Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Wikipedia, Netwosix, GooglePC

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Why the media can't get Wikipedia right, Linux Netwosix author follows up, Hwang Woo-suk defends himself, Plasma thruster verified by the ESA, and Google dispels PC rumors. Read on for details.

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.'"

37 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Looking Back by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny
    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
    Which the mainstream media takes with a sly wink -- getting things wrong and then burying retractions or simply moving on to the next big scoop is a time honoured tradition. Wikipedia would do well to learn from the example, it is InfoTainment, after all.
    "Coming up, a hard look at the pharmaceutical industry, brought to you by the makers of Damitol"
    The installation is simple and with the new release, Linux Netwosix 2.0-rc1
    Meanwhile, charges that Linux naming convention is too arcane for the common clod abound. Why not call it View?
    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.
    Senator Hillary Clinton on line One.
    [Plasma thruster verified by the ESA] Their design was recently verified by the European Space Agency and will go into full-scale testing next year.
    Alas, no Engineering Officer Montgomery Scott to man them.
    'We would rather partner with great companies.'
    In the meantime they'll partner with AOL.
    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Looking Back by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Editors often fuck up stories left and right. Here is an article on drinking games for which I was interviewed (back when I ran the 'net's largest drinking games website) and which shows the editorial markings. Only one quote from me went into the article, and then they proceeded to botch my job title. WTF is an "Administrator"? They deliberately edited the guy's article to change the entire feel from hopeful and whimsical to condemnatory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Looking Back by Magic5Ball · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
  2. Damn Buddhist newspapers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They make you wait until your next life to get the answers to the crosswords.

  3. Hwang woo-suk by User+956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  4. I got it! by winkydink · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google will release an OS based on Nettwosix and Wikipedia that will be used primarily for stem cell research.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  5. Yeah, well... by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.




    1. Re:Yeah, well... by Upsilon+Andromedea · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Sure, Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?

      It may wax and wane but I wonder how much "actual journalism" ever existed.

      When I was studying journalism and writing for the college paper in the 80's, I used to delight in correcting stories in the local papers. After all, the facts had been wrongly reported--things like chronology, technical or legal process, impacts or consequences--and I felt a responsibility to correct those wrong facts in my story if it were going to press at a later date. :)

      It wasn't just the facts. Sometimes the fairy tales my role models wrote simply stunned me and left me gapping like guppy.

      Interestingly, it is the generation of journalists who were predominantly college educated, starting in the '70s, that have generated the reputation of the hour for American journalism. I don't know that to be cause and effect. It just seems noteworthy. :)

      Claiming a standard isn't in itself anything more than a voiced expectation. To expect Wikipedia to be the final authority might be a mistake. Maybe as much of a mistake as expecting there to be a final authority at all.

      --
      freeman
    2. Re:Yeah, well... by belrick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure, Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?


      The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, of course.

    3. Re:Yeah, well... by nuigi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, Wikipedia wouldn't compare well to actual journalism, but where do you find that nowadays?

      The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, of course.

      Don't forget that Steven Colbert has The Word.

    4. Re:Yeah, well... by relifram66 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure that the parent should be modded funny. Insightful, yes. Disappointing, yes. But funny? The Daily Show is unfortunately just about the most reliable jounalism show on TV right now.

  6. Re:Damn Buddhist newspapers by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
    They make you wait until your next life to get the answers to the crosswords.

    Ah, grasshopper, you have to master the deja view to see them in this life.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  7. Don't trust the media by Frogbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Don't trust the media by RickPartin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are absolutely right. EVERY tech news article I read by a non-geek news source is usually messed up. Awhile ago my local news channel mentioned some huge sum of money that the record industry loses from piracy. It was clearly propaganda from the RIAA. The news is only good for a rough idea of what's going on.

  8. Hwang Woo-suk defends himself by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  9. Google hasn't dispeled anything by Nick+Fury · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  10. Re:On the stem cell defense by Frogbert · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah stem cell research is getting more bad press these days then that guy who was poisoning cats in a box, then claimed that he didn't even know if the cat was alive or dead.

  11. Got to admit about Wikipedia's self-critisism by LinuxDon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Got to admit about Wikipedia's self-critisism by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes - though the problem is there's not yet any easy way to hilight the relevant or interesting parts of the discussions -- if you look at the first page of a discussion with several archives you are only getting the last week of discussion or so, which may be a silly rehash of an annoying revert war rather than anything useful. It would be nice if there was a moderation system in the discussion forum that allowed readers to use the discussion area to learn more about a topic rather than to just see what editors are fighting about lately.... though I fear such a system would be used instead as a gauge of who is winning these debates.

  12. Re:improvement? by alexander+m · · Score: 2, Funny

    with no small degree of life's little ironies biting you gently in the ass, i have now left a word out of my post.

    however, i shall now call it an "article", correct the original error, introduce several new ones, sneak in a little paragraph about gandhi sleeping with marilyn monroe while nobody is looking, and announce the imminent utopia.

  13. Wikipedia and the media are apples and oranges. by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Should Wikipedia split off Wikipinion? by hhr · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Perhaps Wikipedia articles should start off clearly marked as "opinion, unreviewed or unedited" and only after several rounds of review would they be promoted to the encyclopdia proper.

    Most of Wikipedia's problems stem from the fact that it calls it's self a free encyclopedia and when people think of encyclopedias they think of "A work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge, usually arranged alphabetically"

    Many of the non-science articles in Wikipedia are as much opinion as fact. The article on my home town was once "When it comes to culture XXXX seems in many ways able only to grasp the most dominant [[trends]] and, once this has occurred, unable to abandon them. Thus explaining the overwhelming popularity of oakley [[sunglasses]] (adopted in the mid-90s) combined with [[mullets]] (circa 1986), [[2Pac]] music, and [[jean jackets]]."

    Clearly, marking new and unreviwed articles as opinion would go a long way to help Wiki's image.

  15. Re:On the stem cell defense by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, a valid comparasion can't be made to "that guy", because he was both getting bad press and not getting bad press simultaneously until he unfurled his newspaper.

    Of course, there are still those that wish to know if the cat was alive or not; here's the truth: Schrödinger's cat was...

    *End Carrier: Everett Many-Worlds Decoherence Error. Please notify your ISP*

    --
    http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
  16. What? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    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.
    1. Re:What? by AxelBoldt · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      This does indeed happen, but there are things you can do. First, get yourself a user account, and put something about you on your user page. Anonymous users generally have lower standing in Wikipedia discussions. Next, support your changes with citation of a reputable source, and explain them on the Discussion page. In your edit summary, refer to your explanation on the Discussion page. Don't come off as a prick, but be open to changes and improvements.

      Now if you are still being reverted, there are two possibilities: the editor is trying to push a certain agenda, or you are. If you are certain it is the former, you can bring up the matter at the Discussion page where editors for that particular field typically hang out; for instance there's a "Wikiproject Chemistry" and a "Wikiproject Chinese cities" etc. If nothing helps, you can post a "Request for Comment" (RfC), but that's a major undertaking.

    2. Re:What? by colinbrash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You just proved his point... You pointed out all the various time-consuming ways that he could, as he puts it, "fight that battle." Thus making it even clearer that, "It's biggest flaw is a "Tyranny of Those With The Most Time.'"

  17. Google and the Braille hypocrisy by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Today Google celebrates the birthday of Louis Braille, who invented the braille tactile writing system used by the blind community, with a custom homepage logo written in braille. However, the Google Accounts signup page does not allow users who use a refreshable braille display to create an account. Blind users are treated as collateral damage in the war against spambots. Is Google acting hypocritical, or am I just a critical hippo?

    1. Re:Google and the Braille hypocrisy by vga_init · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I really don't think it's that big of a deal; most blind people have friends that are not blind. An account only needs to be registered just once, so with a little help from a friend, a blind person can register an account quite easily. This is a very tiny and reasonable price to pay for better security, and is probably the best compromise.

  18. Re:On the stem cell defense by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have seen no indication of Hwang Woo-suk being persecuted due to the ethical controversy over stem cell research. Woo-suk's problem is he's a liar and a cheat.

  19. Wiki stem cells... interesting by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scientist: Finally. The cure for cancer will appear inside this carefully-nurtured stem cell!
    (Opens fluid-filled chamber)

    Cat: Nya!!!! =^_^=

    Scientist: Alright, who edited my research wiki!!

  20. you're just a critical hippo by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google (like most private companies) has no obligation to provide for handicapped users.

    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 /. go find some relevant google e-mail address and complain to them.

    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!
  21. wrong issues by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The stuff the media criticizes about wikipedia and the stuff I'd criticize about wikipedia are disjoint sets.

    IMNSHO, the main problems with wikipedia are:

    1. As time goes on, an article's factual accuracy and level of detail tend to go up, but the quality of the writing tends to go down, because people slice and dice the words too many times.
    2. It's incredibly inefficient. Mature articles get edited over and over again, and often if you compare the current version with last month's version, they're identical; people are just canceling each other out.
    3. Articles on some technical topics, such as math and physics, tend to be extremely badly written, because people focus on putting in lots of rigorous derivations, which clutter up the article so much that it becomes unreadable. You can't delete the cruft, however, because the people who put it there will argue that it's valuable content.
    4. Trolling by anons is tolerated too much. Articles can get paralyzed by anons for months at a time.
  22. Wikipedia by jemenake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  23. or perhaps by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps someone who thinks this or any similar rearrangement of wikipedia content would be a good idea could take a look at the free content license and put together a more useful version of what's available there. That, I think, is the true future of wikipedia, and what makes it an important landmark in the history of knowledge. Any given article may be crap at any given time, but the open source model allows wikipedia content to become a grab bag of tools available to anyone with an idea for editing it and incorporating it into some other project. I can think of any number of projects involving specialized encyclopedias (online or hardbound and printed) based on wikipedia content that has undergone a more rigorous editing process.

  24. If you want to submit form, here's how by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google (like most private companies)

    Private? Then what's GOOG? Oh, I guess you mean "private sector". Read on:

    has no obligation to provide for handicapped users.

    The U.S. Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act soon after the end of the American police action in Vietnam. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires private sector firms that have contracts with the United States Government to make their information technology services accessible to those with disabilities.

    feel free to respond with the relevant e-mail address and the text of your e-mail.

    I used this form to contact Google:

    • Your email address: criticalhippo@(hidden)
    • Your Google Account issue: I am trying to create an account and can't proceed past the "Create a Google Account" page.
    • If you currently have a Google Account, please answer these questions: n/a
    • Any additional information you can provide: (If you're seeing an error message, please include the text of that message. If you're having trouble at a specific URL, let us know.)
      "If you can read this, you do not have images enabled. Please enable images in order to proceed." Given that Google is celebrating Louis Braille's birthday, where is the alternative Google account creation form for users of braille terminals?

    I myself do not have such a disability, but my stepmother has a friend who lost her sight, and I saw first-hand what it's like to use a screen reader.

  25. Improve your mistakes by trollable · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Wikipedia articles will have mistakes, so let's get on with the unending task of improving them."

    I do improve my mistakes regulary, I'm a proud looser!

  26. Errors in Britannica and textbooks by Brushen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?