Like the other poster you are asserting it's a meme with nothing more than your gut feeling to say it is. It's Not a meme, it's a citation of a study from 2005.
The empty accusation that I haven't read it does nothing to further your opinion either.
"Meme: A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another."
That is NOT a description of what's happening here. It's not a virally spreading idea. I made mention of 2005 study. And I know that not because of a chain of repeats, but because I remember the report from the time, and looked it up.
It is NOT a meme. And you not agreeing with the study doesn't make it a meme, regardless of whether your skepticism is valid or not.
I will bring up the study again, whenever it appears to be relevant, because I don't share your view that it should be ignored.
You keep on repeating my point that the category of errors that are in Wikipedia and Britannica are different as if it's making your case for you. No one is denying that vandalism and deliberately false information are amongst Wikipedias main source of defects. Nor is anyone denying that having less coverage and being out of date is the main source of Britannica's.
Woz hasn't done anything noteworthy since he left Apple in the 80s. His last patent was in 1981. He's only famous at all because he had the good fortune to have been motivated and guided by Jobs into designing the electronic elements of a desirable product in the 70s.
The difference here of course is that Job's products are affordable luxuries for most in the developed world. Tesla EVs are affordable to very few. So of course one is more owned han the other.
Well that's one way of looking at it. And that belief came about because Apple had already delivered with the iPod and the iTunes store.
A brand is a reputation. You can only have a desirable brand by having a history of delivering desirable products. That's the fact that the people who say "it's all marketing" or "it's all hype" miss.
If making the most successful MP3 player and most successful smartphone design was simply a matter of copying a Braun design, it's even more surprising that no one else did until after Jony Ive did.
(The more design aware know that every good designer stands on the shoulders of the previous greats. As do artists of every other kind.)
It's Jony Ive, not Ives. And he was working at Apple before Jobs returned, yet that management didn't recognise his talents nor inspire/permit him to turn them into breakthrough designs like Jobs did.
Leadership is a talent, which the Jobs detractors here are ignorant of.
You're giving more credit to the boss of a company selling niche products than the POTUS?
Seriously?
And to give credit to congress is seriously misinformed. This is the most useless congress in history, the house of representatives having made it a mission to not pass any legislation. It's an achievement for the POTUS to get anything worthwhile passed. But the fuel standards improvements didn't have anything to do with congress. It didn't need any additional legislation, just an update of rules of the existing CAFE standards.
The emphasis on typography that led to the Mac OS UI and to desktop publishing was an input of Jobs to the direction of the product.
Earlier than that, for all the slashdot hero worship of Woz, the Apple II wouldn't have been built had it not been for Jobs, and if it had it wouldn't have had a case, which means it wouldn't have been the breakthrough into offices that the Apple II was.
The idea that Jobs just picked products, rather than had a significant part in forming them is moronic.
CEO's and leaders of every other type have people that do the work. And they are all inspired by others that came before them. It's moronic to pretend that great leadership is worthless and isn't itself work.
Even freetards and libertarians have their leaders - Linus Torvalds, RMS, ESR, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul.
Back in 2005, Wikipedia was studied for accuracy against the Encyclopaedia Britannica. And they were found to be about the same. Since then Wikipedia has improved a lot, and they've stopped printing the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Whilst Wikipedia can suffer from malicious or prankerster edits, it's balanced out by the fact that it's up to date, and a printed encyclopedia is always years out of date. Even when a new edition comes out, most articles won't have been touched.
Wikipedia could be improved, and the problem to tackle is anonymity. There's really no good reason for allowing anonymous edits. It's not a free speech issue. After that, one could work on ensuring that the editors who adopt certain pages as their own are actually qualified to be reasonably knowledgable about that thing, and not just the people most prepared to jump in and edit most often.
For example, any sane web-firewall will filter out all but extended ASCII characters
That would be a broken firewall. The Unicode characters that are and are not allowed in URLs are documented. It's not the free for all you seem to think.
First, both the country I grew up in and the country I currently live in uses letters with accents.
Which gives you partial insight. But you're still using the latin alphabet. You take about putting artificial barriers, yet it's you who's supporting that, by excluding for example Chinese speakers who don't also speak English. Which is about a billion right there.
Probably not. Because when people earn more, they spend proportionately more on everything you buy and everything they do. They don't just save it for the car.
Believe it or not, I thought about alot each of the ethical issues yall brought up.
Yet it appears that you selfishly went ahead anyway.
What you are doing is not only unethical its illegal, in the real world situation that you didn't get permission of the network owner. And don't pretend you do. In the unlikely case that you did ask and could actually speak to the owner, he wouldn't understand what you are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
And your attitude on a word with a clear meaning makes you a moron.
Where does that bullshit argument get us?
It's not.
What's a freetard?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
I'm sorry your vocabulary is lacking.
Like the other poster you are asserting it's a meme with nothing more than your gut feeling to say it is. It's Not a meme, it's a citation of a study from 2005.
The empty accusation that I haven't read it does nothing to further your opinion either.
"Meme: A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another."
That is NOT a description of what's happening here. It's not a virally spreading idea. I made mention of 2005 study. And I know that not because of a chain of repeats, but because I remember the report from the time, and looked it up.
It is NOT a meme. And you not agreeing with the study doesn't make it a meme, regardless of whether your skepticism is valid or not.
I will bring up the study again, whenever it appears to be relevant, because I don't share your view that it should be ignored.
You keep on repeating my point that the category of errors that are in Wikipedia and Britannica are different as if it's making your case for you. No one is denying that vandalism and deliberately false information are amongst Wikipedias main source of defects. Nor is anyone denying that having less coverage and being out of date is the main source of Britannica's.
Woz hasn't done anything noteworthy since he left Apple in the 80s. His last patent was in 1981. He's only famous at all because he had the good fortune to have been motivated and guided by Jobs into designing the electronic elements of a desirable product in the 70s.
The difference here of course is that Job's products are affordable luxuries for most in the developed world. Tesla EVs are affordable to very few. So of course one is more owned han the other.
Well that's one way of looking at it. And that belief came about because Apple had already delivered with the iPod and the iTunes store.
A brand is a reputation. You can only have a desirable brand by having a history of delivering desirable products. That's the fact that the people who say "it's all marketing" or "it's all hype" miss.
If making the most successful MP3 player and most successful smartphone design was simply a matter of copying a Braun design, it's even more surprising that no one else did until after Jony Ive did.
(The more design aware know that every good designer stands on the shoulders of the previous greats. As do artists of every other kind.)
It's Jony Ive, not Ives. And he was working at Apple before Jobs returned, yet that management didn't recognise his talents nor inspire/permit him to turn them into breakthrough designs like Jobs did.
Leadership is a talent, which the Jobs detractors here are ignorant of.
You're giving more credit to the boss of a company selling niche products than the POTUS?
Seriously?
And to give credit to congress is seriously misinformed. This is the most useless congress in history, the house of representatives having made it a mission to not pass any legislation. It's an achievement for the POTUS to get anything worthwhile passed. But the fuel standards improvements didn't have anything to do with congress. It didn't need any additional legislation, just an update of rules of the existing CAFE standards.
The hype is the same with both. Mostly self sustaining and well earned.
And whilst the Tesla EV and SpaceX are important and exciting, bringing the GUI to the consumer has had more impact.
The emphasis on typography that led to the Mac OS UI and to desktop publishing was an input of Jobs to the direction of the product.
Earlier than that, for all the slashdot hero worship of Woz, the Apple II wouldn't have been built had it not been for Jobs, and if it had it wouldn't have had a case, which means it wouldn't have been the breakthrough into offices that the Apple II was.
The idea that Jobs just picked products, rather than had a significant part in forming them is moronic.
CEO's and leaders of every other type have people that do the work. And they are all inspired by others that came before them. It's moronic to pretend that great leadership is worthless and isn't itself work.
Even freetards and libertarians have their leaders - Linus Torvalds, RMS, ESR, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul.
Improved how?
It's had 9 years more input. Which means vastly more topics, and more editing of the existing ones.
No thanks to whiny anonymous cowards who criticise people who actually created something.
You complain about the lack of peer review on the study, then with no evidence whatsoever, only your hunch, you assert that Britannica is superior.
has articles on breaking news stories... did not contain false information inserted by anonymous people for fun
I already covered the very different ways ways the two encyclopedias are inaccurate in my post.
It's no meme. You disbelieving the study doesn't make it so.
Back in 2005, Wikipedia was studied for accuracy against the Encyclopaedia Britannica. And they were found to be about the same. Since then Wikipedia has improved a lot, and they've stopped printing the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Whilst Wikipedia can suffer from malicious or prankerster edits, it's balanced out by the fact that it's up to date, and a printed encyclopedia is always years out of date. Even when a new edition comes out, most articles won't have been touched.
Wikipedia could be improved, and the problem to tackle is anonymity. There's really no good reason for allowing anonymous edits. It's not a free speech issue. After that, one could work on ensuring that the editors who adopt certain pages as their own are actually qualified to be reasonably knowledgable about that thing, and not just the people most prepared to jump in and edit most often.
That's not an experiment, that's vandalism.
For example, any sane web-firewall will filter out all but extended ASCII characters
That would be a broken firewall. The Unicode characters that are and are not allowed in URLs are documented. It's not the free for all you seem to think.
First, both the country I grew up in and the country I currently live in uses letters with accents.
Which gives you partial insight. But you're still using the latin alphabet. You take about putting artificial barriers, yet it's you who's supporting that, by excluding for example Chinese speakers who don't also speak English. Which is about a billion right there.
Probably not. Because when people earn more, they spend proportionately more on everything you buy and everything they do. They don't just save it for the car.
I really wish we could just drop the sexism part of this right now. Both genders get attacked by these people.
But not to the same extent. It's unfortunate that identifying as a woman on the internet is rather like painting a target on your back.
Heck it's not limited to the internet.
People are vile and self-centered.
Don't generalise from what you see in the mirror. There are plenty of decent folks out there. It's just that the minority assholes get more attention.
I mean he recently outted himself as a racist asshole
Recently? Weev was behind the persistent GNAA trolls of slashdot more than a decade ago.
There is no big picture that means it's OK that he's not in prison. His list of very real crimes is long.
Believe it or not, I thought about alot each of the ethical issues yall brought up.
Yet it appears that you selfishly went ahead anyway.
What you are doing is not only unethical its illegal, in the real world situation that you didn't get permission of the network owner. And don't pretend you do. In the unlikely case that you did ask and could actually speak to the owner, he wouldn't understand what you are talking about.