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.'"
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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:
"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.