Funny, because I'd actually, honestly enjoy reading an article about a fictional virus. In fact, I'm pretty sure I gave it a read at some point before it was destroyed. What possible reason could there be for this article not to exist? How does it decrease the value of Wikipedia one iota?
You might cite the notability guidlines, but those are complete bullshit.
Where in the article was the word "bribe" used? Microsoft claims they're operating under US and international law, and they have pretty fucking good lawyers, so I'd be extremely surprised if they're actually violating any known bribery laws. That's not to say they're behaving ethically, but I don't want to see Slashdot get hit with a libel suit.
Good point, but it's kind of a matter of semantics. Those things "exist" in that they are present in the public consciousness - they are a meme, if you will. They may not be physical actuality, but at least the idea of any of them is well-known.
Point taken. Obviously this is not a simple argument, but I contend that the line drawn between notable and non-notable is arbitrarily close to notable.
How do I find articles which have been deleted in order to restore them? The times I would be motivated to undelete would be after I've done a search for something which no longer exists - but of course, I have no way of knowing that they no longer exist.
Why does the article need sources outside of the movies (there are at least two of them, I think)? They are elements of the story which appear in the movies...so...what other sources could there possibly be which are not sources secondary to the movies themselvers?
Your infinitely-sized library analogy is internally consistent, but unfortunately it's a completely inapt comparison. Wikipedia does not, nor could it ever, contain information which does not exist, whereas your library contains all books which do not exist. Obviously that is unsearchable. But that's not at all what Wikipedia is - consensus generally assures us that blatantly untrue information will not be present, at least, not for long. There will never be an article on pink elephants from planet Zorgnon, because they do not (verifiably) exist. Such an article *should* be deleted (at least until I achieve universal fame and a religion is formed from the content of my various Internet postings).
Thank you so much for posting this. Had I the appropriate anatomy, I would beg to bear your children.
Let's illustrate with a thought experiment centered around the fictional article "GraxFink". If anyone were to come along and nominate GraxFink for deletion, only those users who care about deletions will vote! The 99% of the visitors to that particular page, who probably reached it via a Google search or a link from the GraxFink fan-fiction forums or from their friend who is obsessed with GraxFink, will NOT bother voting. In fact, they will probably skim right over the AFD boilerplate onto the summary, because they're just interested in learning about GraxFink, and not the petty politics of the host site. I'd even guess that a significant portion aren't even interested in Wikipedia as a whole, but ARE interested in GraxFink. Those unwashed masses are casting implicit "Keep" votes with every page hit, and yet they aren't even counted.
This is completely elitist. It's like having a beautiful park that all the citizens of a city enjoy, which the city council votes to bulldoze it without regard for the hundreds of citizens who use it everyday but didn't bother to show up at the meeting.
I agree. I've been seeing a physical therapist for a few months now for some thoracic outlet stuff, and after driving for about 5 or 6 hours this past weekend, it's now flared up again. Also I'm quite sure the start of the pain was correlated to my purchase of a new car. I always used to rest my right hand at about 4 or 5 o'clock with my elbow on the armrest, but on my new car the armrest is not long enough. This causes lots of tension in the thoracic outlet muscles (I think?)
Says who? Who gets to proclaim what the definitive pronunciation is?
When someone pronounces the word as "sodder", do you not understand them? Is that particular pronunciation not communicating its concept to you?
It's not "supposed" to rhyme with anything - it's supposed to communicate an idea.
This is the single most insightful comment I've ever read regarding terrorism. There is a happy medium between "treat every threat as if it is real" and complete anarchy, and that is to allow officers to use their common sense. As it is now, these law enforcement have no incentives to react calmly - they are taught to follow procedure, no matter how unreasonable.
Based on the evidence we have, yeah, it doesn't seem like a hoax. But that's for the prosecutor to decide at this point, and I'm hopeful they won't bother to press charges.
And I disagree that only an idiot could mistake it for a bomb. If you were in that airport and saw her wearing electronics on her shirt, what would you think? "Bomb" would probably be the first thing to my mind, thanks to hours spent watching movies with bomb-wearing evil-doers. It would take me a few seconds to even consider it a hoax, and even then there's no way to be sure.
And please, nobody bring up 9/11. I'd probably have a similar reaction before that, too, because there have *always* been security checks, signs telling you not to joke about explosives, etc.
Seriously, what the hell is the point of editors if this shit doesn't get explained? Ten percent of the summaries simply invoke confusion on my part because nobody bothers to give any background, or even just link to an explanation.
People don't choose to work at Wal-Mart; they're forced to.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
[sarcasm]God forbid we ever acknowledge the plight of the poor and feel guilty about being so well-off...[/sarcasm]
Why should I feel guilty? I did nothing wrong, so I feel no guilt. Guilt comes about as a result of regret for poor choices; as I had no choice as to whose uterus I grew in, I cannot possibly feel guilty for it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you RTFA, you'll see that this guy violated Paint.NET's current license, so putting a different license in there would solve absolutely nothing.
You might cite the notability guidlines, but those are complete bullshit.
Several falsifiable tests exist for evolution: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_can't_be_falsified. Just because you haven't heard of any doesn't mean they aren't there.
Where in the article was the word "bribe" used? Microsoft claims they're operating under US and international law, and they have pretty fucking good lawyers, so I'd be extremely surprised if they're actually violating any known bribery laws. That's not to say they're behaving ethically, but I don't want to see Slashdot get hit with a libel suit.
Good point, but it's kind of a matter of semantics. Those things "exist" in that they are present in the public consciousness - they are a meme, if you will. They may not be physical actuality, but at least the idea of any of them is well-known. Point taken. Obviously this is not a simple argument, but I contend that the line drawn between notable and non-notable is arbitrarily close to notable.
How do I find articles which have been deleted in order to restore them? The times I would be motivated to undelete would be after I've done a search for something which no longer exists - but of course, I have no way of knowing that they no longer exist.
Why does the article need sources outside of the movies (there are at least two of them, I think)? They are elements of the story which appear in the movies...so...what other sources could there possibly be which are not sources secondary to the movies themselvers?
Your infinitely-sized library analogy is internally consistent, but unfortunately it's a completely inapt comparison. Wikipedia does not, nor could it ever, contain information which does not exist, whereas your library contains all books which do not exist. Obviously that is unsearchable. But that's not at all what Wikipedia is - consensus generally assures us that blatantly untrue information will not be present, at least, not for long. There will never be an article on pink elephants from planet Zorgnon, because they do not (verifiably) exist. Such an article *should* be deleted (at least until I achieve universal fame and a religion is formed from the content of my various Internet postings).
Thank you so much for posting this. Had I the appropriate anatomy, I would beg to bear your children.
Let's illustrate with a thought experiment centered around the fictional article "GraxFink". If anyone were to come along and nominate GraxFink for deletion, only those users who care about deletions will vote! The 99% of the visitors to that particular page, who probably reached it via a Google search or a link from the GraxFink fan-fiction forums or from their friend who is obsessed with GraxFink, will NOT bother voting. In fact, they will probably skim right over the AFD boilerplate onto the summary, because they're just interested in learning about GraxFink, and not the petty politics of the host site. I'd even guess that a significant portion aren't even interested in Wikipedia as a whole, but ARE interested in GraxFink. Those unwashed masses are casting implicit "Keep" votes with every page hit, and yet they aren't even counted.
This is completely elitist. It's like having a beautiful park that all the citizens of a city enjoy, which the city council votes to bulldoze it without regard for the hundreds of citizens who use it everyday but didn't bother to show up at the meeting.
I contend that there is no such thing. All information is important to someone somewhere.
I'll believe the Internet is dead only when Netcraft confirms it.
I apologize profusely for insulting your intelligence, but this is the Internet. I can't assume anyone knows what they're talking about.
Paper is not two-dimensional. It has three dimensions; it is just very, very small in one of them.
Oh, the horrors! Heaven forbid that these children become...dare I say it...self-confident and able to interact with others!
Truly, we are in dark times.
Agreed.
"Predict the unpredictable" does not compute.
I agree. I've been seeing a physical therapist for a few months now for some thoracic outlet stuff, and after driving for about 5 or 6 hours this past weekend, it's now flared up again. Also I'm quite sure the start of the pain was correlated to my purchase of a new car. I always used to rest my right hand at about 4 or 5 o'clock with my elbow on the armrest, but on my new car the armrest is not long enough. This causes lots of tension in the thoracic outlet muscles (I think?)
Says who? Who gets to proclaim what the definitive pronunciation is? When someone pronounces the word as "sodder", do you not understand them? Is that particular pronunciation not communicating its concept to you? It's not "supposed" to rhyme with anything - it's supposed to communicate an idea.
You win the thread.
This is the single most insightful comment I've ever read regarding terrorism. There is a happy medium between "treat every threat as if it is real" and complete anarchy, and that is to allow officers to use their common sense. As it is now, these law enforcement have no incentives to react calmly - they are taught to follow procedure, no matter how unreasonable.
Based on the evidence we have, yeah, it doesn't seem like a hoax. But that's for the prosecutor to decide at this point, and I'm hopeful they won't bother to press charges.
And I disagree that only an idiot could mistake it for a bomb. If you were in that airport and saw her wearing electronics on her shirt, what would you think? "Bomb" would probably be the first thing to my mind, thanks to hours spent watching movies with bomb-wearing evil-doers. It would take me a few seconds to even consider it a hoax, and even then there's no way to be sure.
And please, nobody bring up 9/11. I'd probably have a similar reaction before that, too, because there have *always* been security checks, signs telling you not to joke about explosives, etc.
Seriously, what the hell is the point of editors if this shit doesn't get explained? Ten percent of the summaries simply invoke confusion on my part because nobody bothers to give any background, or even just link to an explanation.
I read the summary. I was simply restating that point to the parent of my post.
Allow me to don my Captain Obvious purple leotard and green cape for one (disturbing) moment:
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.
Maybe they watch a lot of TV because they have a short attention span.