Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Wikipedia, Netwosix, GooglePC
Why the media can't get Wikipedia right. Ruff_ilb writes "David Weinberger has published a quite down-to-business look at Wikipedia, the media, and what they have to say about each other. From the article: 'When the mainstream media addressed the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair -- he's the respected journalist who wrote an op-ed in USAToday complaining that slanderously wrong information about him was in Wikipedia for four months -- the subtext couldn't be clearer: The media were implicitly contrasting Wikipedia's credibility to their own. Ironically, some of the media got the story fundamentally wrong, in tone and sometimes in substance,' he writes. 'Wikipedia has been a continuous state of self-criticism that newspapers would do well to emulate. It has discussion pages for every article. It has handled inaccuracies not defensively but with the humble understanding that of course Wikipedia articles will have mistakes, so let's get on with the unending task of improving them. Wikipedia's ambitions are immodest, but Wikipedia is not.'"
Linux Netwosix follows up. LinuxWorld writes "Vincenzo Ciaglia has authored an article that describes his Linux Netwosix release, and answers many questions being posed by developers. He reiterates much of the information that he conveyed in a recent interview with LinuxWorld, but also added some new information. From the article: 'The installation is simple and with the new release, Linux Netwosix 2.0-rc1, there's a new setup tool based on the Crux one that really help every user because it is simple and user-friendly for a security/network oriented GNU/Linux distribution. The Setup script will show a simple list of available 'base' packages you can choose to install on your system.'"
Hwang Woo-suk defends himself. JonN writes "The Korea Herald is reporting that 'disgraced stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk recently defended himself insisting he has the technology to produce patient-specific stem cells and that he had been the victim of a "long-planned" conspiracy. An investigation panel at Seoul National University has concluded Hwang did not produce any embryonic stem cells individually tailored to patients as claimed in a paper published in the journal Science last year. Hwang stood by his work in an interview with a local Buddhist newspaper Saturday.'"
Plasma thruster verified by the ESA. JonathanGCohen writes "Researchers at The Australian National University have developed a plasma engine to provide spacecraft with thrust, with implications for future Mars missions. Their design was recently verified by the European Space Agency and will go into full-scale testing next year."
Google dispels PC rumors. JamesAlfaro writes "Google has spoken, and the rumors were merely that. According to a Google spokesman, the company won't be releasing a PC, Internet appliance, or web-enabled toaster anytime soon: 'We have many PC partners who serve their markets exceedingly well and we see no need to enter that market,' a Google spokesman told Times Online. 'We would rather partner with great companies.'"
Ok, so if the guy's the subject of a "long-planned" conspiracy, why step down? and why the apology?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
This is the same media that's been pooh-poohing blogs for over a year now, not to mention at it's also the one that nowadays covers only the most politically insipid stories it can find, and rushes to air and to press the instant there's a tragedy, screwing up the facts for hours.
Sure, Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
I learnt a long time ago to never believe anything at all that I read in the media. If you have ever had any personal experiance relating to a news story you will know that the resulting write up will be too brief, have glaring omissions and will most likely be inaccurate, if not flat out wrong.
At least with with wikipedia I can change the mistakes when I see them.
Damn, he says he can do it again and prove himself ?
Give the man a lab, the original cell strains, and a month to prove himself under supervision.
If he can do it, he gets the Nobel, Fame and excuses from the community.
If he can't, he has to build shoes or licence plates in a prison until he reimbursed the experiment and paid his time. And he presents excuses to the community.
Problem solved. Next Case, quick, I don't have all day...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
"We have many PC partners who serve their markets exceedingly well and we see no need to enter that market," a Google spokesman told Times Online. "We would rather partner with great companies."
They haven't denied anything. They have stated that they aren't going to be making a PC. That doesn't deny the OS or a machine that could be backed with the Google Brand name. I'm going to wait until Friday and see how this turns out with CEO-guy's keynote at CES.
There are discussions about even the smallest details in Wikipedia's articles!
From my point of view, when you read both the article as well as the discussion, you get a -very good- view about the subject.
A lot of articles will never be 100% finished since there are more ways to look at the same thing.
But can't blaim the press for their stories though... they're always trying to get a story out of -anything-.. Owww.. so does slashdot...
The News is expected to be foggy. Reporters can only report what they thought they heard and their editors can only correct what they know a priori.
But the Wikipedia should be "better", right? Thousands of eyes peruse and revise it every hour.
And yet, it's about as useful as an opinion column in a major-city bulldog tabloid.
Blame its lack of real leadership.
Transparency is not modesty.
If you read the Appeal for Donations, Wales specifically believes that Wikipedia has the potential to change the world by providing education to people who may need education. Implicity in that belief is that Wikipedia will be accurate enough to be a resource useful for that.
I always hate to knock Wikipedia, because I really do think it's an interesting experiment, but it has very serious flaws. It's biggest flaw is a "Tyranny of Those With The Most Time." There have been a couple of cases where I've tried to make some changes to a particular article that I knew were accurate, but I got some a-hole, who believed they owned the page, reversing my changes because they disagreed with them. Who has time to fight that battle? Apparently the a-hole does, but I certainly don't.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Honestly, who would want to buy a Google labeled PC-clone?
Call me a troll, but Im being serious, this isnt a shot at Google, I love those guys. All Im saying is what would be the point of buying a computer from them as opposed to Toshiba, IBM, Dell, or whomever else is selling puters now a days.
Other than just wanting to throw money at a non-evil company I cant see any compeling reason.
Google is an advertising and software company, if I want hardware Im going to go to someone with a proven record. Making computers is like making sausage, you really dont want to buy any from someone whos never made any before.
I keep getting heart palpitations just dreading the day when one of these idiotic rhumors is going to turn out to be true.
So far Google has played things very smart, I really hope they keep it up..
Google (like most private companies) has no obligation to provide for handicapped users.
/. go find some relevant google e-mail address and complain to them.
Voice recognition is a mature field these days, so I can imagine it wouldn't be to hard for someone to work around it.
Or maybe it's a feature they haven't gotten around to, maybe it's a feature that never occurred to them.
Instead of complaining on
If you really care about it, feel free to respond with the relevant e-mail address and the text of your e-mail. I'll send them an e-mail if you do.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
People like John Seigenthaler Sr. seem to think that Wikipedia has some implicit pact with the browsing public to ensure the veracity of its content.
To the contrary, I've always viewed Wikipedia as a graffitti wall, in that anybody can scribble anything they want, and anbody else can scribble over that. The difference from other graffitt walls is that it happens to be correct 99% of the time.
No one pays attention to the bottom, on-line or in print. Short attention spans mean that most people don't read beyond the first few paragraphs and ignore the bottom of the swordchucks.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
My high school text book says that the Senate voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and then he was acquitted by the Senate. In reality, it is the House of Represenatives that votes to impeach. It was made by the company that produces nearly all of Nashville's schools' textbooks, with CNN contributions, but unfortunately, I cannot edit it. More ironically, if I crossed "Senate" out and wrote "House" above it in a library book, it might be considered vandalism. How 'bout that?