Flat Earth, there you go, a somewhat long article.
Wikipedia is BOTH an encyclopedia and a community. Just like Linux. Without the community there to find and fix bugs, and to contribute new code back to linux, it would just be shareware.
The article isn't necessarily written by a single person. Anyone can jump in and insert a single sentence containing some crazy controvertial statement. Statements that stand out like a sore thumb like that usually get removed more or less quickly.
"It is frequently reported that Secret Service agents had to inform Reagan every morning that he was once the president"
Actually, that statement (if it has no supporting link) is specifically covered under avoid weasel terms, and it would be absolutely approporiate for anyone (anonymous or not) to remove that sentence (stating in the edit history why it's being removed so others don't think it's a case of vandalism).
If students cite the Date (and possibly time) they referenced the article, it's fairly straightforward to view some version from that day.
If a piece of information is controversial enough to only appear on a page for a fraction of a day, that should be a huge clue in the first place that the student shouldn't be referencing that piece of information from that page, and it perhaps shouldn't be accepted by teachers as a good reference.
And in fact, that's the way it should be. Rule #4675: Encyclopedias are not instruction manuals (eg. you don't become skilled at swimming or playing poker by reading one), but they can link to instruction manuals.
Boring articles on Wikipedia don't get any attention, so they're full of errors and desperately in need of help.
That's true. Wikipedia needs you to join and keep an eye on these articles! But Wikipedia sometimes provides more concise information you can get on the 'net, while more obscure topics STILL require a trip to your nearest college library. So, nothing new there.
Contentious articles on Wikipedia get the most attention, but because of that they get filled with the most crap.
Contentious articles articles can be difficult for even well-meaning adults to come to a neutral-point-of-view consensus on.
You left out a third, and much more important category though: popular, but noncontentious articles, known as Featured Articles. They have lots of rational adults watching every edit, making sure that edits don't stray from consensus. As a result, these articles turn out to be pretty good.
forever, for a neverending sequence of random clueless lusers.
Actually, THAT is the job of the day-to-day janitors with a severe case of editcountitis. Guess how much shit Wikipedia has to deal with on a daily basis? Lots. Wikipedia has high page-rank, so corporations want to spam it. Anyone can edit it, so 14 years are constantly posting their autobiographies.
What the expert's job is, is to convince the daily workers that they're right, either by posting in the Discussion page, or by referencing reputable sources at the bottom of the main article.
What's to say that these myths don't become "facts" in Wikipedia due to sheer numbers?
People on wikipedia aren't allowed to write whatever the heck they want. They can only document what they believe the expert concensus on any given subject is. It greatly helps if there are actual experts editing, or people pulling information from college libraries (and documenting their sources). But in general, there are policies in place that allow anyone to remove information from articles which doesn't fit this ideal.
First, because Wikipedia is governed by a policy called NPOV, or Neutral Point Of View, which is interpreted to mean that an encyclopedia must reflect all perspectives on any subject.
Not to nitpick, but NPOV is only one of three supreme rules, the other two being No original research and Verifiability. They must be all taken together, no one trumps the other.
So, if you're an expert, add a "Sources" section with references to back you up, that prove that your statements aren't just things that you believe, but are indeed the consensus of the experts in your field. "No original research" means that, in fact, Wikipedians explicitely are NOT equiped to judge whether something is an expert consensus or not. So, as long as you back your statement up with published sources (just as you'd do in an academic paper), you should be fine.
Also, if someone reverts you, and you know you're right, don't back down. Everyone on Wikipedia needs to be both bold and civil. Go to the "discussion" part of the article, explain that you're an expert, explain that you think this is also the consensus of other experts, and if they're being civil, they'll welcome your edits with open arms.
I mean, I'm happy to post more information and get more moderation points, but doing this feels like cheating, because the information is well-known by a sizable chunk of Slashdotters, any one of whom could have posted the info.
Or even that the DIAA (doughtnut industry) gives out free doughtnuts to millions of people every morning on their commute to work. In fact, not only are they free, but the DIAA sometimes pays DJ's (doughnut jockeys) to give away the doughnuts for free.
Doughnuts and music are clearly dissimilar.
Even the record industry realizes that records are sometimes more valuable as promotional material. Yet, they seem to think that the future of actual purchased audio is DRM-encumberance.
Or that powdered-sugar manufacturers always get a tiny cut of every doughnut sold, no matter what. I mean, copyright IS different, and IS still in limbo, otherwise there wouldn't be all these different copyright schemes around the world.
Some percentage of people in the open source movement want to abolish copyright completely; others think it 's fine, but is too long, or that it really is profitable for the RIAA (if they would only realize), or something like that.
Not every Slashdotter is in unison. (well, practically all Slashdotters think copyright is too long).
But the fact that we can even begin to debate it, means it's still not theft. You could never ever argue that stealing doughnuts from a bakery is profitable for the baker, or have the 0.5% most extreme leftists think it's reasonable idea to do away with property rights for doughnuts, or argue that taking 14-year-old doughnuts is okay.
I thought that selling Windows on Dell's was Microsoft's most-desired upgrade path, since users don't usually upgrade ME => XP on their own. Is this incorrect?
The original poster seemed to be assume a video sensor that didn't cover the whole sky/horizon. Obviously a visual sensor with wider range is needed, and the audio sensor is on the whole not useful for locating a sniper.
In terms of government hands, there are no doubt many cases where it would be useful for INDIVIDUALS to quickly find out who shot first, so as to lay blame at the very least (1970, 1976, and I thought there was an incident during the revolutionary war, but I can't find it at the moment).
And there are no doubt certain cases where people WANT the government to know where the shot(s) came from (1963).
Most judges were lawyers first, but it's undoubtedly the case that having at least minimal experience as a judge will make them better suited to the Supreme Court.
Most astronauts were were test pilots first, but that doesn't mean you jump someone from being a fighter pilot straight to being Shuttle commander. (or jump a city mayor to being president, or jump an arabian horse worker to being head of FEMA (oops, sorry))
Neither am I suggesting that lawyers are completely clueless when it comes to judicial restraint. A lawyer's main job is to convince someone whose main job is judicial restraint, and it's best to understand someone's mindset so one can more easily convince them.
But John Roberts impressed me as someone who lies awake at night thinking about the reputation of the judiciary, and what makes a good judge. Lawyers don't make this kind of thinking their meat and potatoes like judges do.
Why should Linux "ought to be" anything other than what it is? If Linux were something else, it would not be Linux.
That's a pretty circular argument, almost like saying "everything that's sucessful can't be improved".
It's entirely possible that licensing isn't one area of Linux that is in dire need of improvement, but don't use the argument "this is what got us here" to back it up.
I laid out several supporting arguments for why lawyers don't approach the bench with the same perspective or reverence of the institution as judges do. Ignoring those arguments and then being a prick about it is just writing flamebait.
I strongly suggest that anyone who hasn't, listen to Robert's confirmation hearings. You can clearly tell that he has a lot of knowledge about how judges approach cases, and how and why judges do what they do. A non-judge won't have the same longstanding reverent approach for the bench, and won't inspire the same confidence in the populace who needs a trustworthy judiciary.
Heck, ask Roberts if he thinks appointing non-judges to the Supreme Court is a good idea. I'll bet good money that he doesn't think it's a good idea.
Roberts clearly accurately believed that, because the supreme court has fewer checks-and-balances put on it, that the credibility of the judiciary greatly depends on the court maintaining its reputation as an institution that exercises a great deal of restraint. Lawyers don't know jack about restraint. Lawyers don't have to consider the reputation of the larger institution of the court.
Non-judges may have been nominated before, I don't care. It's still a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia is BOTH an encyclopedia and a community. Just like Linux. Without the community there to find and fix bugs, and to contribute new code back to linux, it would just be shareware.
out of nowhere he drops
The article isn't necessarily written by a single person. Anyone can jump in and insert a single sentence containing some crazy controvertial statement. Statements that stand out like a sore thumb like that usually get removed more or less quickly.
"It is frequently reported that Secret Service agents had to inform Reagan every morning that he was once the president"
Actually, that statement (if it has no supporting link) is specifically covered under avoid weasel terms, and it would be absolutely approporiate for anyone (anonymous or not) to remove that sentence (stating in the edit history why it's being removed so others don't think it's a case of vandalism).
If a piece of information is controversial enough to only appear on a page for a fraction of a day, that should be a huge clue in the first place that the student shouldn't be referencing that piece of information from that page, and it perhaps shouldn't be accepted by teachers as a good reference.
And in fact, that's the way it should be. Rule #4675: Encyclopedias are not instruction manuals (eg. you don't become skilled at swimming or playing poker by reading one), but they can link to instruction manuals.
In fact, Wikipedia IS sometimes cited for academic purposes, cited in court cases, cited by the press, and cited in other cases.
That's true. Wikipedia needs you to join and keep an eye on these articles! But Wikipedia sometimes provides more concise information you can get on the 'net, while more obscure topics STILL require a trip to your nearest college library. So, nothing new there.
Contentious articles on Wikipedia get the most attention, but because of that they get filled with the most crap.
Contentious articles articles can be difficult for even well-meaning adults to come to a neutral-point-of-view consensus on.
You left out a third, and much more important category though: popular, but noncontentious articles, known as Featured Articles. They have lots of rational adults watching every edit, making sure that edits don't stray from consensus. As a result, these articles turn out to be pretty good.
forever, for a neverending sequence of random clueless lusers.
Actually, THAT is the job of the day-to-day janitors with a severe case of editcountitis. Guess how much shit Wikipedia has to deal with on a daily basis? Lots. Wikipedia has high page-rank, so corporations want to spam it. Anyone can edit it, so 14 years are constantly posting their autobiographies.
What the expert's job is, is to convince the daily workers that they're right, either by posting in the Discussion page, or by referencing reputable sources at the bottom of the main article.
And the "physics cranks" sectoin that you mentioned explicitely says "It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers".
People on wikipedia aren't allowed to write whatever the heck they want. They can only document what they believe the expert concensus on any given subject is. It greatly helps if there are actual experts editing, or people pulling information from college libraries (and documenting their sources). But in general, there are policies in place that allow anyone to remove information from articles which doesn't fit this ideal.
Not to nitpick, but NPOV is only one of three supreme rules, the other two being No original research and Verifiability. They must be all taken together, no one trumps the other.
So, if you're an expert, add a "Sources" section with references to back you up, that prove that your statements aren't just things that you believe, but are indeed the consensus of the experts in your field. "No original research" means that, in fact, Wikipedians explicitely are NOT equiped to judge whether something is an expert consensus or not. So, as long as you back your statement up with published sources (just as you'd do in an academic paper), you should be fine.
Also, if someone reverts you, and you know you're right, don't back down. Everyone on Wikipedia needs to be both bold and civil. Go to the "discussion" part of the article, explain that you're an expert, explain that you think this is also the consensus of other experts, and if they're being civil, they'll welcome your edits with open arms.
--~~~~
Doughnuts and music are clearly dissimilar.
Even the record industry realizes that records are sometimes more valuable as promotional material. Yet, they seem to think that the future of actual purchased audio is DRM-encumberance.
Or that powdered-sugar manufacturers always get a tiny cut of every doughnut sold, no matter what. I mean, copyright IS different, and IS still in limbo, otherwise there wouldn't be all these different copyright schemes around the world.
Not every Slashdotter is in unison. (well, practically all Slashdotters think copyright is too long).
But the fact that we can even begin to debate it, means it's still not theft. You could never ever argue that stealing doughnuts from a bakery is profitable for the baker, or have the 0.5% most extreme leftists think it's reasonable idea to do away with property rights for doughnuts, or argue that taking 14-year-old doughnuts is okay.
Oh, more realistically? Okay, convince more women to become geeks. (if even that is realistic)
I thought that selling Windows on Dell's was Microsoft's most-desired upgrade path, since users don't usually upgrade ME => XP on their own. Is this incorrect?
Hahaha, brilliant!
In terms of government hands, there are no doubt many cases where it would be useful for INDIVIDUALS to quickly find out who shot first, so as to lay blame at the very least (1970, 1976, and I thought there was an incident during the revolutionary war, but I can't find it at the moment).
And there are no doubt certain cases where people WANT the government to know where the shot(s) came from (1963).
Except, of course, for the issue that sound travels much slower than light.
The beltway sniper attacks were done at ~50-100 yards from the targets. At 100 yards, it takes sound 0.29 seconds to travel the distance, while light is nearly instant.
Now that is a solid argument. Saying Linux should only be "what it is" is not.
I mean, the insanity has to stop somewhere.
Most astronauts were were test pilots first, but that doesn't mean you jump someone from being a fighter pilot straight to being Shuttle commander. (or jump a city mayor to being president, or jump an arabian horse worker to being head of FEMA (oops, sorry))
Neither am I suggesting that lawyers are completely clueless when it comes to judicial restraint. A lawyer's main job is to convince someone whose main job is judicial restraint, and it's best to understand someone's mindset so one can more easily convince them.
But John Roberts impressed me as someone who lies awake at night thinking about the reputation of the judiciary, and what makes a good judge. Lawyers don't make this kind of thinking their meat and potatoes like judges do.
That's a pretty circular argument, almost like saying "everything that's sucessful can't be improved".
It's entirely possible that licensing isn't one area of Linux that is in dire need of improvement, but don't use the argument "this is what got us here" to back it up.
I laid out several supporting arguments for why lawyers don't approach the bench with the same perspective or reverence of the institution as judges do. Ignoring those arguments and then being a prick about it is just writing flamebait.
I strongly suggest that anyone who hasn't, listen to Robert's confirmation hearings. You can clearly tell that he has a lot of knowledge about how judges approach cases, and how and why judges do what they do. A non-judge won't have the same longstanding reverent approach for the bench, and won't inspire the same confidence in the populace who needs a trustworthy judiciary.
Heck, ask Roberts if he thinks appointing non-judges to the Supreme Court is a good idea. I'll bet good money that he doesn't think it's a good idea.
Roberts clearly accurately believed that, because the supreme court has fewer checks-and-balances put on it, that the credibility of the judiciary greatly depends on the court maintaining its reputation as an institution that exercises a great deal of restraint. Lawyers don't know jack about restraint. Lawyers don't have to consider the reputation of the larger institution of the court.
Non-judges may have been nominated before, I don't care. It's still a bad idea.