I talked all about the editorial review process controversy in all my comments (which is the reason 172 left, mores the pity). Uh, I don't think so! Funny, really, how I've never even introduced this concept into ANY of my comments in this thread. Please don't put words in my mouth.
You seem to be trying to make this into a competition on who has the most references. More references do not necessarily make a better article (though it's a good indication of good intent to research an article). Experts can be biased, and Wikipedia attempts to write from a neutral point of view, with neutral language. I've stated my position on this, if English is not your first language and you can't follow what I've been trying to say, I can't help this!
... considering that I'm actually finding it extremely hard to understand what you are writing (is English your first language), and you seem to going off on tangents and talking at cross purposes with me, I don't know how to respond.
Gah!!! I never said he was biased! All I said was that just because you have references does not make a good article!!!!! Your entire argument is based on the fact that he is an "expert" and that he gives lots of references, and that based on one dispute on Wikipedia you think the whole project is rubbish. That's what I was responding to, I never said that your friend wrote rubbish! In fact, I never said whether one side or the other was wrong or right. I merely poked some holes in your sweeping assertions about Wikipedia.
How can one person misunderstand oh so much? Sheesh.
And? I've never stated whether his work is good or not, or whether the other party was being obstructionist (I came across both types of people in my time on Wikipedia). Quite probably your friends work is very good, but that wasn't my point! My point was that just because he cites many sources does not make a good article. I could edit a Arab-Israeli conflict article and cite hundreds of sources coming from one viewpoint and make the article balanced towards the POV of one side: this would make it an article with lots of research and effort, but it would make it a bad article nonetheless. I think that until you understand this, you won't understand Wikipedia.
As you point out, my example articles are not about political issues (well, not strictly true, if you look at the Strathfield article... but let's forget this for this argument). Yet, "the two stubs he wrote are much better researched than all your articles combined." Ever heard the English expression, "comparing apples with oranges"?
I don't think you've thought things out very well...
So in other words, experts can never make mistakes and are never biased. I find that an interesting take, and wish you all the best in your future endeavours.
... right after "I doubt you have done any deep research on any articles. At least you could cite the articles and your username. To do deep research takes time and people do not really do research just because they want to edit a wiki. You have to be interested in more than editing a wiki to do serious research, you have to be interested in the subject beyond just the desire to make wiki edits."
Just for the record, my username was Ta bu shi da yu, and I wrote:
You are correct, however. I did not follow the example (though I could have). I didn't need to, because I wasn't referring to just that example. What I was responding to was the following:
Wikipedia only recognizes in disputes how polite you are, if you are assumming good faith and other such bullshit. It does not recognize expertise or if you are contributing to a better article. This project is a joke. It does not matter what research you do, even if you use footnotes, someone can change the article without using references. It does not matter what research you do in a library in Wikipedia's world, it matters how much time you spent in Wikipedia instead, tiem spent not doing researching, time spent doing POV and not using references to academic and historic works.
I pointed out that references by themselves do not make a good article. You said that those who don't do research take over articles and that those who do research don't get recognised. I showed you that this is incorrect. You stated that, based on one article dispute, the whole project is a joke.
You stated that "The mods will castigate for exceeding the revert rule; tell you to work things out with the ignorant editor and that "assuming good faith and NPOV you can make a better article together", a joke to say the least." - there is a dispute resolution process for Wikipedia. I suggest you do a search for it on Google or visit the admin noticeboard to ask for general assistance or for a link to the process. Lastly, I'd like to say that if you can't play nicely, then don't play at all. Even if you have expertise, you still might be writing from a one-sided POV (like that's never happened before to an academic!), in which case you seriously need to start asking whether your goals and Wikipedia's goals are mutually compatible.
I spent a good deal of time in research on various articles, and in next to know time I was a respected editor. I also spent some time on the site, but I'd say at one point more time on research than on the site itself.
I might also point out that many footnotes does not make a clear or well written article, though it does show a lot of effort. If you don't believe me, try reading The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, or any work by David Irvine.
... did you follow through with Fair Trading? If you did not, then you should have. Fair trading would have viewed your case favourably and most likely made Maxwell or the retailer who sold you the camera replace it.
Secondly, I find it interesting that Canon used to market their products that they have replacable print heads, and now have reversed this and count their print head as a servicable item. Epson, at least, have always stated it's a servicable item and never tried to cover this up.
It occurs to me (from talking to others) that Larry's authority was under question not because he was "encouraging" editors to have good conduct, but because he had intractible positions on most things.
I was an admin on Wikipedia for quite a while, and I largely succeeded because I:
1. Listened to people 2. Took action against people I felt were causing problems 3. Followed the procedures as best I could, however sometimes I bypassed them - I made sure I didn't do this often 4. When I made a mistake, I acknowledged it and took action to correct it (whether this be a public apology - this was always tough - or by unblocking, or by holding firm but be willing to accept the consequences).
Larry, from what I understand, often held intractible views and did not hold towards a neutral point of view. Consequently, he seems to have been disappointed in the project, and been a pretty controversial participant in Wikipedia. The subpage deletion episode he detailed in this slashdot piece just confirms my opinion.
But you fail to see that those developers won't develop using FireFox, they'll just keep using Internet Explorer, as it clearly satisfies their needs. Those same developers also won't develop ActiveX for FireFox, because they won't see why they should do this.
Corporations have often built functionality around ActiveX. They need to migrate existing functions to the new products they are trialing or integrating into their systems. Not everyone can do a straight cut over you know.
... however, your comment about FireFox not adopting ActiveX, I would put to you, is actually not a good thing. Many, many Microsoft software developers are exploiting this, and without ActiveX compatibility they aren't going to migrate to FireFox very quickly (if at all).
On a side note: this is sort of like Word and Excel macros and OpenOffice.org. Without them, Oo.org is missing quite a few companies.
... exactly how many truckers need WiFi access to get information about the local tourist attractions? And wouldn't most people have a guidebook or a map - or even a GPS device? Why do they need Internet access?!?
Hey, it takes two to tango. It was your government that insisted on getting us to change our law. We are also to blame, for not opposing this. However, your govt. is equally to blame.
You're kidding, right? Have they done development on the Linux kernel? Did they open source Java? Probably the best thing I can think of is OpenOffice.org, but even here they are starting to make people rely more and more on Java.
Microsoft is seen as a low risk proposition. KDE/GNOME/etc are unknown quantities. If you mess up a known quantity, then that's OK because there are known ways of resolving that problem. If you mess up the unknown quantity, people will get scared because they don't know how to resolve the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I talked all about the editorial review process controversy in all my comments (which is the reason 172 left, mores the pity). Uh, I don't think so! Funny, really, how I've never even introduced this concept into ANY of my comments in this thread. Please don't put words in my mouth.
You seem to be trying to make this into a competition on who has the most references. More references do not necessarily make a better article (though it's a good indication of good intent to research an article). Experts can be biased, and Wikipedia attempts to write from a neutral point of view, with neutral language. I've stated my position on this, if English is not your first language and you can't follow what I've been trying to say, I can't help this!
... considering that I'm actually finding it extremely hard to understand what you are writing (is English your first language), and you seem to going off on tangents and talking at cross purposes with me, I don't know how to respond.
The example I gave is not "made-up". It exists, and if you actually bothered to look up Arab Israeli conflict, you'd see what I mean.
Gah!!! I never said he was biased! All I said was that just because you have references does not make a good article!!!!! Your entire argument is based on the fact that he is an "expert" and that he gives lots of references, and that based on one dispute on Wikipedia you think the whole project is rubbish. That's what I was responding to, I never said that your friend wrote rubbish! In fact, I never said whether one side or the other was wrong or right. I merely poked some holes in your sweeping assertions about Wikipedia.
How can one person misunderstand oh so much? Sheesh.
And? I've never stated whether his work is good or not, or whether the other party was being obstructionist (I came across both types of people in my time on Wikipedia). Quite probably your friends work is very good, but that wasn't my point! My point was that just because he cites many sources does not make a good article. I could edit a Arab-Israeli conflict article and cite hundreds of sources coming from one viewpoint and make the article balanced towards the POV of one side: this would make it an article with lots of research and effort, but it would make it a bad article nonetheless. I think that until you understand this, you won't understand Wikipedia.
You called me an idiot, I think this really says it all. I've got better things to do than be insulted by an AC on slashdot!
Sorry, but I'm finding it hard to parse what you are saying here. Could you rewrite this in standard English?
As you point out, my example articles are not about political issues (well, not strictly true, if you look at the Strathfield article... but let's forget this for this argument). Yet, "the two stubs he wrote are much better researched than all your articles combined." Ever heard the English expression, "comparing apples with oranges"?
I don't think you've thought things out very well...
So in other words, experts can never make mistakes and are never biased. I find that an interesting take, and wish you all the best in your future endeavours.
Just for the record, my username was Ta bu shi da yu, and I wrote:
* Exploding whale
* Btrieve
* CUPS, and
* Municipality of Strathfield
(amongst many, many others).
You are correct, however. I did not follow the example (though I could have). I didn't need to, because I wasn't referring to just that example. What I was responding to was the following:
I pointed out that references by themselves do not make a good article. You said that those who don't do research take over articles and that those who do research don't get recognised. I showed you that this is incorrect. You stated that, based on one article dispute, the whole project is a joke.
You stated that "The mods will castigate for exceeding the revert rule; tell you to work things out with the ignorant editor and that "assuming good faith and NPOV you can make a better article together", a joke to say the least." - there is a dispute resolution process for Wikipedia. I suggest you do a search for it on Google or visit the admin noticeboard to ask for general assistance or for a link to the process. Lastly, I'd like to say that if you can't play nicely, then don't play at all. Even if you have expertise, you still might be writing from a one-sided POV (like that's never happened before to an academic!), in which case you seriously need to start asking whether your goals and Wikipedia's goals are mutually compatible.
I spent a good deal of time in research on various articles, and in next to know time I was a respected editor. I also spent some time on the site, but I'd say at one point more time on research than on the site itself.
I might also point out that many footnotes does not make a clear or well written article, though it does show a lot of effort. If you don't believe me, try reading The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, or any work by David Irvine.
Wikipedia should be an unbiased source already.
... did you follow through with Fair Trading? If you did not, then you should have. Fair trading would have viewed your case favourably and most likely made Maxwell or the retailer who sold you the camera replace it.
Secondly, I find it interesting that Canon used to market their products that they have replacable print heads, and now have reversed this and count their print head as a servicable item. Epson, at least, have always stated it's a servicable item and never tried to cover this up.
It occurs to me (from talking to others) that Larry's authority was under question not because he was "encouraging" editors to have good conduct, but because he had intractible positions on most things.
I was an admin on Wikipedia for quite a while, and I largely succeeded because I:
1. Listened to people
2. Took action against people I felt were causing problems
3. Followed the procedures as best I could, however sometimes I bypassed them - I made sure I didn't do this often
4. When I made a mistake, I acknowledged it and took action to correct it (whether this be a public apology - this was always tough - or by unblocking, or by holding firm but be willing to accept the consequences).
Larry, from what I understand, often held intractible views and did not hold towards a neutral point of view. Consequently, he seems to have been disappointed in the project, and been a pretty controversial participant in Wikipedia. The subpage deletion episode he detailed in this slashdot piece just confirms my opinion.
But you fail to see that those developers won't develop using FireFox, they'll just keep using Internet Explorer, as it clearly satisfies their needs. Those same developers also won't develop ActiveX for FireFox, because they won't see why they should do this.
Corporations have often built functionality around ActiveX. They need to migrate existing functions to the new products they are trialing or integrating into their systems. Not everyone can do a straight cut over you know.
... however, your comment about FireFox not adopting ActiveX, I would put to you, is actually not a good thing. Many, many Microsoft software developers are exploiting this, and without ActiveX compatibility they aren't going to migrate to FireFox very quickly (if at all).
On a side note: this is sort of like Word and Excel macros and OpenOffice.org. Without them, Oo.org is missing quite a few companies.
... exactly how many truckers need WiFi access to get information about the local tourist attractions? And wouldn't most people have a guidebook or a map - or even a GPS device? Why do they need Internet access?!?
Why, exactly, are truckers, campers, etc getting free pr0n^H^H^H^H wifi access?
If you are an 800 pound gorilla who gives me some "encouragement" by pushing me off the cliff, then yeah, you bear responsibility. HTH.
Hey, it takes two to tango. It was your government that insisted on getting us to change our law. We are also to blame, for not opposing this. However, your govt. is equally to blame.
My cynicism (excuse me?) comes from the fact that the U.S. screwed us over with a "free trade" agreement that basically reduced our freedoms.
You can shut up about me believing in Australia now, as you are evidently wrong and (to put it bluntly) ignorant.
In Australia it now is, we are not allowed to create any copy protection circumvention mechanisms. To all you Americans: thanks for nothing.
You're kidding, right? Have they done development on the Linux kernel? Did they open source Java? Probably the best thing I can think of is OpenOffice.org, but even here they are starting to make people rely more and more on Java.
Microsoft is seen as a low risk proposition. KDE/GNOME/etc are unknown quantities. If you mess up a known quantity, then that's OK because there are known ways of resolving that problem. If you mess up the unknown quantity, people will get scared because they don't know how to resolve the problem.
It's all about fear of the unknown folks.