Every Wikipedia article has a link called "permanent link" in the toolbox on the left. That link will always point to the precise article version you're currently reading. If you want to link to a previous article version, click on "History", and then on the date you want.
Every editor should be required to submit and display their verifiable real name. Anonymous contributions, while still possible, would not go into the live article right away, but would rather be made available to all editors who "watch" the respective article, and to the last 5 editors who have worked on the article; any one of those editors could then easily accept the anonymous edits. (This requires a tiny bit of software support.)
Rationale:
Many pranks, flames, agenda-pushing and other bad-faith behaviors are facilitated by online anonymity; people who sign with their real name behave in general much more civil.
The proposed system would improve the overall transparency and accountability of Wikipedia significantly.
There are no "privacy rights" at stake: anyone who wishes to add a statement to a major encyclopedia should at the very least have enough trust in the statement's truth to sign it with their real name.
All statements in Wikipedia are supposed to be verifiable, and verifiable statements have no liability issues.
For quick typo fixes and contributions from work etc., the above described mechanism for anonymous contributions remains in place.
Wasn't it clear to pretty much everybody at the time that the WMD issue and the 9/11 connection were never ment seriously? Wolfowitz wanted to get rid of Saddam and establish a foothold in the region, that was public knowledge at least since the New York Times reported on the detailed invasion plans in Spring 2002, way before the weapons' inspectors had submitted their reports. See "A Nation Challenged: The Military; U.S. Envisions Blueprint on Iraq Including Big Invasion Next Year", The New York Times, April 28, 2002.
Amazing that American lawmakers still dare to use the phrase "Free Speech" in public.
Suppose you're a librarian and an FBI agent shows up and wants to know the complete list of books and websites this particular Muslim patron looked at. They don't have a court's warrant, but you still have to comply, of course. You're outraged, you want to scream, you want to protest, you want to blog, you want to write a letter to the editor, you want to call your congressman! Oops, nope, can't talk about that, sorry, it's illegal. That's freedom of speech for you, in these United States of America.
The same is true for bank employees, by the way, and everyone working with financial records, including casinos, pawn shops, U.S. Postal Office, car dealerships etc.
if people are allowed to do whatever they want to an encyclopedia, it might end up being a very inaccurate source. I wouldn't reference it in a paper to be published, that's for sure.
Cancer is pretty damn miserable and drawn out by all accounts, whereas tofu-eating non-smokers are more likely to have a quick stroke and die rapidly after that.
That's incorrect. Cancer is a disease of old age; you live long enough, you are almost guaranteed to get it. So are Alzheimer's and dementia. Eating fatty foods and not exercising will usually result in heart disease and high blood pressure, and you'll die after a couple of heart attacks or strokes.
Living healthily prolongs your life but often produces an uglier end. The only way out is a properly timed suicide, a nice party with friends/drugs/women/whatever you like. Plan ahead to make sure that the last minute of your life is your best minute.
Given that your favorite website hasn't been updated in years and your newest quote is from 2000, it seems that the dissident position is thoroughly dead by now. The undeniable successes of anti-retroviral therapy probably did it.
that HIV hadn't been proven to cause AIDS, and that a Nobel prize winner -- the guy who invented PCR -- was in agreement.
I think the last Kary Mullis has said about HIV/AIDS was in his 1998 book "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field". Lots of research has happened since then. BTW, in the book he also states that he believes in astrology and UFOs/alien abduction. It's a good read.
Btw, it is a myth that people who take supposed HIV-suppressant drugs like AZT actually live longer. There are plenty of documented cases where people are living with HIV without taking any immuno-suppressant medication.
You, or anyone with similar insights, should start a life insurance policy for people who have tested positive for HIV and who refuse to take any anti-viral medications. According to your theory, these people will live long and prosper, and you'll get rich. And you will prove your theory along the way. What's stopping you?
The peace corps college kid takes away your income source, sure enough, but the kid also provides to millions of people for free what they otherwise would have to pay for. So overall, it's a clear plus for the world; you just happen to sit on the wrong side of the equation. Time to move.
the first order was against the Wikimedia _Foundation_
Well, it turns out I was wrong. The first version of the first order was directed at Wikimedia Foundation, St Petersburg, Russia. Five days later they corrected it, and named Jimbo Wales as representative in St Pertersburg [sic!], Florida. German coverage.
no websites could say anything bad about the British Prime Minister, whether the dirt was true or not, do you really think the other E.U. countries would enforce this law against their websites?
No they wouldn't (in fact they don't: animal porn is legal in the Netherlands, illegal in Germany), but that's not the current scenario. Jimbo is not being accused of having broken any German law. It's just a civil matter; the court ruled for this particular temporary injunction that the parents' privacy rights weigh more than Jimbo's right to free speech. Of course if Jimbo doesn't comply with the order it's a different matter, probably something akin to contempt of court. (BTW, in the US you can also get fined and arrested if you don't obey court orders.) Like I said before, I do not know whether but I wouldn't be surprised if the German court can make other EU countries cooperate in cases of contempt of court.
Jimbo Wales, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, was personally named in the first order of the Berlin court (there were two orders, the one in December naming Jimbo, the one in January naming Wikimedia Germany). Disobeying such an order of a German court results in fines or arrest ("Ordnungshaft"), whatever the judge deems appropriate. The fact that it's German law and not EU law that's violated is not relevant, since EU countries assist each other all the time in legal matters, just like the U.S. states do. I admit that I don't know whether other EU countries would cooperate in such a minor civil matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a way for the judge to request EU assistance if he really got pissed off.
Let's say I sue a guy who lives in Zimbabwe for damaging some property I'm holding in Zimbabwe.
Or let's say he damaged some property of yours in the U.S., for example by hacking into your computer. And let's further assume that hacking is legal in Zimbabwe. So you sue him in the U.S.
Why do you believe Germany thinks its laws apply to everyone in the world?
It's a civil matter. Even in the US you can sue somebody who sits in a different country in civil court. Swiss banks were sued by holocaust survivers in New York courts for example. If the defendent doesn't show up for the trial, you get a default judgement. Enforcing that judgement is difficult however. There's really not much difference between the German and the US system here, except that US courts are generally much more open to such international cases.
There's a large difference between making a specific credible threat about shooting someone or blowing up a plane (or failing to prevent someone else from blowing up a plane), and making a statement, however wrong and stupid, about politics or history.
Yes you're right: different societies outlaw different kinds of speech. In the US for instance, you cannot tell people how to circumvent copy protection.
And what do we gain by knowing his full last name, instead of the inital?
Suppose you want to research more about his background, say track down his grades or his highschool girlfriends? You need to find out where he went to school, and the name he used at the time. It's useful biographical information.
I still don't see this as a "free speech"-only thing. I know Boris' parents are suing because of the movie that uses his real name instead of a fictitional one.
Then they should sue the movie producers, not Wikipedia.
The guy's a convicted criminal, his name is part of public records.
Slashdot Mirror
Every Wikipedia article has a link called "permanent link" in the toolbox on the left. That link will always point to the precise article version you're currently reading. If you want to link to a previous article version, click on "History", and then on the date you want.
The Wikimania paper about semantic links is here.
Every editor should be required to submit and display their verifiable real name. Anonymous contributions, while still possible, would not go into the live article right away, but would rather be made available to all editors who "watch" the respective article, and to the last 5 editors who have worked on the article; any one of those editors could then easily accept the anonymous edits. (This requires a tiny bit of software support.)
Rationale:
Wasn't it clear to pretty much everybody at the time that the WMD issue and the 9/11 connection were never ment seriously? Wolfowitz wanted to get rid of Saddam and establish a foothold in the region, that was public knowledge at least since the New York Times reported on the detailed invasion plans in Spring 2002, way before the weapons' inspectors had submitted their reports. See "A Nation Challenged: The Military; U.S. Envisions Blueprint on Iraq Including Big Invasion Next Year", The New York Times, April 28, 2002.
Suppose you're a librarian and an FBI agent shows up and wants to know the complete list of books and websites this particular Muslim patron looked at. They don't have a court's warrant, but you still have to comply, of course. You're outraged, you want to scream, you want to protest, you want to blog, you want to write a letter to the editor, you want to call your congressman! Oops, nope, can't talk about that, sorry, it's illegal. That's freedom of speech for you, in these United States of America.
The same is true for bank employees, by the way, and everyone working with financial records, including casinos, pawn shops, U.S. Postal Office, car dealerships etc.
These corporations should read an EULA one of these days. Hint: Microsoft is not liable or accountable for anything.
Wikipedia has so far been used as a source in about 100 peer-reviewed published articles.
Who was Cain's wife?
I would also like to know whom exactly Cain and Abel married.
That's incorrect. Cancer is a disease of old age; you live long enough, you are almost guaranteed to get it. So are Alzheimer's and dementia. Eating fatty foods and not exercising will usually result in heart disease and high blood pressure, and you'll die after a couple of heart attacks or strokes. Living healthily prolongs your life but often produces an uglier end. The only way out is a properly timed suicide, a nice party with friends/drugs/women/whatever you like. Plan ahead to make sure that the last minute of your life is your best minute.
Given that your favorite website hasn't been updated in years and your newest quote is from 2000, it seems that the dissident position is thoroughly dead by now. The undeniable successes of anti-retroviral therapy probably did it.
I think the last Kary Mullis has said about HIV/AIDS was in his 1998 book "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field". Lots of research has happened since then. BTW, in the book he also states that he believes in astrology and UFOs/alien abduction. It's a good read.
You, or anyone with similar insights, should start a life insurance policy for people who have tested positive for HIV and who refuse to take any anti-viral medications. According to your theory, these people will live long and prosper, and you'll get rich. And you will prove your theory along the way. What's stopping you?
The peace corps college kid takes away your income source, sure enough, but the kid also provides to millions of people for free what they otherwise would have to pay for. So overall, it's a clear plus for the world; you just happen to sit on the wrong side of the equation. Time to move.
Well, it turns out I was wrong. The first version of the first order was directed at Wikimedia Foundation, St Petersburg, Russia. Five days later they corrected it, and named Jimbo Wales as representative in St Pertersburg [sic!], Florida. German coverage.
no websites could say anything bad about the British Prime Minister, whether the dirt was true or not, do you really think the other E.U. countries would enforce this law against their websites?
No they wouldn't (in fact they don't: animal porn is legal in the Netherlands, illegal in Germany), but that's not the current scenario. Jimbo is not being accused of having broken any German law. It's just a civil matter; the court ruled for this particular temporary injunction that the parents' privacy rights weigh more than Jimbo's right to free speech. Of course if Jimbo doesn't comply with the order it's a different matter, probably something akin to contempt of court. (BTW, in the US you can also get fined and arrested if you don't obey court orders.) Like I said before, I do not know whether but I wouldn't be surprised if the German court can make other EU countries cooperate in cases of contempt of court.
Jimbo Wales, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, was personally named in the first order of the Berlin court (there were two orders, the one in December naming Jimbo, the one in January naming Wikimedia Germany). Disobeying such an order of a German court results in fines or arrest ("Ordnungshaft"), whatever the judge deems appropriate. The fact that it's German law and not EU law that's violated is not relevant, since EU countries assist each other all the time in legal matters, just like the U.S. states do. I admit that I don't know whether other EU countries would cooperate in such a minor civil matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a way for the judge to request EU assistance if he really got pissed off.
Or let's say he damaged some property of yours in the U.S., for example by hacking into your computer. And let's further assume that hacking is legal in Zimbabwe. So you sue him in the U.S.
It's a civil matter. Even in the US you can sue somebody who sits in a different country in civil court. Swiss banks were sued by holocaust survivers in New York courts for example. If the defendent doesn't show up for the trial, you get a default judgement. Enforcing that judgement is difficult however. There's really not much difference between the German and the US system here, except that US courts are generally much more open to such international cases.
Yes you're right: different societies outlaw different kinds of speech. In the US for instance, you cannot tell people how to circumvent copy protection.
I think it boosted us from place 30 to place 20 on Alexa's ranking of the most popular sites :-)
Suppose you want to research more about his background, say track down his grades or his highschool girlfriends? You need to find out where he went to school, and the name he used at the time. It's useful biographical information.
Well, if Jimbo doesn't fight the order and doesn't comply with it, and he travels to the European Union, he could risk a fine or arrest.
Or you can get static HTML dumps here.