I've racked up over 10,000 edits last I checked. You'll notice that information is from December, 2004.
I might note though, that (almost) every one of those Wikipedians deserved to be credited. They really are the cream of the crop. Especially Daniel Mayer and David Gerard.
I say almost because Derek Ramsey (Ram-man) generated lots of useless and inaccurate stubs with his Rambot. He single handedly ruined the "Random page" link.
I had an idea for this the other day. Impractical as it may be please hear me out! Basically, what you do is make a product that is extensible (ala Firefox). Have a mechanism where you can build a file sharing mechanism into it that is totally decentralised (like Gnutella). Make your products so componentised and extensible that every bit of functionality can be installed with a click of a button (like firefoxes extensions). However, the catch is that the click of the button compiles the module from source. Then, make the components that have patents on them and test them, release them as an extension and never note who created the product, then release this into the Gnutella style file sharing network. Hook up the extension manager to the Gnutella network and have people download the extensions and also share it (you'd need a way of making them share extensions).
Why is this a good idea? Two reasons:
1. The packages are all in source code. Anyone with knowledge can find bugs and release it as a different package after fixing the bugs. 2. Once in the file sharing network, companies would find it impossible to track down the original author. Hence they can't sue them. If you have 20 million users, then they would have to sue each of the 20 millions users. They couldn't sue the original author of the highly extensible software package that brings it all together because they haven't done anything wrong. And they don't provide a service where people upload their files to a centralised file server.
There are some challenges here:
1. a revision control system that could work over a distributed network. A distributed and decentralised CVS would be needed, if you will. This would be needed because otherwise you'd never know which revision to download (no revision numbers would work). 2. the data would need to go over a well known port that isn't easy to block, like port 80. Otherwise network admins would work out ways of stopping this data from getting around the Internet. 3. A way of signing code to make sure it isn't malicious and won't break underlying systems (like delete files, etc). I see that you would need some sort of sandbox to run it in. Don't know how you'd get around that one.
Anyway, that's my random thought. Seems wacky to me, and probably not doable: but imagine if it could be done? Say bye bye software patents! Basically, it would change the very face of the industry: if software patents are published fully and people can write extensions for existing software, but these extensions are dispersed widely and in source code where fixes and enhancements could be made anonymously: well, how are you going to enforce software patents?
The only ones who couldn't do these types of things are corporations, as they can't be seen to do dodgy or illegal things. Even then they may still be able to use patented software, as they haven't done anything wrong! But it would be a boon for consumers.
That's exactly what I want to see in Wikipedia! I do not subscribe to Islamic beliefs, but imagine my suprise to find an inaccurate and biased article on Jihad. I read that article because I wanted to understand what Jihad is, and why it is done, and how it is justified. I was not interested so much in why it was wrong: I wanted an explanation of what it is! Perhaps having criticisms incorporated into the article, but having a POV screed was not helpful.
It seems that my experience of Jihad was similar to your experience of the Evolution article. It took a long battle to at least try to resolve this. At one point I had to block the POV pusher for personal attacks! It appears that this is Wikipedia's greatest challenge: how to deal with those pushing their POV on others to the exclusion of all else.
This will probably be lost in all the comments, but has anyone realised that ink actually has an expiry date? Think about that ink clogging up waste ink tubes, etc. Maybe it could be a good thing?
Noone owns the articles. Everyone can edit them, that's how articles start to gain a neutral point of view!
As an admin on that site, the only reason I've EVER seen for a page to get locked is continuous reversions of content and out of control vandalism. After about 24-36 hours most get unlocked. The whole point behind locking a page is to take the heat out of an argument and force people to the discussion page. That often includes regular contributors. So noone "owns" the articles. If they did then the system just wouldn't work.
Heck, I would have chosen "There's simply no other mechanism for solving this sort of problem other than everyone giving up on unsigned SMTP, and since too many people aren't willing to do that, the only alternative is to simply packet-spam the spammers into oblivion. I say, let their routers burn."
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
I've racked up over 10,000 edits last I checked. You'll notice that information is from December, 2004.
I might note though, that (almost) every one of those Wikipedians deserved to be credited. They really are the cream of the crop. Especially Daniel Mayer and David Gerard.
I say almost because Derek Ramsey (Ram-man) generated lots of useless and inaccurate stubs with his Rambot. He single handedly ruined the "Random page" link.
Love your work.
Hey. Maybe I'm feeling a little humour impaired today, but isn't that the point? :P
I had an idea for this the other day. Impractical as it may be please hear me out! Basically, what you do is make a product that is extensible (ala Firefox). Have a mechanism where you can build a file sharing mechanism into it that is totally decentralised (like Gnutella). Make your products so componentised and extensible that every bit of functionality can be installed with a click of a button (like firefoxes extensions). However, the catch is that the click of the button compiles the module from source. Then, make the components that have patents on them and test them, release them as an extension and never note who created the product, then release this into the Gnutella style file sharing network. Hook up the extension manager to the Gnutella network and have people download the extensions and also share it (you'd need a way of making them share extensions).
Why is this a good idea? Two reasons:
1. The packages are all in source code. Anyone with knowledge can find bugs and release it as a different package after fixing the bugs.
2. Once in the file sharing network, companies would find it impossible to track down the original author. Hence they can't sue them. If you have 20 million users, then they would have to sue each of the 20 millions users. They couldn't sue the original author of the highly extensible software package that brings it all together because they haven't done anything wrong. And they don't provide a service where people upload their files to a centralised file server.
There are some challenges here:
1. a revision control system that could work over a distributed network. A distributed and decentralised CVS would be needed, if you will. This would be needed because otherwise you'd never know which revision to download (no revision numbers would work).
2. the data would need to go over a well known port that isn't easy to block, like port 80. Otherwise network admins would work out ways of stopping this data from getting around the Internet.
3. A way of signing code to make sure it isn't malicious and won't break underlying systems (like delete files, etc). I see that you would need some sort of sandbox to run it in. Don't know how you'd get around that one.
Anyway, that's my random thought. Seems wacky to me, and probably not doable: but imagine if it could be done? Say bye bye software patents! Basically, it would change the very face of the industry: if software patents are published fully and people can write extensions for existing software, but these extensions are dispersed widely and in source code where fixes and enhancements could be made anonymously: well, how are you going to enforce software patents?
The only ones who couldn't do these types of things are corporations, as they can't be seen to do dodgy or illegal things. Even then they may still be able to use patented software, as they haven't done anything wrong! But it would be a boon for consumers.
That's the best quote I've heard in ages.
That's exactly what I want to see in Wikipedia! I do not subscribe to Islamic beliefs, but imagine my suprise to find an inaccurate and biased article on Jihad. I read that article because I wanted to understand what Jihad is, and why it is done, and how it is justified. I was not interested so much in why it was wrong: I wanted an explanation of what it is! Perhaps having criticisms incorporated into the article, but having a POV screed was not helpful.
It seems that my experience of Jihad was similar to your experience of the Evolution article. It took a long battle to at least try to resolve this. At one point I had to block the POV pusher for personal attacks! It appears that this is Wikipedia's greatest challenge: how to deal with those pushing their POV on others to the exclusion of all else.
You post to Slashdot, and you're concerned with a waste of resources? Bwahaha!!
This will probably be lost in all the comments, but has anyone realised that ink actually has an expiry date? Think about that ink clogging up waste ink tubes, etc. Maybe it could be a good thing?
Could have something to do with the way that Microsoft uses LDAP and Kerberos in their domain setups. The two are different things through.
Moderators on slashdot are idiots.
Seriously, don't you assume that with every source you read?
See Arab-Israeli conflict, which pretty much does this.
You'd be a brave man to bring it up, because the site is fundamentally different to Slashdot. You'd get shot down pretty quickly.
Yeah? Check out unusual articles. That's pretty funny.
Interesting use of the apostrophe.
Noone owns the articles. Everyone can edit them, that's how articles start to gain a neutral point of view!
As an admin on that site, the only reason I've EVER seen for a page to get locked is continuous reversions of content and out of control vandalism. After about 24-36 hours most get unlocked. The whole point behind locking a page is to take the heat out of an argument and force people to the discussion page. That often includes regular contributors. So noone "owns" the articles. If they did then the system just wouldn't work.
Guess you haven't read Childlove movement!
Anyway, there are those who are still trying to get rid of the GNAA article. Yet it can't be done.
No, they get hammered for not implementing standards totally also.
Heck, I would have chosen "There's simply no other mechanism for solving this sort of problem other than everyone giving up on unsigned SMTP, and since too many people aren't willing to do that, the only alternative is to simply packet-spam the spammers into oblivion. I say, let their routers burn."
Can anyone say "children overboard affair"? Don't speak so soon.
Don't you like reading about exploding whales?
Funnily enough, I've started a page that tries to more local Sydney content: WikiProject Sydney.
Gah. How the hell did Real Troll Talk get rated up like that? Well done, idiot moderators.
n/t