Except, generally speaking, we do OK. Yes, there will still be vandalized/spammed entries. But, as someone who uses Wikipedia frequently both as a reader and as an editor, I can tell you, I rarely run into an article with transparently serious problems. Thus far, as many new techniques and workarounds as trolls, pranksters, and scammers have figured out, none have been able to overcome the one technique we've figured out - having a shitload of well-intentioned volunteers who are broadly empowered to fix things.
This seems unlikely, simply because it looks like Virgin Mobile is structured so as to make this difficult - the national Virgin Mobiles appear to be independent companies that license the Virgin brand. Virgin Mobile Australia appears to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Optus, an Australian telecom company that does no business in the US. Virgin Mobile USA is a joint venture between the Virgin Group and Sprint. So there's no corporate connection to be had between the two.
Which seems the biggest reason for the case to fail - Virgin Mobile USA had nothing to do with the ad, and I don't see, on the face of it, a good argument for Virgin Mobile Australia having minimum contacts with Texas.
1) Functionally, this is a hosting move - the Gamewikis site is now hosted by Wikia. There are some ads that run, but no hosting bills. So the question becomes whether CC-BY-SA permits or prohibits using commercial, ad-supported hosting for CC-BY-SA content. (A secondary question is whether anyone who continued posting on Gamewikis after it was ad supported tacitly agreed that their content could be hosted by ad-supported hosting.)
2) Continuity of the site matters here. When one hits submit to put content on a wiki, one tacitly gives the hosts of that wiki permission to, well, host, distribute, and use the content. If there is a genuine continuity between Gamewikis and Gamewikies on Wikia, that tacit permission would presumably endure.
3) You can't easily sue without damages. That is, you'd have to be able to show non-trivially that the hosting by Wikia actually harmed you. This could be difficult.
4) The moral point here seems obscure at best. Nothing in the post or links gives any evidence that Gamewikis has made a profit in the past. Yes, they probably shouldn't have taken money for the site, but the fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, this is a change in hosting that brings Gamewikis onto a site that is run by good people with a sincere commitment to free content. I question what useful point is made by taking an angry, community-destroying stand here.
No, there are plenty of people who criticize the power structure of Wikipedia who are not banned.
On the other hand, there are fewer people who decide to criticize the power structure like Daniel Brandt does - stalking and outing the real names and cities of residence of Wikipedia editors. Those people, pleasantly, get banned.
To say that "information once outed can't be put back in a bottle" is misleading. Yes, obviously the damage Daniel Brandt did here cannot be undone.
But on the other hand, the propagation to OhMyNews and subsequently to Slashdot is a substantial escelation of the damage. And I question the editorial wisdom of both sites in deciding to be complicit in spreading the information.
Ironically, this is something Wikipedia is increasingly getting better about - deciding that person X is primarily a private citizen, and that we just don't need to be the people who come up as the first Google hit on their name. It doesn't put the information back in the bottle, but it doesn't turn the bottle upside down and shake it to see if there's a little more we can wring out of it either.
It's shameful that this made it to the front page. The OhMyNews story that is cited isn't linked to. A quick glance at it (It's at http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_vi ew.asp?menu=c10400&no=374006&rel_no=1 ) shows why - the writer's only source for his claims about Slim Virgin is the evidence collected by Daniel Brandt, who cyberstalked her publicly on The Wikipedia Review, a board populated by the banned trolls of Wikipedia. The article makes clear the degree to which this "investigation" is based on rumors and lies, and proceeds to publicly state the alleged name and city of residence of this person.
I am appalled that Slashdot decided to participate in this public character assassination of a private citizen.
You're a cute little troll, you are. I particularly like how you declare Wii Sports to have no entertainment value (I still love a good game of tennis), and how you declare there to only be two good exclusive games (Curious - I remember loving Elebits, for instance. And Wario Ware.)
Not to knock the 360. I intend to pick one up before 2007 is out. But the Wii bashing was kinda pathetic there.
I approach this as someone who does not know a tremendous amount about how to measure security flaws, or what various security flaws really mean...
But the survey listed also shows Windows XP as the second most secure operating system of the ones surveyed.
I can believe that Microsoft improved their security with Vista. But if they also tell me their security was great with Windows XP, I have to conclude that they're fudging the numbers.
It's important to note that Vaclav Klaus is the longtime rival and opponent of Vaclav Havel, who has written some famous essays and at least one play on the subject of scientific thought and what it means for democracy. Klaus's essay, while wholly wrong, doesn't really make complete sense when read outside the context of Havel's Temptation and "Thriller," which cast science in a very different relationship to truth and democracy.
Which is to say, it's a bad idea to read this as though it were an American politician. The context is very, very different.
Since PayPal accounts tend to be the sorts of things you create online, through an automated process, I have trouble imagining that PayPal just decided to classify him as non-profit without him giving some information that led them to this conclusion.
Re:my scariest video game moment
on
Games and Fear
·
· Score: 1
Oh whatever. Slap on some gloves and swing the rubber chicken.
Well... given the (reasonable) premise that we want our prospective teachers to be aware of and supportive of the best and most sophisticated research and evidence available about how to be a good teacher, and given that said research is generally fairly strongly against corporal punishment, it seems to me that the university has something of an obligation not to graduate and certify someone who is, by all standards of the discipline, unqualified to hold said certification.
Speaking of which, you know who else is discriminated against in academia? People who try to make general declarations based on single pieces of evidence.
I'm sorry, but by what standard is Stalin a leftist in today's political economy? And by to the left of Stalin, do you mean an even stronger supporter of gulags? Or were you going somewhere else with this?
He claims it. He also maintains a list of the 30 most liberal professors, and no corresponding list of the 30 most conservative. So it's not exactly believable.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, generally speaking, we do OK. Yes, there will still be vandalized/spammed entries. But, as someone who uses Wikipedia frequently both as a reader and as an editor, I can tell you, I rarely run into an article with transparently serious problems. Thus far, as many new techniques and workarounds as trolls, pranksters, and scammers have figured out, none have been able to overcome the one technique we've figured out - having a shitload of well-intentioned volunteers who are broadly empowered to fix things.
Wikipedia gets hundreds of edits per minute. I don't think even micropayments are going to be cost-effective.
This seems unlikely, simply because it looks like Virgin Mobile is structured so as to make this difficult - the national Virgin Mobiles appear to be independent companies that license the Virgin brand. Virgin Mobile Australia appears to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Optus, an Australian telecom company that does no business in the US. Virgin Mobile USA is a joint venture between the Virgin Group and Sprint. So there's no corporate connection to be had between the two.
Which seems the biggest reason for the case to fail - Virgin Mobile USA had nothing to do with the ad, and I don't see, on the face of it, a good argument for Virgin Mobile Australia having minimum contacts with Texas.
But a few things spring to mind here.
1) Functionally, this is a hosting move - the Gamewikis site is now hosted by Wikia. There are some ads that run, but no hosting bills. So the question becomes whether CC-BY-SA permits or prohibits using commercial, ad-supported hosting for CC-BY-SA content. (A secondary question is whether anyone who continued posting on Gamewikis after it was ad supported tacitly agreed that their content could be hosted by ad-supported hosting.)
2) Continuity of the site matters here. When one hits submit to put content on a wiki, one tacitly gives the hosts of that wiki permission to, well, host, distribute, and use the content. If there is a genuine continuity between Gamewikis and Gamewikies on Wikia, that tacit permission would presumably endure.
3) You can't easily sue without damages. That is, you'd have to be able to show non-trivially that the hosting by Wikia actually harmed you. This could be difficult.
4) The moral point here seems obscure at best. Nothing in the post or links gives any evidence that Gamewikis has made a profit in the past. Yes, they probably shouldn't have taken money for the site, but the fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, this is a change in hosting that brings Gamewikis onto a site that is run by good people with a sincere commitment to free content. I question what useful point is made by taking an angry, community-destroying stand here.
Is there a good reason not to use titantv.com? It's integrated with my TV tuner, but a quick glance sugests that it might be useable independently.
Ugh. Don't mod me up when I screw up spelling and grammar that badly!
When an argument is using a propaganda sight and Penn and Teller as its sources, we all lose, kids.
Because if Slashdot does it, it must be right?
No, there are plenty of people who criticize the power structure of Wikipedia who are not banned.
On the other hand, there are fewer people who decide to criticize the power structure like Daniel Brandt does - stalking and outing the real names and cities of residence of Wikipedia editors. Those people, pleasantly, get banned.
To say that "information once outed can't be put back in a bottle" is misleading. Yes, obviously the damage Daniel Brandt did here cannot be undone.
But on the other hand, the propagation to OhMyNews and subsequently to Slashdot is a substantial escelation of the damage. And I question the editorial wisdom of both sites in deciding to be complicit in spreading the information.
Ironically, this is something Wikipedia is increasingly getting better about - deciding that person X is primarily a private citizen, and that we just don't need to be the people who come up as the first Google hit on their name. It doesn't put the information back in the bottle, but it doesn't turn the bottle upside down and shake it to see if there's a little more we can wring out of it either.
It's shameful that this made it to the front page. The OhMyNews story that is cited isn't linked to. A quick glance at it (It's at http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_vi ew.asp?menu=c10400&no=374006&rel_no=1 ) shows why - the writer's only source for his claims about Slim Virgin is the evidence collected by Daniel Brandt, who cyberstalked her publicly on The Wikipedia Review, a board populated by the banned trolls of Wikipedia. The article makes clear the degree to which this "investigation" is based on rumors and lies, and proceeds to publicly state the alleged name and city of residence of this person.
I am appalled that Slashdot decided to participate in this public character assassination of a private citizen.
You're a cute little troll, you are. I particularly like how you declare Wii Sports to have no entertainment value (I still love a good game of tennis), and how you declare there to only be two good exclusive games (Curious - I remember loving Elebits, for instance. And Wario Ware.)
Not to knock the 360. I intend to pick one up before 2007 is out. But the Wii bashing was kinda pathetic there.
But I'm still busy having hope for Warcraft Adventures.
I approach this as someone who does not know a tremendous amount about how to measure security flaws, or what various security flaws really mean...
But the survey listed also shows Windows XP as the second most secure operating system of the ones surveyed.
I can believe that Microsoft improved their security with Vista. But if they also tell me their security was great with Windows XP, I have to conclude that they're fudging the numbers.
"The company attaches a paint gun to mark the car, or even an EMP gun that can disable the offending cell phone."
This is going to go SPECTACULARLY when somebody with a pacemaker is talking on their cell phone.
It's important to note that Vaclav Klaus is the longtime rival and opponent of Vaclav Havel, who has written some famous essays and at least one play on the subject of scientific thought and what it means for democracy. Klaus's essay, while wholly wrong, doesn't really make complete sense when read outside the context of Havel's Temptation and "Thriller," which cast science in a very different relationship to truth and democracy.
Which is to say, it's a bad idea to read this as though it were an American politician. The context is very, very different.
Since PayPal accounts tend to be the sorts of things you create online, through an automated process, I have trouble imagining that PayPal just decided to classify him as non-profit without him giving some information that led them to this conclusion.
Oh whatever. Slap on some gloves and swing the rubber chicken.
By GC's failure you mean the console that was profitable for them, right?
Well... given the (reasonable) premise that we want our prospective teachers to be aware of and supportive of the best and most sophisticated research and evidence available about how to be a good teacher, and given that said research is generally fairly strongly against corporal punishment, it seems to me that the university has something of an obligation not to graduate and certify someone who is, by all standards of the discipline, unqualified to hold said certification.
Speaking of which, you know who else is discriminated against in academia? People who try to make general declarations based on single pieces of evidence.
I'm sorry, but by what standard is Stalin a leftist in today's political economy? And by to the left of Stalin, do you mean an even stronger supporter of gulags? Or were you going somewhere else with this?
He claims it. He also maintains a list of the 30 most liberal professors, and no corresponding list of the 30 most conservative. So it's not exactly believable.
Someone pirated the movie! That explains why it only made $67 million instead of being a hit!
And also, at this point, considerably shorter than the sum-total of the anonymous bitching replies.
Good news and first post. I've gotta use /. at 1:30 more often.