Note that it seems most controversy over "people".
An article was created on myself, incorrect and ultimatley targeted as an indirect unfair critisism on a project. The basis of the critisism was the "authoritive" persistance of usenet trolls, some outright admitted. While ignoring the much more official position of publication acceptance of organizations like the USPTO, FFII.org, and http://developer.osdl.org/dev/priorart/
I made some corrections and expanded the corrections to the creation of an article on the subject matter which the project is based. The subject matter of which is easily verifiable.
The article was deleted and it then being obvious the intent was supporting libel against myself, and fraud againt the project, all it took was a little threat of a lawsuit for the article on myself to be removed.
removal is not correction but denial of it.
Being objective, rather than subjective to this insidence, I see the truth about wikipedia. Its not about Truth! And this "not about truth" is even stated in their policies.
Popular belief and cleverly hidden opinions, insinuations is what wikipedia is about.
your theories don't hold up in comparison to practical application.
There are those of us who have personal experience with wikipedia and see through your theories and see the holes in wikipedias policies, all is well so long as one understands what wikipedia is, in making use of it.
Pamela Jones of gorklaw knows, I know and I'm sure there are others too, how incorrect wikipedia can be and how resistant it can be to proper correction at the hands of opionated influence. The theoretical process wikipedia employs in application really just results in putting the controlling opinions vs. genuine research, at another level not so easily or directly seen.
The problems of wikipedia even inspired some former adminastrators to start up another site http://www.wikitruth.info/
"...professional research is by no means any more credible than the wikipedia. Its all a matter of sources and the credibility of the organization."
And a matter of whether or not you can be held libel for bad information, as an "expert witness" or "professional researcher" could be, but wikipedia avoids this via policy and as such cannot be an "expert witness". Not that an "expert witness" cannot be found thru wikipedia, but that "Wikipedia" itself cannot be an expert witness on anything more than on what it takes to produce and maintain such a community effort information system. Individual article research and credibility is left up to the individuals contributing to the article and has less to do with credibility of the overall wikipedia organization to produce and maintain the system.
As a comparison, your typical grocery store checkout counter tabloids can be and are sued for bad information. But not Wikipedia. Showing Wikipedia has less legal responsibility than such a tabloid. No risk of pain in a no gain situation.
Or is there a wikipedia EULA of the typical software EULA? "We reserve all your rights and reap all the benefits but hold no responsibility of damage we may do to you. Use at your own risk and pay us for your use."
Wikipedia policies try to keep quality up but also admits it has less control and recourse than a paid (professional) system and as such cannot be held responsible for errors in the information.
An article can have all kinds of sources but consider a web search, seak and you shall find, doesn't mean you see anything more than what you wanted to see.
Article wise credibility is not derived from the Wikipedia organization, credibility is in the hands of article contributors, and given the apparent large number of contributors and their wikipedia identity.... do you know what the credibility of any specific articles contributors is?
Many people preceive "Linux" as the whole "pick any linux distribution" package of os and application software. But its only the kernel. Same perception problem applies to Wikipedia article credibility.
Overall I believe we are on the same page, but thats just us few?
..can never be anything more than second hand information, what in a court of law would be called "hear-say". The methodology used for keep or delete articles is at best left up to the votes of opinions of the, more often than not, less than a hand full of people. Research is at best a seek and you shall find support for your opinion just don't see what you don't want to see.
Wikipedia is by no means "official" and its policies insure that in effort to keep the threat of lawsuits for wrong information, to a minimum. To put a stamp of "official" on information that is wrong for such an open collective of unpaid articles writers and editors would quickly open a very big can of lawyer worms.
So long as this is understood, wikipedia has some value but it must be understood that the value you get out of using it may not be as good as "official/professional" researched information but more likely better than individual opinions, comments or individual works found elsewhere on the internet.
With all this in mind, it really should be no supprise of the evolving use of wikipedia to build up and/or trash a politician or other public figure. It's the manifestd proof of the "hear-say" only policies of wikipedia.
once we all start working off the web murphy will make someone forget to replace the battery and the next thing we know it'll be jan 1st,1980
As a real end user, I can tell the web world of developers that untill you can get programming down as a genuine science rather than this witchcraft spells of coding and hype for sale.... Murphy loves you, yes he does. So don't make those of us who really honestly know better suffer more, buy selling your babeling BS to the stupid masses and that we unfortunately would then have no reasonable way to avoid on the internet.
yes the software industry is still playing with magic potients and introductary alchemy.
Why is a simple answer to give.
money, job security and social status.
Someone posted that they were warned that their jobs would become extinct upon automated software development. but the fact is.... who but those who have their job to risk....are in a position to employ such tools?
snake oil software development is a self supported dependancy... far from genuine computer software science (of which we haven't really seen since the US government held the money carrot up for code breakers during WWII.
Someone made a comment about how if you build a bridge and it falls you can be held libel, but softwarer you just attach an EULA that says you shall not be held responsible.
What is really being said with such EULAs is that the software insustry is still using roman numerals to do alchemy, or in other words, they don't know what the fuck they are doing well enough to take greater responsibility. And unfortunately lack of responsibility has become such an acceptable norm that there is a notable reduction in the motive to figure out a better numbering system to do math with and get to the hard science of chemistry.
The problems resulting in the lack of such effort are much wider spread than what this oracle article is about. The problem is showing up at the patent office as well in dealing with software patents, which shouldn't exist. Not if you are doing the math right and have abstraction physics being recognized and applied.
But instead what is going on is piece work, patch work or "well this little part works"....which-craft is it?
The "Never-land" philosophy... for never landing on solid ground when playing in teh world of teh abstract.
Never make something so simple that anyone can do it, otherwise you will be out of work.
Never create a perfect program because it leaves no room for selling upgrades.
wheNever someone comes along and exposes simplicity where there was complexity in your application of the above, use your skill at abstraction manipulation to discredit and dismiss their claims.
Never admit that you apply the Neverland philosophy.
there is more.... but I'm Never going to tell you.
it'd be more forward moving to just accept that economy is changing due to computing and allow an economic system to develope on this reduced cost of communication and digital distribution. and since its world wide communication you won't need to deal with how one country is to level taxes on those not of that country?
...petition of the law firms to against this man to ough up the proof this man agreed to their blathering claims.
and when they fail to do so, to reemburse this man all legal expenses he has incurred as well as punitive damages.
If this fails then there sould be a class action suit against these law firms for contributing to the distrustfullness of the legal profession.
either they have proof or that don't anbd if a judge can't simply request that info and see that then the judge needs to be disbarred for abusing the legal system for personal blindness.
Patents on software came into existing through the small court door where the skill of abstraction manipulation was used to argue for it by those inherently skill at such, due to the nature of soiftware.
With this in mind, what needs to be taught so that this skill will exposed and seen through when it is being unfairly biased?
There is this issue of "state of the art" of what is supposedly "computer science" but then there is "Abstraction Physics" which applies to not only software but to anything we do with abstractions. This on the matter of non-novel.
It took 300 for teh easier and more powerful hindu-arabic decimal system to overcome the roman numeral system of limited math. It took 350 years for the catholic church to openly accept the genuine scientific observation of Galileo (early 1990's the pope exonerated Galieo...for of course the benefit of the church, not long dead Galileo)
We gonna wait 400 years for what should be considered obvious in software creation, to be just that, obvious? Or are we gonna recognize what we naturally do, unavoidably, sooner?
take $50 billion away from them and they will just increase their billing to recoup it and more. Money doesn't appear out of thin air, it will come from some where. Where do you suppose it will be?
On another note, so what about the tapping.....maybe if they really do it they might just find out that its only a small fraction of the population creating world terrorist and other serious problems and that its the ones they are not tapping that are the ones causing problems. The process of elimination of who they are and are not tapping will lead to the same conclusion anyone applying common sence concludes. idiot polticians and military war mongers.
finding that out is a bad thing? for who?
how about some real real tv and real radio shows? certainly the NSA has such technological analysing capabilities that they can extract, in a very timely manner, terroristic communications out of the mass of communications happening every minute.
and once they get rid of the scum, then maybe they can sell the technology to the like of google, microsoft, yahoo, etc... so we actually get better search results.
now if the NSA really has such data analysis capabilities, then are they themselves not also responsible for hindering human advancement and technology of the everyday worker who could benefit in their daily activities in saving time in their online searchs?
Come on people, wise up..... the NSA is not using alien technology. They are getting more suppression of so called bad activity from the promotion of their access to the data than they have the ability to analize the data.
The whole point of the idea of London creating a TV program of their street cameras is that they don't have the ability to analize it otherwise. now multiply that by a factor of (london is small in comparison to teh country of the US....)
however a focused effort on monitoring the more likely to cause world problems and put in front of teh eyes of the public.... now that might just work....
remove the laws that shouldn't have been on the books to begin with, or laws that have run their reasonable useful course.
From another perspective when the masses are doing something regardless of the man made laws saying not to, then it is politically wise to go along so long as there are no real victims.
In the early 1990's the Pope gave into Galileos thoughts about the earth revolving around the sun, because they were losing followers with their misguided teachings.
...having only a few behind closed doors watching..."real tv" shows...add your own
but some questions remain:
will Americans get to watch also (re: US government gets to see teh phone habits of europeans)
when will we get to watch politicians and economic manipulation practices, as this can be exposing. (in the US some local tv does show things like town meeetings, but thats should be a given...)... It has been researched and found that more and higher dollar white colar crime happens than blue colar crime.
So if this camera broadcast is to help reduce crime, how about the white colar and political crime cameras?
Oops..... how come they don't practice what they impose on others?
for three days the NSA's computer systems were down...... All of them. they didn't take y2k serious enough. and certainly weren't much up on teh 9/11 attack. How smart can they really be? information is dangerious in the hands of the stupid.
contrary to the constitution of the United States.
from another POV, such access opens the world up to cross culture and country communications. Certainly that's something of teaching value, especially regarding social science.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like they plan on breaking the system, the camels back, with a mass of sudden weight.
good!
jack of all trades, master of none
Simply a matter of legal responsibility and risk.
Wikipedia risk little and for such reduced risk it carries little legal weight, naturally.
And no you cannot always correct errors, see http://www.wikitruth.info/
Note that it seems most controversy over "people".
An article was created on myself, incorrect and ultimatley targeted as an indirect unfair critisism on a project. The basis of the critisism was the "authoritive" persistance of usenet trolls, some outright admitted. While ignoring the much more official position of publication acceptance of organizations like the USPTO, FFII.org, and http://developer.osdl.org/dev/priorart/
I made some corrections and expanded the corrections to the creation of an article on the subject matter which the project is based. The subject matter of which is easily verifiable.
The article was deleted and it then being obvious the intent was supporting libel against myself, and fraud againt the project, all it took was a little threat of a lawsuit for the article on myself to be removed.
removal is not correction but denial of it.
Being objective, rather than subjective to this insidence, I see the truth about wikipedia. Its not about Truth! And this "not about truth" is even stated in their policies.
Popular belief and cleverly hidden opinions, insinuations is what wikipedia is about.
your theories don't hold up in comparison to practical application.
There are those of us who have personal experience with wikipedia and see through your theories and see the holes in wikipedias policies, all is well so long as one understands what wikipedia is, in making use of it.
Pamela Jones of gorklaw knows, I know and I'm sure there are others too, how incorrect wikipedia can be and how resistant it can be to proper correction at the hands of opionated influence. The theoretical process wikipedia employs in application really just results in putting the controlling opinions vs. genuine research, at another level not so easily or directly seen.
The problems of wikipedia even inspired some former adminastrators to start up another site http://www.wikitruth.info/
"...professional research is by no means any more credible than the wikipedia. Its all a matter of sources and the credibility of the organization."
And a matter of whether or not you can be held libel for bad information, as an "expert witness" or "professional researcher" could be, but wikipedia avoids this via policy and as such cannot be an "expert witness". Not that an "expert witness" cannot be found thru wikipedia, but that "Wikipedia" itself cannot be an expert witness on anything more than on what it takes to produce and maintain such a community effort information system. Individual article research and credibility is left up to the individuals contributing to the article and has less to do with credibility of the overall wikipedia organization to produce and maintain the system.
As a comparison, your typical grocery store checkout counter tabloids can be and are sued for bad information. But not Wikipedia. Showing Wikipedia has less legal responsibility than such a tabloid. No risk of pain in a no gain situation.
Or is there a wikipedia EULA of the typical software EULA? "We reserve all your rights and reap all the benefits but hold no responsibility of damage we may do to you. Use at your own risk and pay us for your use."
Wikipedia policies try to keep quality up but also admits it has less control and recourse than a paid (professional) system and as such cannot be held responsible for errors in the information.
An article can have all kinds of sources but consider a web search, seak and you shall find, doesn't mean you see anything more than what you wanted to see.
Article wise credibility is not derived from the Wikipedia organization, credibility is in the hands of article contributors, and given the apparent large number of contributors and their wikipedia identity.... do you know what the credibility of any specific articles contributors is?
Many people preceive "Linux" as the whole "pick any linux distribution" package of os and application software. But its only the kernel. Same perception problem applies to Wikipedia article credibility.
Overall I believe we are on the same page, but thats just us few?
..can never be anything more than second hand information, what in a court of law would be called "hear-say". The methodology used for keep or delete articles is at best left up to the votes of opinions of the, more often than not, less than a hand full of people. Research is at best a seek and you shall find support for your opinion just don't see what you don't want to see.
Wikipedia is by no means "official" and its policies insure that in effort to keep the threat of lawsuits for wrong information, to a minimum. To put a stamp of "official" on information that is wrong for such an open collective of unpaid articles writers and editors would quickly open a very big can of lawyer worms.
So long as this is understood, wikipedia has some value but it must be understood that the value you get out of using it may not be as good as "official/professional" researched information but more likely better than individual opinions, comments or individual works found elsewhere on the internet.
With all this in mind, it really should be no supprise of the evolving use of wikipedia to build up and/or trash a politician or other public figure. It's the manifestd proof of the "hear-say" only policies of wikipedia.
your forgot to add the mayonase...
and system backups....
so we all get to be terrorist and the government gets to be the warden...
To be clear. I write something and post it to usenet and all of the sudden every server that pass it has 50 year rights on it.
and in 50 years another broadcaster will join in and extend it another 50 years
.
And where are my rights to what I wrote?
... very much needed
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
once we all start working off the web murphy will make someone forget to replace the battery and the next thing we know it'll be jan 1st,1980
As a real end user, I can tell the web world of developers that untill you can get programming down as a genuine science rather than this witchcraft spells of coding and hype for sale.... Murphy loves you, yes he does. So don't make those of us who really honestly know better suffer more, buy selling your babeling BS to the stupid masses and that we unfortunately would then have no reasonable way to avoid on the internet.
even before there is code written there is failure of developing a design science
...science of abstraction physics.
yes the software industry is still playing with magic potients and introductary alchemy.
Why is a simple answer to give.
money, job security and social status.
Someone posted that they were warned that their jobs would become extinct upon automated software development.
but the fact is.... who but those who have their job to risk....are in a position to employ such tools?
snake oil software development is a self supported dependancy... far from genuine computer software science (of which we haven't really seen since the US government held the money carrot up for code breakers during WWII.
move from buyinmg software to renting software?
I believe the article is a bit intentionally mis-leading....
http://www.ricoact.com/
Someone made a comment about how if you build a bridge and it falls you can be held libel, but softwarer you just attach an EULA that says you shall not be held responsible.
What is really being said with such EULAs is that the software insustry is still using roman numerals to do alchemy, or in other words, they don't know what the fuck they are doing well enough to take greater responsibility. And unfortunately lack of responsibility has become such an acceptable norm that there is a notable reduction in the motive to figure out a better numbering system to do math with and get to the hard science of chemistry.
The problems resulting in the lack of such effort are much wider spread than what this oracle article is about. The problem is showing up at the patent office as well in dealing with software patents, which shouldn't exist. Not if you are doing the math right and have abstraction physics being recognized and applied.
But instead what is going on is piece work, patch work or "well this little part works"....which-craft is it?
The "Never-land" philosophy... for never landing on solid ground when playing in teh world of teh abstract.
Never make something so simple that anyone can do it, otherwise you will be out of work.
Never create a perfect program because it leaves no room for selling upgrades.
wheNever someone comes along and exposes simplicity where there was complexity in your
application of the above, use your skill at abstraction manipulation to discredit and
dismiss their claims.
Never admit that you apply the Neverland philosophy.
there is more.... but I'm Never going to tell you.
it'd be more forward moving to just accept that economy is changing due to computing and allow an economic system to develope on this reduced cost of communication and digital distribution. and since its world wide communication you won't need to deal with how one country is to level taxes on those not of that country?
...petition of the law firms to against this man to ough up the proof this man agreed to their blathering claims.
and when they fail to do so, to reemburse this man all legal expenses he has incurred as well as punitive damages.
If this fails then there sould be a class action suit against these law firms for contributing to the distrustfullness of the legal profession.
either they have proof or that don't anbd if a judge can't simply request that info and see that then the judge needs to be disbarred for abusing the legal system for personal blindness.
If this guy is lying, then who cares?!
Patents on software came into existing through the small court door where the skill of abstraction manipulation was used to argue for it by those inherently skill at such, due to the nature of soiftware.
With this in mind, what needs to be taught so that this skill will exposed and seen through when it is being unfairly biased?
There is this issue of "state of the art" of what is supposedly "computer science" but then there is "Abstraction Physics" which applies to not only software but to anything we do with abstractions. This on the matter of non-novel.
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
It took 300 for teh easier and more powerful hindu-arabic decimal system to overcome the roman numeral system of limited math. It took 350 years for the catholic church to openly accept the genuine scientific observation of Galileo (early 1990's the pope exonerated Galieo...for of course the benefit of the church, not long dead Galileo)
We gonna wait 400 years for what should be considered obvious in software creation, to be just that, obvious?
Or are we gonna recognize what we naturally do, unavoidably, sooner?
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
take $50 billion away from them and they will just increase their billing to recoup it and more. Money doesn't appear out of thin air, it will come from some where. Where do you suppose it will be?
....)
On another note, so what about the tapping.....maybe if they really do it they might just find out that its only a small fraction of the population creating world terrorist and other serious problems and that its the ones they are not tapping that are the ones causing problems. The process of elimination of who they are and are not tapping will lead to the same conclusion anyone applying common sence concludes. idiot polticians and military war mongers.
finding that out is a bad thing? for who?
how about some real real tv and real radio shows? certainly the NSA has such technological analysing capabilities that they can extract, in a very timely manner, terroristic communications out of the mass of communications happening every minute.
and once they get rid of the scum, then maybe they can sell the technology to the like of google, microsoft, yahoo, etc... so we actually get better search results.
now if the NSA really has such data analysis capabilities, then are they themselves not also responsible for hindering human advancement and technology of the everyday worker who could benefit in their daily activities in saving time in their online searchs?
Come on people, wise up..... the NSA is not using alien technology. They are getting more suppression of so called bad activity from the promotion of their access to the data than they have the ability to analize the data.
The whole point of the idea of London creating a TV program of their street cameras is that they don't have the ability to analize it otherwise. now multiply that by a factor of (london is small in comparison to teh country of the US
however a focused effort on monitoring the more likely to cause world problems and put in front of teh eyes of the public.... now that might just work....
remove the laws that shouldn't have been on the books to begin with, or laws that have run their reasonable useful course.
From another perspective when the masses are doing something regardless of the man made laws saying not to, then it is politically wise to go along so long as there are no real victims.
In the early 1990's the Pope gave into Galileos thoughts about the earth revolving around the sun, because they were losing followers with their misguided teachings.
...having only a few behind closed doors watching ..."real tv" shows ...add your own
but some questions remain:
will Americans get to watch also (re: US government gets to see teh phone habits of europeans)
when will we get to watch politicians and economic manipulation practices, as this can be exposing. (in the US some local tv does show things like town meeetings, but thats should be a given...)... It has been researched and found that more and higher dollar white colar crime happens than blue colar crime.
So if this camera broadcast is to help reduce crime, how about the white colar and political crime cameras?
No Secrets Allowed....
Oops..... how come they don't practice what they impose on others?
for three days the NSA's computer systems were down...... All of them.
they didn't take y2k serious enough. and certainly weren't much up on teh 9/11 attack.
How smart can they really be? information is dangerious in the hands of the stupid.
contrary to the constitution of the United States.
from another POV, such access opens the world up to cross culture and country communications. Certainly that's something of teaching value, especially regarding social science.