You think of one hypothetical example where it isn't needed, therefore you conclude, it could never be useful?
Here in UK stores at least, DVD prices can vary significantly due to special offers, sometimes more than 50% less, which translates into a lot for things like boxsets.
And, some people are capable of walking to the store down the street. Which I'd gladly do to save myself £20 (~$40). I mean, I'll often look round several different nearby stores anyway, as it often occurs that one shop is significantly cheaper. It would be useful to save myself a journey.
To me, a killer app is one which makes you absolutely want it, even if it means making a different hardware decision.
Right. But you then make the false conclusion that a killer app is only a killer app if this applies to the majority of people.
The expression "killer app" does not require it to be wanted by a majority of people. For example, applications such as Quark and Lightwave used to be considered "killer apps" for the Mac and Amiga respectively back in the 80s and 90s, but clearly this didn't mean that most people had an interest in desktop publishing or 3D rendering. It meant that for people who were interested in those applications, they went and bought those machines specifically for that purpose.
Just because you personally are not interested in this barcode feature does not mean that there aren't many others who are.
I'm not interested in Halo, and I'd argue that the majority of the population is not interested in Halo, so by your reasoning, this isn't a killer app either.
I take comfort in the fact that there are lots of medics in the ER. If one doesn't want to do a blood transfusion, I'm sure there will be others who do.
Well, if a pharmacy is able to get another member of staff to dispense, that's fine with me, and up to them. The problem is they don't always do it. Moreover, in some hospitals at some times, there may only be one doctor available in the ER.
Plus, I thought JW's believed that their rules applied only to them, and not unbelievers.
Yes, good point - JW's believe their rules are only for them, and don't try to force their morality onto others. That way, we don't get into stupid situations like a doctor refusing to give blood transfusions - because that's exactly the sort of mess we'd get to if JW's behaved like the anti-birth-control-pill pharmacists.
What a novel idea - perhaps there's a lesson to be learnt there?
Whether a particular drug happens to exist or not is besides the point - the point is that if you are the sort of person who could only dispense a drug if you personally morally approved of it, then it ought to be bleeding obvious that getting into that profession is a rather risky business, whether or not you are okay with the drugs that are currently being dispensed. Even more so, given that it is well known that new drugs are always appearing.
Many people who are now in pharmacy school (myself included) have no idea what future drugs may come onto the market that conflict with their moral views.
If that's a problem with you, then you were foolish to start in the profession in the first place.
Should nobody practice pharmacy, just because at some point in the future, some drug might be developed that we all object to?
Of course not, and no one is claiming such a thing. Instead, leave it to the people who are willing to sell legally available drugs without worrying about whether it's a drug they personally morally approve of or not.
I write software for a living. If someone uses my software for evil, that's up to them - if I was the sort of person who had a problem with people using the software I write in a particular way, it would have been foolish to take up my particular job, and there'd be no use crying about it afterwards.
Moreover, if I don't like it, then I am free to leave. I don't get to both get paid, and not do the job - that's ridiculous.
A larger problem is that in forcing pharmacists to dispense abortifacients, the government is interfering with the freedom of individuals.
Like it or not, the pharmacy industry is regulated. AIUI, if you want to be licenced as a pharmacy, then expect to follow the Government's rules. If a business doesn't want to be a pharmacy, then no one is forcing them.
No business is forced to become a pharmacists. No one is forced to work at a pharmacy. Or become a doctor. If you were in intensive care, you'd be fine if the doctor refused to give you a blood transfusion because he was a Jehovah's Witnesses?
As for your Nazi analogy, I'm not sure I would have much symapthy for someone who willingly took up a job as concentration camp guard, for example, anyway. So even if we agreed it was murder, it's not a problem, as no one is forced to take the job of a doctor or pharmacist.
Schools are teaching birth control in such a way as to all but force it upon teenagers
Wow, really, teenagers are forced to have sex? I wish I went to your school.
at least in my school, we were taught that everyone should use birth control and that natural methods were not methods at all.
You'd rather that teenagers had sex without contraception?
There is a movement to actively promote this activity.
In what sense? People are encouraged to take up gay sex? Of course not. All that is wanted is to keep people outside of people's private sex lives.
One of the definitions of "religion" is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
So, atheism can be a "religion" just like collecting stamps can be a "religion".
Not that this definition has anything to do with the meaning of religion being discussed here. Just because a word has more than one definition doesn't mean those two definitions are the same thing.
It isn't a big thing. It's an ID card that holds a fingerprint record. How is it bad to tie a card to a person?
Yes, and a lot of other information besides held in a central database. I'm sorry, I thought it was Slashdot where I didn't have to explain the concerns of such things?
It is a big thing. It's a big thing in terms of who will eventually have to have one (everyone) and the cost (billions of pounds), for starters.
"It's looking like the UK is in for biometric ID cards within the next few years, despite widespread protest from groups such as 'NO2I"
Nice troll.
Um, it's completely factually accurate. The Government does have plans for a compulsory national ID card and database, and this is one step in the rollout plan.
A smart employee who works only 75% of the working time
I'm curious what exactly the article is actually saying, anyway. Obviously "percentage of their time at work on personal activities" would be the useful statistic, but the article says "25 per cent of their time online at work on personal activities."
Well, that makes no sense, in that people might be working when they're not online (I guess it also depends what we mean by "online" - if you use a Internet-connected computer, technically you're always online, but I don't think of myself "online" when I'm busy working. Not to mention people whose work doesn't always involve using a computer.)
I mean, it's trivially true that a large amount of one's time online would be spent on personal activities, because most people don't need the Internet much of the time when they are working.
It would be like saying "25% of time spent on phone calls is for personal use" - this clearly doesn't mean they spend 25% of their work time in total on personal use! (And it doesn't imply they spend any of their work time on personal things, as they might use the phone out of hours, in their lunch break or whatever.)
Developers release either a closed beta or an open beta; closed beta versions are released to a select group of individuals for a user test, while open betas are to a larger community group, usually the general public.
The 'beta' label means that the product is still being tested and refined; we generally find that the best way to improve new products is to get feedback directly from users on what works and what doesn't. So if you have comments or suggestions about Google Finance, we'd love to hear from you.
Now, it may be their mechanism for making it easy or obvious for users to report back is rather unclear or unpublicised. But that's a separate issue - I see nothing to show that Google are using the term incorrectly, and your own links support that their usage of "beta" is correct.
I agree - this also reminds of the common practice in open source where software products have version numbers of 0.xyz for years, even though they're fully usable and available for all (I don't know if these are explicitly referred to as betas, or whether it's implied). It's a refreshing change from companies that try to increase the numbers as fast as possible, and in cases like Microsoft, you have to wait until version 5 to get a usable product (not to mention that they sometimes like to start the count at 3.5...)
Sure, but then that also refute's the argument that the Iphone is special because it's cut out functionality, when it still has all of that functionality. One can't argue both that it's good because it doesn't have functionality, and good because it does.
(Also note, all of the things you list - E-mail, web browser, calendaring, synchronization, music, installable applications - are now standard in most ordinary phones, and are no longer only found in expensive "smart" phones.)
Smart phones with a lot of functionality cut out have existed for years - they're called phones.
They also have the added bonus that, due to not including this functionality, they're a lot cheaper as well as simpler. I'm not sure why lacking functionality on the Iphone is touted as a good thing, when you have to pay extra for it!
Just because the Ipod was a successful product, doesn't mean that all Apple products are or will be. By that logic, any mobile stuff that Microsoft put out should be should become the dominant platform, right?
Moreover, there is no need to "beat" the Iphone, because the Iphone has yet to beat the other phones already out there. It's just yet another phone.
Well, the difference here of course is that you're replying following the current Wikipedia guidelines, while I'm not.
This is the key point. And it would be one thing if we were simply discussing the "notability" idea, which is not an official policy, but the material you urge to keep also includes that which fails verifiability, which is a fundamental Wikipedia policy.
I.e., it's something all editors (should) agree with, and it's one of the whole points behind the way Wikipedia works. Suggesting Wikipedia should remove this policy is pointless, because you'll then be talking about something which is fundamentally different.
If you or someone else wants to fork Wikipedia, and create a version that allows unverifiable material, go right ahead. Let me know how it works out - considering how much people criticise Wikipedia for any false statement that briefly appears, I can't wait to see what they make of unverifiable-pedia:)
My test for notability
My reasons for saying most of those should be deleted was nothing to do with notability, but the complete lack of reliable sources, and in some cases, was material that would likely be unverifiable. Many of the articles didn't even assert their importance, so we have no reason to think that sources could be found in future.
My minimum requirement would be "Information above what you can obtain from a typical mention".
And how would such information be verified, in these cases?
First would add a notice asking for references, then nominate for deletion if none appear.
Certainly not, I'm suggesting that such things aren't all that common, and that much of what gets deleted isn't pages about somebody's cat.
I agree regarding pet articles - that was a joke example of something that nonetheless could be included if we do away with notability or espeically verifiability. But the other examples do commonly exist.
I'm not saying that everything unsourced should be immediately deleted - citation needed tags are useful. However, there's a difference between information which is plausibly verifiable, and information which is not. The former is reasonable to delete straight off, the latter can have the tags. There's also a difference between information added to an existing article, and cases where the entire article seems unverifiable, and may well be just made up. Furthermore, even when articles have existed and been tagged for months or years, with no sign of improvement, you still seem to oppose deletion.
The problem is that without speedy delete, Wikipedia would become overwhelmed with completely made up or unverifiable crap. How long should joke pages be kept up, just in case someone might produce reliable sources for? It'd become a laughing stock. As I say, if you want to create unverifiable-pedia, I'll be curious to see how it turns out.
Speedy delete and prod are also ways to cut down on the work, as AfDs are much more time-consuming. If an AfD is needed for one line articles that someone's just created with no sign of importance of verifiability, then there will be a massive increase in required AfDs.
I'd argue that it would also make things worse for the inclusionists - with more AfDs, there'll be less editors looking at any given AfD, meaning it much more likely that things are deleted for dubious reasons, just because a few people don't like it. What Wikipedia needs is a way to streamline deletion for obviously crap articles, whilst focusing people's time on debating the less obvious cases.
Hmm odd, I'm sure I replied to this thread already and had a discussion about this. Was it elsewhere I actually posted, or is Slashdot deleting material that we don't know about...
Anyway, as can be seen from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Terminator:_The_Sarah_Connor_Chronicles_episodes , the episodes have been transferred to another Wiki that's specific for Terminator, and all that remains is to add links from the Wikipedia article to the new Wiki (that this wasn't done seems to have been due to a mistake, rather than intent). So I think that's fine - the information is still there and just as easily accessible for the reader.
It's amazing what can be done if you discuss the issues on Wikipedia, rather than just complaining about it elsewhere:)
Unfortunately, a delete also means the destruction of the edit history and talk page, otherwise I'd link to them and you could check for yourself whether or not you agree.,-)
I agree this is a problem - but hey, now you can give me the Deletionpedia link:)
Nothing about "notable" in there.
Not explicitly, but there is the question of what "general education" or "branches of knowledge" means - does it really include say, an article about me, or an article about some "band" that is just a bunch of mates jamming together and they've written a couple of songs?
Wikipedia obviously need to flesh out their own meaning of encyclopedia, and this does not have to mean "including every possible thing ever". Every other encyclopedia publisher does the same.
I do think that "notability" shouldn't even be on the list of reasons.
Depends - I think there is some argument that notability shouldn't be a reason. If instead we require 3rd party reliable sources (which is important, due to verifiability), then that would implicitly cut away nonsense that people write about themselves, or some idea they thought up one day.
Note that some people here are criticising Wikipedia for deleting far more material than simply "non-notable but still in reliable 3rd party sources" stuff - e.g., see http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=971161&cid=25103485 . They think it should contain even unverifiable material.
I'm willing to discuss articles with no citations or sources. If, even after the "source this" notice and some time, there are still no sources, one should question the validity of the article and maybe delete it.
It depends - on the one hand, it's fine to leave unsourced material for a while, in the hopes that someone will find references. On the other hand, there are many pages that have no indiciation of its importance, and will likely either never have reliable sources (due to being unverifiable), and may even be completely made up. How long should such articles stay up - considering how eager people are to criticise Wikipedia for its reliability? It'll become a laughing stock if all the newly created crap that people make is allowed to stay up for a period of time.
Talking about the requirement that an article should at least assert its importance: it doesn't have to show it, just assert it - I think this is not unreasonable, and helps trim the crap from the material that is worth keeping, even if it doesn't yet have references.
My solution is simple. Add a namespace, of-shot, whatever you want, where you move articles that are "not notable" or for any not purely objective, editorial reason marked for deletion. Move them with their entire history and everything. Leave a link in the Wikipedia database.
Essentially, I would want the Wiki concept to be extended to deletion. Why is deletion totally non-wiki? It can't be reversed, it can't be traced, there's no edit history, nothing.
I am in full agreement - the article should still be accessible, with history and talk pages, it just wouldn't be editable, and obviously not part of the main encyclopedia space. But many people here seem to think that articles shouldn't even be "deleted" in this sense.
Firstly, the OP's claim was "A perfect encyclopedia should quite literally include Everything." so he's not just arguing for articles that may have been wrongly deleted (I admit, there are occasionally some), but for all articles - including articles on my pet cat, my web page etc, and all the really bad examples on Deletionpedia.
Club - maybe keep.
Bridget Brammall - delete after proposed deletion. I realise there is some reason for criticism of this deletion method, as people may miss it, but basically, no one chose to contest the deletion proposal. But anyway, it's two sentences, for god's sake! The article was unlikely to grow beyond that - but if someone disagrees later on, there's nothing stopping someone else from recreating the article. I'm a programmer - do I get my own article?
Interbras - another proposed deletion, no sources, no assertions of importance. It deserves to go.
Raef - no sources, no assertions of importance - for all we know, this is just some guy and his mates - they've written a total of three songs. Woo, I've written more than that, for my GCSE music when I was a kid. Do I get my own article? Wikipedia is not MySpace.
AZCOM - You would seriously keep this? It's all very well saying "Should be improved", but who will improve it? It's completely made up for all we know. If you want to improve it, there's nothing stopping you writing the article properly - delete just gets rid of the crap that was put there for now.
Black temptation - another band that don't even have any albums.
Association - maybe, maybe not.
Pianist - agreed it should clearly go, but it's not clear why this is significantly different to the rock bands, for example?
Dancer - It's all very well saying "assuming it's true", but that's the point, we don't know. Wikipedia is trying to be an encylopedia, not a place for things that may or may not be true. If someone finds sources, they can put them in a new article for it.
So I would say that only 2 are a matter of debate - and the remaining 8 should definitely go, otherwise Wikipedia would just turn into a place where anyone posts whatever rubbish they like.
No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.
Er - the actor, pianist and dancer are what I mean by random person. The two bands are random people, I'm not sure why that makes a difference, nor am I sure why songs are different to poetry. Whilst your search didn't find any websites in the first 10, they sometimes appear on Wikipedia. If they couldn't be deleted due to lack of 3rd party reliable sources, then there'd be on there. Do you think that an article for someone's website should be kept, or is there some reason why it is different? The same with random lists, these appear on Wikipedia - do you think they should all be kept or not. I do hope you're not suggesting that pages of pets, webpages, random lists don't exist simply because they didn't turn up in the first 10 of a random search!
I've got some more hypothetical articles - what would your view be on these?:
XYZ is a musician, he has written several songs. He plays the piano, and has been active since 1995. [insert link to his MySpace page]
---
XYZ is a programmer. He has written several pieces of software [insert details, and links to webpage with them on].
---
XYZ is a pub in the town of FOOBAR. [insert trivial details such as what food is on the menu, but no sources]
---
Everytime in future someone criticises Wikipedia on Slashdot for unreliable information, I think I'll link to your post to show how bad with unreliable information Wikipedia would be, if it gave into the criticisms. Maybe we can set the "Wikipedia is unreliable" critics onto the "Wikipedia deletes too much" critics? They should be arguing with each other, not complaining about Wikipedia...
Wikipedia and anonymous sources have a chance of being unbiased. In the case of this anonymous coward, the probability looks low. But I find it mad if you think an anonymous source, which in this case has a clear indication of bias, is to be taken as fact. If article histories were being edited behind the scenes, why is this anonymous coward the only one who seems to know about this conspiracy?
A perfect encyclopedia should quite literally include Everything.
Wikipedia should delete almost nothing, poorly written articles can be cleaned up, sources located, layout improved, and cross linked with a little effort. Once they have information they should never let it go.
Please, go and look at the sort of rubbish that we're talking about before you make such claims. Go on - go to Deletionpedia, hit random a few times, and tell me you think hardly any of those articles should have been deleted?
Can I have an article for myself, my pet cat, my webpage, some bad poetry I wrote, not to mention my idea of an article of "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name"?
The point is, size/space isn't the only consideration here.
I entirely agree - USENET is one thing, but the NNTP protocol and software is the best way I've seen to do online discussions. Email isn't as good, and web forums are far worse.
Not only are you restricted by the server side software, another problem is that this leads to the mods making decisions on behalf of everyone, when they should be user decisions. Most notably, the "lock thread" feature that plagues so many webboards, which many mods use simply because they don't like the thread. How about, if they don't like it, don't read it? With client side software, it's simple to just killfile threads or users that you don't like, which is how it should be done.
I hate to break it to you, but this isn't a desktop with excessive resources to throw around, it's a mobile device that requires tight memory management.
How come other phones can do it? And surely the main point being made by fans is that it's just like a computer - if it's just a phone, then you might as well buy a dirt cheap phone.
You're right, it is 2008 - not 1998.
I'm sorry but battery tech has not kept up with mobile tech, yes it is cool but it's not practical, mobile handsets using 3G have short enough battery life, BT headphones would only make the problem worse and what is the only tangible benefit? No wires.
I don't really know the ins and outs, but the point is that I want to have a choice, rather than Apple deciding for me.
but now practically all mobile handsets have the option of Internet access
Although they do, the majority of users haven't set up their phones to be able to access their email. And there are still plenty of people out there with old phones that don't do Internet access.
Saying that email is better is completely missing the point. The whole point of a phone is to communicate - a phone that can only do that with some kinds of phones is a problem, because I can't expect everyone I want to communicate with to upgrade their phones.
You're right, this was a key feature they were missing
Again, if features aren't a problem, why by an Iphone in the first place? Just save the money and get a normal phone. It doesn't matter what your mum wants, the point is that if someone wants that feature, the Iphone can't do it.
You're quite right. If only Apple knew as much about HCI as you, Mr. Coward.
If only they did. Maybe then they wouldn't make basic HCI blunders like preventing the ability to do simple tasks like copy and paste, that are fundamental to ease of use and interaction.
Slashdot Mirror
You're the one we need the "Wahbulance" for. "Oh noes, they're transsexuals!"
What is this, primary school?
On that note, the amount of spam I get from Apple is just as much as the amount I get for Rolex watches.
You think of one hypothetical example where it isn't needed, therefore you conclude, it could never be useful?
Here in UK stores at least, DVD prices can vary significantly due to special offers, sometimes more than 50% less, which translates into a lot for things like boxsets.
And, some people are capable of walking to the store down the street. Which I'd gladly do to save myself £20 (~$40). I mean, I'll often look round several different nearby stores anyway, as it often occurs that one shop is significantly cheaper. It would be useful to save myself a journey.
To me, a killer app is one which makes you absolutely want it, even if it means making a different hardware decision.
Right. But you then make the false conclusion that a killer app is only a killer app if this applies to the majority of people.
The expression "killer app" does not require it to be wanted by a majority of people. For example, applications such as Quark and Lightwave used to be considered "killer apps" for the Mac and Amiga respectively back in the 80s and 90s, but clearly this didn't mean that most people had an interest in desktop publishing or 3D rendering. It meant that for people who were interested in those applications, they went and bought those machines specifically for that purpose.
Just because you personally are not interested in this barcode feature does not mean that there aren't many others who are.
I'm not interested in Halo, and I'd argue that the majority of the population is not interested in Halo, so by your reasoning, this isn't a killer app either.
I take comfort in the fact that there are lots of medics in the ER. If one doesn't want to do a blood transfusion, I'm sure there will be others who do.
Well, if a pharmacy is able to get another member of staff to dispense, that's fine with me, and up to them. The problem is they don't always do it. Moreover, in some hospitals at some times, there may only be one doctor available in the ER.
Plus, I thought JW's believed that their rules applied only to them, and not unbelievers.
Yes, good point - JW's believe their rules are only for them, and don't try to force their morality onto others. That way, we don't get into stupid situations like a doctor refusing to give blood transfusions - because that's exactly the sort of mess we'd get to if JW's behaved like the anti-birth-control-pill pharmacists.
What a novel idea - perhaps there's a lesson to be learnt there?
Whether a particular drug happens to exist or not is besides the point - the point is that if you are the sort of person who could only dispense a drug if you personally morally approved of it, then it ought to be bleeding obvious that getting into that profession is a rather risky business, whether or not you are okay with the drugs that are currently being dispensed. Even more so, given that it is well known that new drugs are always appearing.
Many people who are now in pharmacy school (myself included) have no idea what future drugs may come onto the market that conflict with their moral views.
If that's a problem with you, then you were foolish to start in the profession in the first place.
Should nobody practice pharmacy, just because at some point in the future, some drug might be developed that we all object to?
Of course not, and no one is claiming such a thing. Instead, leave it to the people who are willing to sell legally available drugs without worrying about whether it's a drug they personally morally approve of or not.
I write software for a living. If someone uses my software for evil, that's up to them - if I was the sort of person who had a problem with people using the software I write in a particular way, it would have been foolish to take up my particular job, and there'd be no use crying about it afterwards.
Moreover, if I don't like it, then I am free to leave. I don't get to both get paid, and not do the job - that's ridiculous.
A larger problem is that in forcing pharmacists to dispense abortifacients, the government is interfering with the freedom of individuals.
Like it or not, the pharmacy industry is regulated. AIUI, if you want to be licenced as a pharmacy, then expect to follow the Government's rules. If a business doesn't want to be a pharmacy, then no one is forcing them.
No business is forced to become a pharmacists. No one is forced to work at a pharmacy. Or become a doctor. If you were in intensive care, you'd be fine if the doctor refused to give you a blood transfusion because he was a Jehovah's Witnesses?
As for your Nazi analogy, I'm not sure I would have much symapthy for someone who willingly took up a job as concentration camp guard, for example, anyway. So even if we agreed it was murder, it's not a problem, as no one is forced to take the job of a doctor or pharmacist.
Schools are teaching birth control in such a way as to all but force it upon teenagers
Wow, really, teenagers are forced to have sex? I wish I went to your school.
at least in my school, we were taught that everyone should use birth control and that natural methods were not methods at all.
You'd rather that teenagers had sex without contraception?
There is a movement to actively promote this activity.
In what sense? People are encouraged to take up gay sex? Of course not. All that is wanted is to keep people outside of people's private sex lives.
One of the definitions of "religion" is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
So, atheism can be a "religion" just like collecting stamps can be a "religion".
Not that this definition has anything to do with the meaning of religion being discussed here. Just because a word has more than one definition doesn't mean those two definitions are the same thing.
It isn't a big thing. It's an ID card that holds a fingerprint record. How is it bad to tie a card to a person?
Yes, and a lot of other information besides held in a central database. I'm sorry, I thought it was Slashdot where I didn't have to explain the concerns of such things?
It is a big thing. It's a big thing in terms of who will eventually have to have one (everyone) and the cost (billions of pounds), for starters.
"It's looking like the UK is in for biometric ID cards within the next few years, despite widespread protest from groups such as 'NO2I"
Nice troll.
Um, it's completely factually accurate. The Government does have plans for a compulsory national ID card and database, and this is one step in the rollout plan.
A smart employee who works only 75% of the working time
I'm curious what exactly the article is actually saying, anyway. Obviously "percentage of their time at work on personal activities" would be the useful statistic, but the article says "25 per cent of their time online at work on personal activities."
Well, that makes no sense, in that people might be working when they're not online (I guess it also depends what we mean by "online" - if you use a Internet-connected computer, technically you're always online, but I don't think of myself "online" when I'm busy working. Not to mention people whose work doesn't always involve using a computer.)
I mean, it's trivially true that a large amount of one's time online would be spent on personal activities, because most people don't need the Internet much of the time when they are working.
It would be like saying "25% of time spent on phone calls is for personal use" - this clearly doesn't mean they spend 25% of their work time in total on personal use! (And it doesn't imply they spend any of their work time on personal things, as they might use the phone out of hours, in their lunch break or whatever.)
Says everybody who knows what the term means.
I.e., you don't know.
You can read more about it here.
You mean the bit which says:
Developers release either a closed beta or an open beta; closed beta versions are released to a select group of individuals for a user test, while open betas are to a larger community group, usually the general public.
?
It's a more plausible point to argue about whether you can give feedback. I note that they say, for example at http://www.google.com/support/finance/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=71877 :
The 'beta' label means that the product is still being tested and refined; we generally find that the best way to improve new products is to get feedback directly from users on what works and what doesn't. So if you have comments or suggestions about Google Finance, we'd love to hear from you.
Now, it may be their mechanism for making it easy or obvious for users to report back is rather unclear or unpublicised. But that's a separate issue - I see nothing to show that Google are using the term incorrectly, and your own links support that their usage of "beta" is correct.
I agree - this also reminds of the common practice in open source where software products have version numbers of 0.xyz for years, even though they're fully usable and available for all (I don't know if these are explicitly referred to as betas, or whether it's implied). It's a refreshing change from companies that try to increase the numbers as fast as possible, and in cases like Microsoft, you have to wait until version 5 to get a usable product (not to mention that they sometimes like to start the count at 3.5...)
You missed the last part of that, which reads by a limited number of testers.
If an app is delivered to end users, then it's not beta.
Says who? Are we going to complain about Mozilla's definition of beta too then?
Sure, but then that also refute's the argument that the Iphone is special because it's cut out functionality, when it still has all of that functionality. One can't argue both that it's good because it doesn't have functionality, and good because it does.
(Also note, all of the things you list - E-mail, web browser, calendaring, synchronization, music, installable applications - are now standard in most ordinary phones, and are no longer only found in expensive "smart" phones.)
Smart phones with a lot of functionality cut out have existed for years - they're called phones.
They also have the added bonus that, due to not including this functionality, they're a lot cheaper as well as simpler. I'm not sure why lacking functionality on the Iphone is touted as a good thing, when you have to pay extra for it!
Just because the Ipod was a successful product, doesn't mean that all Apple products are or will be. By that logic, any mobile stuff that Microsoft put out should be should become the dominant platform, right?
Moreover, there is no need to "beat" the Iphone, because the Iphone has yet to beat the other phones already out there. It's just yet another phone.
Well, the difference here of course is that you're replying following the current Wikipedia guidelines, while I'm not.
This is the key point. And it would be one thing if we were simply discussing the "notability" idea, which is not an official policy, but the material you urge to keep also includes that which fails verifiability, which is a fundamental Wikipedia policy.
I.e., it's something all editors (should) agree with, and it's one of the whole points behind the way Wikipedia works. Suggesting Wikipedia should remove this policy is pointless, because you'll then be talking about something which is fundamentally different.
If you or someone else wants to fork Wikipedia, and create a version that allows unverifiable material, go right ahead. Let me know how it works out - considering how much people criticise Wikipedia for any false statement that briefly appears, I can't wait to see what they make of unverifiable-pedia :)
My test for notability
My reasons for saying most of those should be deleted was nothing to do with notability, but the complete lack of reliable sources, and in some cases, was material that would likely be unverifiable. Many of the articles didn't even assert their importance, so we have no reason to think that sources could be found in future.
My minimum requirement would be "Information above what you can obtain from a typical mention".
And how would such information be verified, in these cases?
First would add a notice asking for references, then nominate for deletion if none appear.
But this did happen for http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Interbras_(deleted_20_Aug_2008_at_20:23) which you also said keep. It was up for four years and was tagged for sources for a whole year!
Certainly not, I'm suggesting that such things aren't all that common, and that much of what gets deleted isn't pages about somebody's cat.
I agree regarding pet articles - that was a joke example of something that nonetheless could be included if we do away with notability or espeically verifiability. But the other examples do commonly exist.
I'm not saying that everything unsourced should be immediately deleted - citation needed tags are useful. However, there's a difference between information which is plausibly verifiable, and information which is not. The former is reasonable to delete straight off, the latter can have the tags. There's also a difference between information added to an existing article, and cases where the entire article seems unverifiable, and may well be just made up. Furthermore, even when articles have existed and been tagged for months or years, with no sign of improvement, you still seem to oppose deletion.
The problem is that without speedy delete, Wikipedia would become overwhelmed with completely made up or unverifiable crap. How long should joke pages be kept up, just in case someone might produce reliable sources for? It'd become a laughing stock. As I say, if you want to create unverifiable-pedia, I'll be curious to see how it turns out.
Speedy delete and prod are also ways to cut down on the work, as AfDs are much more time-consuming. If an AfD is needed for one line articles that someone's just created with no sign of importance of verifiability, then there will be a massive increase in required AfDs.
I'd argue that it would also make things worse for the inclusionists - with more AfDs, there'll be less editors looking at any given AfD, meaning it much more likely that things are deleted for dubious reasons, just because a few people don't like it. What Wikipedia needs is a way to streamline deletion for obviously crap articles, whilst focusing people's time on debating the less obvious cases.
Hmm odd, I'm sure I replied to this thread already and had a discussion about this. Was it elsewhere I actually posted, or is Slashdot deleting material that we don't know about...
Anyway, as can be seen from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Terminator:_The_Sarah_Connor_Chronicles_episodes , the episodes have been transferred to another Wiki that's specific for Terminator, and all that remains is to add links from the Wikipedia article to the new Wiki (that this wasn't done seems to have been due to a mistake, rather than intent). So I think that's fine - the information is still there and just as easily accessible for the reader.
It's amazing what can be done if you discuss the issues on Wikipedia, rather than just complaining about it elsewhere :)
Unfortunately, a delete also means the destruction of the edit history and talk page, otherwise I'd link to them and you could check for yourself whether or not you agree. ,-)
I agree this is a problem - but hey, now you can give me the Deletionpedia link :)
Nothing about "notable" in there.
Not explicitly, but there is the question of what "general education" or "branches of knowledge" means - does it really include say, an article about me, or an article about some "band" that is just a bunch of mates jamming together and they've written a couple of songs?
Wikipedia obviously need to flesh out their own meaning of encyclopedia, and this does not have to mean "including every possible thing ever". Every other encyclopedia publisher does the same.
I do think that "notability" shouldn't even be on the list of reasons.
Depends - I think there is some argument that notability shouldn't be a reason. If instead we require 3rd party reliable sources (which is important, due to verifiability), then that would implicitly cut away nonsense that people write about themselves, or some idea they thought up one day.
Note that some people here are criticising Wikipedia for deleting far more material than simply "non-notable but still in reliable 3rd party sources" stuff - e.g., see http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=971161&cid=25103485 . They think it should contain even unverifiable material.
I'm willing to discuss articles with no citations or sources. If, even after the "source this" notice and some time, there are still no sources, one should question the validity of the article and maybe delete it.
It depends - on the one hand, it's fine to leave unsourced material for a while, in the hopes that someone will find references. On the other hand, there are many pages that have no indiciation of its importance, and will likely either never have reliable sources (due to being unverifiable), and may even be completely made up. How long should such articles stay up - considering how eager people are to criticise Wikipedia for its reliability? It'll become a laughing stock if all the newly created crap that people make is allowed to stay up for a period of time.
Talking about the requirement that an article should at least assert its importance: it doesn't have to show it, just assert it - I think this is not unreasonable, and helps trim the crap from the material that is worth keeping, even if it doesn't yet have references.
My solution is simple. Add a namespace, of-shot, whatever you want, where you move articles that are "not notable" or for any not purely objective, editorial reason marked for deletion. Move them with their entire history and everything. Leave a link in the Wikipedia database.
Essentially, I would want the Wiki concept to be extended to deletion. Why is deletion totally non-wiki? It can't be reversed, it can't be traced, there's no edit history, nothing.
I am in full agreement - the article should still be accessible, with history and talk pages, it just wouldn't be editable, and obviously not part of the main encyclopedia space. But many people here seem to think that articles shouldn't even be "deleted" in this sense.
Firstly, the OP's claim was "A perfect encyclopedia should quite literally include Everything." so he's not just arguing for articles that may have been wrongly deleted (I admit, there are occasionally some), but for all articles - including articles on my pet cat, my web page etc, and all the really bad examples on Deletionpedia.
Club - maybe keep.
Bridget Brammall - delete after proposed deletion. I realise there is some reason for criticism of this deletion method, as people may miss it, but basically, no one chose to contest the deletion proposal. But anyway, it's two sentences, for god's sake! The article was unlikely to grow beyond that - but if someone disagrees later on, there's nothing stopping someone else from recreating the article. I'm a programmer - do I get my own article?
Interbras - another proposed deletion, no sources, no assertions of importance. It deserves to go.
Raef - no sources, no assertions of importance - for all we know, this is just some guy and his mates - they've written a total of three songs. Woo, I've written more than that, for my GCSE music when I was a kid. Do I get my own article? Wikipedia is not MySpace.
AZCOM - You would seriously keep this? It's all very well saying "Should be improved", but who will improve it? It's completely made up for all we know. If you want to improve it, there's nothing stopping you writing the article properly - delete just gets rid of the crap that was put there for now.
Black temptation - another band that don't even have any albums.
Association - maybe, maybe not.
Pianist - agreed it should clearly go, but it's not clear why this is significantly different to the rock bands, for example?
Dancer - It's all very well saying "assuming it's true", but that's the point, we don't know. Wikipedia is trying to be an encylopedia, not a place for things that may or may not be true. If someone finds sources, they can put them in a new article for it.
So I would say that only 2 are a matter of debate - and the remaining 8 should definitely go, otherwise Wikipedia would just turn into a place where anyone posts whatever rubbish they like.
No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.
Er - the actor, pianist and dancer are what I mean by random person. The two bands are random people, I'm not sure why that makes a difference, nor am I sure why songs are different to poetry. Whilst your search didn't find any websites in the first 10, they sometimes appear on Wikipedia. If they couldn't be deleted due to lack of 3rd party reliable sources, then there'd be on there. Do you think that an article for someone's website should be kept, or is there some reason why it is different? The same with random lists, these appear on Wikipedia - do you think they should all be kept or not. I do hope you're not suggesting that pages of pets, webpages, random lists don't exist simply because they didn't turn up in the first 10 of a random search!
I've got some more hypothetical articles - what would your view be on these?:
XYZ is a musician, he has written several songs. He plays the piano, and has been active since 1995. [insert link to his MySpace page]
---
XYZ is a programmer. He has written several pieces of software [insert details, and links to webpage with them on].
---
XYZ is a pub in the town of FOOBAR. [insert trivial details such as what food is on the menu, but no sources]
---
Everytime in future someone criticises Wikipedia on Slashdot for unreliable information, I think I'll link to your post to show how bad with unreliable information Wikipedia would be, if it gave into the criticisms. Maybe we can set the "Wikipedia is unreliable" critics onto the "Wikipedia deletes too much" critics? They should be arguing with each other, not complaining about Wikipedia...
Wikipedia and anonymous sources have a chance of being unbiased. In the case of this anonymous coward, the probability looks low. But I find it mad if you think an anonymous source, which in this case has a clear indication of bias, is to be taken as fact. If article histories were being edited behind the scenes, why is this anonymous coward the only one who seems to know about this conspiracy?
A perfect encyclopedia should quite literally include Everything.
Wikipedia should delete almost nothing, poorly written articles can be cleaned up, sources located, layout improved, and cross linked with a little effort. Once they have information they should never let it go.
Please, go and look at the sort of rubbish that we're talking about before you make such claims. Go on - go to Deletionpedia, hit random a few times, and tell me you think hardly any of those articles should have been deleted?
Can I have an article for myself, my pet cat, my webpage, some bad poetry I wrote, not to mention my idea of an article of "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name"?
The point is, size/space isn't the only consideration here.
I entirely agree - USENET is one thing, but the NNTP protocol and software is the best way I've seen to do online discussions. Email isn't as good, and web forums are far worse.
Not only are you restricted by the server side software, another problem is that this leads to the mods making decisions on behalf of everyone, when they should be user decisions. Most notably, the "lock thread" feature that plagues so many webboards, which many mods use simply because they don't like the thread. How about, if they don't like it, don't read it? With client side software, it's simple to just killfile threads or users that you don't like, which is how it should be done.
I hate to break it to you, but this isn't a desktop with excessive resources to throw around, it's a mobile device that requires tight memory management.
How come other phones can do it? And surely the main point being made by fans is that it's just like a computer - if it's just a phone, then you might as well buy a dirt cheap phone.
You're right, it is 2008 - not 1998.
I'm sorry but battery tech has not kept up with mobile tech, yes it is cool but it's not practical, mobile handsets using 3G have short enough battery life, BT headphones would only make the problem worse and what is the only tangible benefit? No wires.
I don't really know the ins and outs, but the point is that I want to have a choice, rather than Apple deciding for me.
but now practically all mobile handsets have the option of Internet access
Although they do, the majority of users haven't set up their phones to be able to access their email. And there are still plenty of people out there with old phones that don't do Internet access.
Saying that email is better is completely missing the point. The whole point of a phone is to communicate - a phone that can only do that with some kinds of phones is a problem, because I can't expect everyone I want to communicate with to upgrade their phones.
You're right, this was a key feature they were missing
Again, if features aren't a problem, why by an Iphone in the first place? Just save the money and get a normal phone. It doesn't matter what your mum wants, the point is that if someone wants that feature, the Iphone can't do it.
You're quite right. If only Apple knew as much about HCI as you, Mr. Coward.
If only they did. Maybe then they wouldn't make basic HCI blunders like preventing the ability to do simple tasks like copy and paste, that are fundamental to ease of use and interaction.