What's next? Is Germany going to "copyright" the swastika, so they can cash in on WW-II flicks?
Modern day Egypt has little or nothing to do with those images, other than being the land mass upon which they sit. It's like they want to be an international laughing stock.
As an American, I deem that we have international "copyright" on that, and they owe us royalties. I knew we were outsourcing our interrogations to Egypt. I had no idea the ties ran so deeply.
I'm not sure about the etymology, but I picture the person putting the bill aside, rather than reading it to their peers. A "tabled" idea is one that is not being talked about and sold. It is collecting dust.
Americans talk about everything. We're a very vernacular people. In another country, one might submit an idea in written form by putting it on a table for someone else to read. In America, I think it is more a case of a script being set aside.
No one can "control" any country. The Germans barely managed Vichy France through utter brutality, and the Brits before them couldn't keep Colonial India or America under wraps. The Indians didn't even use guns! The only way to "control" a nation of sovereign people who will not submit is through all-out fascism, and a full-scale police state. The attrition on both sides in such a stalemate is horrific.
Are you criticizing my country for not being a brutal enough bunch of totalitarian fascists to hold down a "third-rate desert shit-hole?" How brutal would you like us to be?
You can't possibly want that. Let's tone down the rhetoric and face facts.
The U.S. military is in Iraq. I think it was a mistake predicated by a lie. No matter. We are there. There is no adequate way for us to leave Iraq but upright, sovereign, and functional.
Can the U.S. do that? Only with the support of the global community. Period. We cannot do it alone.
We went in on clearly false and trumped up pretenses, basically to settle a family issue between the Bush family and Saddam Hussein ("He tried to kill my dad"), and are attempting to leave it in better shape than under the previous regime.
I hope to God we succeed, and so should you. We cannot succeed while Bush is President. There's a credibility gap. It is part of our larger Middle-East policy, and there is much work to be done. Ask the U.N. to engage after the next inauguration, if WW-III has not yet broken out.
The last thing you want to do is encourage our so-called leaders to be more like the dictator we toppled by ridiculing their loss of "control." That way leads only to war and brutality.
Consider that there are many good Americans who want to see the best possible resolution to this mess, and stop baiting the hard-liners. There's a World War that way, sir, and humanity cannot afford that.
If my country has no credibility, consider these words as the first brick of a new foundation, laid by a tired, frightened and largely powerless American author.
A death threat? Did I read that right? Excuse me, but isn't dealing with people who want to kill you (and your countrymen) the first duty of anyone who puts on a military uniform? Does it matter that it's personal?
We've got grunts overseas dealing with the daily threat of being sent home in a box because of some kook's roadside IED, just for trying to set up a local police force, and this guy can't handle being "outed" for a bad PR whitewash?
So get him some freaking security, Lt. Col. Bush. This is the U.S. military, not Madison Avenue! Protect our man for doing his job, or court marshal him for doing otherwise, but for Chrissakes stop whining. When a CIA agent gets outed, they get protection if it's possible. This guy was doing no less important a job, the same job in fact, and this should be seen as a reasonable consequence of that job.
Why Langley isn't handling this kind of thing is beyond me, however. This is spy stuff.
Finally, if you are an *American* that "outed" anyone, take a good, hard look at your priorities. Screwing this administration isn't worth, to my mind, screwing the long-term credibility of our country. Clearly, that's the President's job.
I agree, but Africa is a diverse and multifaceted continent.
From an American privileged white male to anyone who talks about this vast geographical region as if it were a single country, please, go read something about its diverse peoples and their histories. From Egypt, to Zaire, Nigeria and Niger, South Africa, Morocco, and Ethiopia, and any place else, they are as diverse as the nations of Europe and Asia, and some countries are successes where others fail.
It is not a universal disaster zone with AIDS and genocides. Those are just ugly pimples on a storied and beautiful face.
They are doing terrible things, and so we must take "drastic action." This is the mentality of this so-called "cabal." I understand that.
I also fully understand that wiki has some deep and terrible problems under the hood. Making these clique members circle the wagon with bombast and hype, however, is the last thing we should do. Such things just give them (mistaken and wrong-headed) justification. If you drive in the nails, they will feel exactly like Christ, and believe it too.
I'm being misinterpreted as a "wiki" defender. I am not. I find Wikipedia useful, and there is so much good happening in many places, and I'm hoping future articles about its problems will be handled more responsibly, because irresponsible or glib reporting will lead to more excesses on the part of those we wish to "expose."
Best to just talk to them, if you're close, than ratchet up the volume to 11. That's what I'm saying.
True to the linked article, my first thought about the OLPC project was that all it would do is show the have-nots just how much they don't have. I figured it was more likely to spur a violent, lower-class revolution than anything else. I was thinking about 18th century France at the time.
Can you imagine how someone with starving children would feel when they Wikied "Turducken?" It'd be like Marie Antoinette with a megaphone and a team of Solid Gold dancers.
But I also believe that technology is a need, in a technological world, and that it empowers people. I doubt this project can assuage the global poverty and resource distribution fiasco, nor was that the intent, but it may allow a new generation to help themselves.
These laptops can bring them something of value: hope. Hope tastes awful, and it needs salt, which many of the project's beneficiaries can't afford, but it's absolutely better than nothing at all.
I know this is a bit redundant, but I wanted to express Dvorak's point without all the bombast and condemnation. We're sorry you're a guilty white man, John. We're not getting on that bus.
I'm sure the OLPC is a good thing, and I know the people who buy them are doing a good thing, but I often wonder if our priorities are in the right order.
Because Dvorak is ultimately wrong. Technology, in whatever form, will absolutely change the world. I just wonder if it will be for the better.
-- Toro
Re:Thanks for your contribution
on
Where are Wii?
·
· Score: 1
You're neither. You're just a decent human being, and that was a heartwarming story.
The truth is, in my experience, folks like you are more common than most believe. Most people, given half a chance, are decent.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Thanks for your contribution
on
Where are Wii?
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for the selfless contribution of data to the "John Gabriel Greater Internet F-wad" survey.
I believe I am moving closer to confirming the "Special Internet F-wad theorum," which somehow functions without an audience.
I believe the fabric of the Internet, indeed intelligence itself, can be warped by poor word and grammar choices. The "shift" keys are located at each pinky, and can raise your perceived IQ by 30 points, on average.
Yeah. Add various groups on Usenet, throughout its history to that list.
Anecdotally, I've heard there are some nutty people at Wiki, and I have bothered to look under the hood, so I've seen some of it. It's ugly, especially the sheer arrogance of some of the members. I'm just not sure escalating the paranoia is helpful. Arrogant people are, at heart, insecure. This article struck me as pointless escalation, more likely to produce the behavior it condemns.
You sound like you're closer to it than I. I mentioned disastrous early rocket tests in another post. If Wikipedia does go boom, make sure y'all try again. I find it to be a worthwhile source.
Hopefully, they'll kludge something together without a collapse. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
"It's a joke" is the new dodge. John Stewart uses it all the time, when everyone knows darned well he's doing an effective, and non-humorous hit job on (for example) Dick Cheney (who deserves it, IMHO, but it doesn't make the whole "Darth Vader" thing a joke).
The totalitarian theme of "black helicopters" is carried throughout the first page of the article, and then repeats itself as some bizarre belief that there is a Wikipedia "cabal." What it is is a bunch of tactless people who don't have a PR manager, not a cabal. That is what makes it not funny. I believe it is intentional and non-humourous, given other coverage about Wikipedia on the site.
So my sense of humor is, understandably, in the wash. It is due back tomorrow.
I have never even submitted a thing to Wikipedia. I don't have an account there. I just don't enjoy hyped up bad writing that uses propaganda tactics to shade meaning. They crossed a personal line, and I am cranky, so I said so.
I know you honestly can't believe that I should be upset about this, or disagree with you, but I think the Register is in the middle of what amounts to a poorly shrouded, and protracted, flame war with whomever upsets them at Wikipedia. Maybe it's a "sour grapes" thing, I don't have the inside story.
That's my story and I'm sticking by it. I have karma to burn. I can't believe all the trolls and flamebaits I'm getting over this, and expect them on this post to from people who think there is never anything wrong with the way the Register presents its "facts." Simple disagreement is not trolling.
Y'all can't believe I'm taking the "black helicopters" thing seriously, and I understand that, but in light of the remainder of the article, it didn't make me laugh this time. It is not a joke when you carry it throughout and color every fact with the tincture of arrogance and corruption.
You can wait until tomorrow for my funny to come back. I just hope they don't starch it.
You and me both. I guess thats what I was trying to point out, but I stated my point poorly. Communication is a bitch. It's what happens when someone else polarizes the argument for us, but we find that we have no argument between us. The printed word is severely overrated as a means of communication.
I'm not saying that "there's nothing wrong with Wiki." I'm saying "two wrongs don't make a right." I'm saying "there's nothing wrong with Wiki that can't be fixed."
There are some real problems going on at Wikipedia, mostly because it is a cutting edge idea, and therefore, there was no way to test the design before it failed. Guess what? BOOM!
You remember the fiery results of early rocket tests, right? Same difference.
I'm glad level headed people are participating, standing up for what they believe in, and refusing to be intimidated. If people are truly trying to form an authority at Wikipedia, the process should be transparent, and they should be given a very short leash.
It was all the talk of "cabals" and "totalitarianism" that got my goat, especially since many other articles from The Register seem to be on a tear about Wikipedia.
They overdo it in many place (seriously, "totalitarian"?) but most of what is written seems reasonable when you strip away the, *ahem*, creative writing. Seems reasonable? Strip away the writing that serves to color all those facts with a sinister and conspiratorial nature? I wish.
You're in the business and you don't understand how modern PR works?
I agree, there's some useful information in there, but it is tinged with so much connotation of conspiracy and sinister control that it can have a rather marked affect on how the reader will interpret the seemingly reasonable material. It could even make them accept it without question if the job is done well enough.
This is how you get anyone to accept a poor, evil interpretation of reasonable events. You hit them with emotional words ("creative" writing), and then you "back them up" with facts that aren't sinister at all, if you gave any context.
The net result is a hit job. People are being encouraged to see mildly concerning information, to be sure, as part of a "cabal" of wicked "totalitarians" bent on.... well, God knows what. The author doesn't really get into why such sinister agents would be on the move in... Wikipedia.
Really, it goes a bit beyond a "joke." That's a very lame excuse for some rather provocative PR work aimed at coloring opinions on Wikipedia.
The only reason I used hyperbole was because it's rather hard to condense the above into something someone is willing to read. That article is poorly written, and it seeks to assault Wiki, as many of the other articles at the Register do.
Actually, as I understand it, there is accountability, but it is not based in hierarchy nor in authority. This bugs some people. Others just shrug and use it.
It is community based. If you try to say "I am the authority on this" without engaging the community, you are going to run into trouble.
It's an experiment, to be sure, and it may yet fall on it's face. I just don't want to see it deliberately knocked over.
I'm not going to get into critical reading, but I'll drop a hint. If you are unsure of the authenticity of a source, you need to back it up with additional source material. If the stakes are high, or your integrity is at stake, you need to get primary source material. Wikipedia is no substitute for this kind of academic rigor.
There is no magic bullet for actual research. Treating Wiki, or any other secondary source as such, is something you should have been warned against in high school, and beaten mercilessly for in undergrad. I still have the cane marks, myself.;^)
I don't have boo to do with Wikipedia, except directing my daughter there for the mathematics articles. I am a writer, and I'm pissed off about the writing in the linked article.
You are mentioning the word "cabal." Do you know what it means?
cabal cabal (ke-bàl) noun 1. A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers: "Espionage is quite precisely it-a cabal of powerful men, working secretly" (Frank Conroy). 2. A secret scheme or plot. See synonyms at conspiracy.
So what we have here is a set of conspiratorial plotters, eh? Where everyone knows their names, and when they are criticized, no one dies. Some people have been banned by accident because Wiki has a vandalism problem, and they are nailing large IP ranges, because some of those morons are agressive about doing their dirty work via proxy. That is all.
Certainly, some of the folks at Wikipedia are arrogant, but a cabal?
I think you are breathing hype instead of oxygen, sir.
Sorry. I don't call anyone who mentions "black helicopters," on anything other than a military beat, a journalist. It doesn't stop at the headline. It is not odd, nor British. It's bullshit. The attitude is pervasive throughout the article, and flirts with being libelous. I'd be embarrassed to be quoted alongside the hack that wrote this mess.
I am familiar with The Register. I've been around the block. This is not funny to me. I am not laughing. I am appalled.
I didn't think you meant to hurt Wiki, just the article author. When a writer sources reasonable critical quotes amidst his theories of "cabals" and "black helicopters," he is doing you a grave disservice.
I doubt you'll be banned for reasoned criticism, and I only think less of the author of this article, who clearly has a dire agenda, or is so wrapped up in media hype that he doesn't recognize it anymore. Some of these writers have it "turned up to 11" all the time.
Best of luck to you. I'm sorry if I implicated everyone mentioned in the article. I was against the bombastic, ridiculous writing, not the people mentioned within.
I think Wiki has a good deal of credibility, and the Register slightly less. That still means the Register has a pretty good record, but contains, like Wiki, the odd spurious hack job.
Stop thinking in dualities. There's a whole spectrum of quality to work with. Saying an entity has less credibility doesn't mean it has NO credibility. Just less.
Slashdot Mirror
What's next? Is Germany going to "copyright" the swastika, so they can cash in on WW-II flicks?
Modern day Egypt has little or nothing to do with those images, other than being the land mass upon which they sit. It's like they want to be an international laughing stock.
As an American, I deem that we have international "copyright" on that, and they owe us royalties. I knew we were outsourcing our interrogations to Egypt. I had no idea the ties ran so deeply.
Utter lunacy, if it's at all true.
--
Toro
I'm not sure about the etymology, but I picture the person putting the bill aside, rather than reading it to their peers. A "tabled" idea is one that is not being talked about and sold. It is collecting dust.
Americans talk about everything. We're a very vernacular people. In another country, one might submit an idea in written form by putting it on a table for someone else to read. In America, I think it is more a case of a script being set aside.
--
Toro
No one can "control" any country. The Germans barely managed Vichy France through utter brutality, and the Brits before them couldn't keep Colonial India or America under wraps. The Indians didn't even use guns! The only way to "control" a nation of sovereign people who will not submit is through all-out fascism, and a full-scale police state. The attrition on both sides in such a stalemate is horrific.
Are you criticizing my country for not being a brutal enough bunch of totalitarian fascists to hold down a "third-rate desert shit-hole?" How brutal would you like us to be?
You can't possibly want that. Let's tone down the rhetoric and face facts.
The U.S. military is in Iraq. I think it was a mistake predicated by a lie. No matter. We are there. There is no adequate way for us to leave Iraq but upright, sovereign, and functional.
Can the U.S. do that? Only with the support of the global community. Period. We cannot do it alone.
We went in on clearly false and trumped up pretenses, basically to settle a family issue between the Bush family and Saddam Hussein ("He tried to kill my dad"), and are attempting to leave it in better shape than under the previous regime.
I hope to God we succeed, and so should you. We cannot succeed while Bush is President. There's a credibility gap. It is part of our larger Middle-East policy, and there is much work to be done. Ask the U.N. to engage after the next inauguration, if WW-III has not yet broken out.
The last thing you want to do is encourage our so-called leaders to be more like the dictator we toppled by ridiculing their loss of "control." That way leads only to war and brutality.
Consider that there are many good Americans who want to see the best possible resolution to this mess, and stop baiting the hard-liners. There's a World War that way, sir, and humanity cannot afford that.
If my country has no credibility, consider these words as the first brick of a new foundation, laid by a tired, frightened and largely powerless American author.
--
Toro
A death threat? Did I read that right? Excuse me, but isn't dealing with people who want to kill you (and your countrymen) the first duty of anyone who puts on a military uniform? Does it matter that it's personal?
We've got grunts overseas dealing with the daily threat of being sent home in a box because of some kook's roadside IED, just for trying to set up a local police force, and this guy can't handle being "outed" for a bad PR whitewash?
So get him some freaking security, Lt. Col. Bush. This is the U.S. military, not Madison Avenue! Protect our man for doing his job, or court marshal him for doing otherwise, but for Chrissakes stop whining. When a CIA agent gets outed, they get protection if it's possible. This guy was doing no less important a job, the same job in fact, and this should be seen as a reasonable consequence of that job.
Why Langley isn't handling this kind of thing is beyond me, however. This is spy stuff.
Finally, if you are an *American* that "outed" anyone, take a good, hard look at your priorities. Screwing this administration isn't worth, to my mind, screwing the long-term credibility of our country. Clearly, that's the President's job.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
--
Toro
Not much to say here. He just reminded me of Casablanca.
I agree, but Africa is a diverse and multifaceted continent.
From an American privileged white male to anyone who talks about this vast geographical region as if it were a single country, please, go read something about its diverse peoples and their histories. From Egypt, to Zaire, Nigeria and Niger, South Africa, Morocco, and Ethiopia, and any place else, they are as diverse as the nations of Europe and Asia, and some countries are successes where others fail.
It is not a universal disaster zone with AIDS and genocides. Those are just ugly pimples on a storied and beautiful face.
--
Toro
How does my post get attributed "flamebait," when the majority of the mods down were for "overrated?"
A little confused, would enjoy a short reply.
Thanks.
--
Toro
Heh. The wise man said, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."
;)
On today's Internet, this translates to "Hey douchebags, don't throw stones."
Yes. I call that "the means justify the means."
They are doing terrible things, and so we must take "drastic action." This is the mentality of this so-called "cabal." I understand that.
I also fully understand that wiki has some deep and terrible problems under the hood. Making these clique members circle the wagon with bombast and hype, however, is the last thing we should do. Such things just give them (mistaken and wrong-headed) justification. If you drive in the nails, they will feel exactly like Christ, and believe it too.
I'm being misinterpreted as a "wiki" defender. I am not. I find Wikipedia useful, and there is so much good happening in many places, and I'm hoping future articles about its problems will be handled more responsibly, because irresponsible or glib reporting will lead to more excesses on the part of those we wish to "expose."
Best to just talk to them, if you're close, than ratchet up the volume to 11. That's what I'm saying.
--
Toro
True to the linked article, my first thought about the OLPC project was that all it would do is show the have-nots just how much they don't have. I figured it was more likely to spur a violent, lower-class revolution than anything else. I was thinking about 18th century France at the time.
Can you imagine how someone with starving children would feel when they Wikied "Turducken?" It'd be like Marie Antoinette with a megaphone and a team of Solid Gold dancers.
But I also believe that technology is a need, in a technological world, and that it empowers people. I doubt this project can assuage the global poverty and resource distribution fiasco, nor was that the intent, but it may allow a new generation to help themselves.
These laptops can bring them something of value: hope. Hope tastes awful, and it needs salt, which many of the project's beneficiaries can't afford, but it's absolutely better than nothing at all.
I know this is a bit redundant, but I wanted to express Dvorak's point without all the bombast and condemnation. We're sorry you're a guilty white man, John. We're not getting on that bus.
I'm sure the OLPC is a good thing, and I know the people who buy them are doing a good thing, but I often wonder if our priorities are in the right order.
Because Dvorak is ultimately wrong. Technology, in whatever form, will absolutely change the world. I just wonder if it will be for the better.
--
Toro
You're neither. You're just a decent human being, and that was a heartwarming story.
The truth is, in my experience, folks like you are more common than most believe. Most people, given half a chance, are decent.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Thank you for the selfless contribution of data to the "John Gabriel Greater Internet F-wad" survey.
;^)
I believe I am moving closer to confirming the "Special Internet F-wad theorum," which somehow functions without an audience.
I believe the fabric of the Internet, indeed intelligence itself, can be warped by poor word and grammar choices. The "shift" keys are located at each pinky, and can raise your perceived IQ by 30 points, on average.
Thank you again.
--
Toro
Ruh roh. Someone in the marketing department failed their saving throw vs. "geek."
Dead last in the highly accurate and scientific poll. Wow.
--
Toro
Yeah. Add various groups on Usenet, throughout its history to that list.
Anecdotally, I've heard there are some nutty people at Wiki, and I have bothered to look under the hood, so I've seen some of it. It's ugly, especially the sheer arrogance of some of the members. I'm just not sure escalating the paranoia is helpful. Arrogant people are, at heart, insecure. This article struck me as pointless escalation, more likely to produce the behavior it condemns.
You sound like you're closer to it than I. I mentioned disastrous early rocket tests in another post. If Wikipedia does go boom, make sure y'all try again. I find it to be a worthwhile source.
Hopefully, they'll kludge something together without a collapse. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
--
Toro
"It's a joke" is the new dodge. John Stewart uses it all the time, when everyone knows darned well he's doing an effective, and non-humorous hit job on (for example) Dick Cheney (who deserves it, IMHO, but it doesn't make the whole "Darth Vader" thing a joke).
The totalitarian theme of "black helicopters" is carried throughout the first page of the article, and then repeats itself as some bizarre belief that there is a Wikipedia "cabal." What it is is a bunch of tactless people who don't have a PR manager, not a cabal. That is what makes it not funny. I believe it is intentional and non-humourous, given other coverage about Wikipedia on the site.
So my sense of humor is, understandably, in the wash. It is due back tomorrow.
I have never even submitted a thing to Wikipedia. I don't have an account there. I just don't enjoy hyped up bad writing that uses propaganda tactics to shade meaning. They crossed a personal line, and I am cranky, so I said so.
I know you honestly can't believe that I should be upset about this, or disagree with you, but I think the Register is in the middle of what amounts to a poorly shrouded, and protracted, flame war with whomever upsets them at Wikipedia. Maybe it's a "sour grapes" thing, I don't have the inside story.
That's my story and I'm sticking by it. I have karma to burn. I can't believe all the trolls and flamebaits I'm getting over this, and expect them on this post to from people who think there is never anything wrong with the way the Register presents its "facts." Simple disagreement is not trolling.
Y'all can't believe I'm taking the "black helicopters" thing seriously, and I understand that, but in light of the remainder of the article, it didn't make me laugh this time. It is not a joke when you carry it throughout and color every fact with the tincture of arrogance and corruption.
You can wait until tomorrow for my funny to come back. I just hope they don't starch it.
--
Toro
(no karma bonus)
--
Toro
Oh God, no.
I'm not saying that "there's nothing wrong with Wiki." I'm saying "two wrongs don't make a right." I'm saying "there's nothing wrong with Wiki that can't be fixed."
There are some real problems going on at Wikipedia, mostly because it is a cutting edge idea, and therefore, there was no way to test the design before it failed. Guess what? BOOM!
You remember the fiery results of early rocket tests, right? Same difference.
I'm glad level headed people are participating, standing up for what they believe in, and refusing to be intimidated. If people are truly trying to form an authority at Wikipedia, the process should be transparent, and they should be given a very short leash.
It was all the talk of "cabals" and "totalitarianism" that got my goat, especially since many other articles from The Register seem to be on a tear about Wikipedia.
--
Toro
You're in the business and you don't understand how modern PR works?
I agree, there's some useful information in there, but it is tinged with so much connotation of conspiracy and sinister control that it can have a rather marked affect on how the reader will interpret the seemingly reasonable material. It could even make them accept it without question if the job is done well enough.
This is how you get anyone to accept a poor, evil interpretation of reasonable events. You hit them with emotional words ("creative" writing), and then you "back them up" with facts that aren't sinister at all, if you gave any context.
The net result is a hit job. People are being encouraged to see mildly concerning information, to be sure, as part of a "cabal" of wicked "totalitarians" bent on.... well, God knows what. The author doesn't really get into why such sinister agents would be on the move in... Wikipedia.
Really, it goes a bit beyond a "joke." That's a very lame excuse for some rather provocative PR work aimed at coloring opinions on Wikipedia.
The only reason I used hyperbole was because it's rather hard to condense the above into something someone is willing to read. That article is poorly written, and it seeks to assault Wiki, as many of the other articles at the Register do.
I'm quite sick of it.
--
Toro
Ding! Yup. Both require liberal amounts of salt to digest properly.
Actually, as I understand it, there is accountability, but it is not based in hierarchy nor in authority. This bugs some people. Others just shrug and use it.
;^)
It is community based. If you try to say "I am the authority on this" without engaging the community, you are going to run into trouble.
It's an experiment, to be sure, and it may yet fall on it's face. I just don't want to see it deliberately knocked over.
I'm not going to get into critical reading, but I'll drop a hint. If you are unsure of the authenticity of a source, you need to back it up with additional source material. If the stakes are high, or your integrity is at stake, you need to get primary source material. Wikipedia is no substitute for this kind of academic rigor.
There is no magic bullet for actual research. Treating Wiki, or any other secondary source as such, is something you should have been warned against in high school, and beaten mercilessly for in undergrad. I still have the cane marks, myself.
--
Toro
I don't have boo to do with Wikipedia, except directing my daughter there for the mathematics articles. I am a writer, and I'm pissed off about the writing in the linked article.
You are mentioning the word "cabal." Do you know what it means?
cabal
cabal (ke-bàl) noun
1. A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers: "Espionage is quite precisely it-a cabal of powerful men, working secretly" (Frank Conroy).
2. A secret scheme or plot. See synonyms at conspiracy.
So what we have here is a set of conspiratorial plotters, eh? Where everyone knows their names, and when they are criticized, no one dies. Some people have been banned by accident because Wiki has a vandalism problem, and they are nailing large IP ranges, because some of those morons are agressive about doing their dirty work via proxy. That is all.
Certainly, some of the folks at Wikipedia are arrogant, but a cabal?
I think you are breathing hype instead of oxygen, sir.
--
Toro
Sorry. I don't call anyone who mentions "black helicopters," on anything other than a military beat, a journalist. It doesn't stop at the headline. It is not odd, nor British. It's bullshit. The attitude is pervasive throughout the article, and flirts with being libelous. I'd be embarrassed to be quoted alongside the hack that wrote this mess.
I am familiar with The Register. I've been around the block. This is not funny to me. I am not laughing. I am appalled.
I'm glad it is funny to you. Truly.
--
Toro
I didn't think you meant to hurt Wiki, just the article author. When a writer sources reasonable critical quotes amidst his theories of "cabals" and "black helicopters," he is doing you a grave disservice.
I doubt you'll be banned for reasoned criticism, and I only think less of the author of this article, who clearly has a dire agenda, or is so wrapped up in media hype that he doesn't recognize it anymore. Some of these writers have it "turned up to 11" all the time.
Best of luck to you. I'm sorry if I implicated everyone mentioned in the article. I was against the bombastic, ridiculous writing, not the people mentioned within.
--
Toro
Shows how highly you think of Wiki, eh?
I think Wiki has a good deal of credibility, and the Register slightly less. That still means the Register has a pretty good record, but contains, like Wiki, the odd spurious hack job.
Stop thinking in dualities. There's a whole spectrum of quality to work with. Saying an entity has less credibility doesn't mean it has NO credibility. Just less.
--
Toro
Well said! We've definitely got a RTFA disconnect here.
The summary sounds quite reasonable, then you get to the article and you find out it's based on an infantile rant.