I could have made my reply clearer; some of it was really intended for the original poster (Alranor) who was using the phrase "evil".
My understanding of psychopaths is not that they don't understand the consequences of their actions on others. On the contrary, they exploit others' emotional reactions for their own gain and amusement (and hence many are very charming).
The crux of the matter is that *they do not CARE* how their actions affect others.
You can call this "evil" or not. I'm not religious, and I don't have an "absolute" view of evil. Nevertheless, I'll hold them responsible for their actions, and feel quite comfortable applying their own low standards to them when applying punishment. This means that, e.g. in the case of someone like Saddam Hussein, there is *nothing* that could be done to him that wouldn't be outweighed a hundredfold by what he's done. Personally, I'd greatly enjoy knowing that he'd suffered a very slow, very painful death. Not because he's an animal; on the contrary, he's not- he's human and was aware of what he was doing. *That's* why I want to see the guy suffer before he expires. As far as I'm concerned, the only consideration in his punishment is political; he should not be allowed to become a martyr.
That having been said, companies are abstract. They are given privileges, and their "rights" only exist (or should only exist) because they benefit people; those who own the company, those who are employed by them, and those who enjoy the benefit of their activities.
If a company wishes to be treated as a faceless amoral money-making machine (that legally they are), then they should be treated as such and punished as such. If the investors want to yelp about their loss of livelihood, pension funds, blah blah, then they should have ensured that the company was run in a non-destructive manner. They had the choice, they chose money over everything else, and they lose out. That's not my problem.
And personally, I'm all in favour of those in charge being held responsible and ensuring that they *know* what's going on. If they haven't made the effort, it should be assumed that they were deliberately abusing "plausible deniability" and should be held responsible anyway.
Damn, I'm coming across like some rabid anti-capitalist. I'm not, I just don't expect companies to benefit from double-standards, don't expect them to behave as anything more than the money-making mechanisms that they are, and have no qualms about punishing them into behaving in a non-destructive manner for the simple reason that their amoral nature means that this is the only method of control.
Of course, if they're sensible, they'll act to avoid the punishment (or more specifically, the financially negative consequences of their actions). That's the idea.
Only two people noted the 'Full Sail' connection, and they're both stuck at 0; to note what the parent post says:-
Checking just above the article, one will notice the banner indicating "Sponsored by Full Sail" in so many words. What is Full Sail, you ask? An imitation private college designed to produced talentless chum at the measly expense of $30k. Per year.
*I* didn't say that they were "evil". I said that "You could say that most companies were "evil" if you wanted to consider it that way."
Oh, and BTW, regarding the moderation of my comment.... offtopic? Bullshit.
We're discussing biases in the media towards and against certain companies. My comment was regarding the way companies are perceived vs. the way they'll act.
I know *exactly* why this was modded offtopic. It's because some screechy little Apple fanboy perceived it as a criticism of Apple. Actually, it was intended more generally than that, but never underestimate the knee-jerk zealotry of the Apple fanbase.
It certainly seems that Good is currently a definite underdog to Evil, but i'd like to think i'd still be rooting for Good should it ever actually take the upper hand...
Then you (along with many others) misperceive the situation. Companies are mostly out there to make money. If the "underdog" and "oppressive leader" companies in many markets were swapped, the underdog would behave in the same "evil" manner as the former leader.
Personally, I like balance in markets, but I'm not kidding myself that most companies wouldn't exploit being a monopoly if they were in that position.
You could say that most companies were "evil" if you wanted to consider it that way.
Surely you don't think PR firms are limited to press releases.
Of course not, but where it doesn't openly present itself as PR it needs to be watched.
I am sure PR forms feel perfectly at home and well within their rights to contribute to Wikipedia. You and I may not agree, but let's face it - unless the words are illegal (defamatory, etc) they can do it.
I didn't say they couldn't. But I'll happily draw attention to them if I think they're being less than open.
Think you can spot it? Probably not unless it is poorly done.
The case I spotted was quite subtle, and exposed itself as PR through two areas; no edits were against the company in question, and exhibited a high level of professionalism. But (secondly), one of the contributions had that "PR release" feel to it.
Some of the edits this person made were quite justifiable in my opinion; the language used by those opposed to them was too concrete, and the PR contributor "simply" made the statements less absolute. This in itself was fine, but it strongly indicates the potential for subversion; it was the "PR release" edit that got my attention, not that one.
Good PR can flavor the perception of the situation just by the language they use to describe it.
I believe that's pretty much what I implied above...
Nope; apparently a company called "BBV" was involved in some of the productions. Perhaps that's where the confusion came from?
If it had aired on the BBC in Britain, I'm confident it would have attracted mainstream attention. It didn't, I've never heard of this, nor seen it, and I'm pretty sure that was *never* the case.
If you can provide a link to details of *any* alleged transmission dates (including the name of the station they aired on), I'll be prepared to consider that I was wrong (^_^)
Five is heading for a new storm over dumbed down reality TV shows after screening its most controversial broadcast yet in which David Beckham's alleged lover was shown masturbating a pig.
Is Wayne Rooney really that desparate to appear on TV?
You should also point out that the companions you referenced were in the books/audio-plays/whatever, not the TV series. I found out about them because I was looking for info about the TV series; for most people, Doctor Who is a TV show, not a series of books or radio programmes.
And even though I read the novelisations as a kid, I still think of it that way too.
For those who did pick up on a bisexual undercurrent, is there any particular episode I should watch again to notice it ?
Uh, the one where he kisses the Doctor?
Okay, they didn't make a big deal about it, and they didn't openly say that he (Jack, not the Doctor(!)) was bisexual at the time; but it was definitely there.
Can you see the headline: "PR Firm Caught Writing Article Favorable to Clients". Not exactly news is it?
The problem is that this isn't a press release, it's (intended to be) an unbiased source of information. The difference lies in knowing where a particular party's conflict of interest lies.
Even if a PR firm was discovered editing Wikipedia I seriously doubt they would
be embarrassed. After all they make their living by knowing how to lie by telling the truth and they would only tell the truth in their edits.
They have been, and they weren't.
However, it is always possible to stick to "true" facts, but still present a favourable view of your client by omission and careful use of language.
There's no way to create an article with all the facts that everyone everywhere might consider relevant, and there are always overtones present in the use of language. The important thing is to have someone without too much bias try (in good faith) to decide what's important.
As long as it's in the right subsection, I have no problem with it, even if it does create long lists bullet points. If you don't like those things as a reader, you can easily ignore those sections.
Not if the page takes ten minutes to load.
They should be spun-off into a separate article in such cases; personally, I'm not too bothered about new articles as long as they're not misleading garbage, and as long as they don't impinge upon the usability of the parent article.
It's not just Wikipedia: a lot of the good things in the world come from really base motives.
I don't have a problem with motives so long as they produce results. But the "social onanism" criticism rings true when you see people writing bloated, unorganised factoid articles, instead of taking the trouble to do the hard work of making them readable, organised, and most of all, informative for a general audience.
This isn't a criticism of all Wikipedia contributors; but it does exist, and it is a problem in my opinion.
I honestly don't understand your bizzare objections to additions to disambiguation pages at all.
Let's see; because the purpose of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate. It's to make life easier, to help you find what it is you were probably looking for.
If I (or someone else) simply throws in everything, not only do you have to wade your way through a list of obscure and unused abbreviations, but you also have to take time to consider which one is most likely.
Categorisation helps here, but the kind of people throwing in useless abbrevs aren't the kind of people willing to do the "boring" work like categorisation.
Example from memory; someone threw in something like "Berkshire Mazda" for "BM" (IIRC). There is *no* way that the inclusion of something like that is justified; it's a local car dealership, and I doubt that *anyone* would refer to it as "BM", except possibly the few employees who work there.
If stuff like that is put in disambiguation pages, you may as well not bother, because the list would be endless.
It's worse than useless, because if (say) I threw in FS for "Franken Stein" (I've seen real examples on a par with this), it implies that FS is a reasonably common abbreviation for Frankenstein, when in fact it's just stupid.
It doesn't matter that you think MC should always be assumed to stand for such and such. Maybe I was looking for "midnight commander". Get it?
No; if you were *looking* for "Midnight Commander", you'd go direct to that page. If it's something reasonably well known, *and* it is frequently referred to as MC, and there's a chance that you might come across the abbrev without knowing what it means, then it's a fair candidate for inclusion.
OTOH, adding every entertainer with an MC in their name would be stupid.
Also, the fact that there are obsessive nerds out there who spend hours inserting facts on ulta-obscure and unknown and forgotten corners of human knowldge which just happen to be thier "pet interest" is precisely what makes wikipedia amazing and great.
Well, if it were...
"tea sucking", heavy metal umlauts, ampelmännchen, list of laser types, geology of the death valley area, Pizza delivery and literally thousands upon thousands more like them
that would be brilliant. That's what I *like* about Wikipedia.
I've written about fairly inconsequential stuff myself. However, I try to write it for people who might not previously know about the subject, and I try to provide an overview that means you don't have to read all the way through a bloated article to find the basic information.
There are articles on record companies for example, that have had lists of artists signed to that label inserted. Not notable artists, just artists...
For example, Mercury records. These lists are arbitrary and incomplete. If they were to be complete, they'd make the page horribly long, and wouldn't clarify much.
What if an artist is signed to many different labels in different markets? Do they go on all of them?
Maybe you need to stop navel gazing about whether adding to wikipedia is done for egotism or nerrdy obsessing or "social onanastic" purposes and realize that most people just like to do it because its fun!
Frankly, I'm not too bothered about motives. If base motives result in good contributions... brilliant! Unfortunately, they don't always correspond and egotism and information-onanism (horrible phrase I just made up) often result in articles that are badly-written and overloaded with inconsequential information.
then what's the problem?
The problem is that writing an interesting and informative article isn't synonymous with random fact insertion.
The real challenge is finding the volunteers to fix all the obscure articles. People work on what they find interesting, and if no contributors find a topic interesting, it's not going to get fixed.
The problem is that a lot of the obscure stuff that *is* there is in areas where geek (or rather nerd) types have interests, and it's not always that well-written. In fact, I think this is arguably at the top of the (otherwised unordered) list of problems with Wikipedia:-
(1) The anal-retentive "fact"-adding tendency. Those who'll add obscure/unused abbrevs to a *disambiguation* page. They don't get that some facts are more important than others, or that simply adding information to an article doesn't necessarily make it more helpful. They'll create lots of small stub articles, when they'd be better combined in a single article (placing them in context). If there's one thing I've learned as I get older, it's that leaving stuff out is *hard* but very important. You can't include everything. And you have to order that information well. The self-indulgent factoid geeks don't know or care about this.
(2) Change for change's sake. I'd be interested to see the amount of "churn" that goes on in some articles simply caused by people changing stuff for the sake of it. It's not necessarily a bad thing; it's just pointlessly wasted effort over a minor issue.
(3) *Potential* subversion by those with an agenda, including professionals. I've seen at least one instance of what appeared to be a PR person editing anonymously. This is dangerous, because most zealots with an agenda are transparent; PR and the like are professionals, and more likely to slip under the radar.
(4) Vandalism; annoying, but usually pretty obvious
(5) Lack of citation. This is very rare, and whilst normal encyclopedias don't normally include citations, Wikipedia's credibility would be much enhanced with more of them.
There are probably more, but my brain is full; that's enough to be going on with...
And behind the scenes are a half million desperate nerds trying to be right about something, all while defending this exercise in social onanism as a "community" effort to provide a free educational resource to people.
Much as I'd like you to simply be a troll, there's a lot of truth in that. I've recently started contributing to Wikipedia myself, and I seriously question my motivations; am I just indulging my anal-retentive geek (or rather less flatteringly, nerd) nature when contributing information about frankly unimportant stuff?
And believe me, I don't think I'm the worst case by a very long shot. There are COUNTLESS contributors out there seemingly editing stuff, and adding stuff or making changes in for ego's sake. I don't want to go on about this, but the vandals aren't the problem. They're easily reverted and usually transparent. The problem is the anal-retentive-and-don't-get-it-or-don't-care fact-adders who will (for example), clutter up abbreviation disambiguation pages (such as 'MC' or whatever) with very poor entries. These are at best obscure uses of 'MC', where those using such an abbrevation would know what it means anyway. At worst, they simply take anything they can think of that consists of an 'M'-word then 'C'-word, and slap it in, even if it's an obscure subject and no-one actually uses that abbreviation.
Just an example, but it's dross. And it has to be said that if there is any particular tendency in such addition of inconsequential garbage, it's most noticeable in the geek/nerd manga/sci-fi/computer-gaming subject areas.
They don't get that slapping down a load of facts *isn't* the same as writing a good article; I'm not sure that they care, they're simply writing for the sake of it- if it's about anything, it's about their pet interest. It's this stuff that justifies (in part at least) the "social onanism" tag given in the parent post.
I don't know much about that PROBE thing (never seen it), but from what I know it was an *unofficial* spin-off produced by frustrated fans who didn't have the rights. So apparently they had a character that *might* have been the Doctor, except he wasn't called that. Then they took the concept off in a totally different direction, supposedly.
Don't ask me, I'm not a diehard Who fan; I just liked it when I was a kid:)
The US doesn't get the mediocre British programming and the same works in reverse because there's no impetus to import mediocre products. Having lived in both the US and the UK for many years I can say there is a tremendous amount of dreck on all in both countries.
Pretty much sums it up. I'm convinced that if you showed the Americans who say "All British TV is great compared to our American crap" some of the more run-of-the-mill British programmes, they'd soon change their minds.
Not that I'm saying that I'd like British TV run like the American system, but... it's not all great.
And more is not better; the thing that strikes me about Freeview (free-to-air digital terrestrial TV, BBC and commercial channels) is how many repeats of how many mediocre programmes there are; even BBC Three and Four repeat stuff to levels they wouldn't get away with on One and Two. I disconnnected the digibox at one stage because I got so bored of it...
I predict that this spin-off wouldn't do well here in the U.S.
I've said this before but... Doctor Who will *never* do well with mainstream US audiences. Period.
They tried it in 1996 with the Fox/BBC co-production, made a number of compromises for the American market, and it still didn't do very well.
Put simply, if it were possible to make something called "Doctor Who" that did well in America, it wouldn't be Doctor Who. The BBC seemed to realise this with the new series, and didn't try to repeat their 1996 mistake (which isn't to say it was flawless, but not for that reason).
Doctor Who will never be more than cult in the US, and it's unlikely that Torchwood would be either, with or without openly bi and/or gay characters.
Personally, I'm not convinced about Torchwood; I felt the Captain Jack character was symptomatic of the (intentional) cheesiness running through the new series, but I'm not a rabid Who fan, so if it's crap I'll just not bother watching it. If it's good, then... great:)
Well, psychologists would say that all this work is ultimately done to impress women and get laid.
On second thoughts, is writing code likely to get you laid? (Hint for the stereotype/. reader; taking a shower is easier, and probably more effective.)
(BTW, since parent didn't make it clear, 'root' is slang for sexual intercourse in Australian English)
..Don't buy a printer! Just stick this flat-screen monitor in any photocopier and have one-click printing with no hassle !!!!
In one sentence, you pretty much summed up anything of insight anyone is likely to say about this "incredible" add-on.
Plus, it was oddly reminiscent of one of Viz's "Top Tips". (Example: "SHOPPERS When buying oranges, get more for your money by peeling them before taking them to the counter to be weighed.")
In the UK (where I come from) at least, "channel" in day-to-day use refers to a particular TV station, rather than the broadcasting frequency.
That's not to say that the definition you used doesn't apply (it's still used when tuning TV equipment in), but the meaning I assumed was the one I gave above. This is probably where the confusion comes in; for example, the TV my parents had (and still have..!) supported UHF channels 25-80 (or thereabouts), but it only had 8 "channel" buttons on the front (it's ancient...).
I think there are also technical differences between the UK and US systems; for example "cable-ready" isn't something I see here (cable and satellite came later in the UK than in the US, and by that time we already had other connections such as SCART). And I never understood why US TV setups always seem to refer to "switch boxes"; is there something inherent in the system that requires them, or is it just that in the old days you tended to have more stuff connected via the aerial (oops... antenna:) ) socket?
Also, modern UK TV transmissions (625-line PAL colour) only use UHF; VHF was used for the old mono black-and-white transmissions, but that was superceded in the late 1960s, and since it was totally discontinued in 1985, I think they use the frequencies for mobile phones and the like.
I understand that VHF, being a lower frequency, has a wider reach than UHF (hence its favoured status in the US amongst mainstream broadcasters); I'm not sure why this wasn't an issue in the UK.
Slashdot Mirror
I could have made my reply clearer; some of it was really intended for the original poster (Alranor) who was using the phrase "evil".
My understanding of psychopaths is not that they don't understand the consequences of their actions on others. On the contrary, they exploit others' emotional reactions for their own gain and amusement (and hence many are very charming).
The crux of the matter is that *they do not CARE* how their actions affect others.
You can call this "evil" or not. I'm not religious, and I don't have an "absolute" view of evil. Nevertheless, I'll hold them responsible for their actions, and feel quite comfortable applying their own low standards to them when applying punishment. This means that, e.g. in the case of someone like Saddam Hussein, there is *nothing* that could be done to him that wouldn't be outweighed a hundredfold by what he's done. Personally, I'd greatly enjoy knowing that he'd suffered a very slow, very painful death. Not because he's an animal; on the contrary, he's not- he's human and was aware of what he was doing. *That's* why I want to see the guy suffer before he expires. As far as I'm concerned, the only consideration in his punishment is political; he should not be allowed to become a martyr.
That having been said, companies are abstract. They are given privileges, and their "rights" only exist (or should only exist) because they benefit people; those who own the company, those who are employed by them, and those who enjoy the benefit of their activities.
If a company wishes to be treated as a faceless amoral money-making machine (that legally they are), then they should be treated as such and punished as such. If the investors want to yelp about their loss of livelihood, pension funds, blah blah, then they should have ensured that the company was run in a non-destructive manner. They had the choice, they chose money over everything else, and they lose out. That's not my problem.
And personally, I'm all in favour of those in charge being held responsible and ensuring that they *know* what's going on. If they haven't made the effort, it should be assumed that they were deliberately abusing "plausible deniability" and should be held responsible anyway.
Damn, I'm coming across like some rabid anti-capitalist. I'm not, I just don't expect companies to benefit from double-standards, don't expect them to behave as anything more than the money-making mechanisms that they are, and have no qualms about punishing them into behaving in a non-destructive manner for the simple reason that their amoral nature means that this is the only method of control.
Of course, if they're sensible, they'll act to avoid the punishment (or more specifically, the financially negative consequences of their actions). That's the idea.
It would also explain my inability to resist sex.
That's one cause of not being able to resist sex. The other is being male.
Hehe and she couldn't blame the ganglia, they're her favourite part of me...
I'm not sure that that word means what you *think* it means....?! (-_^)V
Only two people noted the 'Full Sail' connection, and they're both stuck at 0; to note what the parent post says:-
Checking just above the article, one will notice the banner indicating "Sponsored by Full Sail" in so many words. What is Full Sail, you ask? An imitation private college designed to produced talentless chum at the measly expense of $30k. Per year.
No, companies aren't evil as such,
*I* didn't say that they were "evil". I said that "You could say that most companies were "evil" if you wanted to consider it that way."
Oh, and BTW, regarding the moderation of my comment.... offtopic? Bullshit.
We're discussing biases in the media towards and against certain companies. My comment was regarding the way companies are perceived vs. the way they'll act.
I know *exactly* why this was modded offtopic. It's because some screechy little Apple fanboy perceived it as a criticism of Apple. Actually, it was intended more generally than that, but never underestimate the knee-jerk zealotry of the Apple fanbase.
It certainly seems that Good is currently a definite underdog to Evil, but i'd like to think i'd still be rooting for Good should it ever actually take the upper hand ...
Then you (along with many others) misperceive the situation. Companies are mostly out there to make money. If the "underdog" and "oppressive leader" companies in many markets were swapped, the underdog would behave in the same "evil" manner as the former leader.
Personally, I like balance in markets, but I'm not kidding myself that most companies wouldn't exploit being a monopoly if they were in that position.
You could say that most companies were "evil" if you wanted to consider it that way.
There was a goddamned ROBOTIC DRAGON in it! Goddamn!
Well, at least it sounds more interesting than 2061, then.
STFU you stupid nanomaterials, I like smoking.
That's good; I just set your jacket on fire.
Surely you don't think PR firms are limited to press releases.
Of course not, but where it doesn't openly present itself as PR it needs to be watched.
I am sure PR forms feel perfectly at home and well within their rights to contribute to Wikipedia. You and I may not agree, but let's face it - unless the words are illegal (defamatory, etc) they can do it.
I didn't say they couldn't. But I'll happily draw attention to them if I think they're being less than open.
Think you can spot it? Probably not unless it is poorly done.
The case I spotted was quite subtle, and exposed itself as PR through two areas; no edits were against the company in question, and exhibited a high level of professionalism. But (secondly), one of the contributions had that "PR release" feel to it.
Some of the edits this person made were quite justifiable in my opinion; the language used by those opposed to them was too concrete, and the PR contributor "simply" made the statements less absolute. This in itself was fine, but it strongly indicates the potential for subversion; it was the "PR release" edit that got my attention, not that one.
Good PR can flavor the perception of the situation just by the language they use to describe it.
I believe that's pretty much what I implied above...
Nope; apparently a company called "BBV" was involved in some of the productions. Perhaps that's where the confusion came from?
If it had aired on the BBC in Britain, I'm confident it would have attracted mainstream attention. It didn't, I've never heard of this, nor seen it, and I'm pretty sure that was *never* the case.
If you can provide a link to details of *any* alleged transmission dates (including the name of the station they aired on), I'll be prepared to consider that I was wrong (^_^)
Info:- here and here...
Five is heading for a new storm over dumbed down reality TV shows after screening its most controversial broadcast yet in which David Beckham's alleged lover was shown masturbating a pig.
Is Wayne Rooney really that desparate to appear on TV?
You should also point out that the companions you referenced were in the books/audio-plays/whatever, not the TV series. I found out about them because I was looking for info about the TV series; for most people, Doctor Who is a TV show, not a series of books or radio programmes.
And even though I read the novelisations as a kid, I still think of it that way too.
For those who did pick up on a bisexual undercurrent, is there any particular episode I should watch again to notice it ?
Uh, the one where he kisses the Doctor?
Okay, they didn't make a big deal about it, and they didn't openly say that he (Jack, not the Doctor(!)) was bisexual at the time; but it was definitely there.
Can you see the headline: "PR Firm Caught Writing Article Favorable to Clients". Not exactly news is it?
The problem is that this isn't a press release, it's (intended to be) an unbiased source of information. The difference lies in knowing where a particular party's conflict of interest lies.
Even if a PR firm was discovered editing Wikipedia I seriously doubt they would be embarrassed. After all they make their living by knowing how to lie by telling the truth and they would only tell the truth in their edits.
They have been, and they weren't.
However, it is always possible to stick to "true" facts, but still present a favourable view of your client by omission and careful use of language.
There's no way to create an article with all the facts that everyone everywhere might consider relevant, and there are always overtones present in the use of language. The important thing is to have someone without too much bias try (in good faith) to decide what's important.
As long as it's in the right subsection, I have no problem with it, even if it does create long lists bullet points. If you don't like those things as a reader, you can easily ignore those sections.
Not if the page takes ten minutes to load.
They should be spun-off into a separate article in such cases; personally, I'm not too bothered about new articles as long as they're not misleading garbage, and as long as they don't impinge upon the usability of the parent article.
It's not just Wikipedia: a lot of the good things in the world come from really base motives.
I don't have a problem with motives so long as they produce results. But the "social onanism" criticism rings true when you see people writing bloated, unorganised factoid articles, instead of taking the trouble to do the hard work of making them readable, organised, and most of all, informative for a general audience.
This isn't a criticism of all Wikipedia contributors; but it does exist, and it is a problem in my opinion.
I honestly don't understand your bizzare objections to additions to disambiguation pages at all.
Let's see; because the purpose of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate. It's to make life easier, to help you find what it is you were probably looking for.
If I (or someone else) simply throws in everything, not only do you have to wade your way through a list of obscure and unused abbreviations, but you also have to take time to consider which one is most likely.
Categorisation helps here, but the kind of people throwing in useless abbrevs aren't the kind of people willing to do the "boring" work like categorisation.
Example from memory; someone threw in something like "Berkshire Mazda" for "BM" (IIRC). There is *no* way that the inclusion of something like that is justified; it's a local car dealership, and I doubt that *anyone* would refer to it as "BM", except possibly the few employees who work there.
If stuff like that is put in disambiguation pages, you may as well not bother, because the list would be endless.
It's worse than useless, because if (say) I threw in FS for "Franken Stein" (I've seen real examples on a par with this), it implies that FS is a reasonably common abbreviation for Frankenstein, when in fact it's just stupid.
It doesn't matter that you think MC should always be assumed to stand for such and such. Maybe I was looking for "midnight commander". Get it?
No; if you were *looking* for "Midnight Commander", you'd go direct to that page. If it's something reasonably well known, *and* it is frequently referred to as MC, and there's a chance that you might come across the abbrev without knowing what it means, then it's a fair candidate for inclusion.
OTOH, adding every entertainer with an MC in their name would be stupid.
Also, the fact that there are obsessive nerds out there who spend hours inserting facts on ulta-obscure and unknown and forgotten corners of human knowldge which just happen to be thier "pet interest" is precisely what makes wikipedia amazing and great.
Well, if it were...
"tea sucking", heavy metal umlauts, ampelmännchen, list of laser types, geology of the death valley area, Pizza delivery and literally thousands upon thousands more like them
that would be brilliant. That's what I *like* about Wikipedia.
I've written about fairly inconsequential stuff myself. However, I try to write it for people who might not previously know about the subject, and I try to provide an overview that means you don't have to read all the way through a bloated article to find the basic information.
There are articles on record companies for example, that have had lists of artists signed to that label inserted. Not notable artists, just artists... For example, Mercury records. These lists are arbitrary and incomplete. If they were to be complete, they'd make the page horribly long, and wouldn't clarify much.
What if an artist is signed to many different labels in different markets? Do they go on all of them?
Maybe you need to stop navel gazing about whether adding to wikipedia is done for egotism or nerrdy obsessing or "social onanastic" purposes and realize that most people just like to do it because its fun!
Frankly, I'm not too bothered about motives. If base motives result in good contributions... brilliant! Unfortunately, they don't always correspond and egotism and information-onanism (horrible phrase I just made up) often result in articles that are badly-written and overloaded with inconsequential information.
then what's the problem?
The problem is that writing an interesting and informative article isn't synonymous with random fact insertion.
The real challenge is finding the volunteers to fix all the obscure articles. People work on what they find interesting, and if no contributors find a topic interesting, it's not going to get fixed.
The problem is that a lot of the obscure stuff that *is* there is in areas where geek (or rather nerd) types have interests, and it's not always that well-written. In fact, I think this is arguably at the top of the (otherwised unordered) list of problems with Wikipedia:-
(1) The anal-retentive "fact"-adding tendency. Those who'll add obscure/unused abbrevs to a *disambiguation* page. They don't get that some facts are more important than others, or that simply adding information to an article doesn't necessarily make it more helpful. They'll create lots of small stub articles, when they'd be better combined in a single article (placing them in context). If there's one thing I've learned as I get older, it's that leaving stuff out is *hard* but very important. You can't include everything. And you have to order that information well. The self-indulgent factoid geeks don't know or care about this.
(2) Change for change's sake. I'd be interested to see the amount of "churn" that goes on in some articles simply caused by people changing stuff for the sake of it. It's not necessarily a bad thing; it's just pointlessly wasted effort over a minor issue.
(3) *Potential* subversion by those with an agenda, including professionals. I've seen at least one instance of what appeared to be a PR person editing anonymously. This is dangerous, because most zealots with an agenda are transparent; PR and the like are professionals, and more likely to slip under the radar.
(4) Vandalism; annoying, but usually pretty obvious
(5) Lack of citation. This is very rare, and whilst normal encyclopedias don't normally include citations, Wikipedia's credibility would be much enhanced with more of them.
There are probably more, but my brain is full; that's enough to be going on with...
And behind the scenes are a half million desperate nerds trying to be right about something, all while defending this exercise in social onanism as a "community" effort to provide a free educational resource to people.
Much as I'd like you to simply be a troll, there's a lot of truth in that. I've recently started contributing to Wikipedia myself, and I seriously question my motivations; am I just indulging my anal-retentive geek (or rather less flatteringly, nerd) nature when contributing information about frankly unimportant stuff?
And believe me, I don't think I'm the worst case by a very long shot. There are COUNTLESS contributors out there seemingly editing stuff, and adding stuff or making changes in for ego's sake. I don't want to go on about this, but the vandals aren't the problem. They're easily reverted and usually transparent. The problem is the anal-retentive-and-don't-get-it-or-don't-care fact-adders who will (for example), clutter up abbreviation disambiguation pages (such as 'MC' or whatever) with very poor entries. These are at best obscure uses of 'MC', where those using such an abbrevation would know what it means anyway. At worst, they simply take anything they can think of that consists of an 'M'-word then 'C'-word, and slap it in, even if it's an obscure subject and no-one actually uses that abbreviation.
Just an example, but it's dross. And it has to be said that if there is any particular tendency in such addition of inconsequential garbage, it's most noticeable in the geek/nerd manga/sci-fi/computer-gaming subject areas.
They don't get that slapping down a load of facts *isn't* the same as writing a good article; I'm not sure that they care, they're simply writing for the sake of it- if it's about anything, it's about their pet interest. It's this stuff that justifies (in part at least) the "social onanism" tag given in the parent post.
I don't know much about that PROBE thing (never seen it), but from what I know it was an *unofficial* spin-off produced by frustrated fans who didn't have the rights. So apparently they had a character that *might* have been the Doctor, except he wasn't called that. Then they took the concept off in a totally different direction, supposedly.
:)
Don't ask me, I'm not a diehard Who fan; I just liked it when I was a kid
The US doesn't get the mediocre British programming and the same works in reverse because there's no impetus to import mediocre products. Having lived in both the US and the UK for many years I can say there is a tremendous amount of dreck on all in both countries.
Pretty much sums it up. I'm convinced that if you showed the Americans who say "All British TV is great compared to our American crap" some of the more run-of-the-mill British programmes, they'd soon change their minds.
Not that I'm saying that I'd like British TV run like the American system, but... it's not all great.
And more is not better; the thing that strikes me about Freeview (free-to-air digital terrestrial TV, BBC and commercial channels) is how many repeats of how many mediocre programmes there are; even BBC Three and Four repeat stuff to levels they wouldn't get away with on One and Two. I disconnnected the digibox at one stage because I got so bored of it...
I predict that this spin-off wouldn't do well here in the U.S.
:)
I've said this before but... Doctor Who will *never* do well with mainstream US audiences. Period.
They tried it in 1996 with the Fox/BBC co-production, made a number of compromises for the American market, and it still didn't do very well.
Put simply, if it were possible to make something called "Doctor Who" that did well in America, it wouldn't be Doctor Who. The BBC seemed to realise this with the new series, and didn't try to repeat their 1996 mistake (which isn't to say it was flawless, but not for that reason).
Doctor Who will never be more than cult in the US, and it's unlikely that Torchwood would be either, with or without openly bi and/or gay characters.
Personally, I'm not convinced about Torchwood; I felt the Captain Jack character was symptomatic of the (intentional) cheesiness running through the new series, but I'm not a rabid Who fan, so if it's crap I'll just not bother watching it. If it's good, then... great
> > Could it be that the motivation was... root?
/. reader; taking a shower is easier, and probably more effective.)
> Not in Australia.
Well, psychologists would say that all this work is ultimately done to impress women and get laid.
On second thoughts, is writing code likely to get you laid? (Hint for the stereotype
(BTW, since parent didn't make it clear, 'root' is slang for sexual intercourse in Australian English)
In one sentence, you pretty much summed up anything of insight anyone is likely to say about this "incredible" add-on.
Plus, it was oddly reminiscent of one of Viz's "Top Tips". (Example: "SHOPPERS When buying oranges, get more for your money by peeling them before taking them to the counter to be weighed.")
Oh, I see what you're getting at.
:) ) socket?
In the UK (where I come from) at least, "channel" in day-to-day use refers to a particular TV station, rather than the broadcasting frequency.
That's not to say that the definition you used doesn't apply (it's still used when tuning TV equipment in), but the meaning I assumed was the one I gave above. This is probably where the confusion comes in; for example, the TV my parents had (and still have..!) supported UHF channels 25-80 (or thereabouts), but it only had 8 "channel" buttons on the front (it's ancient...).
I think there are also technical differences between the UK and US systems; for example "cable-ready" isn't something I see here (cable and satellite came later in the UK than in the US, and by that time we already had other connections such as SCART). And I never understood why US TV setups always seem to refer to "switch boxes"; is there something inherent in the system that requires them, or is it just that in the old days you tended to have more stuff connected via the aerial (oops... antenna
Also, modern UK TV transmissions (625-line PAL colour) only use UHF; VHF was used for the old mono black-and-white transmissions, but that was superceded in the late 1960s, and since it was totally discontinued in 1985, I think they use the frequencies for mobile phones and the like.
I understand that VHF, being a lower frequency, has a wider reach than UHF (hence its favoured status in the US amongst mainstream broadcasters); I'm not sure why this wasn't an issue in the UK.
Primarily as a way of changing channels.
If it has 30 channels, I assume that it originally had a remote control, then.
Have you considered searching for a second-hand or generic remote that will do the job?