So you admit that your superiors (in the hierarchy) are also in denial or on power trips? So why do you waste your time? The ones in power are infected with egoism, like zombies that can't be cured. They can't be reasoned with--they are hypocrites who can't see their own flaws through their blinders of their superiority complexes. The only solution is to nuke it from orbit, i.e. abandon ship.
The perception of a pervasive problem is as much a problem as the problem itself.
But Wikipediers don't get it--another problem.
People who "get it" jumped ship a long time ago, because it's hit the iceberg of human ego and there's no coming back, unless the captain of the ship is replaced--which is unlikely.
a) You have your head in the sand; you're in denial. You don't want to admit to yourself that your favorite pastime is fundamentally ill; that you're wasting your time; that it is doomed to eventual failure. Or,
b) You're dishonest, and publicly defend Wikipedia in spite of its glaring flaws, to justify to yourself and to the world the behavior of Wikipedia editors and, therefore, of yourself.
Would you please go away, meatbot? Anyone can go to Wikipedia, find a moderately-popular editor, go to his talk page, and follow the trail upstream to innumerable editwars and sandbox territory fights. Stop pretending that it's rare: I submit that it's more the norm than not.
You're spreading unfounded CCC (Courage, Certainty, and Confidence); in other words, you know the criticism is accurate, just like everyone else knows it, but you're a meatbot posting contradictory crap.
Bees are insects. They don't work hard; they do what they are programmed to do (instinct). They don't deserve anything. They cannot be stolen from. They cannot appreciate being appreciated. They are insects. Get your priorities straight. Stop vilifying humans and victimizing insects.
Which is more important, to protect the habitats of fish and birds or to protect the habitats of human beings?
I will always vote for the latter, because humans--people--are more important than animals. And be sure to consider that only a few people are responsible for habitat-altering policies and construction--only a tiny fraction of the people who may live or work in such areas. The rest are innocent, in terms of deciding to alter "the environment"; and given that people are more important, those people should not be harmed at "the environment's" expense.
I don't correct mistakes to make myself feel superior. I do it to help people learn. If I were making an obvious mistake I'd want to know so I wouldn't keep making it. If a person makes obvious mistakes in his writing it undermines his credibility. Sure, some people will take it the wrong way or don't care. That's fine--I tried.
It will be a sad day when no one cares enough about language and communication to politely correct someone's grammar mistakes, and when those who try are shouted down by an angry, ignorant mob who are so insecure that they can't handle simple mistakes being pointed out.
"Look now, there ARE shit-TONS of starving artists. They make their music anyway, and they put it up on the net for nearly no distribution costs, and maybe their friends buy a copy. If they manage to connect with an audience, they may even sell a few thousand downloads or physical copies."
And for such artists, 'piracy' doesn't hurt them--it helps them. Take away the 'piracy' and they will be even more obscure. Any of them who think that eliminating 'piracy' will make them rich are fools. They think they're entitled to receiving money just because they made some noise and recorded it.
Well, maybe some of them do. Most of them probably are like 99% of all artists ever: they work hard practicing and performing and touring and eke out a meager living doing something they enjoy--and likely have other jobs at times, to make ends meet. They know that they aren't entitled to anything.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Show me some numbers--and I mean real numbers, not imaginary, "If it weren't for 'piracy', we'd be making $x/month selling MP3s, I just know it".
Artists of that level of popularity have never made a "decent living" by selling recordings--they've worked hard at touring. They probably make more selling recordings at their concerts than in stores or online. The wise ones give their music away for free online, because it raises their awareness and popularity for free, increasing ticket sales and booking more concerts.
I'll buy that some of them think that 'piracy' is affecting their income (real 'piracy' is people copying and selling media, not just uploading and downloading it for free), but I don't buy that 'piracy' is actually affecting their income in a negative way--if anything, it's probably increasing it by increasing their popularity.
Slashdot Mirror
So you admit that your superiors (in the hierarchy) are also in denial or on power trips? So why do you waste your time? The ones in power are infected with egoism, like zombies that can't be cured. They can't be reasoned with--they are hypocrites who can't see their own flaws through their blinders of their superiority complexes. The only solution is to nuke it from orbit, i.e. abandon ship.
Except, of course, for articles which have been deleted. How convenient.
The perception of a pervasive problem is as much a problem as the problem itself.
But Wikipediers don't get it--another problem.
People who "get it" jumped ship a long time ago, because it's hit the iceberg of human ego and there's no coming back, unless the captain of the ship is replaced--which is unlikely.
Either:
a) You have your head in the sand; you're in denial. You don't want to admit to yourself that your favorite pastime is fundamentally ill; that you're wasting your time; that it is doomed to eventual failure. Or,
b) You're dishonest, and publicly defend Wikipedia in spite of its glaring flaws, to justify to yourself and to the world the behavior of Wikipedia editors and, therefore, of yourself.
You can't fool us, meatbot.
You mean he was circumcised, like billions of other people?
Your prejudice is obvious--you should recuse yourself from that topic, if you haven't already.
So what you're saying is that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken?
Sounds about right to me.
Would you please go away, meatbot? Anyone can go to Wikipedia, find a moderately-popular editor, go to his talk page, and follow the trail upstream to innumerable editwars and sandbox territory fights. Stop pretending that it's rare: I submit that it's more the norm than not.
"Perhaps there should be more onus on the person deleting work than on the person creating it?"
The only reason anything should be deleted is if it's wrong, i.e. factually incorrect, false, a lie.
Hahaha, this meatbot has a sense of humor.
You're spreading unfounded CCC (Courage, Certainty, and Confidence); in other words, you know the criticism is accurate, just like everyone else knows it, but you're a meatbot posting contradictory crap.
You, sir, are a meatbot.
Thank you for demonstrating what is wrong with Wikipedia.
Bees are insects. They don't work hard; they do what they are programmed to do (instinct). They don't deserve anything. They cannot be stolen from. They cannot appreciate being appreciated. They are insects. Get your priorities straight. Stop vilifying humans and victimizing insects.
Which is more important, to protect the habitats of fish and birds or to protect the habitats of human beings?
I will always vote for the latter, because humans--people--are more important than animals. And be sure to consider that only a few people are responsible for habitat-altering policies and construction--only a tiny fraction of the people who may live or work in such areas. The rest are innocent, in terms of deciding to alter "the environment"; and given that people are more important, those people should not be harmed at "the environment's" expense.
I'm as in favor of good grammar as anyone, but ending a sentence with a preposition is perfectly fine. Strunk and White made up that rule arbitrarily.
I'm terrorizing? You're the one calling people Nazi's. You're being a hypocrite.
Well, one of the great things about the internet is that uninteresting posts can be ignored, and then they don't derail the topic at all. :)
I don't correct mistakes to make myself feel superior. I do it to help people learn. If I were making an obvious mistake I'd want to know so I wouldn't keep making it. If a person makes obvious mistakes in his writing it undermines his credibility. Sure, some people will take it the wrong way or don't care. That's fine--I tried.
The word you're looking for is "nitpick".
"Who" would be correct.
It will be a sad day when no one cares enough about language and communication to politely correct someone's grammar mistakes, and when those who try are shouted down by an angry, ignorant mob who are so insecure that they can't handle simple mistakes being pointed out.
Oh, wait...
And how much are you being paid to say that?
Seriously? That site will email the lobbyists who are pushing this policy and ask them to not do what they're being paid to do. Is that a joke?
Do you have any examples of this actually working, or is it just hypothetical?
"Look now, there ARE shit-TONS of starving artists. They make their music anyway, and they put it up on the net for nearly no distribution costs, and maybe their friends buy a copy. If they manage to connect with an audience, they may even sell a few thousand downloads or physical copies."
And for such artists, 'piracy' doesn't hurt them--it helps them. Take away the 'piracy' and they will be even more obscure. Any of them who think that eliminating 'piracy' will make them rich are fools. They think they're entitled to receiving money just because they made some noise and recorded it.
Well, maybe some of them do. Most of them probably are like 99% of all artists ever: they work hard practicing and performing and touring and eke out a meager living doing something they enjoy--and likely have other jobs at times, to make ends meet. They know that they aren't entitled to anything.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Show me some numbers--and I mean real numbers, not imaginary, "If it weren't for 'piracy', we'd be making $x/month selling MP3s, I just know it".
Artists of that level of popularity have never made a "decent living" by selling recordings--they've worked hard at touring. They probably make more selling recordings at their concerts than in stores or online. The wise ones give their music away for free online, because it raises their awareness and popularity for free, increasing ticket sales and booking more concerts.
I'll buy that some of them think that 'piracy' is affecting their income (real 'piracy' is people copying and selling media, not just uploading and downloading it for free), but I don't buy that 'piracy' is actually affecting their income in a negative way--if anything, it's probably increasing it by increasing their popularity.