The whole thing was managed in about an hour, which is pretty good. Hard to believe this was Slashdot fodder. Quick, someone post a 'Ballmer is an idiot' story!
Actually, Linus works more than he talks. When the dust settles, Linus will be remembered more than any of the shooting stars because Linus doesn't fight, he builds.
Actually, if you look at the date when that was posted (because I was the one who posted it), you'll note that it's also when Drupal was down. If you follow the trackbacks at the bottom the KnowProSE.com post - reading everything completely - you'll follow links that give more information.
Drupal *had* patches already available, but since KnowProSE.com is upgraded constantly, it wasn't vulnerable... but since the Drupal site was down at the time, I spread the word about vulnerabilities I had heard about.
I even went so far as to submit it to Slashdot the same day it was posted so that this could be avoided - but it wasn't approved. Quite sad, actually, because I see Slashdot as equally culpable by not helping get the information out.
After all, all of you read Slashdot, right?
*sigh*
Version 1.1 won't have all the OpenOffice.org links. Thanks for this criticism; I macro'd through for those links and didn't realize how many there were.
I won't link Microsoft. I don't want my site associated with Microsoft through Google.
What's funny is where you accuse me of assumption, I was only responding to the original article's assumptions.
As far as SMBs having their entire inventory tracking and accounting systems on complex macro programs - this may be true, though I've seen more SMBs simply use commercial off the shelf packages for these things. So that, I think, would be more of a larger business issue.
Feel free not to use the article as a reference; it's simply available should you wish to.
Dictionaries are also designed to be concise - or do you want to take ditionaries to task now in some sort of defense of whatever you're perspective is?
Take your time with your response; I'm giving you the last word. In the interim, instead of wasting time, I'll probably just make a few entries into the Wikipedia. At least that will be constructive.
When you act like a 16 year old, you get treated like one I suppose.
Re:Constant Reorganization Gives The Illusion....
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
A dictionary definition is the credentialed information you are arguing for... and you're willing to disavow that just to win what you see as an argument?
That's subjective in a debate you keep claiming is objective. Where are your credentials, good sir?:)
Re:Constant Reorganization Gives The Illusion....
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
Yup, that's my point. Keep writing.;)
Re: academic papers vs. wikipedia peer reviewing
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In principle, yes. In practice? And how exactly does it follow that a large number of reviewers makes for better articles?
Fair enough. How doesn't it? If an encyclopaedia is supposed to represent knowledge of mankind, shouldn't as much of mankind contribute and peer review as possible?
In turn you may argue that such democratic attributes can work against the Wikipedia, but I'll toss back at you that people who don't like bubblegum don't chew bubblegum - people who aren't interested in a topic won't contribute or even peer review it. But people who are will. And people who are *interested* are usually better than 9-5 folks who got their diplomas so that they would never be at a loss for toilet paper. Not all credentialed people are like this, but guess what? The ones interested would... contribute.:o
Yes. Journals aren't really all that good a comparison. I propose we consider the peer review process that would apply to encyclopedia articles: the editor sends off articles for comments to experts in the topics in question, making it clear that this article is intended for a general audience, and they should judge it accordingly.
Actually, journals are a good comparison. Traditional print media has *less time* to peer review because of the physical process.
Yes. But you leave out the facts that (a) pretty much everybody in the process is anonymous (yes, journals use anonymous reviewers, but there's an editor who isn't anonymous), (b) a contributor could be anybody. I.e. you have no information on the reviewers/contributors. To put it in terms of security, there's a trust issue. Also, there are issues having to do with the fact that the persons who contribute to Wikipedia articles are a very self-selected group
Anonymity scares some - perhaps yourself - but if the information is subject to the people interested, the content is more important than who said what, who wrote what, and who did what. By your same logic, you shouldn't use a computer unless you know the credentials of everyone who designed and built it - from the microprocessor to the keyboard. If that is what you wish, then so be it. That's why DoD contractors cost the government so much, and still turn out products that fail because they give the government EXACTLY what they asked for instead of what they needed.
This is not strictly true. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't have such deadlines. You're confusing review by competent experts with electronic publishing.
Hell, I remember when I was a child, we had the World Book encyclopedia, which was edited on a yearly basis. They also put out Yearbooks where they included the updated articles from that year's edition-- they came with stickers for you to put on the start of the old article, saying that you had a newer version. Even in the world of paper, your argument doesn't follow.
Well... Philosophy certainly doesn't change very fast.
And as far as the stickers - you fail to realize that the process itself of preparing the new stickers - from writing to editing, from editing to print, from print to getting it to your doorstep - took about... oh... a year. Really. But back then, things happened slower because computers were less used. Times have changed, the world has changed... everything is happening faster... and so the representation of the data must be faster. Enter Wikipedia.
I don't see how this improves the quality of the content, and I certainly don't think it addresses the trust issue.
Sure, there also are trust issues involved with journals and traditional encyclopedias. And abuses, even. But they're not as extensive as with Wikipedia.
I think we've established that your opinion on this is conjecture, and perhaps dated. You don't have to like it, you don't have to contribute, and you don't have to use it...
But your kids might.
Constant Reorganization Gives The Illusion....
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
Of Progres...
The definition of Encyclopaedia does not include 'credentialed information'. Your argument is based on the fact that you have been taught to trust credentials. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does eliminate a lot of information that could be useful for others.
Authoritative information does not necessarily have to come from someone with credentials. A Mechanical Engineer with a PhD may be able to explain the concepts of the Wankle Rotary engine, but it takes a *Mechanic* to tell you how to maintain it. And it takes a driver to tell you how to drive a car with a Wankle.
You do not focus on the person, I agree. You focus on trails of letters; you focus on the alphabet soup, and that's worrisome. If credentials stood for everything authoritative, medical doctors wouldn't be paying malpractice insurance.
What's more, with the technology of the Wiki, the kid can write what he knows, and others can build it into something more representative over time. And from what I've read of, he's writing about how people get ripped off by Psychics. Could you tell me what sort of qualification he should have for that? Psychic Police Academy?
You're spending a lot of time trying to prove something, but your conclusion escapes you - like all the threads that you've stopped responding on.
Quit picking on a young mind that is trying to do something to improve the world, and perhaps take the time to improve the world yourself.
Re:Then why is this posted to the front page?
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I disagree with your 'irrelevancy'. You picked the wrong topic when you decided to tear into the concept of 'peer review' earlier in the thread. I also don't think we'll agree on much in the way of peer review in traditional academia, but that's an unsubstantiated opinion based on the heuristic data you have provided within the last hour.
Frankly, I think my comments defending the points made on peer review are much more relevant than criticizing a 16 year old about trying to share what he knows, and learn from the experience. More power to him.
Back on topic: It's real simple. Donate, or don't.
So, you're not qualified to write an article for an encyclopaedia, and yet you think you're qualified to say who IS qualified to write articles for the encyclopaedia?
Geez. At least the kid's trying.
In another 16 years, he'll still have to put up with people older than him that don't think he's qualified for something... But in another 16 years he'll have people younger than him who he'll have earned the respect of.
Pardon me - but traditional academia has *limited* peer review. Metzger pointed that out in a book, "Academic Freedom In The Age of the University". If you haven't read it, feel free to peruse it from the armchair you're sitting in.
True peer review has everyone kicking the tires/tyres, not just a select few.
You speak of intellectual standards, and I say that the right kind of peers would be attracted to safeguard these standards. People who don't like bubblegum *don't* chew bubblegum.
Lernfreiheit and Lehrfreiheit (Google them if you don't know what they are). These are taken into account in such a peer review.
Slashdot Mirror
In Second Life, this story was 'Dewey defeats Truman'.
This is severely old news - over a week. :-)
Toss in the fact that the World Stock Exchange was also 'hacked':
http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/271
and the connection between Ginko and WSE are joined in the hip: http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/354
But Philip Linden says Ginko is transparent:
http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/358
The whole thing was managed in about an hour, which is pretty good. Hard to believe this was Slashdot fodder. Quick, someone post a 'Ballmer is an idiot' story!
Not if calibrated properly and used differentially. GPS is worse with the same anyway. ;-)
They should be using Inertial Navigation Systems. And Wired should fix it's registration process.
Actually, Linus works more than he talks. When the dust settles, Linus will be remembered more than any of the shooting stars because Linus doesn't fight, he builds.
Actually, if you look at the date when that was posted (because I was the one who posted it), you'll note that it's also when Drupal was down. If you follow the trackbacks at the bottom the KnowProSE.com post - reading everything completely - you'll follow links that give more information. Drupal *had* patches already available, but since KnowProSE.com is upgraded constantly, it wasn't vulnerable... but since the Drupal site was down at the time, I spread the word about vulnerabilities I had heard about. I even went so far as to submit it to Slashdot the same day it was posted so that this could be avoided - but it wasn't approved. Quite sad, actually, because I see Slashdot as equally culpable by not helping get the information out. After all, all of you read Slashdot, right? *sigh*
Read this.
All your *based* are belong to us. ;-) I agree with you.
Version 1.1 won't have all the OpenOffice.org links. Thanks for this criticism; I macro'd through for those links and didn't realize how many there were. I won't link Microsoft. I don't want my site associated with Microsoft through Google. What's funny is where you accuse me of assumption, I was only responding to the original article's assumptions. As far as SMBs having their entire inventory tracking and accounting systems on complex macro programs - this may be true, though I've seen more SMBs simply use commercial off the shelf packages for these things. So that, I think, would be more of a larger business issue. Feel free not to use the article as a reference; it's simply available should you wish to.
Thanks for your feedback. ;-)
WHOIS BillGates? Who cares. Knighthood is now devalued. My condolences to Britain.
Dictionaries are also designed to be concise - or do you want to take ditionaries to task now in some sort of defense of whatever you're perspective is?
Take your time with your response; I'm giving you the last word. In the interim, instead of wasting time, I'll probably just make a few entries into the Wikipedia. At least that will be constructive.
No, I was just pointing out that you're failing a CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check) in your logic... That's not contradiction.
When you act like a 16 year old, you get treated like one I suppose.
A dictionary definition is the credentialed information you are arguing for... and you're willing to disavow that just to win what you see as an argument?
That's subjective in a debate you keep claiming is objective. Where are your credentials, good sir? :)
Yup, that's my point. Keep writing. ;)
In principle, yes. In practice? And how exactly does it follow that a large number of reviewers makes for better articles? Fair enough. How doesn't it? If an encyclopaedia is supposed to represent knowledge of mankind, shouldn't as much of mankind contribute and peer review as possible? In turn you may argue that such democratic attributes can work against the Wikipedia, but I'll toss back at you that people who don't like bubblegum don't chew bubblegum - people who aren't interested in a topic won't contribute or even peer review it. But people who are will. And people who are *interested* are usually better than 9-5 folks who got their diplomas so that they would never be at a loss for toilet paper. Not all credentialed people are like this, but guess what? The ones interested would... contribute. :o
Yes. Journals aren't really all that good a comparison. I propose we consider the peer review process that would apply to encyclopedia articles: the editor sends off articles for comments to experts in the topics in question, making it clear that this article is intended for a general audience, and they should judge it accordingly.
Actually, journals are a good comparison. Traditional print media has *less time* to peer review because of the physical process.
Yes. But you leave out the facts that (a) pretty much everybody in the process is anonymous (yes, journals use anonymous reviewers, but there's an editor who isn't anonymous), (b) a contributor could be anybody. I.e. you have no information on the reviewers/contributors. To put it in terms of security, there's a trust issue. Also, there are issues having to do with the fact that the persons who contribute to Wikipedia articles are a very self-selected group
Anonymity scares some - perhaps yourself - but if the information is subject to the people interested, the content is more important than who said what, who wrote what, and who did what. By your same logic, you shouldn't use a computer unless you know the credentials of everyone who designed and built it - from the microprocessor to the keyboard. If that is what you wish, then so be it. That's why DoD contractors cost the government so much, and still turn out products that fail because they give the government EXACTLY what they asked for instead of what they needed.
This is not strictly true. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't have such deadlines. You're confusing review by competent experts with electronic publishing.
Hell, I remember when I was a child, we had the World Book encyclopedia, which was edited on a yearly basis. They also put out Yearbooks where they included the updated articles from that year's edition-- they came with stickers for you to put on the start of the old article, saying that you had a newer version. Even in the world of paper, your argument doesn't follow.
Well... Philosophy certainly doesn't change very fast.
And as far as the stickers - you fail to realize that the process itself of preparing the new stickers - from writing to editing, from editing to print, from print to getting it to your doorstep - took about... oh... a year. Really. But back then, things happened slower because computers were less used. Times have changed, the world has changed... everything is happening faster... and so the representation of the data must be faster. Enter Wikipedia.
I don't see how this improves the quality of the content, and I certainly don't think it addresses the trust issue. Sure, there also are trust issues involved with journals and traditional encyclopedias. And abuses, even. But they're not as extensive as with Wikipedia.
I think we've established that your opinion on this is conjecture, and perhaps dated. You don't have to like it, you don't have to contribute, and you don't have to use it...
But your kids might.
Of Progres...
The definition of Encyclopaedia does not include 'credentialed information'. Your argument is based on the fact that you have been taught to trust credentials. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does eliminate a lot of information that could be useful for others.
Authoritative information does not necessarily have to come from someone with credentials. A Mechanical Engineer with a PhD may be able to explain the concepts of the Wankle Rotary engine, but it takes a *Mechanic* to tell you how to maintain it. And it takes a driver to tell you how to drive a car with a Wankle.
You do not focus on the person, I agree. You focus on trails of letters; you focus on the alphabet soup, and that's worrisome. If credentials stood for everything authoritative, medical doctors wouldn't be paying malpractice insurance.
What's more, with the technology of the Wiki, the kid can write what he knows, and others can build it into something more representative over time. And from what I've read of, he's writing about how people get ripped off by Psychics. Could you tell me what sort of qualification he should have for that? Psychic Police Academy?
You're spending a lot of time trying to prove something, but your conclusion escapes you - like all the threads that you've stopped responding on.
Quit picking on a young mind that is trying to do something to improve the world, and perhaps take the time to improve the world yourself.
My apologies... I was trying to help.
I disagree with your 'irrelevancy'. You picked the wrong topic when you decided to tear into the concept of 'peer review' earlier in the thread. I also don't think we'll agree on much in the way of peer review in traditional academia, but that's an unsubstantiated opinion based on the heuristic data you have provided within the last hour.
Frankly, I think my comments defending the points made on peer review are much more relevant than criticizing a 16 year old about trying to share what he knows, and learn from the experience. More power to him.
Back on topic: It's real simple. Donate, or don't.
So, you're not qualified to write an article for an encyclopaedia, and yet you think you're qualified to say who IS qualified to write articles for the encyclopaedia?
Geez. At least the kid's trying.
In another 16 years, he'll still have to put up with people older than him that don't think he's qualified for something... But in another 16 years he'll have people younger than him who he'll have earned the respect of.
Time's on his side. Nobody wakes up an expert.
If I concede you are right, I am left to wonder: "Why are you here?"
Pardon me - but traditional academia has *limited* peer review. Metzger pointed that out in a book, "Academic Freedom In The Age of the University". If you haven't read it, feel free to peruse it from the armchair you're sitting in.
True peer review has everyone kicking the tires/tyres, not just a select few.
You speak of intellectual standards, and I say that the right kind of peers would be attracted to safeguard these standards. People who don't like bubblegum *don't* chew bubblegum.
Lernfreiheit and Lehrfreiheit (Google them if you don't know what they are). These are taken into account in such a peer review.