You can have speed and anonymity with I2P
since you can control your the # of hops. Now if you *and* your
destination node both choose to have 0 hops then it would be a direct
connection. But since no one knows you are choosing to use 0 hops, you
have plausible deniability that you are just acting as a buffer and ferrying the
data for someone else instead of yourself.
With I2P you can control how much anonymity
you want and how much speed, that is why many people are looking at it (on top
of the fact you can run BT, IRC, eMail and other internet services over it).
People have the right to know about it and, if necessary, fork the project or
experiment on their own. Im my opinion that is why Freenet became to be in such
a sad state of affairs, people were discouraged from forking it (at least one
project I know of) and had a restrictive mentality with regards to how things
are to be done. Hopefully I2P will not develop this mentality as well.
I think these lawsuits will simply speed up the migration away from P2P to
anonymous P2P.
Many individuals believe strongly in the freedom of uncensorable speech and many
also think that copyright (a monopoly on the free flow of information and a an
barrier to promote artificial scarcity of knowledge erected by government
enforced through threats of violence) needs to be reformed at best and removed
totally at worse.
The more promising anonymous p2p applications is
I2P, its
Wikipedia article here. It
is a network layer and has a variety of tools including anonymous bittorrent
[ducktorrent], [i2pbt], [azeureus plugin] (Azureus
2.3.0.0 has I2P code in its core as seen from their release notes),
anonymous p2p search [i2phex], anonymous IRC [core], anonymous http [core],
anonymous distributed content store like Freenet [Quartermaster or 'Q'].
All it really needs is people to share their content (just put it in your files
in automatic webpage directory) and anonymous newsgroups.
There is also Freenet which is
a useful backup to I2P until I2P develops a well working distributed content
store (currently Quartermaster or the defunct Stasher fufill these rolls and are
in the I2P core CVS). If you get
Frost for Freenet there are a few
distribution organisations there as well.
"However the editorial board work is still essential. They make sure the peer-review process runs smoothly and that each paper looks nice in the end. This is not so easily replaced, even though the editors do a volunteer job."
Um, Wiki.
Why not simply have the editorial board peer-review articles using Wiki? They could have 50 authors do it all online, and when they do they get credit towards someone else reviewing their own submitted articles.
It would kinda be like Wikipedia restricted to academics but for journal (instead of encyclopedia) articles.
Hopefully in the end the restricted status to academics only will be dropped (since anyone knowledgeable enough to find errors should be able to at least give a heads up in the discussion if not change it), but one step at a time:).
"Federal governement invested 90% in Ontario, Ontario is the pamper province of Canada, all investment go there."
Um, I don't think you read the article: Ontario has a net *loss* of 23 billion dollars a year. That includes spending and taxiation together (as per the definition of NET).
"Ontario Quebec and British Columbia run a surplus the rest run a defecit."
Uhhhhhh no. Ontario
is running a deficit of 6 billion dollars. Ottawa/The Federal
Government is taking
23 billion away from Ontario each year in taxes and giving it away to other
provinces despite our running this huge deficit that is causing the
government to cut back Ontario's services.
I say: fuck the other provinces why the fuck should we go into debt and have
*our* services cut to pay for people leeching off our teet. Grow your own
god damn economies and leave Ontario alone.
I'll vote for any party that promises to fix this fiscal imbalance and
commend our Primier (Dalton McGunity) for having the balls to take the leechers
on.
"It's true -- BC, Alberta, and Ontario are the only provinces that generate more tax revenue than they consume. The rest of the country is supported by us."
Why should we support the rest of the provinces? Time to stop sending the welfare cheques and fix the fiscal imbalance.
I'll vote for which ever party promises this, and decentralization in general.
"My lesson leared from this, is to keep a copy of the source for anything and everything in which I am even a little bit interested."
Is it enough to download the file called 'source' at sourceforge, if it is there, or is it better to get the source code via CVS? Are there drawbacks to either way?
I love free / open source software but I haven't really compiled anything from the source code. After reading what you said I believe I will, at the minimum, start download the source as well from now on.
Grandparent: "If BitKeeper wishes to keep their source proprietary then it is morally wrong."
Parent: "People should have the "FREEDOM" to..."
Freedom to do what? You do realize that morality necessarily means giving up the freedom to do things (like kill people you don't like etc.).
If people want the freedom to be antisocial with regards to their sourcecode that is fine and people can choose to do so, but that doesn't make it moral*.
*(It also doesn't mean it's immoral, you'd have to read what RMS says and see if his arguement holds, or up with a coutner arguement.)
Of course they will be, they were before and they are now. Millionaires can afford to be retired and play EverQuest all day while Joe Shmoe can't get a good character because he has something called a 'job'. Same with students.
It's good people know economic terms but real life and virtual reality differ in that in real life it is rare for people to burn piles of their own money while in a game every time you sell to NPC vendor it effectively removes the currency from the game.
What Sony needs then is a lot of so called money sinks to remove the exceess cash.
If these virtual realities and their economies get complex enough even more economists will be interested in studying them, perhaps even being hired regulate them:P.
"Part of the charm of these games is that in the game world, what I can achieve is determined by my character's behavior in that world, rather than by my real-life situation."
Bullshit. If you are a millionaire in real life then you can afford to play 24/7 while Joe Shmoe can't, so your real life *DOES* affect your in game situation.
Your real life situation affects online game play in every concecivable way from hackers who use their 'real-life situation' to create bots to play for them to students who can also powergame.
To think otherwise is a delusion, now this policy just formally acknowledges this reality that people seem to pretend didn't exist.
I agree with a lot of you say, it is a very good post.
"Well that and a.) Shit happens, b.) No birth control is 100% effective, c.)
There's no reliable way to ensure that everybody participates."
And the solution is to pretend children are not sexual and will not engage in
sex for 5-8 years after puberty? Let's do better.
"Problem two is that if I were a parent, I wouldn't want somebody arbitrarily
making these decisions without me."
How about allowing the children to make the decisions for themselves. Allow for
laws that permit children to ask for birth control from their doctor without
parental consent.
= Additional Thoughts =
The sodomy laws were just
repealed in 2003 (in the United States), so Puritanism is still out there but it
seems to be on the decline. But in rejecting Puritanism society seems to
be going towards some sort of cheap commercial view of sex. This is also
probably wrong.
Indeed, a lot of the problem has to do with societal attitudes,
especially with
respect to society to the victims as well. What if the so called victim thought the
relationship was rewarding? His or her choice is to either believe they
were victimized and are damaged goods or say they enjoyed the relationship and
turn the pity of society
into disgust and persecution, or be brainwashed into thinking it was evil.
He continues with an account I cannot independently verify: "A few years ago (on
a talk show) a 16 year old boy said when he was 13 he had an affair with a
female school custodian that lasted two years. He later stated that while it
lasted it was great--he loved every second.... Well--his parents threw a fit.
Boy was sent to a shrink and is told he was abused. A year of conditioning later
he sits on this talk show and says what a horrible thing this woman did to
him--and still stated that he thought it was great while it lasted--he didn't
know he was being abused at the time. Now who the hell I ask you caused the
damage here?"
"You make it sound as though these 12 year olds have the intellectual mental
capacity to make such choices and to be responsible to boot."
No doubt some are, and some are not.
That's why its a tricky issue drawing an arbritary line for age. Since many so
called adults are too stupid (because they did not have sex ed?) to use
birthcontrol also, lets not assume that children have an exclusive on stupidity.
"an you guaranty the 15 year old boy will wrap his rod to prevent the spread of
STDs?"
Since I cannot guarentee this for adults, i doubt I can do so for children.
Although Canada has laws that allow children of a certain age to get
birthcontrol without their parents concent, does America, and if so give
details. Perhaps ask why these kids are getting pregnant (no sex ed, no condom
access, no information, no brithcontrol).
"And personally, if it was up to me, I would make that age 16."
Why 16 and not younger, or older? How about homosexual relationships, or is the
bar for that 21 or perhaps illegal all together since homosexual youths' (and
adults until 2003) relationships do not seem to matter.
"So it should be ok for some 50 year old pervet to have sex with a 4 year
old?"
That is the question isn't it, although it seems the example children do seem to
decrease in age when the argument well runs dry.
"someone who is too young to understand the consequences....law is there to
protect *them* from..."
Protect them from what, and what consequences? What is the nature of the harm?
Let us clearly define what harm exists, if any, so we can better vindicate or
condemn the behaviour.
Of course it will be helpful for you and I to quote sources backing up our
claims against or for harm. However, since this issue isn't being studied much
due to an unfortunate tendency of the
State Senators and the
United States Congress to
condemn scientists and their work, relevant material maybe scarce...
When you, we, the senate, stop people from asking questions and answering then
no progress can be made on these issues. Thankfully Slashdot exists as a
forum to discuss them.
"I think the term "paedophile" should be reserved for those who are sexually attracted to people who are below the age of sexual maturity, not merely below the age of consent in a particular locale."
Well then you have R.Kelly's in the mix then (although she was 14, and likely not prepubescent, but is a close example to my point).
The dangerous people* are adults who are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children as they have no other release for their sexual energy.
*This assumes an adult having sex with a person under the age of concent is dangerous. Few places exist to intelligently discuss that topic, and fewer people still would advocate that it is not. I guess untill people can intelligently discuss this issue openly this problem, such as it is, will continue to exist in (post anicent Greek) Western societies;).
"And a parent who never, ever let's their kid out of their sight, especially when they are 14/15/16, is even more abusive. Kids have to be allowed some freedom. Within ever increasing limits, of course."
Well parents want it both ways I guess. They want their kids to have freedom and not have to mind them 24/7. However, they do not want to give their children the knowledge (e.g. sex education) and wherewithall to engage their environment and other human beings intelligently.
"The obvious problem with this is that a 12 year old in the USA cannot typically get a job to support a child."
Sex should not = pregnancy (not with the amount of birthcontrol available), and the reason why children are more prone to this is that they are kept ignorant.
Then perhaps instead of denying these 12 yearolds sex education where they can learn about birthcontrol we tell them; then they can be aware of their sexuality, how do intelligently deal with people who want to have a sexual relationship, and how to intelligently engage in sex should they choose to do so knowing the rewards and risks in such behaviour.
"I could go on. The point is this: human laws exist to curb human nature. I forget the philosopher who said it, but laws are only for criminals."
Then sexuality is defacto criminal? I think that is an assumption, and one I do not happen to share with you at this point in time.
"Laws exist to exert normative force on those who would otherwise transgress. "
This is a discussion about norms, thus you conclude with your assumption when you say that this is wrong because it is not normal. The point is I argue it (sexuality) is normal, and to deny so is harmful.
"In 1st world countries however, civilization doesn't offer much support for a 12 year old in terms of employment opportunities that would be needed to purchase goods and services to support their children."
Sex should not = pregnancy, and the reason why children are more prone to this is that they are kept ignorant.
Then perhaps instead of denying these 12 yearolds sex education where they can learn about birthcontrol we tell them; then they can be aware of their sexuality, how do intelligently deal with people who want to have a sexual relationship, and how to intelligently engage in sex should they choose to do so knowing the rewards and risks in such behaviour.
"And yes, it's very easy for a 12 year old to become pregnate and even come full term to give birth."
Of course it is, and the question becomes if evolution has made 12 yearolds sexual beings at the age of 12, why is the age of concent 18?
Perhaps instead of rallying against nature people should accept the obvisous: children are sexual beings and to deny reality leads to sexually repressed future adults, or current adults being jailed among other problems.
If you say so, although in Canada 14 is the age of concent for both heterosexual and homosexual relationships (with the exception being that the older party is in a position of trust: Teacher, caregiver etc.).
Pretending that 15 yearolds (or hell, 12 year olds and lower?) are asexual beings is being blind to reality.
" The trouble with Wikipedia in practice is that there aren't any (or darn
few) references to real outside sources."
I agree completely and I believe it is Wikipedia's Achilles' heel, but we can
change that.
There is a
WikiProject called "Fact and Reference Check" that was created to reference
the article's facts with a variety of sources (books, articles, magazines,
academic journals, websites etc.).
If we can get 'smart' foot/end notes designed into Wikipedia's Software (MediaWiki)
then I am sure Wikipedia could become the most authoritative source of
information every created: Each article's facts being referenced with dozens of
sources, and each of these references being confirmed by dozens of individuals.
Don't forget: Wikiproject Fact and Reference Check
on
FUD-Based Encyclopedias
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is a
WikiProject called "Fact and Reference Check" that was created to reference
the article's facts with a variety of sources (books, articles, magazines,
academic journals, websites etc.).
If we can get 'smart' foot/end notes designed into Wikipedia's Software (MediaWiki)
then I am sure Wikipedia could become the most authoritative source of
information every created: Each article's facts being referenced with dozens of
sources, and each of these references being confirmed by dozens of individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
You can have speed and anonymity with I2P since you can control your the # of hops. Now if you *and* your destination node both choose to have 0 hops then it would be a direct connection. But since no one knows you are choosing to use 0 hops, you have plausible deniability that you are just acting as a buffer and ferrying the data for someone else instead of yourself.
With I2P you can control how much anonymity you want and how much speed, that is why many people are looking at it (on top of the fact you can run BT, IRC, eMail and other internet services over it).
People have the right to know about it and, if necessary, fork the project or experiment on their own. Im my opinion that is why Freenet became to be in such a sad state of affairs, people were discouraged from forking it (at least one project I know of) and had a restrictive mentality with regards to how things are to be done. Hopefully I2P will not develop this mentality as well.
As well, it is more than a little ironic that people try and stifle information about this project whose purpose is the free flow of information. If the develops are so concerned about people not knowing about it they will not participate with the 5th most active project on Sourceforge Azeureus, (I2P functionality is included and mentioned is in the release notes), and try to block the coverage currently on infoanarchy, and release only inhouse beta versions if the publically available copies are not meant for the public at large.
I think these lawsuits will simply speed up the migration away from P2P to anonymous P2P. Many individuals believe strongly in the freedom of uncensorable speech and many also think that copyright (a monopoly on the free flow of information and a an barrier to promote artificial scarcity of knowledge erected by government enforced through threats of violence) needs to be reformed at best and removed totally at worse.
The more promising anonymous p2p applications is I2P, its Wikipedia article here. It is a network layer and has a variety of tools including anonymous bittorrent [ducktorrent], [i2pbt], [azeureus plugin] (Azureus 2.3.0.0 has I2P code in its core as seen from their release notes), anonymous p2p search [i2phex], anonymous IRC [core], anonymous http [core], anonymous distributed content store like Freenet [Quartermaster or 'Q']. All it really needs is people to share their content (just put it in your files in automatic webpage directory) and anonymous newsgroups.
There is also Freenet which is a useful backup to I2P until I2P develops a well working distributed content store (currently Quartermaster or the defunct Stasher fufill these rolls and are in the I2P core CVS). If you get Frost for Freenet there are a few distribution organisations there as well.
"However the editorial board work is still essential. They make sure the peer-review process runs smoothly and that each paper looks nice in the end. This is not so easily replaced, even though the editors do a volunteer job."
:).
Um, Wiki.
Why not simply have the editorial board peer-review articles using Wiki? They could have 50 authors do it all online, and when they do they get credit towards someone else reviewing their own submitted articles.
It would kinda be like Wikipedia restricted to academics but for journal (instead of encyclopedia) articles.
Hopefully in the end the restricted status to academics only will be dropped (since anyone knowledgeable enough to find errors should be able to at least give a heads up in the discussion if not change it), but one step at a time
"Federal governement invested 90% in Ontario, Ontario is the pamper province of Canada, all investment go there."
Um, I don't think you read the article: Ontario has a net *loss* of 23 billion dollars a year. That includes spending and taxiation together (as per the definition of NET).
Thanks for playing.
"Ontario Quebec and British Columbia run a surplus the rest run a defecit."
Uhhhhhh no. Ontario is running a deficit of 6 billion dollars. Ottawa/The Federal Government is taking 23 billion away from Ontario each year in taxes and giving it away to other provinces despite our running this huge deficit that is causing the government to cut back Ontario's services.
I say: fuck the other provinces why the fuck should we go into debt and have *our* services cut to pay for people leeching off our teet. Grow your own god damn economies and leave Ontario alone.
I'll vote for any party that promises to fix this fiscal imbalance and commend our Primier (Dalton McGunity) for having the balls to take the leechers on.
"It's true -- BC, Alberta, and Ontario are the only provinces that generate more tax revenue than they consume. The rest of the country is supported by us."
Why should we support the rest of the provinces? Time to stop sending the welfare cheques and fix the fiscal imbalance.
I'll vote for which ever party promises this, and decentralization in general.
...question I have from your quote:
"My lesson leared from this, is to keep a copy of the source for anything and everything in which I am even a little bit interested."
Is it enough to download the file called 'source' at sourceforge, if it is there, or is it better to get the source code via CVS? Are there drawbacks to either way?
I love free / open source software but I haven't really compiled anything from the source code. After reading what you said I believe I will, at the minimum, start download the source as well from now on.
Grandparent:
"If BitKeeper wishes to keep their source proprietary then it is morally wrong."
Parent:
"People should have the "FREEDOM" to..."
Freedom to do what? You do realize that morality necessarily means giving up the freedom to do things (like kill people you don't like etc.).
If people want the freedom to be antisocial with regards to their sourcecode that is fine and people can choose to do so, but that doesn't make it moral*.
*(It also doesn't mean it's immoral, you'd have to read what RMS says and see if his arguement holds, or up with a coutner arguement.)
"People with money will be better equipped..."
Of course they will be, they were before and they are now. Millionaires can afford to be retired and play EverQuest all day while Joe Shmoe can't get a good character because he has something called a 'job'. Same with students.
Now Sony simply acknowledges this fact.
It's good people know economic terms but real life and virtual reality differ in that in real life it is rare for people to burn piles of their own money while in a game every time you sell to NPC vendor it effectively removes the currency from the game.
:P.
What Sony needs then is a lot of so called money sinks to remove the exceess cash.
If these virtual realities and their economies get complex enough even more economists will be interested in studying them, perhaps even being hired regulate them
"Part of the charm of these games is that in the game world, what I can achieve is determined by my character's behavior in that world, rather than by my real-life situation."
Bullshit. If you are a millionaire in real life then you can afford to play 24/7 while Joe Shmoe can't, so your real life *DOES* affect your in game situation.
Your real life situation affects online game play in every concecivable way from hackers who use their 'real-life situation' to create bots to play for them to students who can also powergame.
To think otherwise is a delusion, now this policy just formally acknowledges this reality that people seem to pretend didn't exist.
I agree with a lot of you say, it is a very good post.
"Well that and a.) Shit happens, b.) No birth control is 100% effective, c.) There's no reliable way to ensure that everybody participates."
And the solution is to pretend children are not sexual and will not engage in sex for 5-8 years after puberty? Let's do better.
"Problem two is that if I were a parent, I wouldn't want somebody arbitrarily making these decisions without me."
How about allowing the children to make the decisions for themselves. Allow for laws that permit children to ask for birth control from their doctor without parental consent.
= Additional Thoughts =
The sodomy laws were just repealed in 2003 (in the United States), so Puritanism is still out there but it seems to be on the decline. But in rejecting Puritanism society seems to be going towards some sort of cheap commercial view of sex. This is also probably wrong.
Indeed, a lot of the problem has to do with societal attitudes, especially with respect to society to the victims as well. What if the so called victim thought the relationship was rewarding? His or her choice is to either believe they were victimized and are damaged goods or say they enjoyed the relationship and turn the pity of society into disgust and persecution, or be brainwashed into thinking it was evil.
"You make it sound as though these 12 year olds have the intellectual mental capacity to make such choices and to be responsible to boot."
No doubt some are, and some are not.
That's why its a tricky issue drawing an arbritary line for age. Since many so called adults are too stupid (because they did not have sex ed?) to use birthcontrol also, lets not assume that children have an exclusive on stupidity.
"an you guaranty the 15 year old boy will wrap his rod to prevent the spread of STDs?"
Since I cannot guarentee this for adults, i doubt I can do so for children. Although Canada has laws that allow children of a certain age to get birthcontrol without their parents concent, does America, and if so give details. Perhaps ask why these kids are getting pregnant (no sex ed, no condom access, no information, no brithcontrol).
"And personally, if it was up to me, I would make that age 16."
Why 16 and not younger, or older? How about homosexual relationships, or is the bar for that 21 or perhaps illegal all together since homosexual youths' (and adults until 2003) relationships do not seem to matter.
"So it should be ok for some 50 year old pervet to have sex with a 4 year old?"
That is the question isn't it, although it seems the example children do seem to decrease in age when the argument well runs dry.
"someone who is too young to understand the consequences....law is there to protect *them* from..."
Protect them from what, and what consequences? What is the nature of the harm? Let us clearly define what harm exists, if any, so we can better vindicate or condemn the behaviour.
Of course it will be helpful for you and I to quote sources backing up our claims against or for harm. However, since this issue isn't being studied much due to an unfortunate tendency of the State Senators and the United States Congress to condemn scientists and their work, relevant material maybe scarce...
When you, we, the senate, stop people from asking questions and answering then no progress can be made on these issues. Thankfully Slashdot exists as a forum to discuss them.
"I think the term "paedophile" should be reserved for those who are sexually attracted to people who are below the age of sexual maturity, not merely below the age of consent in a particular locale."
;).
Well then you have R.Kelly's in the mix then (although she was 14, and likely not prepubescent, but is a close example to my point).
The dangerous people* are adults who are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children as they have no other release for their sexual energy.
*This assumes an adult having sex with a person under the age of concent is dangerous. Few places exist to intelligently discuss that topic, and fewer people still would advocate that it is not. I guess untill people can intelligently discuss this issue openly this problem, such as it is, will continue to exist in (post anicent Greek) Western societies
"And a parent who never, ever let's their kid out of their sight, especially when they are 14/15/16, is even more abusive. Kids have to be allowed some freedom. Within ever increasing limits, of course."
Well parents want it both ways I guess. They want their kids to have freedom and not have to mind them 24/7. However, they do not want to give their children the knowledge (e.g. sex education) and wherewithall to engage their environment and other human beings intelligently.
"The obvious problem with this is that a 12 year old in the USA cannot typically get a job to support a child."
Sex should not = pregnancy (not with the amount of birthcontrol available), and the reason why children are more prone to this is that they are kept ignorant.
Then perhaps instead of denying these 12 yearolds sex education where they can learn about birthcontrol we tell them; then they can be aware of their sexuality, how do intelligently deal with people who want to have a sexual relationship, and how to intelligently engage in sex should they choose to do so knowing the rewards and risks in such behaviour.
"I could go on. The point is this: human laws exist to curb human nature. I forget the philosopher who said it, but laws are only for criminals."
Then sexuality is defacto criminal? I think that is an assumption, and one I do not happen to share with you at this point in time.
"Laws exist to exert normative force on those who would otherwise transgress. "
This is a discussion about norms, thus you conclude with your assumption when you say that this is wrong because it is not normal. The point is I argue it (sexuality) is normal, and to deny so is harmful.
"In 1st world countries however, civilization doesn't offer much support for a 12 year old in terms of employment opportunities that would be needed to purchase goods and services to support their children."
Sex should not = pregnancy, and the reason why children are more prone to this is that they are kept ignorant.
Then perhaps instead of denying these 12 yearolds sex education where they can learn about birthcontrol we tell them; then they can be aware of their sexuality, how do intelligently deal with people who want to have a sexual relationship, and how to intelligently engage in sex should they choose to do so knowing the rewards and risks in such behaviour.
"And yes, it's very easy for a 12 year old to become pregnate and even come full term to give birth."
Of course it is, and the question becomes if evolution has made 12 yearolds sexual beings at the age of 12, why is the age of concent 18?
Perhaps instead of rallying against nature people should accept the obvisous: children are sexual beings and to deny reality leads to sexually repressed future adults, or current adults being jailed among other problems.
"children safe from online predators"
Online predators, at 15?
If you say so, although in Canada 14 is the age of concent for both heterosexual and homosexual relationships (with the exception being that the older party is in a position of trust: Teacher, caregiver etc.).
Pretending that 15 yearolds (or hell, 12 year olds and lower?) are asexual beings is being blind to reality.
There are also other end-user (working) anonymous-p2p programs such as:
The site Anonymous-p2p.org has a good list of anonymous p2p programs as well.
" The trouble with Wikipedia in practice is that there aren't any (or darn few) references to real outside sources."
I agree completely and I believe it is Wikipedia's Achilles' heel, but we can change that.
There is a WikiProject called "Fact and Reference Check" that was created to reference the article's facts with a variety of sources (books, articles, magazines, academic journals, websites etc.).
If we can get 'smart' foot/end notes designed into Wikipedia's Software (MediaWiki) then I am sure Wikipedia could become the most authoritative source of information every created: Each article's facts being referenced with dozens of sources, and each of these references being confirmed by dozens of individuals.
If we can get 'smart' foot/end notes designed into Wikipedia's Software (MediaWiki) then I am sure Wikipedia could become the most authoritative source of information every created: Each article's facts being referenced with dozens of sources, and each of these references being confirmed by dozens of individuals.