Not sure if this is so obvious it's not worth mentioning, but given the geo-aware capabilities of smart phone, Google looks poised to bring advertisements to your phone, where you are. 'Sponsored Links' for your augmented reality browser.
What I find most revealing in your comment, which I think other posters should think more carefully about, is:
that which society has tried to force on them
When a person resists the expectations of our culture's gender socialization, we consider that person unconventional, non-conformist, deviant, or something of the sort.
However, when a person adopts those gender expectations, we call that "natural."
You make a good point about "starter Windows users" unintentionally running a lot of idle programs in the background. But why isn't the solution to design the OS to intelligently save and suspend those processes to free up resources? It seems like the paradigm of users being responsible for opening and closing programs is broken and outdated.
I can only speak for myself, but the immediacy of seeing my contributions go live, so to speak, is very seductive and entices me to contribute more to the project. If the current model has been successful, it is because it attracts new members who may ultimately become wikiholics. Any new barriers to participation (even social-psychological ones, like I mentioned) might lower recruitment rates, making the community harder to sustain. At least that is my hypothesis.
Flagged revisions do no more, and no less, than allow people to tag revisions which have been reviewed to be vandalism-free.
What about vandalism that's not so easy to spot? Like a subtle change to an article that (presumably) is not on a lot of people's watchlist? How would the FlaggedRev system handle these types of edits? Would it create tacit approval for these changes? Would it be difficult to revert them at a later time, since at that point the rv would itself look like vandalism? Just a thought.
Agreed - can someone who has followed this more closely clarify what counts as a trusted user? Also, what subset of pages would be subject to the FlaggedRev system?
But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.
Indeed! this is certainly a convoluted hyperreality on par with South Park's Imaginationland.
Why are men interested in studying CS, engineering, or physical sciences?
When you find the answer to that question, everything else starts to make sense. My understanding is that gender expectations, childhood socialization, educational opportunities, and occupational prestige and rewards explain this gap pretty well.
The problem is the idea of "both" in your (Palin's?) stance. If we are to subject ideas to critical inquiry, as you suggest would be a good thing to do, then clearly there are more than two theories to teach. Why not include the hundreds of stories about the origin of the universe and life on earth, from many different cultures, and then allow students to draw their own conclusions? Why posit creationism as the only 'other' to evolutionary theory?
In support: I am a social scientist who does research in the world-system tradition. With my co-authors, we continue to find support for the idea that World Bank structural adjustment programs in developing nations increase, among other things: deforestation, species loss, and other degradation of the natural environment; adverse health outcomes, including higher rates of infant mortality; and generally, increases poverty, or at least economic stratification within a nation.
What continues to surprise me is that people remain unaware of the existence of dependent relations between nations, the exploitation inherent in the system, and the real harm it causes.
There aren't too many people; the issue is distribution of the resources. That is a political - not scientific - problem. . . Poor distribution? Sure. The solution is to encourage free and expanded trade . . . Economic growth is required to free more people.
My understanding is that free trade leads to a less egalitarian distribution of resources, despite an ideological assumption to the contrary. See, for example, work by Andre Gunder Frank or Immanuel Wallerstein.
The more important point the LA Times article was making is that the foundation invests in companies that cause or exacerbate the global health problems that the foundation is itself trying to ameliorate.
It is similar to how the World Bank will offer developing countries "green loans" for environmental conservation at the same time as offering them structural adjustment loans, which have harmful effects on health, inequality, and the environment.
The implied criticism is that the foundation engages in only small-scale, reformist attempts at improving health conditions in impoverished countries while perpetuating the global system of inequality that causes these social ills.
Out with every theory of human behavior, from linguistics to sociology. Forget taxonomy, ontology, and psychology. Who knows why people do what they do? The point is they do it, and we can track and measure it with unprecedented fidelity. With enough data, the numbers speak for themselves. Out with meaning and understanding as well.
Sorry, I do not want a war every generation because people feel it's their birthright to have land. It is not. Study, work, make money, buy it. I did, why can't you? If you try to take something that is rightfully mine because you are too lazy to work for it, then I reserve the right to kill you.
If something is 'rightfully' yours, it is only because you believe in perpetuating the status quo. How did that 'rightfully' come to be the property of those whom you bought it from?
Also, how did you come to be a person with ample opportunity to study, work, make money, and buy things? What powers made such a world possible for you, before you were even born, while at the same time limited or prevented such opportunities for others?
If you take Herman & Chomsky's propaganda model as a framework, you'll realize that it is unsurprising for the NYT to be politically motivated similarly to most other news companies. Additionally, being the premier news organization in the U.S. puts the Times in a structural bind making them more dependent on governmental and other elite sources for information even as they attempt to do independent investigative journalism.
Take a close look at how the Times relied on elite (often unnamed) sources in its coverage of the run-up to war, and how the Bush administration then used those very stories from the Times to win support for their case. Would it make you reconsider that the Times is "one of the last respectable bastions of journalism" if you know that they as well as most other news organizations were heaviy reliant on this active propaganda campaign coming from the Pentagon?
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure if this is so obvious it's not worth mentioning, but given the geo-aware capabilities of smart phone, Google looks poised to bring advertisements to your phone, where you are. 'Sponsored Links' for your augmented reality browser.
that which society has tried to force on them
When a person resists the expectations of our culture's gender socialization, we consider that person unconventional, non-conformist, deviant, or something of the sort.
However, when a person adopts those gender expectations, we call that "natural."
cheers, Mike
It's simple, folks. Instead of figuring out how to consume their garbage for free, let's ignore them entirely.
Cheers, Mike
when you look at the long-term contribution trends http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02
Cheers, Mike
You make a good point about "starter Windows users" unintentionally running a lot of idle programs in the background. But why isn't the solution to design the OS to intelligently save and suspend those processes to free up resources? It seems like the paradigm of users being responsible for opening and closing programs is broken and outdated.
Cheers, Mike
I can only speak for myself, but the immediacy of seeing my contributions go live, so to speak, is very seductive and entices me to contribute more to the project. If the current model has been successful, it is because it attracts new members who may ultimately become wikiholics. Any new barriers to participation (even social-psychological ones, like I mentioned) might lower recruitment rates, making the community harder to sustain. At least that is my hypothesis.
Cheers, Mike
Flagged revisions do no more, and no less, than allow people to tag revisions which have been reviewed to be vandalism-free.
What about vandalism that's not so easy to spot? Like a subtle change to an article that (presumably) is not on a lot of people's watchlist? How would the FlaggedRev system handle these types of edits? Would it create tacit approval for these changes? Would it be difficult to revert them at a later time, since at that point the rv would itself look like vandalism? Just a thought.
Cheers, Mike
Thanks for the insight. I am willing to see how the trial goes.
Cheers, Mike
Or maybe some type of highlighting for unreviewed edits?
Cheers, Mike
Agreed - can someone who has followed this more closely clarify what counts as a trusted user? Also, what subset of pages would be subject to the FlaggedRev system?
Cheers, Mike
Let me be the first to say, as an infrequent Wikipedia contributor, that a FlaggedRev system would drive me away from the project.
Cheers, Mike
Indeed! this is certainly a convoluted hyperreality on par with South Park's Imaginationland.
Cheers, Mike
Occupational prestige counts as much as salary, too.
Cheers, Mike
Why are men interested in studying CS, engineering, or physical sciences?
When you find the answer to that question, everything else starts to make sense. My understanding is that gender expectations, childhood socialization, educational opportunities, and occupational prestige and rewards explain this gap pretty well.
Cheers, Mike
The problem is the idea of "both" in your (Palin's?) stance. If we are to subject ideas to critical inquiry, as you suggest would be a good thing to do, then clearly there are more than two theories to teach. Why not include the hundreds of stories about the origin of the universe and life on earth, from many different cultures, and then allow students to draw their own conclusions? Why posit creationism as the only 'other' to evolutionary theory?
Cheers, Mike
In support: I am a social scientist who does research in the world-system tradition. With my co-authors, we continue to find support for the idea that World Bank structural adjustment programs in developing nations increase, among other things: deforestation, species loss, and other degradation of the natural environment; adverse health outcomes, including higher rates of infant mortality; and generally, increases poverty, or at least economic stratification within a nation.
What continues to surprise me is that people remain unaware of the existence of dependent relations between nations, the exploitation inherent in the system, and the real harm it causes.
Best regards, -m
There aren't too many people; the issue is distribution of the resources. That is a political - not scientific - problem. . . Poor distribution? Sure. The solution is to encourage free and expanded trade . . . Economic growth is required to free more people.
My understanding is that free trade leads to a less egalitarian distribution of resources, despite an ideological assumption to the contrary. See, for example, work by Andre Gunder Frank or Immanuel Wallerstein.
Cheers, -m
The more important point the LA Times article was making is that the foundation invests in companies that cause or exacerbate the global health problems that the foundation is itself trying to ameliorate.
It is similar to how the World Bank will offer developing countries "green loans" for environmental conservation at the same time as offering them structural adjustment loans, which have harmful effects on health, inequality, and the environment.
The implied criticism is that the foundation engages in only small-scale, reformist attempts at improving health conditions in impoverished countries while perpetuating the global system of inequality that causes these social ills.
Cheers, -m
Cheers, -m
If something is 'rightfully' yours, it is only because you believe in perpetuating the status quo. How did that 'rightfully' come to be the property of those whom you bought it from?
Also, how did you come to be a person with ample opportunity to study, work, make money, and buy things? What powers made such a world possible for you, before you were even born, while at the same time limited or prevented such opportunities for others?
Cheers, -m
If you take Herman & Chomsky's propaganda model as a framework, you'll realize that it is unsurprising for the NYT to be politically motivated similarly to most other news companies. Additionally, being the premier news organization in the U.S. puts the Times in a structural bind making them more dependent on governmental and other elite sources for information even as they attempt to do independent investigative journalism.
Take a close look at how the Times relied on elite (often unnamed) sources in its coverage of the run-up to war, and how the Bush administration then used those very stories from the Times to win support for their case. Would it make you reconsider that the Times is "one of the last respectable bastions of journalism" if you know that they as well as most other news organizations were heaviy reliant on this active propaganda campaign coming from the Pentagon?