Something like this is in fact part of the proposal currently under discussion: a seconds flag ("validated" or something) in addition to "not vandalized". The ability to set this flag would be reserved to a special group of experts. For core articles about science, etc, I think this can work. I'm not sure though how much of Wikipedia can be covered this way.
Uh, mods? What exactly does the parent post inform you of? Don't get me wrong, it's a valid comment, it made me nod and chuckle, it might even be "insightful" - but "informative"? wtf?
Hm, if you would bother to read nicknames, you would have noticed that I am not the original "dumbass", so I don't need to make excuses. As it happens, I did read the article, and I do know that Cambridge University is in the UK - but it used to confuse me, years ago.
But hey, what the fuck, I don't care. All I wanted to say is: "Cambridge academics'" isn't that obvious if you are a) not from the english speaking world and b) not into academics. It's an easy mistake to make, IMHO.
Incidentally, there are more Cambridges in the US than in the UK - at least one of which is also notable for its large univerity. Used to confuse the fuck out of me, for one.
That should be So if you are a noob and don't patch your systems within one hour of connecting it to the net! People do connect vigin boxes directly to the net, you know...
On a related note: if you are in the EU (and maybe even if you are not), you may want to sign the petition for public geo data. Apperently, there is a proposal considered by the EU that would make geo data collected by public agencies no longer free to use.
Re:Loving complexity for complexity's sake
on
Ruby Off the Rails
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Modern JVMs get very close to the performance of traditional, pre-compiled code. What makes java feel slow in in the client world are two, no, make that three, factors:
1) the JVM needs to start. That needs time. On a server, it basically starts once, and then it just runs. Also, JIT only really kicks in for long running applications. 2) Java needs a lot of RAM. If you try to run a java app on a smallish box, chances are it will start swapping. 3) Swing is Slow, it makes Java GUIs feel cluncky. SWT is much better for the user, it "feels" more responsive.
I hope this is implemented in a non-intrusive manner, kind of like the threshold system here on slashdot: if you browse at level -1, you get the whole thing, raw. Default for visitors should be level 1 or something, and there may be levels 2 and 3 or "excellent" articles.
That would be simple for vandalism that consists of deleting parts of the page, inserting 50 links or stuff like "Wikipedia sucks ass" and such. But those are usually found and reverted soon anyway.
The hard part is the subtle stuff - people who insert false information that sounds credible, and can only be falsified by thorough research. It gets really tricky there, the semi-protection stuff will not help with that.
Abot the "anons can't create articles any more" thing: while I don't think it's a big restriction, I also don't think it will help much. Defacement of existing articles is much worse in my experience that the creation of bullshit articles - and we will see more of the former if we suppress the latter. New articles are also easier to pick out on the patrol page.
I actually hope that this restriction (which is active *only* on the english Wikipedia right now, as an experiemt), will be abandoned in favour of semi-protection, marking "good" versions, etc.
Another thing we will probably see in the near future is captcha protection for account creation, and, maybe, for anonymous edits that try to add weblinks. That would cut back on link spam quite a bit, I hope.
...he's right. As an active Wikipedia admin (German wikipedia, not English, though), I expect that this feature will allow us to use the "full" protection less often, especially for article relevant to current events. Thus, "normal" contributors could work on updating those article without having to revert lots of dumb vandalism. Right now, such articles get "full" protection, so only admins would be able to edit it. That's quite annoying.
I belive that together with the ability to mark "good" versions (which has been discussed a lot, but is still vaporware, AFAIK), the semi protection feature will help to make wikipedia more reliable, while remaining open and free. That's what everybody wants, no?
I particularly liked this comment on Amazon's page:
Never read the book and I don't plan to. However, just like Jack-o, I have an uninformed opinion, but unfortunately for me I won't make as much money as him with it.
Also amusing: type "Jack Thompson" into the search box on amazon.com - the first hit is the book and page in question, but look at the rest of the page!
...that would be Konqueror. KDE ist a desktop environment, i.e. it's concerned with managing and decorating windows, drawing widgets and prividing basic services to applications, like ways to talk to other applications and manage reusable components. Describing it as a way to access files is not false, but completely meanlingless - one could just as well say it's a way to access your printer.
Slashdot Mirror
Something like this is in fact part of the proposal currently under discussion: a seconds flag ("validated" or something) in addition to "not vandalized". The ability to set this flag would be reserved to a special group of experts. For core articles about science, etc, I think this can work. I'm not sure though how much of Wikipedia can be covered this way.
Uh, mods? What exactly does the parent post inform you of? Don't get me wrong, it's a valid comment, it made me nod and chuckle, it might even be "insightful" - but "informative"? wtf?
Hm, if you would bother to read nicknames, you would have noticed that I am not the original "dumbass", so I don't need to make excuses. As it happens, I did read the article, and I do know that Cambridge University is in the UK - but it used to confuse me, years ago.
But hey, what the fuck, I don't care. All I wanted to say is: "Cambridge academics'" isn't that obvious if you are a) not from the english speaking world and b) not into academics. It's an easy mistake to make, IMHO.
Incidentally, there are more Cambridges in the US than in the UK - at least one of which is also notable for its large univerity. Used to confuse the fuck out of me, for one.
It's always PEBCAK. The tricky part is finding out whose keyboard.
...here's the Wikipedia article on the Pirate Party
So if you are a noob and don't patch your systems
That should be So if you are a noob and don't patch your systems within one hour of connecting it to the net ! People do connect vigin boxes directly to the net, you know...
so, does it stop glas blades?
On a related note: if you are in the EU (and maybe even if you are not), you may want to sign the petition for public geo data. Apperently, there is a proposal considered by the EU that would make geo data collected by public agencies no longer free to use.
Mod parent up, he's right. I only whish more people would understand those basic facts about science.
Every time I hear people talk about "irrefutable scientific facts", I think i'll blow a fuse. If it's irrefutable, it's unscientific - per definition.
then, how do you define space without reference to the concept of time?
...that's like saying ther's no "up" separate from "east". The real question is if they are orthogonal.
...meight be more useful: have a look.
Modern JVMs get very close to the performance of traditional, pre-compiled code. What makes java feel slow in in the client world are two, no, make that three, factors:
1) the JVM needs to start. That needs time. On a server, it basically starts once, and then it just runs. Also, JIT only really kicks in for long running applications.
2) Java needs a lot of RAM. If you try to run a java app on a smallish box, chances are it will start swapping.
3) Swing is Slow, it makes Java GUIs feel cluncky. SWT is much better for the user, it "feels" more responsive.
Marking "stable" versions of an articles has been much discussed, and will probably come around soo, in some form or other. Here are some links:
ReleaseArticleVersion
Anti-vandalism_ideas
Reviewed article version
Article marker feature
Article validation
I hope this is implemented in a non-intrusive manner, kind of like the threshold system here on slashdot: if you browse at level -1, you get the whole thing, raw. Default for visitors should be level 1 or something, and there may be levels 2 and 3 or "excellent" articles.
That would be simple for vandalism that consists of deleting parts of the page, inserting 50 links or stuff like "Wikipedia sucks ass" and such. But those are usually found and reverted soon anyway.
The hard part is the subtle stuff - people who insert false information that sounds credible, and can only be falsified by thorough research. It gets really tricky there, the semi-protection stuff will not help with that.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Seems like Wikipedia has hit stage 3 in the last weeks.
Abot the "anons can't create articles any more" thing: while I don't think it's a big restriction, I also don't think it will help much. Defacement of existing articles is much worse in my experience that the creation of bullshit articles - and we will see more of the former if we suppress the latter. New articles are also easier to pick out on the patrol page.
I actually hope that this restriction (which is active *only* on the english Wikipedia right now, as an experiemt), will be abandoned in favour of semi-protection, marking "good" versions, etc.
Another thing we will probably see in the near future is captcha protection for account creation, and, maybe, for anonymous edits that try to add weblinks. That would cut back on link spam quite a bit, I hope.
...he's right. As an active Wikipedia admin (German wikipedia, not English, though), I expect that this feature will allow us to use the "full" protection less often, especially for article relevant to current events. Thus, "normal" contributors could work on updating those article without having to revert lots of dumb vandalism. Right now, such articles get "full" protection, so only admins would be able to edit it. That's quite annoying.
I belive that together with the ability to mark "good" versions (which has been discussed a lot, but is still vaporware, AFAIK), the semi protection feature will help to make wikipedia more reliable, while remaining open and free. That's what everybody wants, no?
better: don't wait at all, fix it yourself.
Sure it works. Why else are people staring at progress bars?
I particularly liked this comment on Amazon's page:
Never read the book and I don't plan to. However, just like Jack-o, I have an uninformed opinion, but unfortunately for me I won't make as much money as him with it.
Also amusing: type "Jack Thompson" into the search box on amazon.com - the first hit is the book and page in question, but look at the rest of the page!
...and tries the same with hist little sister.
But seriously: do not decive your children! Tell them what's what! Thanks you.
...that would be Konqueror. KDE ist a desktop environment, i.e. it's concerned with managing and decorating windows, drawing widgets and prividing basic services to applications, like ways to talk to other applications and manage reusable components. Describing it as a way to access files is not false, but completely meanlingless - one could just as well say it's a way to access your printer.
for surfing, you want the Phoenix Asteroids