...particularly when you don't think Wikipedia has any value to begin with.
Excuse me? Exactly where do I say that?
You're backing and filling and qualifying all of sudden. Could it be that you've been caught being exactly the kind of intellectual fascist you accuse others of being?
Take a deep breath, go do something else. Then you can come back to this conversation when you can think without your balls.
Jeez, dude, if you can't stand to listen to the words of those who disagree with you, you should follow your own advice and just not listen to them. Of course, that would deprive you of your fundamental right to be a bullying asshole.
I'll say it once last time: I never said the Wikipedia shouldn't document the FSM. Yes, popular culture deserves more space than it gets in traditional encylopedias. But the Wikipedia isn't mean to be a pop culture encylopedia. It's meant to be a general encyclopedia. And it that it's a semi-failure. This failure isn't changed by the fact that it's strong in some specific areas.
I agree that the FSMers have an important point: "If the Fundamentalists can demand equal time for their creation-in-6-days God, then I can demand equal time for my Flying Spaghetti Monster god." But having made that point, what more is there to say? Certainly not as much as is said in the huge FSM article.
I agree that Wikipedia reflects the content of the Web, and why this is bad. But it wasn't supposed to be this way. There's a Wikipedia rule that content is supposed to be backed up by attribution. Unfortunately, this rule is never enforced. Even the best Wikipedia articles (and I have to admit there are a lot of good ones) are basically brain dumps by knowledgable persons, not authoritatively referenced research.
Oddly enough, I happen to think it's a good thing that the web lacks a "trust the expert" mechanism. There's a lot of stuff written down in books that happens to be nonsense. And I don't just mean fringe nonsense like Mein Kampf. I mean "authoritative" sources like Encyclopedia Britannica. The democratic nature of the web gives the hoi poloi a chance to decide for themselves which sources to trust and which not to trust -- and I think we'll all be better off for it in the long run. In the short run, however, we have to wade through a lot of crap.
A worthy project. My only qualm is this: every time in the past third parties have tried to clone Real software, they've been sued out of existence. How long will it be before the Real lawyers get around to this project?
Dude, you're not allowed to admit a mistake. It's against the rules!
Actually, inferring that I wanted to the LSM article deleted isn't that big a jump in logic. That was actually my first reaction. Then I looked to see how much following the "cult" has, and realized that it was a legitimate subject for an article. One of the basic concepts of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is not paper", meaning there's room for everything of any interest to anybody. And I'm fine with that. It's the priorities I don't care for.
It's been said before, but let me say it again: if it's broken, fix it, don't complain.
How, exactly? I can nibble away at the edges, by correcting problematic articles. But what can I do about the great mass of un-fact-checked crap, and useless trivia that floods Wikipedia?
*You* may think that a detailed article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't important, but who are you to judge these things? What matters to you may not matter to other people, either.
And if I'd said "there shouldn't be an article on the FSM", you'd have a point. But that's not what I said. I said that too much of the effort goes to trivia, and not enough to the basic work of building an encyclopedia.
Face it, five years from now, an article on a satirical pseudo-cult will be of passing interest. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on it. But it does indicate that the relative priorities of Wikipedia contributors are very short sighted.
That Flying Spaghetti Monsterism article is an example of what bothers me most about Wikipedia. If something gets a lot of attention online generates a lot of Google hits, it gets a big Wikipedia effort -- even if it's of limited reference value. Same goes for TV shows -- popular ones have detailed summaries of every episode. Meanwhile, the basic work of building an encyclopedia, like researching obscure historical subjects and even basic fact-checking, is largely neglected.
When I was participating in Wikipedia editing, I considered making a project of correcting the time zone articles, which have factual errors in their very titles. Part of that would have meant researching how time zones are drawn up in Canada. I could have done it myself, but it would have been less work for somebody with access to a Canadian public library. So I asked a conspicuous Canadian Wikipedian to lend me a hand. He declined. Not because he didn't want to do the work -- he spends a lot of time working on Wikipedia. But because he "never goes to libraries"! Not something that encourages you as to the quality of the information Wikipedia supplies.
I don't share your hostility towards the Java runtime, but I do think you have a point. Why should anybody care about this project? To be newsworthy, a release announcement should contain some significant features that would make me want to try the software.
But I'm a sucker for new software, so I tried it anyway. First using the Java Webstart installer (which seems to be broken), then using the Windows native installer (which does work). What I got was a Java implementation of Thunderbird, with not as many features and a few more glitches. Why bother?
Dude, buy a dictionary. Somebody who bashes your favorite filmmaker isn't narrow minded. If you were to present actual arguments about the qualities of that filmmaker, and I just refused to hear them, then you could claim I'm narrow minded.
Your claim that Spirited Away doesn't have a plot isn't even worth comenting on.
Your assumptions are as stupid as everything else you say. People who like Miyazai don't necessarily like everything Japanese. I, for one, hate most Anime. Even the most thoughtful stuff, like Cowboy Bebop, bores me to tears, to say nothing of the mindless crap that most Japanese cartoon studios turn out. But Miyazaki is a class unto himself. He tells complex stories, creates a sense of place that outdoes even most live-action movies, and has a wonderful artistic eye.
By contrast Tarentino knows how to frame a shot, and I guess he's good with actors. But his stories are childish and not terribly logical. I guess his fight scenes must be impressive, because even directors I respect say they're good. But some us what more to movies than fight scene.
Bottom line: QT knows his audience, and has a talent of sorts, but creatively he's not even on the same planet as Miyazaki.
We can agree to disagree about the quality of QT's writing. But if you think his dialogue's anything like Shakespeare's, you need to learn to read all over again!
Well, I don't speak Japanese. But I notice a lot of places in the Disney version where they've added dialogue that obviously wasn't in the original. And painfully cute dialog too.
Anyway, I was never saying that kiddie movies should have full frontal nudity! But if Walt couldn't show satyrs without turning them into eunuchs, he shouldn't show them at all. In Fantasia, he pretending to educate his audience (including adults, which were actually the main audience for cartoons in the 30s) about clasical culture. Of course there are parts he has to skip over. But when he shows castrated satyrs, he's not skipping over the racy bits, he sugar-coating them into nothingness.
No shit! That's why I always watch the DVDs in Japanese with subtitles.
That was one thing that suprised me about the Miyazaki interview -- him professing that the English soundtracks were perfectly fine. Perhaps he doesn't speak enough English to realize how much crap Disney adds.
The "plot" in a Tarentino movie is a lot of people trying to kill each other. The "dialogue" is these people making lame witicisms between fight scenes. Compare away!
Slashdot Mirror
Please do. Being insulted by idiots can only enhance my reputation.
So tell me what's wrong with my rhetoric. If you can do it without resorting to name-calling.
You're backing and filling and qualifying all of sudden. Could it be that you've been caught being exactly the kind of intellectual fascist you accuse others of being?
Take a deep breath, go do something else. Then you can come back to this conversation when you can think without your balls.
Jeez, dude, if you can't stand to listen to the words of those who disagree with you, you should follow your own advice and just not listen to them. Of course, that would deprive you of your fundamental right to be a bullying asshole.
I agree that the FSMers have an important point: "If the Fundamentalists can demand equal time for their creation-in-6-days God, then I can demand equal time for my Flying Spaghetti Monster god." But having made that point, what more is there to say? Certainly not as much as is said in the huge FSM article.
Oddly enough, I happen to think it's a good thing that the web lacks a "trust the expert" mechanism. There's a lot of stuff written down in books that happens to be nonsense. And I don't just mean fringe nonsense like Mein Kampf. I mean "authoritative" sources like Encyclopedia Britannica. The democratic nature of the web gives the hoi poloi a chance to decide for themselves which sources to trust and which not to trust -- and I think we'll all be better off for it in the long run. In the short run, however, we have to wade through a lot of crap.
A worthy project. My only qualm is this: every time in the past third parties have tried to clone Real software, they've been sued out of existence. How long will it be before the Real lawyers get around to this project?
You, on the other hand, are saying, "Oh shut up," without bothering to evaluate anything I have to say. That counts as whining.
Actually, inferring that I wanted to the LSM article deleted isn't that big a jump in logic. That was actually my first reaction. Then I looked to see how much following the "cult" has, and realized that it was a legitimate subject for an article. One of the basic concepts of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is not paper", meaning there's room for everything of any interest to anybody. And I'm fine with that. It's the priorities I don't care for.
Face it, five years from now, an article on a satirical pseudo-cult will be of passing interest. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on it. But it does indicate that the relative priorities of Wikipedia contributors are very short sighted.
That Flying Spaghetti Monsterism article is an example of what bothers me most about Wikipedia. If something gets a lot of attention online generates a lot of Google hits, it gets a big Wikipedia effort -- even if it's of limited reference value. Same goes for TV shows -- popular ones have detailed summaries of every episode. Meanwhile, the basic work of building an encyclopedia, like researching obscure historical subjects and even basic fact-checking, is largely neglected.
When I was participating in Wikipedia editing, I considered making a project of correcting the time zone articles, which have factual errors in their very titles. Part of that would have meant researching how time zones are drawn up in Canada. I could have done it myself, but it would have been less work for somebody with access to a Canadian public library. So I asked a conspicuous Canadian Wikipedian to lend me a hand. He declined. Not because he didn't want to do the work -- he spends a lot of time working on Wikipedia. But because he "never goes to libraries"! Not something that encourages you as to the quality of the information Wikipedia supplies.
Yeah, but it's the first I've heard of it. And worth talking about even if I hadn't.
Is a zillion more than a million?
That's right. Don't think. Just counterattack!
But I'm a sucker for new software, so I tried it anyway. First using the Java Webstart installer (which seems to be broken), then using the Windows native installer (which does work). What I got was a Java implementation of Thunderbird, with not as many features and a few more glitches. Why bother?
Your claim that Spirited Away doesn't have a plot isn't even worth comenting on.
Your assumptions are as stupid as everything else you say. People who like Miyazai don't necessarily like everything Japanese. I, for one, hate most Anime. Even the most thoughtful stuff, like Cowboy Bebop, bores me to tears, to say nothing of the mindless crap that most Japanese cartoon studios turn out. But Miyazaki is a class unto himself. He tells complex stories, creates a sense of place that outdoes even most live-action movies, and has a wonderful artistic eye.
By contrast Tarentino knows how to frame a shot, and I guess he's good with actors. But his stories are childish and not terribly logical. I guess his fight scenes must be impressive, because even directors I respect say they're good. But some us what more to movies than fight scene.
Bottom line: QT knows his audience, and has a talent of sorts, but creatively he's not even on the same planet as Miyazaki.
We can agree to disagree about the quality of QT's writing. But if you think his dialogue's anything like Shakespeare's, you need to learn to read all over again!
Well, I don't speak Japanese. But I notice a lot of places in the Disney version where they've added dialogue that obviously wasn't in the original. And painfully cute dialog too.
Anyway, I was never saying that kiddie movies should have full frontal nudity! But if Walt couldn't show satyrs without turning them into eunuchs, he shouldn't show them at all. In Fantasia, he pretending to educate his audience (including adults, which were actually the main audience for cartoons in the 30s) about clasical culture. Of course there are parts he has to skip over. But when he shows castrated satyrs, he's not skipping over the racy bits, he sugar-coating them into nothingness.
You really should read the other replies to a post before replying yourself.
That was one thing that suprised me about the Miyazaki interview -- him professing that the English soundtracks were perfectly fine. Perhaps he doesn't speak enough English to realize how much crap Disney adds.
Yeah, that would piss me off too. But even if that had never happened. Miyasaki was wise to not letter Disney mess with his stories.
The "plot" in a Tarentino movie is a lot of people trying to kill each other. The "dialogue" is these people making lame witicisms between fight scenes. Compare away!