I agree with you but that's true now. Next year or in some time more, phones will be used as computers: emails and internet will be normal. In that scenario, you'll receive email bombs with trojans or virus, or you'll get virus using the browser (in the same way you can get a virus using IExplorer).
I don't mean that I wouldn't buy a phone with this problems but the threats exist as in ordinary computers.
Pipaman
I agree that the notability standard is the big issue here because based on it there are a lot of arbitrary deletions. The notability is a tool for administrator and non-administrators to delete articles because THEY don't know the subject, the person, the company, the product, etc. The consensus is a lie because there are a few people who have done lots of reverts / deletions that are actively collaborating each other in this circumstances so they 'agree' with the deletion of their wikipedian friends. Lots of products are deleted from the Wikipedia appealing to the notability standard. And I ask the following: who cares that a product or a person is not notable? Information about less notable subjects is necessary too and I think Wikipedia should be the place for them. Administrators, in general, think that they are the owners of Wikipedia and they can judge notability or spam in any subject. I saw reverts of links to useful products because they are commercial even when the products are really useful in the subject they clain or they are the only possibility. Sometimes, I see too much ideology: commercial products cannot have a page but a completely unknown tool in sourceforge can. I loved Wikipedia when I first saw and now I hate Wikipedian administrators and administrators 'wanna be' for all these reasons.
The problem is that articles are written by people that after are corrected by other people that may know much less about the subject than the original writer. There are some administrators that look like lawers, they are looking for non-complaint content everywhere to delete or modify it 'following the rules'. But rules, are very arbitrary and this administrators feel like judges that know what is correct.
Wikipedia is transforming in something like an Elite of administrators that believe that they know more than the others. They live for the Wikipedia and can edit articles from 'How to cook a fish' to 'Quantum computing'.
Other people first encouraged to write articles, now become tired to discuss content with this elite that in most cases don't know how to tie their shoes.
Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds' decision is only political and would not change the scenary unless other actors follow the same way.
My cat will be glad to test this new 'featured' mice.
I agree with you but that's true now. Next year or in some time more, phones will be used as computers: emails and internet will be normal. In that scenario, you'll receive email bombs with trojans or virus, or you'll get virus using the browser (in the same way you can get a virus using IExplorer). I don't mean that I wouldn't buy a phone with this problems but the threats exist as in ordinary computers. Pipaman
I agree that the notability standard is the big issue here because based on it there are a lot of arbitrary deletions. The notability is a tool for administrator and non-administrators to delete articles because THEY don't know the subject, the person, the company, the product, etc.
The consensus is a lie because there are a few people who have done lots of reverts / deletions that are actively collaborating each other in this circumstances so they 'agree' with the deletion of their wikipedian friends. Lots of products are deleted from the Wikipedia appealing to the notability standard. And I ask the following: who cares that a product or a person is not notable? Information about less notable subjects is necessary too and I think Wikipedia should be the place for them.
Administrators, in general, think that they are the owners of Wikipedia and they can judge notability or spam in any subject. I saw reverts of links to useful products because they are commercial even when the products are really useful in the subject they clain or they are the only possibility.
Sometimes, I see too much ideology: commercial products cannot have a page but a completely unknown tool in sourceforge can.
I loved Wikipedia when I first saw and now I hate Wikipedian administrators and administrators 'wanna be' for all these reasons.
This is the second best invention after the one-click-shopping.
This is a disaster for the software industry, it's not worth to invest in brillant ideas like this one.
Google can set a couple of links from high PageRanked sites and get free ads.
The problem is that articles are written by people that after are corrected by other people that may know much less about the subject than the original writer. There are some administrators that look like lawers, they are looking for non-complaint content everywhere to delete or modify it 'following the rules'. But rules, are very arbitrary and this administrators feel like judges that know what is correct.
Opera has released its mobile version a long time ago.
Wikipedia is transforming in something like an Elite of administrators that believe that they know more than the others. They live for the Wikipedia and can edit articles from 'How to cook a fish' to 'Quantum computing'. Other people first encouraged to write articles, now become tired to discuss content with this elite that in most cases don't know how to tie their shoes.