I know about that; if we could get a 150-200mph train service from Pgh to either, it would completely change the way people travel in a way that that doesn't. I might as well rent a car right now if I want to head to either; the hassle of waiting at the station means it isn't worth it to take the train. Bump up the speed enough and it's a no-brainer.
I hope we get a line from Pittsburgh to Cleveland and from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia/NYC/Boston. I'm sure I'd use both of those and travel a lot more (if the prices are reasonable).
I strongly dislike the idea of electing Libertarians; I don't want them to become a major force because their values are inimical to civilisation. Still, that's strategy - on the broader scale, I think this is a good idea, as it's two easy to buy off two parties and too difficult for voters to replace a bought party with one that meets their values.
I also like the idea of being able to vote for green or socialist parties without effectively throwing my vote away. We never get to vote for exactly who we'd like (as there probably isn't a politican around with whom we'd agree), but letting us get closer can't be a bad thing. It'd be interesting if this swept the nation and we replaced how the elected bodies function with a coalition system.
I use CentOS at work - it's a good choice for where the servers are in a department where they don't want to pay for RHEL. I agree that Fedora's not a great choice for production systems (might not've thought that way a few years back, but I've grown to really like it). Thanks for visiting - I've been thinking about reworking the look of things - might do it someday.
The reason I don't think your analogy holds is that it's just as easy and well-known to go to one kind of dealership as another, one kind of restaurant as another, or one type of consumer electronics store as another. That's not the case here - the only reason I raise a fuss about Google's store is that it comes bundled with Android and is the primary way most people will get apps on an android device. I recognise that there are alternatives for those willing to put in the effort to seek them out, but I would wager that roughly 5% of android users will do that. It's not an insurmountable barrier (to google's credit), but it is nontheless a barrier. When people go to buy a car, all the places they might go are relatively equally well-known and used.
I'm not saying there's no choice, I'm saying that when one market is so prominent that it takes a special class of user to know about alternatives, when there's hassle in those alternatives (I don't want to tell my mom how to install a third-party app, but I could tell her how to install an app from the store), and when that store is being shaped by the platform vendor for strategic reasons, that's not a good thing.
It is a danger, and we should frown on it. You may prefer for some reason that I focus on other issues, but I care about this one as well - when a store is the main store that the vast vast majority of users will use, it is not appropriate for it to serve its self-interests and lock out other products for strategic reasons.
Blocking malware? Sure. Nobody should object to that. Blocking competitors? No. People should be angry, and it should be seen as a blot on Google's name.
It's not FUD. It might not be something you care about, but it causes harm when there's a main private road that discriminates for things that are not the best reasons.
I am fully aware of the alternate paths. I have a NexusOne, and am a programmer.
Nontheless, when there is a common path that most people will use, self-serving control of that app store is bad for the industry and we should frown at it.
The danger is that this is not just another store - it is *the* store, the main place users go when looking for software. Whenever there's one of those, we should be very nervous - Just because Google did set rules doesn't mean that they should set them arbitrarily or for their own strategic reasons.
Keeping an open platform is not based just on "what can you do" - common practice matters too.
For a long time, there were a variety of ways to buy things - many computer stores, mail-order, etc. People were used to diverse paths, and so apps could easily do well even if they missed a venue. With a single central app store, things are different and control of that store effectively makes or breaks an app.
Control of the most common path of software installation is a dangerous power in anyone's hands. I don't think we should be happy when Google swings its weight around there, even if there are other roads than that highway to get apps out.
I've been programming since elementary school - I'd wager I could achieve enough mastery in a language I don't know in a month (likely less, maybe a week) to outpace anyone from even a very good college who learned on that language. The tools/ideas/habits we bring from general programming experience are just that powerful.
You use the word "mastery" - that's not really a binary status. Even if you've mastered a language (say C), it doesn't mean that you necessarily know how to structure your code for optimal reflection, how to think about refactoring, have a good relationsihp with debuggers, have a system for good commenting that helps you find things or leave notes effectively. Mastery is too complex for that. It's probably easier to talk about proficiency in those terms.
Do you have any idea how big Wikipedia is? Finding and fixing the whole project, or even noticing what I believe to have probably been rare abuses, is beyond the ability of any one person. I did my best for the project given how much time and attention I was willing to give to it.
Besides, I'm not convinced that we'd agree what counts as a problem. Let's consider your example above - let's imagine a variant:
A) Newbie finds an article they want to improve. They do an edit B) More experienced editor thinks they made it worse, undoes. C) Newbie returns, is unhappy to have their change undone. They redo the edit D) Experienced editor undoes it again, asks user to take it to article's talk page, explains reasoning on newbie's talkpage E) Newbie doesn't want to, undoes again F) Experienced editor asks a friend for a second opinion, friend reverts, warns newbie not to redo lest they run afoul of 3RR, suggests use of talk page G) Newbie, already angry, redoes it. Is blocked for a few hours, and is asked urged on their talkpage to discuss the edits, told about 3RR.
Is that abuse? How would you handle it? Would your solution scale?
If that happens, it's a problem - any admin who supports that behaviour shouldn't be an admin (particularly 1a - edits should be judged mostly on their merits, but also 4 - it's possible/appropriate/necessary to simply explain that some behaviour is problematic without gloating).
There's a problem with #2 - what if people disagree over what constitutes improving the encyclopedia? People *have* to talk that over. You can't expect everyone to just have their way - there's a single text everyone shares.
When I was involved in the project, I believed in being polite but firm. People may not have agreed with my actions, but I never gloated, I never spat in anyone's face, and when there was a disagreement I explained my reasoning as best as I could, even if I had to block a user, lock a page, or do something else with my privileges alongside that. I was always willing to listen and talk, and in my work in mediation as well as on public and private forums on the project I strove for civility and tended the project as best I could.
In my later years of the project, many people were given administrative privileges who didn't merit it, either because they had a bad attitude or they didn't understand/accept policy. As a whole though, administrators were not as you describe.
Yes, we had private discussions. There were a lot. I don't think we ever pretended this was not the case. When I mediated disputes, most of this happened in private emails between me and the parties involved. When I helped with trouble ticket system, all of that was private. When I had private discussions at Wikimedia conferences with other prominent Wikipedians, nobody was taking public notes. So what?
People will disagree on big projects like this. Some people can't handle disagreement well, and sometimes things will reach an impasse. High-strung people and trolls typically don't last long, and if they're bitter enough they often lash out. The rest of us have to deal with the fact that we don't always get our way - I remember really disliking the use of the word "pluvious" in an article, trying to remove it, getting into a disagreement with the editor who put it in, having a long discussion, and eventually having a straw poll on the topic. I lost. I coped. It was irritating for me not to have gotten my way, but I accepted, despite being an admin, that I would not always be able to have my ideas about improving articles be realised. I was a prominent admin. The other editor was not. He or she still won the debate, nobody was banned, blocked, etc.
I hope the current administrators are no different from what I tried to be.
I can't speak as to how things are today (I've been gone for awhile!), but when I was around there were outreach programs trying to get people up to speed. I don't remember twinkle - maybe it's new? It's important to remember that the project is about making an encyclopedia, not making people feel good. People who are outrageously/flamboyantly rude don't belong on the project (either as admins or regular users - one of the many problems JScott had was that he could not disagree in a civil way). Still, when people make an edit that's not up to snuff, it will likely be reverted. That sometimes upsets people because they want to contribute - understandable, but not the right way to think about it.
It was appropriate to shoo Scott from the project. It's a pity Erik Möller wasn't shooed from the project as well - he managed to irritate just about everyone he met with his inability to work well with others, but thanks to being backed by some major players in a political ploy, he ended up briefly taking center stage in project leadership. This was enormously damaging.
Read Jason Scott's actual interactions with others on the project. Look at his behaviour, and the behaviour of the most active people on Wikipedia Review. These are trolls trying to self-justify, nothing more. While he's not a historian, Jason Scott happens to be a decent writer - that's why his character isn't obvious unless you see him outside his self-narrative. Go look at the contribution history of User:Jscott. Look in other places on the internet where he's had to work with others. I believe you'll see him in a different light, and the context it'll put on his writings will change things.
Wikipedia is not perfect (and I left for what I believe are a set of good reasons), and there are some very good criticisms that can/should be made of it, but you have to learn to separate the opinions of bitter outcasts who were unable to abide by the rules lashing out because they got what they deserved from that of people who make reasoned points.
There will be no way to pressure browser developers to be compliant with "NGHTML 4.7" if we can't even talk about it because it lacks a name. It'll also be hard to enumerate features of releases, to decide what version of the standard we're talking about and have programmatic support for that, etc.
This eliminates most of the benefits of having standards to begin with.
My knowledge of Jason Scott is not ungrounded - if you go look at the history associated with his account, you'll find his actions to be exactly as I describe. He is not an expert on anything, he's just a troll with a big ego. Wikipedia, like Usenet, got a number of trolls, and dealing with them was often a challenge.
I'm a former wikipedia admin myself - I left the project some years ago. I know it's flawed, but not for the reasons you or JScott describe. I remember these position-organisations (generally they went by the name "Association"). They actually were problematic - removing them was helpful in bringing dialogue over policy a bit closer to the center.
Of course administrators will coordinate their actions. I did this myself - I was once fairly prominent. So what? This isn't a sign of corruption, it's simply necessary to keep a big project running well and true to its ideals. Any community that has philosophical stances will necessarily have divisions between those who have been part of it for a long time who really understand how things work and take responsibility for it, and people who are either very causal or new who might not understand or agree with the ideas around which the project was founded. Keeping things civil and on-task is not something that always happens entirely in public, especially when one has people who are either out to make trouble or have problems with not being fully vested in the community yet. That's not corruption (in the end, it's an encyclopedia project - nobody's getting paid anyhow - people stick with it for the project and the community).
(for what it's worth, I largely agree with Sanger's analysis - neither Sanger nor Wales represent great leadership, but I think the project would've been better off with a lot more Sanger in the mix than what happened - don't confuse the respectable opinions of Sanger from that of Scott)
Wikipedia has flaws, but you're better off finding real, sane discussion of those flaws than listening to a rabid troll. Jason Scott makes stuff up. He did it with much of his BBS "history", and he's making it up here. He has a grudge against Wikipedia because he brought his pairing of grand ego and crazy to the project, and could not handle when people disagreed with him on topics he tried to own. He then left in a huff, and was angry when his attempts to remove the contributions he made (under the regular open license) failed.
His attacks are personal, and not much connected to reality. You should steer clear of him, both on Wikipedia and on any other topic he might decide he's an expert on tomorrow.
Something must be notable *and* written about in a reputable academic source in order to be appropriate content for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people who want to publish new material, no matter how important it is that there be such publication. It's good to see that there are specialised wikis for ad-hoc history projects of MUDs - that's appropriate, and it avoids all these issues of notability and original content.
Just because a task is worthwhile/important doesn't mean Wikipedia is the right place for it.
Open governance of a patented technology still leaves us with patents to deal with. It's reasonable for the community to prefer that "C code that Google bought and dumped", managed however google likes, over encumbered code. We can fork if we like.
Maybe WebM is technically inferiour. I don't know enough to have an opinion. If it's a reasonable choice, we should go with it (or theora) anyway. Patented formats belong in the dust.
It's still a problem. All the tools that can't casually be extended to deal with a format without licensing BS are lessened. We're best off shunning formats that are closed if we reasonably can.
If you tap the white scroller and hit "I", you get a tab.
I've been having problems with connectbot not knowing how big the popup keyboard is going to be, and needing to repeatedly summon/dismiss the keyboard to see where I'm typing. Frustrating!
I might be willing to consider gradations of rape, but I believe that not stopping after being told to stop remains rape and merits a very harsh sanction. I would agree with you that knowing use of a defective condom does not constitute rape, even if it should probably not be legal.
As far as I understand, he was accused of not stopping, but the news reports have hardly told a consistent story.
Slashdot Mirror
I know about that; if we could get a 150-200mph train service from Pgh to either, it would completely change the way people travel in a way that that doesn't. I might as well rent a car right now if I want to head to either; the hassle of waiting at the station means it isn't worth it to take the train. Bump up the speed enough and it's a no-brainer.
I hope we get a line from Pittsburgh to Cleveland and from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia/NYC/Boston. I'm sure I'd use both of those and travel a lot more (if the prices are reasonable).
You are my hero.
I strongly dislike the idea of electing Libertarians; I don't want them to become a major force because their values are inimical to civilisation. Still, that's strategy - on the broader scale, I think this is a good idea, as it's two easy to buy off two parties and too difficult for voters to replace a bought party with one that meets their values.
I also like the idea of being able to vote for green or socialist parties without effectively throwing my vote away. We never get to vote for exactly who we'd like (as there probably isn't a politican around with whom we'd agree), but letting us get closer can't be a bad thing. It'd be interesting if this swept the nation and we replaced how the elected bodies function with a coalition system.
I use CentOS at work - it's a good choice for where the servers are in a department where they don't want to pay for RHEL. I agree that Fedora's not a great choice for production systems (might not've thought that way a few years back, but I've grown to really like it). Thanks for visiting - I've been thinking about reworking the look of things - might do it someday.
The reason I don't think your analogy holds is that it's just as easy and well-known to go to one kind of dealership as another, one kind of restaurant as another, or one type of consumer electronics store as another. That's not the case here - the only reason I raise a fuss about Google's store is that it comes bundled with Android and is the primary way most people will get apps on an android device. I recognise that there are alternatives for those willing to put in the effort to seek them out, but I would wager that roughly 5% of android users will do that. It's not an insurmountable barrier (to google's credit), but it is nontheless a barrier. When people go to buy a car, all the places they might go are relatively equally well-known and used.
I'm not saying there's no choice, I'm saying that when one market is so prominent that it takes a special class of user to know about alternatives, when there's hassle in those alternatives (I don't want to tell my mom how to install a third-party app, but I could tell her how to install an app from the store), and when that store is being shaped by the platform vendor for strategic reasons, that's not a good thing.
Best wishes.
It is a danger, and we should frown on it. You may prefer for some reason that I focus on other issues, but I care about this one as well - when a store is the main store that the vast vast majority of users will use, it is not appropriate for it to serve its self-interests and lock out other products for strategic reasons.
Blocking malware? Sure. Nobody should object to that. Blocking competitors? No. People should be angry, and it should be seen as a blot on Google's name.
It's not FUD. It might not be something you care about, but it causes harm when there's a main private road that discriminates for things that are not the best reasons.
I am fully aware of the alternate paths. I have a NexusOne, and am a programmer.
Nontheless, when there is a common path that most people will use, self-serving control of that app store is bad for the industry and we should frown at it.
The danger is that this is not just another store - it is *the* store, the main place users go when looking for software. Whenever there's one of those, we should be very nervous - Just because Google did set rules doesn't mean that they should set them arbitrarily or for their own strategic reasons.
Keeping an open platform is not based just on "what can you do" - common practice matters too.
For a long time, there were a variety of ways to buy things - many computer stores, mail-order, etc. People were used to diverse paths, and so apps could easily do well even if they missed a venue. With a single central app store, things are different and control of that store effectively makes or breaks an app.
Control of the most common path of software installation is a dangerous power in anyone's hands. I don't think we should be happy when Google swings its weight around there, even if there are other roads than that highway to get apps out.
I've been programming since elementary school - I'd wager I could achieve enough mastery in a language I don't know in a month (likely less, maybe a week) to outpace anyone from even a very good college who learned on that language. The tools/ideas/habits we bring from general programming experience are just that powerful.
You use the word "mastery" - that's not really a binary status. Even if you've mastered a language (say C), it doesn't mean that you necessarily know how to structure your code for optimal reflection, how to think about refactoring, have a good relationsihp with debuggers, have a system for good commenting that helps you find things or leave notes effectively. Mastery is too complex for that. It's probably easier to talk about proficiency in those terms.
Companies should either have a training budget, or expect their employees to leave when mistreated this way.
"But if Playboy does come out with a native app for iPad, but all the nudity will be censored." -- sentence failure!
Do you have any idea how big Wikipedia is? Finding and fixing the whole project, or even noticing what I believe to have probably been rare abuses, is beyond the ability of any one person. I did my best for the project given how much time and attention I was willing to give to it.
Besides, I'm not convinced that we'd agree what counts as a problem. Let's consider your example above - let's imagine a variant:
A) Newbie finds an article they want to improve. They do an edit
B) More experienced editor thinks they made it worse, undoes.
C) Newbie returns, is unhappy to have their change undone. They redo the edit
D) Experienced editor undoes it again, asks user to take it to article's talk page, explains reasoning on newbie's talkpage
E) Newbie doesn't want to, undoes again
F) Experienced editor asks a friend for a second opinion, friend reverts, warns newbie not to redo lest they run afoul of 3RR, suggests use of talk page
G) Newbie, already angry, redoes it. Is blocked for a few hours, and is asked urged on their talkpage to discuss the edits, told about 3RR.
Is that abuse? How would you handle it? Would your solution scale?
If that happens, it's a problem - any admin who supports that behaviour shouldn't be an admin (particularly 1a - edits should be judged mostly on their merits, but also 4 - it's possible/appropriate/necessary to simply explain that some behaviour is problematic without gloating).
There's a problem with #2 - what if people disagree over what constitutes improving the encyclopedia? People *have* to talk that over. You can't expect everyone to just have their way - there's a single text everyone shares.
When I was involved in the project, I believed in being polite but firm. People may not have agreed with my actions, but I never gloated, I never spat in anyone's face, and when there was a disagreement I explained my reasoning as best as I could, even if I had to block a user, lock a page, or do something else with my privileges alongside that. I was always willing to listen and talk, and in my work in mediation as well as on public and private forums on the project I strove for civility and tended the project as best I could.
In my later years of the project, many people were given administrative privileges who didn't merit it, either because they had a bad attitude or they didn't understand/accept policy. As a whole though, administrators were not as you describe.
Yes, we had private discussions. There were a lot. I don't think we ever pretended this was not the case. When I mediated disputes, most of this happened in private emails between me and the parties involved. When I helped with trouble ticket system, all of that was private. When I had private discussions at Wikimedia conferences with other prominent Wikipedians, nobody was taking public notes. So what?
People will disagree on big projects like this. Some people can't handle disagreement well, and sometimes things will reach an impasse. High-strung people and trolls typically don't last long, and if they're bitter enough they often lash out. The rest of us have to deal with the fact that we don't always get our way - I remember really disliking the use of the word "pluvious" in an article, trying to remove it, getting into a disagreement with the editor who put it in, having a long discussion, and eventually having a straw poll on the topic. I lost. I coped. It was irritating for me not to have gotten my way, but I accepted, despite being an admin, that I would not always be able to have my ideas about improving articles be realised. I was a prominent admin. The other editor was not. He or she still won the debate, nobody was banned, blocked, etc.
I hope the current administrators are no different from what I tried to be.
I can't speak as to how things are today (I've been gone for awhile!), but when I was around there were outreach programs trying to get people up to speed. I don't remember twinkle - maybe it's new? It's important to remember that the project is about making an encyclopedia, not making people feel good. People who are outrageously/flamboyantly rude don't belong on the project (either as admins or regular users - one of the many problems JScott had was that he could not disagree in a civil way). Still, when people make an edit that's not up to snuff, it will likely be reverted. That sometimes upsets people because they want to contribute - understandable, but not the right way to think about it.
It was appropriate to shoo Scott from the project. It's a pity Erik Möller wasn't shooed from the project as well - he managed to irritate just about everyone he met with his inability to work well with others, but thanks to being backed by some major players in a political ploy, he ended up briefly taking center stage in project leadership. This was enormously damaging.
Read Jason Scott's actual interactions with others on the project. Look at his behaviour, and the behaviour of the most active people on Wikipedia Review. These are trolls trying to self-justify, nothing more. While he's not a historian, Jason Scott happens to be a decent writer - that's why his character isn't obvious unless you see him outside his self-narrative. Go look at the contribution history of User:Jscott. Look in other places on the internet where he's had to work with others. I believe you'll see him in a different light, and the context it'll put on his writings will change things.
Wikipedia is not perfect (and I left for what I believe are a set of good reasons), and there are some very good criticisms that can/should be made of it, but you have to learn to separate the opinions of bitter outcasts who were unable to abide by the rules lashing out because they got what they deserved from that of people who make reasoned points.
There will be no way to pressure browser developers to be compliant with "NGHTML 4.7" if we can't even talk about it because it lacks a name. It'll also be hard to enumerate features of releases, to decide what version of the standard we're talking about and have programmatic support for that, etc.
This eliminates most of the benefits of having standards to begin with.
My knowledge of Jason Scott is not ungrounded - if you go look at the history associated with his account, you'll find his actions to be exactly as I describe. He is not an expert on anything, he's just a troll with a big ego. Wikipedia, like Usenet, got a number of trolls, and dealing with them was often a challenge.
I'm a former wikipedia admin myself - I left the project some years ago. I know it's flawed, but not for the reasons you or JScott describe. I remember these position-organisations (generally they went by the name "Association"). They actually were problematic - removing them was helpful in bringing dialogue over policy a bit closer to the center.
Of course administrators will coordinate their actions. I did this myself - I was once fairly prominent. So what? This isn't a sign of corruption, it's simply necessary to keep a big project running well and true to its ideals. Any community that has philosophical stances will necessarily have divisions between those who have been part of it for a long time who really understand how things work and take responsibility for it, and people who are either very causal or new who might not understand or agree with the ideas around which the project was founded. Keeping things civil and on-task is not something that always happens entirely in public, especially when one has people who are either out to make trouble or have problems with not being fully vested in the community yet. That's not corruption (in the end, it's an encyclopedia project - nobody's getting paid anyhow - people stick with it for the project and the community).
(for what it's worth, I largely agree with Sanger's analysis - neither Sanger nor Wales represent great leadership, but I think the project would've been better off with a lot more Sanger in the mix than what happened - don't confuse the respectable opinions of Sanger from that of Scott)
Wikipedia has flaws, but you're better off finding real, sane discussion of those flaws than listening to a rabid troll. Jason Scott makes stuff up. He did it with much of his BBS "history", and he's making it up here. He has a grudge against Wikipedia because he brought his pairing of grand ego and crazy to the project, and could not handle when people disagreed with him on topics he tried to own. He then left in a huff, and was angry when his attempts to remove the contributions he made (under the regular open license) failed.
His attacks are personal, and not much connected to reality. You should steer clear of him, both on Wikipedia and on any other topic he might decide he's an expert on tomorrow.
I would hope it would be deleted immediately. Forums are not reputable sources, and old/obscure games are not notable.
Something must be notable *and* written about in a reputable academic source in order to be appropriate content for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people who want to publish new material, no matter how important it is that there be such publication. It's good to see that there are specialised wikis for ad-hoc history projects of MUDs - that's appropriate, and it avoids all these issues of notability and original content.
Just because a task is worthwhile/important doesn't mean Wikipedia is the right place for it.
Open governance of a patented technology still leaves us with patents to deal with. It's reasonable for the community to prefer that "C code that Google bought and dumped", managed however google likes, over encumbered code. We can fork if we like.
Maybe WebM is technically inferiour. I don't know enough to have an opinion. If it's a reasonable choice, we should go with it (or theora) anyway. Patented formats belong in the dust.
It's still a problem. All the tools that can't casually be extended to deal with a format without licensing BS are lessened. We're best off shunning formats that are closed if we reasonably can.
If you tap the white scroller and hit "I", you get a tab.
I've been having problems with connectbot not knowing how big the popup keyboard is going to be, and needing to repeatedly summon/dismiss the keyboard to see where I'm typing. Frustrating!
I might be willing to consider gradations of rape, but I believe that not stopping after being told to stop remains rape and merits a very harsh sanction. I would agree with you that knowing use of a defective condom does not constitute rape, even if it should probably not be legal.
As far as I understand, he was accused of not stopping, but the news reports have hardly told a consistent story.