Just calling it like I see it. I think it's a feeble joke, so I said so. It doesn't help that the article calls attention to it by putting it - not in the summary somewhere, but right on the headline where everybody can see it. If I'm in a group of people, telling a joke, shouting it out so it can be heard over the normal conversation... and that joke sucks... of course people are going to tell me it's not funny.
I am not saying don't tease the man. He is certainly a source of countless laughs. Just, you know, make it a good one, or don't bother.
And, yes, I screwed up in my last post. Good catch.
Do you honestly believe that the man doesn't think being called the Governator is funny? His primary fame came from those movies. It isn't like they are calling him anything inherently derogatory. He was famous for being the Terminator, he is the Governor, he is the Governator! Big deal, don't get your panties in a twist over a dumb nick name. I really suspect that he probably thinks its funny that people call him that, shit, it wouldn't surprise me if he likes the nickname given that he got it for being wildly successful. Oh, and here I thought it was because he was in Predator... silly me...
It's just dumb, is all. "I remember Arnold Schwarzenegger was in this movie when I was a kid, and now he's a governor! Sounds like it's time for a portmanteau!" It's fine to poke fun at the guy, but if you're going to refer to the man in a news story you ought to use his proper name and/or title at least once in the story...
I could give a flying fuck about what Arnold thinks of his various nicknames. I am just embarrassed that a group I'm a part of is showing so little imagination in its attempts to be clever... I'd rather see some semblance of dignity rather than a cheap, extremely lame joke...
"Kill Bill" and "The Passion of the Christ" were both rated R, weren't they? Right. And one was a horrible, whopping piece of crap, and the other one had Uma Therman in it...:D (The preceding comment was a joke and totally baseless. I haven't even seen "Kill Bill".)
That's not to say I buy the premise that Halo 3 is a great fit for church life. Maybe it's "Die Hard" instead of "Grindhouse," but that doesn't make it a good fit. <shrug> Probably these particular Christians just understand that if your heart and head are in the right place, there's nothing wrong with a bit of fantasy and play...
I'm no biblical scholar by any means, but I've mostly seen it rendered as "You shall not murder" (NIV version) instead of "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV). "Murder" carries a strong connotation of taking a human life while kill does not. Ah. Then "Wrongful Death" and "Manslaughter" are OK then. Good!
The biggest problem I have with Harmonix and their PR with downloadable content is they really burned XBox360 users with GH2. Their PR campaign before the games release was that GH2 for the 360 would have "more online content than anyone has ever seen in a game..." (link to interview). This gave people who had already spent $100+ on GH2 for the PS2 (Game/Controller + Additional Controller) a valid reason to buy it again.
Here we are six after GH2 for the XBox360 was released. What downloadable content do we have? Four song 'packs' with songs that were already in GH1, and a song pack of indie bands few have heard of. Presumably, once Red Octane got bought, all HMX's lofty plans for the Guitar Hero series got transferred to the "Rock Band" line...
You'll notice that I didn't say I knew anybody in that position; I didn't even say it wasn't funny (made me almost chuckle); my point was simply that there are other perspectives to consider.
If the issue doesn't affect you then don't assume that you need to come rushing to somebody else's defense. It is really sad (and I won't beat around the bush - yes, someone close to me has Alzheimer's) but that's no reason to kill humor.
Picture yourself. In a boat. On a river. With Tan-gerine dreams, and MARMALADE skies! Somebody -- calls you... you anssswerrr quuuiiitee sllllowwwwllllyyyy, A GIRL! with kalEIIIIDOscope eyes...
I always got the impression that Dr. Eggman didn't like Sonic very much.
Having your attempts at world domination thwarted all the time tends to put a damper on any relationships. That's true... In fact, every time I've seen those two meet up, they've tried to kill each other. In fact, I've seen Dr. Eggman actually succeed at killing Sonic a number of times...
Of course you don't, because you believe your viewpoint is right and is the only correct viewpoint and that everyone else must agree. Your post is ample demonstration that you are completely blinded by how right you think you are. Wikipedia is no place for this attitude. Is it really so outrageous to call it like it is? To call a garbage article "garbage"? To say that maybe an encyclopedia isn't the place for in-depth studies of make-believe technologies and trivial details of TV-shows?
And what of you? You believe your viewpoint is right and is the only correct viewpoint, or you wouldn't be arguing with such conviction. You are right and "deletionists" (a very biased term, BTW) are wrong. How is that any different? Because yours is more permissive? Being more permissive isn't always a good thing. Having direction, having focus, is worth a lot, even if it means people can't write articles about who won the Gold Star on Kid Nation...
What I fail to understand is this - everyone can agree that the articles should be written from a neutral viewpoint, but when it comes to what constitutes knowledge, suddenly the concept of neutrality disappears and it becomes an argument over beliefs. You've declared that what you believe to be knowledge is the only valid viewpoint, and you seek to impose that viewpoint on other users of Wikipedia. If successful, you turned what was once a tool to explore knowledge, and even the concept of what is knowledge, into just your version of knowledge. You prevent Wikipedia from growing beyond your own beliefs and doom it to being nothing more than an inferior copy of a traditional encyclopedia. I don't see how Wikipedia is in any way lessened by the elimination of a huge collection of "mom's basement" type of information.
All that crap, as far as I'm concerned, is an unwelcome distraction. People could be spending time on real articles, like about real things that have actually happened in the world, but instead they're updating the Bart Simpson article to note that he doesn't have pubes.
What I don't get is how it's somehow narrow-minded or draconian to suggest that a website's stated purpose is the direction that it should actually go...
Wikitext is more flexible, and can do everything that the great-grandparent post asks. What are the downside(s)? The downsides? Well, everybody decides for themselves where their comment should appear, how it should be formatted, whether it will be signed, how it will be signed, and whether they're going to slip in edits to anyone else's posts at the same time as they write one of their own... Because the poster has total control over how their comments appear in the page this means either you're faced with newbies who don't know the drill making a mess of the discussion page, or else you might just have inconsistent formatting from a bunch of people wanting to do it their own way... Meanwhile this also introduces a need for bots to do things like sign posts that posters forgot to sign, and so on.
Then the whole thing is subject to simultaneous editing restrictions: the whole discussion page is one entity, so if two people edit it at the same time one of them is going to have to review the page again when they submit their text - and if a lot of people are all editing the page at the same time this could happen repeatedly...
It's just not the right tool for the job, that's the thing. It's like creating a system-wide bulletin board on a Unix system by having a text file somewhere that's world-writable. Yes, if everybody plays nice, and barring simultaneous access, it can work just fine. But there are smarter ways to implement that sort of thing that don't require every participant to be cooperative and willing to handle the whole process manually...
Oh, there's plenty of things to write about, the community has slowly been taken over by a few who seemingly wish to destroy it from within, or at least shape it into their ideal site. Legitimate and well written articles are constantly deleted or merged because they're "not notable" or they're fancruft. These of course, are okay reasons to delete articles, but when entire projects are basically swept away by one person who twist the guidelines in their favor (or had a corrupt hand in writing them in the first place), it's a great turn off. Nobody wants to think their pet project is fancruft... The guy documenting all the spells cast in Harry Potter, the guy writing the article "list of fictional cats in an animated series", the guy writing pages and pages on the construction, function, and operation of lightsabers, the guys writing volumes on every last known version of the Zaku from Gundam - none of those guys want to think that their project, so precious to them, might not be worthy of Wikipedia...
But you know what? A lot of this junk just doesn't belong there. An encyclopedia isn't the place for a list of M*A*S*H episodes, it's not the place for an exhaustive list of all the times They Killed Kenny, and it's not the place to host a database of all the Pokemon. People have to focus, here, that's the thing.
Putting the word "fictional" into your article doesn't make it automatically OK. Asserting its relevance does not justify a steaming mass of imaginary drivel inserted into an encyclopedia. Think something fictional really is worth writing about? Fine, write about it - and remain grounded in reality. Warp Drive isn't a manipulation of sub-space, it's a plot device.
If what you want is a place for your fansite, quit your bitching and go find a web host. It's not Wikipedia's job to be the home for your pet project.
Article discussion pages?? Ugh. Whose brain-dead idea was it to use the Wiki page-editing functionality for something that ought to be implemented as a message board?
[...] the majority of the hobbiest-contributors (i.e. those who aren't die-hard users) simply don't have anything else to write.
I second that. As a "hobbiest-contributor" myself I have written or expanded around 10 specialist articles. There is not a lot more specialist knowledge I feel that I have to contribute to Wikipedia - hence I've not added anything in the last 6 months or so. I'm a hobby-contributor, myself... I guess you might be a hobbier contributor, but I really doubt you're the hobbiest contributor...
There will always be new things to write about...
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 1
So long as there are new episodes of The Simpsons, new Gundam shows, so long as they keep making new Pokemon games and "reality" TV shows, Wikipedians will always have source material from which to write new articles, and motivation to maintain them.
You go ask the Ford Car Club of America and the Ford Foundation that... Why? Why would the two of them have the same domain name with different TLDs? Neither one would be simply "ford"...
Slashdot Mirror
Geez, dude, why so defensive?
Just calling it like I see it. I think it's a feeble joke, so I said so. It doesn't help that the article calls attention to it by putting it - not in the summary somewhere, but right on the headline where everybody can see it. If I'm in a group of people, telling a joke, shouting it out so it can be heard over the normal conversation... and that joke sucks... of course people are going to tell me it's not funny.
I am not saying don't tease the man. He is certainly a source of countless laughs. Just, you know, make it a good one, or don't bother.
And, yes, I screwed up in my last post. Good catch.
That's no service pack... it's a space station...
It's just dumb, is all. "I remember Arnold Schwarzenegger was in this movie when I was a kid, and now he's a governor! Sounds like it's time for a portmanteau!" It's fine to poke fun at the guy, but if you're going to refer to the man in a news story you ought to use his proper name and/or title at least once in the story...
I could give a flying fuck about what Arnold thinks of his various nicknames. I am just embarrassed that a group I'm a part of is showing so little imagination in its attempts to be clever... I'd rather see some semblance of dignity rather than a cheap, extremely lame joke...
C'mon, I mean, seriously - whether or not you respect the man he has a name and a title, and you've used neither...
Here we are six after GH2 for the XBox360 was released. What downloadable content do we have? Four song 'packs' with songs that were already in GH1, and a song pack of indie bands few have heard of. Presumably, once Red Octane got bought, all HMX's lofty plans for the Guitar Hero series got transferred to the "Rock Band" line...
You'll notice that I didn't say I knew anybody in that position; I didn't even say it wasn't funny (made me almost chuckle); my point was simply that there are other perspectives to consider.
If the issue doesn't affect you then don't assume that you need to come rushing to somebody else's defense. It is really sad (and I won't beat around the bush - yes, someone close to me has Alzheimer's) but that's no reason to kill humor.Leave it to Those Stupid Assholes to make flying more of a hassle, and less of an affordable, enjoyable way to travel, any damn way they can.
Fuck you, Those Stupid Assholes. It's Fuck You Friday.
With no Bussard, where are starships going to get their blinky engine lights from?
I'm in!
I have no idea what kind of game I'd play with it, but
Now. He has to learn. To talk. Like this.
Well... Sure! HE - can - ACT...BUT!
The REAL question IS...
can he SING?
Picture yourself. In a boat. On a river.
With Tan-gerine dreams, and MARMALADE skies!
Somebody -- calls you... you anssswerrr quuuiiitee sllllowwwwllllyyyy,
A GIRL! with kalEIIIIDOscope eyes...
Having your attempts at world domination thwarted all the time tends to put a damper on any relationships. That's true... In fact, every time I've seen those two meet up, they've tried to kill each other. In fact, I've seen Dr. Eggman actually succeed at killing Sonic a number of times...
And what of you? You believe your viewpoint is right and is the only correct viewpoint, or you wouldn't be arguing with such conviction. You are right and "deletionists" (a very biased term, BTW) are wrong. How is that any different? Because yours is more permissive? Being more permissive isn't always a good thing. Having direction, having focus, is worth a lot, even if it means people can't write articles about who won the Gold Star on Kid Nation...
All that crap, as far as I'm concerned, is an unwelcome distraction. People could be spending time on real articles, like about real things that have actually happened in the world, but instead they're updating the Bart Simpson article to note that he doesn't have pubes.
What I don't get is how it's somehow narrow-minded or draconian to suggest that a website's stated purpose is the direction that it should actually go...
Apparently there's just one fan of the 16-bit era??
...but good luck in getting a Gravatar to actually load...
Then the whole thing is subject to simultaneous editing restrictions: the whole discussion page is one entity, so if two people edit it at the same time one of them is going to have to review the page again when they submit their text - and if a lot of people are all editing the page at the same time this could happen repeatedly...
It's just not the right tool for the job, that's the thing. It's like creating a system-wide bulletin board on a Unix system by having a text file somewhere that's world-writable. Yes, if everybody plays nice, and barring simultaneous access, it can work just fine. But there are smarter ways to implement that sort of thing that don't require every participant to be cooperative and willing to handle the whole process manually...
But you know what? A lot of this junk just doesn't belong there. An encyclopedia isn't the place for a list of M*A*S*H episodes, it's not the place for an exhaustive list of all the times They Killed Kenny, and it's not the place to host a database of all the Pokemon. People have to focus, here, that's the thing.
Putting the word "fictional" into your article doesn't make it automatically OK. Asserting its relevance does not justify a steaming mass of imaginary drivel inserted into an encyclopedia. Think something fictional really is worth writing about? Fine, write about it - and remain grounded in reality. Warp Drive isn't a manipulation of sub-space, it's a plot device.
If what you want is a place for your fansite, quit your bitching and go find a web host. It's not Wikipedia's job to be the home for your pet project.
I second that. As a "hobbiest-contributor" myself I have written or expanded around 10 specialist articles. There is not a lot more specialist knowledge I feel that I have to contribute to Wikipedia - hence I've not added anything in the last 6 months or so. I'm a hobby-contributor, myself... I guess you might be a hobbier contributor, but I really doubt you're the hobbiest contributor...
So long as there are new episodes of The Simpsons, new Gundam shows, so long as they keep making new Pokemon games and "reality" TV shows, Wikipedians will always have source material from which to write new articles, and motivation to maintain them.