Uh... seems I forgot to include the actual link: Wikia Search (alternatively you can google for "Wikia Search":P) Note how you can instantly and anonymously change almost everything. (needs Javascript however)
They adopted (or will be adopting) a core principle of Wikia Search, and that is user generated content (and ranking search results is some kind of content). On Wikia, everyone can change search results, insert new links and delete them. However, user generated content needs a community (in this case mainly to prevent or revert spamming) - and google had many unsuccessful community projects in the past... I wonder if they are foolish enough to try it again. When it comes to community projects many people object to the idea of working for free towards another one's gain. That's why nonprofits like the Free Software Foundation (GNU project) and the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia) are so successful at building high quality producing communities. I don't think that google has a chance here.
That's exactly what I proposed. However, the rules of DENIC (who manage all.de domains) say, that the owner of a.de domain must have a legal address in Germany. So, if the Wikimedia Foundation takes over, that doesn't really solve the problem. Perhaps another way to combat those "Einstweilige Verfügungen" (preliminary injunction) would be a declaratory judgment or a "Schutzschrift" (which should give some protection against specific "Einstweilige Verfügungen"). I'm quite sure the lawyers of Wikimedia Deutschland will work something out.
To clarify a few things: This is NOT a final judgment. In Germany, we have a "Einstweilige Verfügung" (preliminary injunction), so if Mr. Heilmann wants to shut wikipedia.de down, he goes to a judge and the judge may approve in urgent cases, without asking the opposite side. This is only temporarily until there is a hearing with both sides arguing, and also, if it turns out that Mr. Heilmann was wrong, Wikimedia Deutschland has entitlement to damages that were caused by the "Einstweilige Verfügung".
So, cool down, this process is nothing special and it doesn't mean that Germany supports censorship.
Another detail: Wikimedia Deutschland is a nonprofit organisation, not a company. They work together with the American Wikimedia Foundation.
Of course you can always go to the North/South pole and you're right, the cooling costs would dramatically decrease. However further you are away from civilization, the bigger are your difficulties to have enough electricity AND data connections (ok, Canada would probably be fine, however the problem remains in principle). This is imho the main drawback of Google's Off-shore Data Center and similar proposals.
What the Internet should have taught everyone is, that you can't trust anything just because it is written on a piece of paper or on a computer screen. You, the user, always have to judge for yourself if you wish to trust the information you are getting, or not.
I am a Wikipedian myself and I say, that there is much wrong information in our encyclopedia - just like in every encyclopedia or any non-trivial text. Read articles, perhaps take a look at the talk page and the version history and ask yourself whether the article is somehow strange or inconsistent. If you don't find anything suspicious, you may trust the article if you like - but not if your life depends on it.
The important part here is the user, not the encyclopedia. It's more important to teach everyone to not trust everything, than it is to build an error-free encyclopedia (which is impossible anyways).
Wikipedia doesn't say that A is true because reference X says so. Wikipedia says that reference X tells us that A is true. There is a fundamental difference: In the first (incorrect) version, Wikipedia cites X and adds something to this, specifically that X is trustworthy and makes correct statements about A. In the second, correct version, Wikipedia doesn't claim that A is true or false. It just claims that X claims that A is true. Wikipedia doesn't add anything, it simply accumulates facts and let the reader choose whether A is true or not, and whether X is trustworthy or not.
Nothing is true just because you can verify that someone else thinks it is true. That idea is stupid and so is this story.
Well, it varies of course. Personally, in my experience, the average waiting time is quite low; when there is an appointment, I usually wait no more than 10 minutes. I am fortunate to live in a country that has free universal health care, and I can only hope that the US realizes that there is no reason for a rich country like theirs, to let people die because they are too poor to "buy" health insurance.
That's fine for you, but one principal of a democracy is that the vote is open and transparent. When there's a vote, I can go to the voting place and control that the process works fine. I can verify almost everything important first hand (at least in Germany, where I live). With voting machines, only a few people in the whole world can control the system. Even if the software is free, there are only few people who understand the source code and can verify it. The vote is _not_ transparent.
Oh, and don't tell me that voting machines are unhackable. Here you can see a voting machine being hacked in 60 sec.
So, you have vs. . I agree, that elections are not a simple problem, but pen&paper is a simple solution and at the moment the best.
Wow! Incredible! I never thought something like that would be possible with a computer!
Wow! Incredible! I never thought something like that would be possible without a computer!
There, fixed that for you. Speaking of fixing: Why fix something that ain't broken? Voting with Pen&Paper has worked for centuries, there is no need to fix anything.
Yes, this is supposed to be the function of Quality versions, but I don't think it will work. There are simply not enough people who (a) meet the requirements as experts, (b) are able to validate a significant amount of articles, (c) keep up with validating all changes on validated articles (Inserting assertions is just so much easier and faster than finding citations for them) and (d) will work voluntary.
The signing off would allow people to cite a Wikipedia article as a source that had been vetted by at least one person (with confidence in the source depending on that person's credentials). The signer's identity (and sometimes, their credentials) could be confirmed using several methods, such as verifying an.edu e-mail address. Users could still submit edits, but they would have to be approved by the article verifier. Different users could sign off on different versions of the same article, and readers would still have the option of viewing the latest version of an article, with all of its unmoderated edits (which is what you're looking at on Wikipedia most of the time).
I'm a sysop in the German Wikipedia and I'm telling you: It won't work. The German Wikipedia was the first Wikimedia Wiki to test an Extension called "Flagged Revisions". We first activated Sigthed version, where every user with >200 edits can validate a version as vandalism-free. Other users can still edit, but their edits must be reviewed first. Now, look at the statistics, the last image. Note that this kind of quality control only covers checks of obvious vandalism, the actual information is not verified. (Note that I am a supporter of Sighted versions. But even though they are great, they do not solve every problem Wikipedia has)
Regarding the other statements in your quote: If you want to have a permalink, you can click on "Permanent link", if you want to cite it, click on "Cite this page". Note however, that citing Wikipedia is not always appropriate.
You're missing the point in having a free (as in freedom) operating system. This is not about "getting hardware support at any costs" but "having a free os". Of course some hardware won't work with GNewSense. But this way, the distro supports hardware manufacturers who release their drivers under a free license (because their user don't have any problems!).
It is a question of what is more important to you: 100% hardware support or freedom.
I'd pay for them if they were GPL'ed. (I'm serious. I think you can do a lot more good by giving money to producers of Free Software than by giving it to big proprietary software companies like EA, Microsoft, etc.)
Actually "Wiki" comes from "wiki-wiki" which means "very quick" in the Hawaiian language. Ward Cunningham (the founder of the first wiki) chose this name.[1]
Wikia Search needs time. Like Jimbo says, when he started Wikipedia he called it an encyclopedia, even though at the time there were no articles. Wikia Search is still Alpha and people should stop thinking its a finished or even practically usable search engine. (Here is an interesting conversation with Jimbo (read the comments))
BTW: There seems to be some confusion about Wikia and Wikipedia. Short info: * Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that uses MediaWiki and is run by the Wikimedia Foundation * MediaWiki is a popular Wiki-Engine * Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that runs Wikipedia and several sister projects * Wikia is a for-profit organization that has _nothing_ to do with Wikipedia _or_ the Wikimedia Foundation! One of their projects Wikia Search; but they also host many Wikis. The only thing Wikia has in common with Wikipedia is that it uses MediaWiki and was started by Jimbo Wales.
I don't really understand why you think that "Rights", "Freedom", "Ethics" and "Industry" are buzzwords. They are clearly defined. You are partially correct with "Digital Rights Management" and "Trusted Computing", which are used for propaganda (if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I actually link to "Treacherous Computing". I don't use those propaganda terms, I just cite them).
Your post is the perfect example of why no one gives a shit about what you have to say.
Well, actually some do. For example my post was important enough for you to respond.
Sometimes we should not only see the short-term pleasure that our system works, but also the long-term interest to be able to live in freedom. Of course the convenience of getting all machines to work seems most important now, but free software is not about convenience, it's about ethics. If we stop caring about proprietary drivers then the hardware manufacturers will think we don't care. And they probably even go a step further and DRM+TC everything. Then maybe in twenty years you look back and ask yourself why you let the industry take away your rights.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole page via CC
Uh... seems I forgot to include the actual link: Wikia Search (alternatively you can google for "Wikia Search" :P)
Note how you can instantly and anonymously change almost everything. (needs Javascript however)
They adopted (or will be adopting) a core principle of Wikia Search, and that is user generated content (and ranking search results is some kind of content). On Wikia, everyone can change search results, insert new links and delete them.
However, user generated content needs a community (in this case mainly to prevent or revert spamming) - and google had many unsuccessful community projects in the past... I wonder if they are foolish enough to try it again.
When it comes to community projects many people object to the idea of working for free towards another one's gain. That's why nonprofits like the Free Software Foundation (GNU project) and the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia) are so successful at building high quality producing communities. I don't think that google has a chance here.
That's exactly what I proposed. However, the rules of DENIC (who manage all .de domains) say, that the owner of a .de domain must have a legal address in Germany. So, if the Wikimedia Foundation takes over, that doesn't really solve the problem. Perhaps another way to combat those "Einstweilige Verfügungen" (preliminary injunction) would be a declaratory judgment or a "Schutzschrift" (which should give some protection against specific "Einstweilige Verfügungen"). I'm quite sure the lawyers of Wikimedia Deutschland will work something out.
To clarify a few things: This is NOT a final judgment. In Germany, we have a "Einstweilige Verfügung" (preliminary injunction), so if Mr. Heilmann wants to shut wikipedia.de down, he goes to a judge and the judge may approve in urgent cases, without asking the opposite side. This is only temporarily until there is a hearing with both sides arguing, and also, if it turns out that Mr. Heilmann was wrong, Wikimedia Deutschland has entitlement to damages that were caused by the "Einstweilige Verfügung".
So, cool down, this process is nothing special and it doesn't mean that Germany supports censorship.
Another detail: Wikimedia Deutschland is a nonprofit organisation, not a company. They work together with the American Wikimedia Foundation.
Of course you can always go to the North/South pole and you're right, the cooling costs would dramatically decrease. However further you are away from civilization, the bigger are your difficulties to have enough electricity AND data connections (ok, Canada would probably be fine, however the problem remains in principle). This is imho the main drawback of Google's Off-shore Data Center and similar proposals.
What the Internet should have taught everyone is, that you can't trust anything just because it is written on a piece of paper or on a computer screen. You, the user, always have to judge for yourself if you wish to trust the information you are getting, or not.
I am a Wikipedian myself and I say, that there is much wrong information in our encyclopedia - just like in every encyclopedia or any non-trivial text. Read articles, perhaps take a look at the talk page and the version history and ask yourself whether the article is somehow strange or inconsistent. If you don't find anything suspicious, you may trust the article if you like - but not if your life depends on it.
The important part here is the user, not the encyclopedia. It's more important to teach everyone to not trust everything, than it is to build an error-free encyclopedia (which is impossible anyways).
Wikipedia doesn't say that A is true because reference X says so. Wikipedia says that reference X tells us that A is true. There is a fundamental difference:
In the first (incorrect) version, Wikipedia cites X and adds something to this, specifically that X is trustworthy and makes correct statements about A.
In the second, correct version, Wikipedia doesn't claim that A is true or false. It just claims that X claims that A is true. Wikipedia doesn't add anything, it simply accumulates facts and let the reader choose whether A is true or not, and whether X is trustworthy or not.
Nothing is true just because you can verify that someone else thinks it is true. That idea is stupid and so is this story.
Well, it varies of course. Personally, in my experience, the average waiting time is quite low; when there is an appointment, I usually wait no more than 10 minutes.
I am fortunate to live in a country that has free universal health care, and I can only hope that the US realizes that there is no reason for a rich country like theirs, to let people die because they are too poor to "buy" health insurance.
That's fine for you, but one principal of a democracy is that the vote is open and transparent. When there's a vote, I can go to the voting place and control that the process works fine. I can verify almost everything important first hand (at least in Germany, where I live). With voting machines, only a few people in the whole world can control the system. Even if the software is free, there are only few people who understand the source code and can verify it. The vote is _not_ transparent.
Oh, and don't tell me that voting machines are unhackable. Here you can see a voting machine being hacked in 60 sec.
So, you have vs. .
I agree, that elections are not a simple problem, but pen&paper is a simple solution and at the moment the best.
Wow! Incredible! I never thought something like that would be possible without a computer!
There, fixed that for you. Speaking of fixing: Why fix something that ain't broken? Voting with Pen&Paper has worked for centuries, there is no need to fix anything.
Yes, this is supposed to be the function of Quality versions, but I don't think it will work. There are simply not enough people who (a) meet the requirements as experts, (b) are able to validate a significant amount of articles, (c) keep up with validating all changes on validated articles (Inserting assertions is just so much easier and faster than finding citations for them) and (d) will work voluntary.
I'm a sysop in the German Wikipedia and I'm telling you: It won't work.
The German Wikipedia was the first Wikimedia Wiki to test an Extension called "Flagged Revisions". We first activated Sigthed version, where every user with >200 edits can validate a version as vandalism-free. Other users can still edit, but their edits must be reviewed first. Now, look at the statistics, the last image. Note that this kind of quality control only covers checks of obvious vandalism, the actual information is not verified. (Note that I am a supporter of Sighted versions. But even though they are great, they do not solve every problem Wikipedia has)
Regarding the other statements in your quote: If you want to have a permalink, you can click on "Permanent link", if you want to cite it, click on "Cite this page". Note however, that citing Wikipedia is not always appropriate.
Why was I modded troll? Jeez, just because its not April 1st doesn't mean its forbidden to be funny...
It's simply called Google Browser (and it was released on April, 1st, 2006)
Well, I actually visited the FSF and I can assure you, that they at least have no Backdoors. ;-)
I think you confuse Petabyte with Terabyte.
This is not about religion, this is about ethics.
You're missing the point in having a free (as in freedom) operating system. This is not about "getting hardware support at any costs" but "having a free os". Of course some hardware won't work with GNewSense. But this way, the distro supports hardware manufacturers who release their drivers under a free license (because their user don't have any problems!).
It is a question of what is more important to you: 100% hardware support or freedom.
I'd pay for them if they were GPL'ed. (I'm serious. I think you can do a lot more good by giving money to producers of Free Software than by giving it to big proprietary software companies like EA, Microsoft, etc.)
None, if you not only use this story's extension, but also Adblock Plus.
Actually "Wiki" comes from "wiki-wiki" which means "very quick" in the Hawaiian language. Ward Cunningham (the founder of the first wiki) chose this name.[1]
"What I Know Is" is only a backronym
Wikia Search needs time. Like Jimbo says, when he started Wikipedia he called it an encyclopedia, even though at the time there were no articles. Wikia Search is still Alpha and people should stop thinking its a finished or even practically usable search engine. (Here is an interesting conversation with Jimbo (read the comments))
BTW: There seems to be some confusion about Wikia and Wikipedia. Short info:
* Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that uses MediaWiki and is run by the Wikimedia Foundation
* MediaWiki is a popular Wiki-Engine
* Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that runs Wikipedia and several sister projects
* Wikia is a for-profit organization that has _nothing_ to do with Wikipedia _or_ the Wikimedia Foundation! One of their projects Wikia Search; but they also host many Wikis. The only thing Wikia has in common with Wikipedia is that it uses MediaWiki and was started by Jimbo Wales.
You are partially correct with "Digital Rights Management" and "Trusted Computing", which are used for propaganda (if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I actually link to "Treacherous Computing". I don't use those propaganda terms, I just cite them).
Well, actually some do. For example my post was important enough for you to respond.
Sometimes we should not only see the short-term pleasure that our system works, but also the long-term interest to be able to live in freedom. Of course the convenience of getting all machines to work seems most important now, but free software is not about convenience, it's about ethics. If we stop caring about proprietary drivers then the hardware manufacturers will think we don't care. And they probably even go a step further and DRM+TC everything. Then maybe in twenty years you look back and ask yourself why you let the industry take away your rights.