 1%' catagory. Sure, more articles will inevitably get added to that list over time - but it's never going to be more than a vanishingly small percentage of articles.
In terms of practical limitations, that's pretty minor - and if it keeps the site maintainable and useful - it gets my vote.
As a matter of principle - well, Wiki isn't about giving people the right to free speech - it's about getting facts into an encyclopedia.
It is believed that the encyclopedia will be better if everyone can edit any article at any time because 'Many eyes make all bugs shallow'. Even as an uninformed layperson looking up Aardvarks, I can spot a spelling mistake in an article and fix it right then and there...but in the case of the kinds of articles being restricted here, there are already PLENTY of eyes on them and adding more won't improve the encyclopedia.
From that perspective, how likely is it that someone who has authoritative knowledge about those few articles will know something that is verifiable that can't wait one week to be posted?
You might argue that (say) some insider in the pay of George Bush needs to be able to post especially incriminating evidence that he/she just discovered onto the Wiki page - and might need to do so either urgently - or anonymously. But that kind of information is unverifiable and falls under the 'no original research' criteria which would eliminate it from Wiki anyway. Wiki isn't a news site - information of that kind should be posted elsewhere first - and only end up in the encyclopedia when it's been verified, understood, etc.
People who visit the Wiki and search on 'George Bush' should not expect to find the latest, juicy tidbits about him there. It's an encyclopedia - they should expect to find historical information that's reasonably well established. It should contain information ABOUT any controversy without actually being controversial itself.
The VAST amount of work that goes on in the Wiki is far more mundane. The other day, I looked up Red Squirrels - found that a sentance about the number of young they bear was incomprehensible - so I looked the information up on half a dozen web pages about squirrels to find out the truth - and corrected the sentence right then and there.
Red Squirrels - not reigning US monarchs^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpresidents.
www.sjbaker.org
The humor of the triumvirate of Jesus, Bush, and Hitler aside, what is needed here is a longer view.
So what if there is some vandalism. Yes, vandalism is bad. What is important is whether the Wikipedia is useful. I find it useful, not perfect. How many people on this planet are using it now? As more and more people use it, the ethos of actually valuing it will increase. Right now amongst certain kiddies and manics there is some "cool" or "control" that arises from vandalizing or posting a screed. Gradually, over a few years that will change. A time will come when being able to add something useful to the WP will be a source of satisfaction and pride. Vandalizing and hectoring posts will lose their value.
I have been able to anonymously edit a few pages. I found a few spelling and grammatical errors. I fixed them. The update was immediate. It was a good thing.
So someone vandalizes and the page oscillates between content and junk. Pages that oscillate like that can be locked on the latest reasonable rendition and the backing and forthing can be moved to the discussion tab. In some entries the discussion tab is incredibly informative.
Is it the end? Not by a long, long shot. Time and patience will win out for all users.
Just as you have a broadway show, and off broadway shows, there should be an off wikipedia level of entry and edit..
There can be value found in such alternative entries and editing. Perhaps even the application of some sort of slashdot like moderation system.
Maybe its not time for that yet but doesn't hurt to plan for the future.
Maybe this has already been well discussed, but why doesn't Wikipedia use a system of meta-moderation like slashdot? Before a change was accepted it would have to pass some other random moderators check, who would simply approve or disaprove whether or not the content seemed plausible. What do you think? What do I not know about this debate?
there should be an off wikipedia level of entry and edit..
There is. Open up emacs or vi (yes, there is even FREE CHOICE involved!) and type in whatever you want.
There is time for it NOW, and there's no need to plan for it.
resigned
That's silly. Whatever you think about it, the TRC is the legitimate and internationally recognised authority with regards to the apartheid era in South Africa. Whatever it says is legally the truth, and it's findings are legally way beyond mere allegations and rumours.
What's next? It is alleged that the Nazis killed millions of Jews? It is alleged that Stalin sent people to the Gulags? Feel free to include a section on groups that are notable for disputing the findings, but changing verified and legally valid statements into weasel worded and ambiguous junk is the very definition of 'politically correct' bad editing.
And there you are: You write "Whatever it says is legally the truth" ... legally. I fought an encyclopedia was supposed to have factual information in it. What more can I possibly add?
Whatever it says is legally the truth, and it's findings are legally way beyond mere allegations and rumours.
Wow! Scary isn't it? You don't happen to be from China, FhnuZoag????
Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?
Anyone with a computer. Think about it.
And my grandfather, of course, abided...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Hitler was a fierce racist, not just nationalist. Bush obviously has no problems with Americans of any race -- just look at his administration. You can't dismiss Rice, Gonzales, Powell, Alito as "uncle toms". There is no nationalism as in "America for Americans" either -- if anything, Bush is blasted by dimwits from Left and Right for being too easy on the immigrants (legal and otherwise).
And then, of course, there is Godwin's Law. In short, you may truly hate George W. Bush, but he is not sending (nor would like to send) millions of innocent people to gas chambers. To compare someone to Hitler, the accusation must of that kind of gravity.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You must be a labourite or a damn-hard communist...
I was going to post this with my slashdot ID but I don't want people to associate my slashdot ID with what I use on Wikipedia. If somebody would donate a mod point to this article I would be much obliged.
That is an excellent example of why we should not completely remove anonymous users from Wikipedia.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
Wikipedia continues to crack me up!
Semi-protection!!??
I would love to see an a mathematical analysis of the likelihood of the "data" found on the Wikipedia being "valid".
My guess - from my life experience is that the 80%-20% "rule" applies. Which means that 80% of what one reads on the Wikipedia web site is false, half true, and/or sophistry.
Solution:
What Wikipedia needs to do - is to set up a process to show that there are more often than not - more than one viewpoint/theory/notion/history and so - on any topic.
For example, when I was in high school - my physics book showed one explanation of what light is. When I got to university and needed to take physics - there in my university physics text book - were 6 differing hypotheses for light!
Again in my history book in high school there was a singular explanation for the civil war in the U.S.A.. Later, when at university - and studying the history of the U.S.A. - the prof teaching made such outrageous statements about thy civil war - that I had to go to the library to check out his facts. Over the next semester - I browsed and/or read at least 140 history books on the civil war - and found at least three viewpoints expressed on almost every facet of the civil war.
The idea of a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" died when it became easier to gain adminship than to lose it.
They've been creating a culture of petty tyranny ever since, and driving away honest users.
The procedure you propose might work, but only against open vandalism. I read a lot in Wikipedia, but most articles are completely new to me. How can 1 in 5 people judge if the number of inhabitans is reported correctly of if the mayor has resigned in a scandal involving a clock, a bottle of wiskey and some rubber bands? If some goon from the village next door decides to adjust some numbers and text over a few weeks, the article will still end up with the wrong facts.
You may be right that you must bebearing a pretty big grudge to do that, but it could also be some PR company needing to fix some public image, are doing 'guerilla' marketing. When there is an incentive, people will do it, an wikipedia is vulnerable by design.
The problem is this: no procedure or model in wikipedia is going to generate objective knowledge, but it still tries to capture that knowledge in its articles. The only procedure that does result in objective knowledge is science, and wikipedia has rejected that model.
So while most of wikipedia makes nice reading when you are bored, one should never take it for granted. You can never be sure some goon from the boondocks is not using it to grind his axe or further his own point of view.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
The fact is that what you view as fair and balanced is viewed by others as ridiculously partisan... BTW how is it that conservatives still have a persecution complex? I don't really understand it myself, they have pretty much owned the political arena in the US for about 25 years now.
;-)
That's clever, using your own partisanship to prove your point. I think that was too subtle for most slashdotters.
The Republicans have only "owned" things for about 6 years, not 25. Reagan and Bush-88 had to deal with a Democratic controlled House of Representatives. The House controls the money and for example that severely restricted Reagan's intentions to offset increses in defense spending with cuts elsewhere. Now whether the House did a good thing or a bad thing is offtopic, what is relevant here is that they exerted great power so your premise that the Republicans "owned" things is false.
But maybe a different woman who did opt to terminate her pregnancy might have
spared the world another Stalin or Hitler. This is the sort of speculative "What if?" game that neither side can win, so it's best not to play at all.
I think an assumption is being made that baby Adolf was destined from birth to become "Adolf Hitler, der Fuhrer and Killer of Millions", and that if only he hadn't been born the Holocaust would not have happened. But perhaps that's not true -- perhaps post-WWI Germany was in an inherently unstable state, and if Adolf Hitler hadn't come along to fill the role of Charismatic Leader, then the same role would have been played by somebody else. Hitler couldn't have murdered 6 million people by himself -- he had to have at least some support from the German population and government in order to do so. Without a Germany that was susceptible to his world-view, Hitler would have been just another failed artist/politician. So perhaps even if Hitler had never existed, that same support would have been available to the next guy -- who might have been better than Hitler, or worse.
Just a thought.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Anyone interested in doing an evaluation of Wikipedia? How? Simple!
A) Pick three topics - that you "know a lot about".
Go to the Wikipedia web site and check out what the site states about the topics that you know alot about.
Score each of the three Wikipedia portrayals on a score of -5 to +5.
Add up the three and post the total number (from -15 to +15) here, on the Slashdot site
I'll do a running average for the numbers posted
After averaging 1500 replies - we'll have a good idea of how trustworthy Wikipedia is or isn't.
Ever heard of public education?
The Republicans could have saved some money by not funneling it to Nicuaraga during Iran-Contra. Of course, that would take Reagan and Bush I admitting to their misdeeds, something Bush II seems all to willing to do. (George just admitted to violating the Fourth Amendment and, specifically, violating the FISA statutes many times over. Welcome to the criminal-run state.)
Well, there's Everything, which is like a very loosely administered Wikipedia. But, like Slashdot itself, it's full of random crap, lame jokes, and a few nuggets of useful information here and there.
Are you reporting some factw or are you making them up? I don't find in the article history the edit war you were involved in, and there's nothing on the talk page. So, were are you edits?
Ha ha ha ha ha. Because I challenge the established viewpoints here - I am labelled a Troll.
So much for meta-moderation working in any meaningful way
What part of "Now whether the House did a good thing or a bad thing is offtopic, what is relevant here is that they exerted great power so your premise that the Republicans "owned" things is false." confused you?
If Zonk an the Slashdot editorial staff want to take offense at Wiki putting some controls in place, they should get rid of moderation and karma. Conceptually both are means of reducing the visibility of trolls and vandals on a web site and promoting useful content. It's hypocritical to think otherwise.
Any president is going to be the target of political activists who wish to defame or mock the opposition party. I'm sure Bill Clinton's profile is guarded just as Bush's.
The fact is nobody wants KKK members editing MLK's profile either.
Suck it up. There's trolls on the internet and Wiki is doing something to control them.
I think it does work. By the very reason it's something with value. I have it bookmarked and easly spend at least an hour on it a day.
One of the most important lessons of life is to ALWAYS take information with a grain of salt, and form your own conclusions with all your info sources. To be critical thinkers. Because this ANC nonsense is going on, should we completely dismiss Wiki? I completely disagree.
The biggest difference between G.W. Bush and Hitler is that Hitler is widely considered one of the most skilled orators of all time...
Fascism != Nazisim. know the difference. www.americanfascistmovement.com
Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
I suggest the following approach:
1. Find reputable news source reporting the disagreement - the more reputable the better. Possibly several.
2. Change the text to use words to the effect of "The TRC concluded that whatever, a finding which is disputed [cite dispute with source].
3. Include the source link in the references and also if useful in your edit comments.
It's a lot less likely that a well sourced edit will be reverted and if it is, the next stop is the talk page to point out that all substantial views on a topic are supposed to be covered, as part of the general neutral point of view policy. Include several more references to the dispute as part of that, to make it obvious to all readers that it's not just you with a personal view.
In the event that that is unsuccessful, the next stop is using the peer review request mechanism to involve a wider part of the community in the discussion.
Which language version of Wikipedia did this happen in? The current and all of the subset of versions I checked of the English language article did not mention an ANC bombing.
GP was talking about "the political arena", by which he no doubt meant the media. Yes, it's true that it is only in the past six years that the Republicans have controlled both the Congress and the White House, but that is due in considerable part to the domination of the media by the right-wing and the increasing politicization of the media, where objective news has been replaced with right-wing propaganda. The right-wing takeover of the media and their transformation of the media into a propaganda machine has taken place over the past 20 years or so.
If something is true, than it is true. These wiki battles about "the truth" aren't proof that wikipedia doesn't work, it's proof that it DOES! It spurs on discussion, it causes investigation. If you make a claim about something and present it as fact, you'd better be ready with evidence to back it up. To me it seems that this pursuit of truth is EXACTLY what wikipedia should be doing.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
The reason that may not work so well is that there are viewpoints on various issues that are popularly unacceptable for emotional reasons. The Civil War is an excellent example. The Confederate view on the reason for the war was Constitutional limits on the power of the Central Government. As far as I can tell, this is a legitimate argument; although the war, like most wars, didn't have a single cause.
There are people, often with editorial power, who refuse to allow these viewpoints to be expressed, even in theoretical language, with the simple excuse that "it's obviously falsehood and has no place in a serious publication." In my experience, a more accurate reason for rejection would be "I associate that idea with racism and I hate racism so I'm going to reject it."
Consider Evolutionary Origin vs. Intelligent Design. Ultimately, neither are scientific. Yet it's still profitable to discuss them in a science class because they both make assumptions about the nature of the universe in non-observable ways and have impacted the approach to science in academia. But no serious discussion will ever take place on this because so much emotional baggage is attached.
"Whatever it says is legally the truth"? If you're going for sarcasm, the rest of your post was a little over the top, but if you're serious, your claim is rather irrelevant to the issue in question.
First, what is "legally the truth" in South Africa certainly has no force over Wikipedia -- otherwise, Wikipedia would have to publish only glowing reports about countries like North Korea, or about e.g. China's human rights records, where the "official truth" is rather at odds with the known facts.
In this particular case, there seems little doubt that Botha's administration was responsible for executing the bombing(s) in question, but the claim that Botha directly ordered any of them is little more than an allegation by Adriaan Vlok and Johan van der Merwe. That doesn't mean it's not true, but it's not a fact that has been verified on the same level as "Nazis killed millions of Jews", etc. -- it's merely the testimony of a couple of people who had something to gain (amnesty).
Botha may very well have ordered the bombing -- I think it's highly likely that he did -- but the only fact we can be certain about is that it has been alleged that he did so. For all we know, the TRC pressured Vlok and Van der Merwe to make those specific statements. Absent a confession from Botha, or significant corroborating evidence from others, it is an allegation (are there facts I'm not aware of? If so, I'd appreciate a link).
Note that I'm not attempting to excuse Botha's many crimes against humanity. If it were up to me, he'd be in jail for the rest of his life. I think it's a pity that his refusal to testify didn't lead to such an outcome. However, that still doesn't mean you can assume facts about him just because, in essence, a couple of people said so.
ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light%23Theorie s_about_lightrel=url2html-31385http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Light#Theories_about_light>
_ Warrel=url2html-31385http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ American_Civil_War>
There are several theories listed to explain light. The 80%-20% rule probably applies; there are millions of pages, and probably only the ones which get some traffic are reliable. Those would probably be anything you would use an encyclopedia for, as opposed to imdb.com or the Smallville fan site. I learned a lot about Starbucks in the Wikipedia.. I hadn't realized that Starbucks was started by the owners of a competing chain in the Bay Area called Peet's Coffee.
Nature just had an article on the reliability of scientific articles in the Wikipedia (I think the original research was in a different publication). The research says that the Wikipedia is about as good as the Brittanica Encyclopedia. But that the Wikipedia articles are less "professionally" written, and would readers of Nature please assist Wikipedia with the review and editing of the more theoretical articles.
I find that competing theories are well represented in most articles. Since an article tends to be "unstable" until all reviewing parties are satisfied, competing represented viewpoints tend to be including in a factual non-biased manner. (Not that they are represented as fact, but known facts, and the fact of dissenting beliefs are well represented, along with links to additional resources.).
ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil
"The causes of the war, and even the name of the war itself, are still debated"
Just keep in mind that there is no "perfect" encyclopedia. If you go by "what works", then you may find that the Wikipedia works for you.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
Uh, no, the House does not control the money. Congress does. Try to get the easy stuff right, it makes it more likely people will agree with you when you get to the harder stuff.
no, does this mark the beginning of your tabloid journalism career?
.
. hmmm
Jesus, Hitler, and Bush walk into a bar^W^W^W^W aren't the only pages protected: the summary says they're the "first" pages, if you didn't notice. The current list is more or less [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Sprotected]] (except for a couple of non-article pages that just include the template to show what it looks like).
Interesting additions: He-Man, John Kerry, Sound Forge, etc.
... but that is due in considerable part to the domination of the media by the right-wing and the increasing politicization of the media, where objective news has been replaced with right-wing propaganda. The right-wing takeover of the media and their transformation of the media into a propaganda machine has taken place over the past 20 years or so.
... It was only later when we had boots on the ground investigating places the UN inspectors were not allowed and no WMD turned up did the patriotism wear off and the media returned to it's normal left perspective.
The media has not been taken over by the right, with the exception of radio it has remained firmly under the control of the left for numerous decades. With two exceptions I can't imagine how anyone could feel otherwise unless they have a liberal perspective.
The first exception is the invasion of Iraq and that was patriotism not a right wing agenda. You have to keep in mind that when the invasion took place many on the left and right believed Sadaam had WMD, President Clinton had decreed that Sadaam's removal was the policy of the United States, some Democrats had criticized Bush-88 for leaving Sadaam in power,
The second exception is that the focus on President Clinton's personal flaws could mislead a person to believing the media was right-wing. The focus on Clinton's flaws was a career motivation not a political motivation. Nothing enhances a journalistic career like taking down the powerful. Anybody in the White House, Republican or Democrat, will find no friend in the media.
To accurately judge the politics of the media watch their day-to-day coverage of social issues. For example when they interview opposing sides of abortion do they match a public relations professional from Planned Parenthood against a public relations professional from a reputable national pro-life group or the first blathering fire-and-brimstone idiot that they find on the street with a picket sign? When they interview opposing sides of gun control do they match a public relations professional from Handgun Control Inc against a public relations professional from the National Rifle Association or the first redneck they find wearing camoflauge? OK, these are colorful exaggeration but they are not exaggerated as much as you may believe. I'm a registered independent. Over 20 years ago when I registered to vote I didn't know which party I could trust so I went independent. I still don't trust either party. Both are correct on some issues, idiots on others. I've voted for Republicans and Democrats, whoever I thought would do the better job or alternatively whoever I though would do the least damage. Personally, I recognize a leftward slant to to the media, again radio being the one exception.
The mass media in general is pretty pathetic these days. They rarely do proper research. They seem to just repeat whatever people say if they can find two people saying the same thing. For social issues they personal feeling descriminate a little, ideas from the left receive less scrutiny than ideas from the right. Or sometimes they are just plain lazy and do not scrutinize at all. You'd think a few slashdotters would have noticed that tendancy with respect to the coverage of technology.
Uh, no, the House does not control the money. Congress does. Try to get the easy stuff right, it makes it more likely people will agree with you when you get to the harder stuff.
e d_States
o f_Representatives
You wisely chose to post anonymously. Good luck with US Government when you get to High School.
"The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_Unit
"However, the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_
Considering that I'm a pacifist, "decorated war hero" (candidate C) gets struck off the list first. (You don't kill cows for food, but you'll kill people for politicians? Uh, no thanks.)
I don't know how consulting with anthologists is bad, but associating with crooked politicians isn't my cup of tea, so I'm neutral on candidate A.
Finally, candidate B likes to sleep in, used drugs in college, and enjoys alcohol. Feh, who doesn't? That's my kind of candidate! I'm voting B.
Ah, hmm, I elected Churchill. I think I can live with that.
Hi.
I see here (SlashDot) and other source of information recurrent incorrect statements about Wikipedia. The summary is: there IS training, there IS responsibility, there IS watchdog system, this is not anarchy. Let's walk some statements.
* And the admins have developed a knee-jerk culture.
Incorrect. A persistent bad contribution needs to be slowed down quickly for it's damaging quickly. This will happen only if a user repeatedly contribute badly, after several attempt of communication and explanations on the nature of the problem. The feeling which could lead to this belief of "knee-jerk reaction is probably due to the common belief that "I" as a new contributor, can immediately do what "I" think is the best... Unfortunately, as a new user you may know plenty of things, you may be a genius, but you haven't a clue about the system your arriving on! If a new user does not realise that, he must be quickly slowed down. If this new user can not understand that he needs to learn, that is when the so called knee-jerk reaction will be felt.
Most slowing down actions in WP, complies to suggested procedures. Like: talk, explain, warn once, warn twice. If strong disagreement comes in, slow down both parties, get some external views and keep going. So... the "knee-jerk" reaction is not, by a very long shoot, the standard reaction.
* There's no real training for admins
This is plainly incorrect. A minimum of 5k edits are required. Involvement in different tasks is required like: recent changes patrol, articles for deletion, requests for comment, minor fix, major contributions.... All those things are verifiable. All admins will be subject to community scrutiny before being appointed admins. So... there is a serious bit of training for becoming an admin! It is quite thoroughly checked out.
* And I've never seen one yet apologize for abusing their authority
Then... go back to Wikipedia. This interesting statement of yours, is the key explanation, telling us how you can do so blatantly incorrect statements.
* ...it's impossible to get literally every one of them to agree on anything,...
Note, that is precisely why in human communities we have, judges, tribunals and so on... Because humans do mistakes, are biased, are fraudsters and so on... Nothing very new. I'd say void'ish point ?
* Because of the one-sided nature of a debate in which one party can totally silence the other...
Precisely no. Except if one is a vandal, no one in WP can really be silenced arbitrarily. That is IMO one extraordinary aspect of WP: No one can slam the door shut. That is precisely the reason why some debates go on for so long in WP. See requests-for-comment or requests-for-arbitration: the talks can be heated, exhausting, over weeks... But no one can shout once for all. Decisions are collegial, not the result of one free-rider. That does not mean they are necessarily just, for sure. Only Mr. JW has absolut power which could be exerced limitlessly... Obvioussly he can not do that on about 800K articles!
* ...noise is introduced into the system.
I also see signal-to-noise ratio as a major issue in WP. But not for the reason you identify here. Wikipedia risks to be noisy because of it's openness, not because of it's admins. That's is precisely the reason why some new technical solutions are introduced in WP: semi-protection, no anonymous article creation.
I think you have it all wrong on this one. :-)
Don't get me wrong: there are loads of issues with WP. Definitely not a simple experiment.
Bye. Zijus.
Why not operate Wikipedia like a software project, and have "stable" and "unstable" branches? Basically, instead of having changes appear instantly, they're queued up on the "unstable" branch until the next release.
A stable release wouldn't have the stubs and heavily contested articles, and would solve a lot of the "moving target" problems that Wikipedia faces. "Unstable" would be more or less what Wikipedia is now.
Yes, it's nice that "anyone can edit", but most people never will. There are several orders of magnitude more readers than authors/editors, but the site itself doesn't reflect that.
Has this been proposed and shot down? Is it just too un-Wiki-like? Or do sites like Answers.com that use Wikipedia's DB dumps take care of this?
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
A waiting period is all well and good, but shouldn't there be some kind of background check on the new user ID?
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
The problem with the nature study is that it only focused on science articles. Being less popular and less politically charged, one would expect fewer trolls and fewer people putting in incorrect information that they think is true. To a certain extent, if you have less people looking at a page (but still have trolls), you have less people trying to correct the page and doing so incorrectly.
In short, the nature study is an indicator of the quality of part of wikipedia, but not a good indicator of the overall quality, which is not uniform.
I think that efforts to curb easy trolling will help to improve quality in more controversial or popular articles, though, and this very mild effort can only be a good thing.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Pieter_Wil lem_Botha
I went back to the article and changed it back to that the bombing is alleged to have been Botha's work when someone cut in again and added a link to the infamous "Truth and Reconcilation Council" that had somehow proven beyond doubt that Botha was guilty of doing that.
Now the problem is, whatever the "TRC" comes up with, it will always be the ANC's version of what happened, largely and mainly because the ANC is funding and staffing it, meaning the link to the "hard evidence" is worth crap. However someone who doesn't know any better will swallow the pitch, hook and sinker.
I would be a little more sympathetic to you Mr AC if you also declared your biases up front and provided some semblance of knowing the facts. For a start, the TRC stands for Truth and Reconciliation Commission, not Council, and it rightly became world-famous - not infamous - as a model of how to allow ordinary people to give their versions of what happened to them under apartheid.
Your accusations are just as crap since the ANC did not "fund and staff" the TRC, not did it escape censure for its own less than lily-white actions during its struggle against apartheid. The process was flawed in many ways certainly and I am no fan of the ANC, and I sympathise entirely with the constant "corrections" that someone has seen fit to apply to your edits on Wikipedia, but please don't try and pretend you have the high ground.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Google: A Patriot's Letter
Technically he can run and be elected as he wasn't elected in 2000.
*grins*
*ducks out of way of flame war*
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Last time I checked, Bush (Jr.) first came into power in '00 before 9/11. Hitler on the other hand was already apart of the post-WWI violence, fueled the violence with his Brown Shirts and THEN came to power. If history repeats itself so easily as you claim, the U.S. should be getting ready for World War I-Part 3.
We have the superpower nation Britain reborn into the U.S., the hotly social, economic and historically contested Ottoman Empire simply renamed the Middle East, a bunch of jealous countries who would like to see the superpower nation knocked down a notch and a Southeast Asian country largely ignored moved from Japan to China. World War I-Part 3 right there; China 'allies' with the U.S. and seizes weak, resource rich countries in the Pacific area with little contest, the Middle East turns into a giant no-man's land, the U.S. is subjected to 'unrestricted nuclear submarine ballistic missle' warfare, and for the most part Europe, Asia and Africa are largely left unaffected while millions/billions are killed in machine-gun fire, missles/shrapnel/land mines/nuclear bomb explosions, stavation or disease.
The war ends as stupidly as it started; Israel one way or another remains (as a nation or in memory) and continues to fuel Arab fundamentalists in the region, the U.S. turns into an oversized post-WWI Germany, Western Europe, Russia and Africa ride the way of money that enters and China is left bitter and angry as it is rewarded with little much like Japan post-WWI.
Hell you can even draw sides right now. The Central Powers : U.S.A., Britain, South Korea, China, maybe Canada and possibly Mexico. The Allied Powers : France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Japan, Australia, Cuba, North Korea, more or less all of South America, countless countries in Africa, East Europe and Southern Asia.
I don't see why so many people are making anything but positive comments to this action. The wikipedia semi-protecting pages is a great idea. It uses some reason able steps to keep the noise level down -- and it also saves great amounts of admin time, which is (probably) greatly limited. I think of it like /.'s moderation system -- if there was NO moderation, I probably wouldn't read past the articles on /. There is just too much crap that is posted to bother filtering it myself.
We put chlorine in pools to reduce the biomass in them by about 1%.
It's on the German version of Wikipedia,
search for botha on http://de.wikipedia.org/
Council.. Commission.. does that really matter? The TRC certainly wasn't financed by the NP so who is left?
Given the number of times in history where people with a political/cultural agenda have managed to get a hold of a press, printing company, school board or other means of communication (in this case, admin rights) one might as well use this as an argument for why print encyclopedias don't work, why books don't work, why computers don't work, why newspapers don't work (how many times have we seen the mainstream media happily report a complete lie as true just to be 'fair and balanced'?) etc
Not that I completely disagree with the ACs post here, but to say that Wikipedia flat out doesn't work due to this issue is an overstatement.
They've also begun marking valid, verifiable edits as "vandalism".
Case in point.
Want to disagree with an edit, guys, feel free; but if it's got references, it's not vandalism.
Bush, Hitler, and Jesus?
Reminds me of Sesame Street... "One of these things doesn't belong here..."
" Given the number of times in history where people with a political/cultural agenda have managed to get a hold of a..."
Actually, we are rapidly approaching the point where nobody believes anything unless they experience it first hand. And this is a good thing!
Aye, I will second that! I think I don't have to tell you how right you are. Once people start disbelieving the crap put out by shoah entrepreneurs, african reconciliation propaganda platforms, socialist reeducators and the hundreds others interested in manipulating public opinion - the better off we'll be.
I've come up with a few ways to stop dynamic ip abuses. Set cookies and sessions to check for previous maliciousness is one method which I'm sure they are likely already using. The other is to store a user's IP in a session-based array and require registration if the array has more than one record. I've tried this while using Tor and it's 99% effective for quelling IP abuse.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
a) Various viewpoints need to be put up on the Wiki - because there are more often than not more than one viewpoint on any subject. - it doesn't matter why - emotional or other wise.
b) Over time the more credible viewpoint will gather more and more steam (more proof) - but that doesn't mean the less credible viewpoint would be removed - let the reader decide which viewpoint is more credible
Considering so-called Intelligent Design vs Evolution hypothesis and notions. First of all the word scientific is meaningless. However "scientific proof" via the "scientific method" is very clear and concise.
Yes both could be posted on the Wiki ands wouldn't take too long for the judge's (a Republican appointed by Bush) decision on the Dover school board case to be posted on the Wiki. It would show that at least two school board members lied in court despite having sworn an oath on a bible to tell the truth (perjury) - that the tesimony showed the school board had been trying to force Creationism into the classroom for years before the term I.D. existed.
The evidence also shows shows that the so-called science book "Panda" had the word Creationism throughout the book removed (after several court cases reiterated again that the Constitution of the USA prohibits Religion/ Creationism from being taught in class) and instead put the word Intelligent Design imto the Pands text.
This sleight of hand trick - was a laughible attempt by the Christain Religious Mafia to circumvent the Supreme Court Of The USA and the Constitution of the USA (treason?).
So it wouldn't take too long before it would show that so-called Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science - just Creationism in sheeps clothing - and that sofistry was what Intellgent Design is all about ( although some would call it incompetent lying.
a) Re Nature magazine - i would love to check out the validity on how Nature mag. decided that Wiki has valid info - my guess is that one arm of the Establishment tends to protect other arms of the Establishment - you know "Ye Olde Boys Club".
b) One just has to check out HIV and AIDS in Wikipedia. It is so one sided (alternative viewpoints edited away) - that the only explanation for so-called AIDS is something called HIV - which just like god - no one on this planet has ever seen. Even the so-called discoverer of HIV+ AIDS, the Frenchman Luc Montagier admitted that he faked the picture of HIV!!!!
Dude!!oneoneone I bask in the mighty shine of your penis! You have seen through all lies and feeble attempts to wink the hoods of the humble populous by the evil scientists and hippies in "Ye Olde Boys Club". Surely, since it would have been a momumental challenge to determine the validity of scientific articles, the evil scientists and hippies were lazy and declared the Establishment of Wikipedia nearly as good as the non-Establishment Britannica Encyclopedia.
0 a.html
If they weren't lazy, they might have gotten experts in the fields of a random sampling of scientific articles, and reviewed articles from both the Wikipedia and the Britannica for historical and scientific errors as well as the quality of the writing. And they might have made a graph. If they were almost as smart as you. But you rule!!oneone
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/43890
About the HIV/AIDS misinformation, please you could share the wealth of your knowledge and wisdom with those of us with so small penises, and publish an article that reveals the source and cure for AIDS. I mean, if it won't take too much time away from your schedule. You are obviously an expert on HIV/AIDS and conspiracies, and I am not worthy.
You've proven my point. Instead of a clear discussion of philosophical issues, you are overcome with emotional language like "Christian Religious Mafia."
Not emotional at all. Just historical fact.
Various Christain Churches have caused/promoted/championed more wars, more suffering, more deaths, more torture, more disinformation (which is what we are talking about here), more raping of 8 year old children in Canada and the USA - than any other organization on this planet.
Should "we" go through the historical list - item by item? We could start with the relationship between Hitler and the Pope - where the Pope had 1000 of nuns marched along with the Nazis S.S in countless parades (was that before or after chidren were skinned and the skin made into lamp shades to sit in German homes?). Or should we start with the Spanish Inquisition led by the Pope - where, unless you either said you believed in the right god - you had molten lead poured down your throat? Or start with the documented - recent abuse of 10,000 children in Canada by nuns, priest, ministers, choir masters from every Christian denomination in Canada.
Emotional!? Where do you want to start - and examine documented evidence?
Heh. You just get better and better. Hard to believe, but you're still missing the point completely. And proving it at the same time. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design makes an excellent starting point for a classroom discussion of science and the border between science and philosophy, as well as what is "provable and observable." But bring this up, and a vast army of people like you will explode with rage and completely ignore the real topic of discussion.
As for the rest of your tirade, when did I ever defend the Roman Catholic Church? Or any church? I have studied history, you know. The Roman Catholic Church has never been a Christian organization. It started as the continuation of the pagan Roman Empire by other means. And it has always been a syncretic stramroller, wiping out anyone who held that the Bible was the rule of faith and practice for the Christian religion.
And no, most of the Protestant churches and denominations aren't any better. I would imagine that somewhere around 5% of the nominal Christians in the world actually conform to the Bible in any significant way. Probably much less in America.
No...your are missing the point. Intelligent Design was/is a sleight of hand trick - whereby the word Creationism was removed from a propoganda device "The Panda Book" (because of several court rulings banning Creationism in the classroom) and the phrase "Intelligent Design" inserted into "Panda" instead - in a childish attempt to circumvent the USA Constitution. Duh.... let's change the word Creationism to Intelligent Design... the school boards won't figure it out because we'll call it science... and if we keep calling it science...then it will be science....duhhh. Stupid school boards may fall for the lie - but the courts don't.
The Panda book has one purpose - and only one purpose - to force Creationism into the classroom - to force the belief that there is a god. That's what this is all about - one group trying to force their beliefs/mythology on others - notice force. And that's how it should be studied - in a brainwashing-propaganda class
Since the "scientific method" in taught in all schools (likely, as kids do experiments) - what needs to be added in the classroom - is a more practical look at the difference between a science "notion" and what has shown to be true via the utilization of the "scientific method".
What I mean by the latter - is a lot of stuff is presented as "scientific" (a meaningless word) isn't proven - examples, that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS (not proven by the "scientific method"), that colesterol is a direct causative factor in heart disease (not proven by the "scientific method"), that we little ants on this planet is causing global warming (not proven by the "scientific method") and so on.
Funny you assume I am conservative. I guess you already figured out it was some socialist wanting to squelch ideas opposing his own.
The fact is that what you view as fair and balanced is viewed by others as ridiculously partisan. What they view as a fair and balanced view you probably view as ridiculously partisan.
The difference between my approach and that of the lefty is that I do not delete other people's Wiki postings! I added *facts* to a clearly biased report on the Venezuelan elections, only to have it pulled within a day.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Might be, I don't know. But I think we're talking past each other here.
Just a nit-pick. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about this. I assume you're referring to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a National Church like the much-hated Church of England. Not that it has anything to do with the conversation at hand, however.
If I understand what you are saying here, I agree. I think. The problem I see is that schools have failed to teach the limits of science. I know you don't think the word means anything, but I use it to mean "the realm of practical knowledge that is obtainable through the observation of the consistencies in the natural universe." And the emphasis on consistency is where I think science education is greatly lacking (and where zealots on both sides tend to go wrong).
The concept of "laws of nature" are taught as scientific fact in schools, as if natural laws were some kind of living breathing being that can be seen under a microscope. In fact, no one has ever "seen" a law. It's a purely conjectural construct to explain why the universe seems to be consistent. But it's not science at all. Explaining the consistencies of the universe is beyond science (per my definition above) and natural laws are simply the atheist's version of "God did it." Also, there is no inherent logical conflict between believing in God as the source of consistency and science, any more than there is between "laws" and science. They are interchangeable because science, the observation and verification of consistencies, makes no inquiries into the source of those consistencies. And that is what needs to be taught. But then, that wouldn't leave much to argue about, would it? :-)
No we are not talking past each other. What I think is going on your part, at best, it's sophistry. Sophistry: 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument. At worse your playing the favourite game of the Jesuits - lying by omission.
The Supreme Court Of The USA ruled that creationism cannot be taught in the school - because creationism is all about forcing religious beliefs on kids in the classroom. Instead of accepting the above fact - you try to side step the "No Creationism No Religion In The Classroom" decision of the Supreme Court - by some obtuse interpretation of The Constitution of the USA.
Naturally once your stop pretending - that you don't know that the Supreme Court's bans creationsim in the classroom because its attempt to force religious beliefs into the classroom - then you'll also have to acknowledge that the ploy to scratch out Creationism in the Panda book - and replace the scratched out Creationism with Intelligent Design - was just a childish scam to circumvent the Supreme Court. But the Courts are not stupid - neither are Republican judges appointed by Bush.
And once the scratching was finished - it is the height of sophistry to then say suddenly that the Panda book isn't a Creationism/Religious book - but instead, in the time it took to scratch out Creationism and replace the Creationism with the phrase Intelligent Design - that all the words in Panda that were religious in nature before - suddenly , those same words became words of "science" .
As you know, the USA Supreme Court labelled several school board members - liars!
Now lets look at your second attempt at sophistry - as you try to explain away science by dragging in the term natural laws
Here's the "scientific method" just in case you didn't quite finish grade nine science course. The scientific method has four steps (actually five):
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
5. And then, last but not least - others then repeat the same experiments and get the same results over and over and over.
Now we know that nothing in Creationism meets the criteria required by the "scientific method". Naturally, as explained above - Intelligent Design - just being born by scratching Creationism out - or is it by changing Pand's fur - can't fulfill the criteria required by the "scientific method" ?
Q.E.D.
You seem to persist in thinking that I am a Roman Catholic (I'm not), that I want Intelligent Design taught in the classroom (I don't), or that I wrote a book about a panda (I didn't). Obviously, any attempt to discuss with you is impossible. Your emotional investment in this topic is simply too strong.
What a crock.......... when you state:
that I want Intelligent Design taught in the classroom (I don't)
Here's what you clearly state in a previous post, in this thread:
"Consider Evolutionary Origin vs. Intelligent Design. Ultimately, neither are scientific. Yet it's still profitable to discuss them in a science class because they both make assumptions about the nature of the universe in non-observable ways and have impacted the approach to science in academia. But no serious discussion will ever take place on this because so much emotional baggage is attached."
ha ha ha - looks like you did go to a Jesuit university or high school - but you didn't learn well - you have to do better with omissions!
Creationism or whatever term/name you want to pull out of hat - is a fairy tale: consequently belongs in fairy tale class or propaganda class - where it can be compared to Little Red Riding Hood.
Again - the battle isn't about Evolution - it's all about forcing religious beliefs into the classroom - and science happens to illustrate/reinforce the fact that god doesn't exist. Its about nasty religious folks trying to tell others how to live. Which is really funny - because the people who carry the biggest bibles tend to be the most immoral - the most evil.