wow, 20 comments, and not one of them a reference to Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth's Smelloscope? I'm impressed with everyone restraining their geekdom.
I had to follow this standard on a previous project, and looking at the summary of changes, it's largely rather routine. Most of the changes actually look like relaxations: Less frequent testing, more generic terminology (removing specific wireless security mechanisms), and a bunch of clarifications of intent. The ruling on antivirus software for UNIX systems is a little silly to me, but it doesn't make much in the way of strong clarifications as to the quality of the software. It sounds like a standard cover-your-ass ruling. While annoying to install, it's nothing difficult for any topology I can imagine. The threat of changes yet to come may be a hassle, but if they aren't defined yet, I wouldn't really call that hideously newsworthy.
I'm sorry to hear you've had such experiences. I guess I've just never experienced or witnessed that. Occassionally I have seen admins make poor decisions and when I or someone else justifies the conflicting argument, either the admin concedes, or a third party mediates the concern. By default, admins are in no way specially marked; no special icon or page formatting, so most people disagreeing with an admins edit (that isn't a delete or block) don't even realize they are disagreeing with an admin. I read a lot of the page deletion appeals (I check the Wikipedia:Deletion today digest a few times a week, and in each case, the appeal is either obviously unjustified, slightly ambiguous but procedure is better explained by other admins, or the ruling is overturned and the page is either undeleted outright, or deletion discussion is reopened. This particularly surprises me, as I read them because I'm eager to disagree with a ruling and carry the torch for the non-admin underdog, but I continuously find it unessisary.
Where can you find a third party to confirm information on a long-out-of-print book written and published by lots of dead people? You can't. You have only the book itself.
If it isn't on the internet, it didn't happen? Fascinating. Out of print books are available from Libraries. I've actually done interlibrary loans with the Library of Congress just for sources of content to add to Wikipedia. Even if a book is 200 years old, there were still critics then, and what those critics wrote can be retrieved. This is the sort of thing that historians do. If no one recorded anything about it, then regardless of the age, it's a pretty good indicator that we should've be writing about it. (Not from that point of view anyway. If we don't have any strong evidence, and important people still bother to make predictions, we can write about those predictions.)
Again, admins are not gods. They are just editors who are given the ability to delete pages and block users. An editor gets the same voice as an admin (slightly idealistic, I realize, but I've found it to be surprisingly true). There is a specific page about the notability of fiction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability_(fiction) I've regularly contributed to the discussion there. But reaching an agreement is extremely difficult. Both sides of the arguments often make perfectly valid points.
Admins do not have phenomonal cosmic powers. They have the ability to enact a delete or an undelete, and the ability to block users. Neither of which is done on a whim. Edit history exists to show evidence of vandalism justifying user blocks, and Deletion Discussions exist to show evidence of concensus to delete a page. The exception is refered to as "Criteria for Speedy deletion" which has nothing to do with the "fancruft" articles. Those criteria only describe articles that have no place in an encyclopedia, like "my neighbor's dog is funny looking". Anyway, beyond this, editors and admins are the same thing. I've logged thousands of constructive edits, backed by policy, and if I wanted, I could probably be made an admin. But I have no interest in it. I'm an admin of my own Mediawiki wiki on wikia, and based on that I know that being and admin doesn't give you any spiffy powers, just aditional responsibilities.
This technique is used. Also datacenters are built into caves & abandoned mines for the same reason. The reason it isn't done more often is that digging a hole is a pain. Yes, in the long run it generally pays for itself (costs to dig underground vary based on the geology of the region), but when was the last time you bolted out the door to buy new higher efficiency windows? Also, it's better to cycle air or some liquid through a hole in the ground over just straight up "burying" some servers....makes it a bit hard to maintain if you have to design some custom chassie, or use a crane every time you wanna swap a HDD.
They (try) to edit things out that are not confirmed through independent third party sources. If we let the unconfirmed plotcruft in, you say wikipedia is not a reputable source of information. If you edit it out, you claim censorship. The intention of Wikipedia was never to be about everything. It is good as a starting point for research. Much of the sci-fi or anime plot info or whatever is moved to other Wikia projects (not just the dumping grounds of deletionpedia). And those Wikia projects are linked from the main article if they are worthwhile.
It wasn't the administrators, they merely enact the resolution. It was the editors as a whole. I'm not an administrator, yet I have voiced my opinion on hundreds of deletion discussions. If Concensus by plain old editors is to keep a horrible page, the horrible page is kept.
Is there a bias? Sure. But if you don't like it, either participate in the discussions to alter policies and guidelines, or if you are unable to persuade consensus, you're free start your own Wikipedia fork.
I have a HHGttG compilation published in the early 90s where he wrote in the preface that he had just finished a rewrite of the movie script. If his influence wasn't slowing the process down, it can at least be said that his death facilitated production to be pushed through.
GUYS! It's the *INSERT "random ultra-geeky sci-fi reference that may or may not have been mentioned a thousand times in comments above" HERE* !!!
good thing about that *INSERT "obligatory unfunny reference to the recent Lehman bankruptcy protection announcement" HERE*!!!
ROFLCOPTR!
Perhaps you are replying to the wrong post, as mine makes no mention of corporations having rights. I'm talking about what corporations must do to keep their FCC license to operate...
Slashdot Mirror
How about some of that there Internet money? Is Linus willing to fight the Laughing Baby and the Chocolate Rain guy for it?
wow, 20 comments, and not one of them a reference to Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth's Smelloscope? I'm impressed with everyone restraining their geekdom.
Does the case come with a big scary sign that says, "DO NOT TOUCH!", or do I have to fashion my own?
"Not Lenny!!!!"
For those of you unsatisfied with IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers (RFC 1149), we now have IP Datagrams on Aldis Lamp!
First non-pants story I've seen on idle! Huzzah!
...Brain cells watch YOU!!!!!!
I had to follow this standard on a previous project, and looking at the summary of changes, it's largely rather routine. Most of the changes actually look like relaxations: Less frequent testing, more generic terminology (removing specific wireless security mechanisms), and a bunch of clarifications of intent. The ruling on antivirus software for UNIX systems is a little silly to me, but it doesn't make much in the way of strong clarifications as to the quality of the software. It sounds like a standard cover-your-ass ruling. While annoying to install, it's nothing difficult for any topology I can imagine. The threat of changes yet to come may be a hassle, but if they aren't defined yet, I wouldn't really call that hideously newsworthy.
idleispants!!!!!!
This could have been read in the previous article's comment section, and that was enough.
I'm sorry to hear you've had such experiences. I guess I've just never experienced or witnessed that. Occassionally I have seen admins make poor decisions and when I or someone else justifies the conflicting argument, either the admin concedes, or a third party mediates the concern. By default, admins are in no way specially marked; no special icon or page formatting, so most people disagreeing with an admins edit (that isn't a delete or block) don't even realize they are disagreeing with an admin. I read a lot of the page deletion appeals (I check the Wikipedia:Deletion today digest a few times a week, and in each case, the appeal is either obviously unjustified, slightly ambiguous but procedure is better explained by other admins, or the ruling is overturned and the page is either undeleted outright, or deletion discussion is reopened. This particularly surprises me, as I read them because I'm eager to disagree with a ruling and carry the torch for the non-admin underdog, but I continuously find it unessisary.
Oh God, mod parent UP!
Where can you find a third party to confirm information on a long-out-of-print book written and published by lots of dead people? You can't. You have only the book itself.
If it isn't on the internet, it didn't happen? Fascinating. Out of print books are available from Libraries. I've actually done interlibrary loans with the Library of Congress just for sources of content to add to Wikipedia. Even if a book is 200 years old, there were still critics then, and what those critics wrote can be retrieved. This is the sort of thing that historians do. If no one recorded anything about it, then regardless of the age, it's a pretty good indicator that we should've be writing about it. (Not from that point of view anyway. If we don't have any strong evidence, and important people still bother to make predictions, we can write about those predictions.)
Again, admins are not gods. They are just editors who are given the ability to delete pages and block users. An editor gets the same voice as an admin (slightly idealistic, I realize, but I've found it to be surprisingly true). There is a specific page about the notability of fiction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability_(fiction) I've regularly contributed to the discussion there. But reaching an agreement is extremely difficult. Both sides of the arguments often make perfectly valid points.
Admins do not have phenomonal cosmic powers. They have the ability to enact a delete or an undelete, and the ability to block users. Neither of which is done on a whim. Edit history exists to show evidence of vandalism justifying user blocks, and Deletion Discussions exist to show evidence of concensus to delete a page. The exception is refered to as "Criteria for Speedy deletion" which has nothing to do with the "fancruft" articles. Those criteria only describe articles that have no place in an encyclopedia, like "my neighbor's dog is funny looking".
Anyway, beyond this, editors and admins are the same thing. I've logged thousands of constructive edits, backed by policy, and if I wanted, I could probably be made an admin. But I have no interest in it. I'm an admin of my own Mediawiki wiki on wikia, and based on that I know that being and admin doesn't give you any spiffy powers, just aditional responsibilities.
This technique is used. Also datacenters are built into caves & abandoned mines for the same reason. The reason it isn't done more often is that digging a hole is a pain. Yes, in the long run it generally pays for itself (costs to dig underground vary based on the geology of the region), but when was the last time you bolted out the door to buy new higher efficiency windows? Also, it's better to cycle air or some liquid through a hole in the ground over just straight up "burying" some servers....makes it a bit hard to maintain if you have to design some custom chassie, or use a crane every time you wanna swap a HDD.
Given that the GNAA is the most well-known deletion debated on Wikipedia [Citation needed]
There, fixed that for you.
They (try) to edit things out that are not confirmed through independent third party sources. If we let the unconfirmed plotcruft in, you say wikipedia is not a reputable source of information. If you edit it out, you claim censorship. The intention of Wikipedia was never to be about everything. It is good as a starting point for research. Much of the sci-fi or anime plot info or whatever is moved to other Wikia projects (not just the dumping grounds of deletionpedia). And those Wikia projects are linked from the main article if they are worthwhile.
It wasn't the administrators, they merely enact the resolution. It was the editors as a whole. I'm not an administrator, yet I have voiced my opinion on hundreds of deletion discussions. If Concensus by plain old editors is to keep a horrible page, the horrible page is kept.
Is there a bias? Sure. But if you don't like it, either participate in the discussions to alter policies and guidelines, or if you are unable to persuade consensus, you're free start your own Wikipedia fork.
If my glasses weren't 3D, they'd be too flat to balance on my face.
He had said that it was, but that he was in a bit of a dark place at the time, and he rather regretted it.
I have a HHGttG compilation published in the early 90s where he wrote in the preface that he had just finished a rewrite of the movie script. If his influence wasn't slowing the process down, it can at least be said that his death facilitated production to be pushed through.
If ever a comment deserved to be modded past 5, this is it.
For I moment I interpreted the headline as meaning they just created a http://wow.slashdot.org/ category. plz dont.
GUYS! It's the *INSERT "random ultra-geeky sci-fi reference that may or may not have been mentioned a thousand times in comments above" HERE* !!! good thing about that *INSERT "obligatory unfunny reference to the recent Lehman bankruptcy protection announcement" HERE*!!! ROFLCOPTR!
Perhaps you are replying to the wrong post, as mine makes no mention of corporations having rights. I'm talking about what corporations must do to keep their FCC license to operate...