Selective enforcement is the name of the game. For just about anything disagreeable, you can find a rule to banish from wikipedia - as long as you know the game and have the clout.
All content that is of no political or economic importance, they would rather see on Wikia. Wikia is for profit, they can make money off your work there. That is, in a nutshell, why wikipedia is deletionist.
On wikipedia proper, the only reward they get is being able to control narratives. Wikipedia policies give plenty of wiggle room to include and exclude certain facts and frame things to one side's benefit, especially if you're an insider in their culture, know how to play their game. Thus, controversial issues that people are likely to search for will never be out of scope for wikipedia.
"Held accountable for what? This total free resource I can use with no strings attached"
Have you noticed something? Wikia is wikipedia's sister project, but it is for profit, unlike Wikipedia. Wikia has an immensely high google rating. If you make a wiki about a specific topic on your own site, spend a long time building it up, some random person making a wikia wiki with the same name will easily outrank you in google searches.
If your project started out on wikia, woe to you. You can come in, but you can never leave. If you tire of the ads, and the people who worked on making the wiki decide to move to a private server, you will be forever fighting your abandoned wikia wiki in Google rankings. They won't let you take it down. They won't even let you link to the new wiki. Even if every single person who ever worked on the wiki supports the move, an admin from Wikia will swoop in and put a stop to it.
And over on wikipedia, "deletionists" won long ago. One of the main reasons they won is that content that's forced off wikipedia and over to Wikia, is pure profit for Wikipedia's owners.
these guys have to deal with and moderate with various personalities and entities constantly trying to pervert Wikipedia
Possibly the reason nobody pays attention to them is that they are good at not being seen, not being acknowledged, and coordinate in private to suppress dissent and present a common front. It's always "wikipedia is against you", not "the steward is against you".
"although the term is so overused by people looking to discredit political opponents that it has nearly lost its original meaning"
Right. Says who?
A small group defending special interests, trying to create the impression of popular support, that's astroturfing. I bet the companies who do it hate how common the word has become, and how people have become familiar with the concept. I'm sure they would complain that it's "overused". I disagree, I think it could be used a lot more, and all internet forums with any redactional integrity should be on guard for this.
Consumption taxes are inherently regressive. A poor person has to spend (consume) all his income, a rich person can afford to use it to get more money instead. Not to mention that when time comes to consume it, the rich guy can buy his yacht in New Zealand, or wherever they don't have a consumption tax on yachts.
It would also be horribly intrusive/impractical to make an increasing consumption tax, they would need to keep track of everything you buy.
The charitable interpretation is that Bill Gates doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. The less charitable interpretation is that he knows.
You don't really need to rebuild much to do the kind of stuff the Germans were best at. As German was at its high point as the language of science from 1880 to the outbreak of the first world war, mathematicians like Georg Cantor, David Hilbert, Gottlob Frege, Kurt Gödel, Ernst Zermelo, Dedekind, Felix Klein and Richard Dedekind were active. Then there were the physicist like Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger and Arnold Sommerfeld. You can kind of understand why German was used for math and physics.
That would be the motte in the motte-and-bailey doctrine. If you define feminism like that, it's extremely defensible.
But as soon as you're going out to do any actual good work in the name of feminism, you're going to need a broader definition, one that opens it up for criticism.
Retreating to the defensible but useless definition whenever your ideas are criticized, is dishonest.
First and foremost, The boyfriend did not make that claim.
But also, corruption does not work that way. What do you want, an invoice? "One sex for so and so"?
If a politician takes money from a special interest, you don't say "but we can't prove it affected his decisions in any way!". So also with a reviewer who sleeps with people he's paid to pass judgment on.
Infidelity is especially bad, because it gives you extra reason to not disclose your conflict of interest.
Isn't it suspicious how little people care about the power dynamics of this? If a student sleeps with a teacher, that may be wrong by the student, but it's especially wrong by the teacher, who has the power in that unequal relationship. Same with driving instructors, parole officers etc. If you get too intimate with someone it is your job to judge, you're a tremendous ass and possibly a criminal. The dependent party also has a responsibility if they're adult and of sane mind, since they create a climate where improper relationships become the norm. Saying this doesn't matter is a slap in the face to all indie developers who wouldn't get that intimate with people judging their work.
So you see, we don't need an itemized invoice at all to say that this reflects extremely poorly on the gaming industry.
One who is aware of this could check up to 10 drinks for their friends.
Yeah, if those ten friends don't mind you sticking your finger in their drinks. If you don't explain, you might get unpopular very quickly. If you do explain, why aren't you just using a paper strip or something?
That this silly invention is taken seriously at all is a testament to moral panic.
Sorry for what you went through man, but this is a great example of a case where this would not have worked. Assuming this nail polish existed, and no one would think twice about a man wearing it, would you have dipped your finger in the kool-aid?
There's a very narrow use case for this nail polish, and that's when you expect there's a good chance someone will try to drug you, but you still aren't sensible enough to stay the hell away from that place.
Any social structure that diminishes personal responsibility is suspect.
I agree. It follows from this that alcohol use in itself is suspect, though, even more so than frat boys. Temporarily and selectively evading personal responsibility for your actions is the reason people get drunk in the first place.
Many of us use it because it's simply more productive to do so.
You feel more productive, but the usability research showing mouse navigation is faster, and non-modal editing is faster, is older than vi. Xerox PARC found it in the seventies, Apple confirmed it in larger studies in the early eighties.
What happened to "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool"?
Yeah, illustrates nicely why it's not a good solution.
Of course, how we do things is largely a matter of habit and standards. Not entirely - for instance, there was solid usability research coming out of Xerox PARC showing that mouse-based editors were better than keyboard-only ones, and nonmodal editors were better than modal ones. Emacs was made in part in response to that research. But for the most part, one way of doing it is as good as any other.
It's just that vi and emacs (and wordstar!) lost that battle ages ago. Your browser, your IDEs, your widget libraries, your anything-that-isn't-actually-vi-or-emacs, use a standard based on IBM's CUA standard + Microsoft's defaults for cut-copy-paste (inherited from Apple). Odds are this very web from supports the old IBM shortcuts for cutting and pasting, (ctrl-insert, shift-delete, and shift insert), even though no one ever uses them.
You can keep forcing them to conform to obsolete standards with plugins if you must, but that is IMHO creating more trouble for yourself than it's worth,
The reason that power is cheap there in the first place, is that it isn't easy to transport elsewhere and they have more of it than they can use for other things.
It looks like Georgia has a lot of hydro power. It's probably a good share of the power production too. Anywhere power is cheap (and they wouldn't be mining bitcoins there if it wasn't) they probably use renewables, because coal and natural gas have more or less the same price everywhere.
Oh no, East Germany was less economically oppressive than the Soviet Union, but it still was a planned economy with a few market elements. The outputs of the economy as a whole was dictated by government plans and quotas. Even at its most socialistic, that was never the way it worked in the west.
There was little scarcity actually threatening day to day living in East Germany. They were the most productive eastern bloc economy by far, maybe because they experimented with some market pricing and even permitted some private enterprise.
What there was, was really invasive spying and political censorship, and bad coffee.
Fascism was the one from Italy, remember? It was the nazis with the gas chambers. The fascists were content with torture chambers, executions and shipping the "undesirables" to other countries to do the dirtiest work.
But don't worry, you're not in the torturable class, so it makes little difference for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Selective enforcement is the name of the game. For just about anything disagreeable, you can find a rule to banish from wikipedia - as long as you know the game and have the clout.
All content that is of no political or economic importance, they would rather see on Wikia. Wikia is for profit, they can make money off your work there. That is, in a nutshell, why wikipedia is deletionist.
On wikipedia proper, the only reward they get is being able to control narratives. Wikipedia policies give plenty of wiggle room to include and exclude certain facts and frame things to one side's benefit, especially if you're an insider in their culture, know how to play their game. Thus, controversial issues that people are likely to search for will never be out of scope for wikipedia.
"Held accountable for what? This total free resource I can use with no strings attached"
Have you noticed something? Wikia is wikipedia's sister project, but it is for profit, unlike Wikipedia. Wikia has an immensely high google rating. If you make a wiki about a specific topic on your own site, spend a long time building it up, some random person making a wikia wiki with the same name will easily outrank you in google searches.
If your project started out on wikia, woe to you. You can come in, but you can never leave. If you tire of the ads, and the people who worked on making the wiki decide to move to a private server, you will be forever fighting your abandoned wikia wiki in Google rankings. They won't let you take it down. They won't even let you link to the new wiki. Even if every single person who ever worked on the wiki supports the move, an admin from Wikia will swoop in and put a stop to it.
And over on wikipedia, "deletionists" won long ago. One of the main reasons they won is that content that's forced off wikipedia and over to Wikia, is pure profit for Wikipedia's owners.
They are their own worst enemy in that regard.
Possibly the reason nobody pays attention to them is that they are good at not being seen, not being acknowledged, and coordinate in private to suppress dissent and present a common front. It's always "wikipedia is against you", not "the steward is against you".
So you're thinking of your career prospects. Carry on soldier, these are the citizens the security state needs!
"although the term is so overused by people looking to discredit political opponents that it has nearly lost its original meaning"
Right. Says who?
A small group defending special interests, trying to create the impression of popular support, that's astroturfing. I bet the companies who do it hate how common the word has become, and how people have become familiar with the concept. I'm sure they would complain that it's "overused". I disagree, I think it could be used a lot more, and all internet forums with any redactional integrity should be on guard for this.
Consumption taxes are inherently regressive. A poor person has to spend (consume) all his income, a rich person can afford to use it to get more money instead. Not to mention that when time comes to consume it, the rich guy can buy his yacht in New Zealand, or wherever they don't have a consumption tax on yachts.
It would also be horribly intrusive/impractical to make an increasing consumption tax, they would need to keep track of everything you buy.
The charitable interpretation is that Bill Gates doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. The less charitable interpretation is that he knows.
Hamburgers are still hamburgers, though.
You don't really need to rebuild much to do the kind of stuff the Germans were best at. As German was at its high point as the language of science from 1880 to the outbreak of the first world war, mathematicians like Georg Cantor, David Hilbert, Gottlob Frege, Kurt Gödel, Ernst Zermelo, Dedekind, Felix Klein and Richard Dedekind were active. Then there were the physicist like Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger and Arnold Sommerfeld. You can kind of understand why German was used for math and physics.
That would be the motte in the motte-and-bailey doctrine. If you define feminism like that, it's extremely defensible.
But as soon as you're going out to do any actual good work in the name of feminism, you're going to need a broader definition, one that opens it up for criticism.
Retreating to the defensible but useless definition whenever your ideas are criticized, is dishonest.
First and foremost, The boyfriend did not make that claim.
But also, corruption does not work that way. What do you want, an invoice? "One sex for so and so"?
If a politician takes money from a special interest, you don't say "but we can't prove it affected his decisions in any way!". So also with a reviewer who sleeps with people he's paid to pass judgment on.
Infidelity is especially bad, because it gives you extra reason to not disclose your conflict of interest.
Isn't it suspicious how little people care about the power dynamics of this? If a student sleeps with a teacher, that may be wrong by the student, but it's especially wrong by the teacher, who has the power in that unequal relationship. Same with driving instructors, parole officers etc. If you get too intimate with someone it is your job to judge, you're a tremendous ass and possibly a criminal. The dependent party also has a responsibility if they're adult and of sane mind, since they create a climate where improper relationships become the norm. Saying this doesn't matter is a slap in the face to all indie developers who wouldn't get that intimate with people judging their work.
So you see, we don't need an itemized invoice at all to say that this reflects extremely poorly on the gaming industry.
Yeah, if those ten friends don't mind you sticking your finger in their drinks. If you don't explain, you might get unpopular very quickly. If you do explain, why aren't you just using a paper strip or something?
That this silly invention is taken seriously at all is a testament to moral panic.
Sorry for what you went through man, but this is a great example of a case where this would not have worked. Assuming this nail polish existed, and no one would think twice about a man wearing it, would you have dipped your finger in the kool-aid?
There's a very narrow use case for this nail polish, and that's when you expect there's a good chance someone will try to drug you, but you still aren't sensible enough to stay the hell away from that place.
I agree. It follows from this that alcohol use in itself is suspect, though, even more so than frat boys. Temporarily and selectively evading personal responsibility for your actions is the reason people get drunk in the first place.
There are a thousand laws where "lack of interest amongst the general population" was no obstacle to getting them passed.
You feel more productive, but the usability research showing mouse navigation is faster, and non-modal editing is faster, is older than vi. Xerox PARC found it in the seventies, Apple confirmed it in larger studies in the early eighties.
What happened to "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool"?
Yeah, illustrates nicely why it's not a good solution.
Of course, how we do things is largely a matter of habit and standards. Not entirely - for instance, there was solid usability research coming out of Xerox PARC showing that mouse-based editors were better than keyboard-only ones, and nonmodal editors were better than modal ones. Emacs was made in part in response to that research. But for the most part, one way of doing it is as good as any other.
It's just that vi and emacs (and wordstar!) lost that battle ages ago. Your browser, your IDEs, your widget libraries, your anything-that-isn't-actually-vi-or-emacs, use a standard based on IBM's CUA standard + Microsoft's defaults for cut-copy-paste (inherited from Apple). Odds are this very web from supports the old IBM shortcuts for cutting and pasting, (ctrl-insert, shift-delete, and shift insert), even though no one ever uses them.
You can keep forcing them to conform to obsolete standards with plugins if you must, but that is IMHO creating more trouble for yourself than it's worth,
The reason that power is cheap there in the first place, is that it isn't easy to transport elsewhere and they have more of it than they can use for other things.
It was overturned with good help from Australia's coal lobby, not quite the same as "didn't work".
It looks like Georgia has a lot of hydro power. It's probably a good share of the power production too. Anywhere power is cheap (and they wouldn't be mining bitcoins there if it wasn't) they probably use renewables, because coal and natural gas have more or less the same price everywhere.
Citation needed, huh? Why not start with the first hit on google.
Oh no, East Germany was less economically oppressive than the Soviet Union, but it still was a planned economy with a few market elements. The outputs of the economy as a whole was dictated by government plans and quotas. Even at its most socialistic, that was never the way it worked in the west.
Mwhah ha.
There was little scarcity actually threatening day to day living in East Germany. They were the most productive eastern bloc economy by far, maybe because they experimented with some market pricing and even permitted some private enterprise.
What there was, was really invasive spying and political censorship, and bad coffee.
Fascism was the one from Italy, remember? It was the nazis with the gas chambers. The fascists were content with torture chambers, executions and shipping the "undesirables" to other countries to do the dirtiest work.
But don't worry, you're not in the torturable class, so it makes little difference for you.