Indeed, it has been known to worsen the average quality of the product, flooding the arena with crap. We've seen this happen with email: when distributing a company-wide memo required much more effort than clicking 'send', my day was unlikely to be wasted reading about someone's free kittens.
Ah--making it easier for a single idiot to make uneditable changes can be bad. But the Wikipedia model works because:
It is more likely the perspicacious readers will be the ones who bother to submit corrections.
No change is uneditable. Though there is no way for you to retroactively cancel the annoying email you received, one can edit or revert wiki pages.
Crowds are often smarter than individuals (see this post for the relevant reference, though I'd be happy to note case studies).
The harsh truth is that most submissions start off worse then mediocre
I'd challenge this. Many start off with a lot of room for improvement, but they are usually started by people who do have an interest in (and therefore hopefull some knowledge of) the subject. The quality of the first revision of an article is nearly always significantly better than if a random monkey was selected to write an article on a random topic.
I suspect that whatever than mechanism is, it will involve raising barriers to accepting corrections, not lowering them.
If we agree that the editing process generally improves the entries, I think you are placing the barrier in the wrong place. At the very least, any change for the detriment of the article will be reversed!
If you think that the articles start off bad, you should be arguing that there should be a higher barrier for that initial submission. This is a fairly weak argument, though. As I noted, there is virtual barrier that the first author be familiar with what he writes about. If some expert is able to write a better entry, he may either revise that first entry or even replace it entirely.
There is some threat that "junk" could scare off the most helpful or informed contributors: That the content was so bad that any self-respecting expert would throw up their hands & call the endeavor "hopeless." Though Robert McHenry apparently feels this way, I don't think "everyone else" agrees with him: As "bad" as the Wikipedia is now, people are still making great contributions to make it better. I think that this process will eventually be able to produce quality that will attract even the nay-sayers to help it out.
Most readers/users of any product are not going to give a crap about contributing to that product
Perhaps, but some do. This is how corrections are made to most publications. Astute readers can and do contact the author and the publisher. Anyone who has published a well-read book, article, or even blog should have firsthand experience of this process. The OED and other books would not be what they are today without the William Chester Minors of the world!
The reason why theWikipedia model for revisions is better is that it lowers the effort required to submit corrections.
I will grant that perhaps the model for authorship could be improved. For example, it would be nice if the Wikipedia also proactively sought out high-profile experts to make original contributions.
But the Wikipedia does fundamentally have better promise to evolve into something grander.
Granted. Perhaps I should have said "aren't doing any more harm than errorsin traditional encyclopedias." Unless you can somehow assert that a higher ratio of EB readers are "experts," this would be the case. The correction of errors in any publication ultimately relies on readers. Hence my caveat: The same has been said for mistakes in traditional encyclopedias that have survived through several editions.
Essays in the Brittanica are reviewed for style and content,
So are the wikipedia entries--they're just published first.;-)
signed by their authors
Thoughtful Wikipedia contributors log in and have personal pages. You can see where else they've contributed. It would be nice if the articles could actually be cryptographically signed.
The EB has been many things in it's 200+ years of existence, but a haven for mediocrity, a "democratic" consensus, it is not.
Perfectit isnot. To be fair, Wikipedia isn't really a "haven for mediocrity either:" the more informed and better written edits will win out. Nor is a democratic consensus bad, according to The Wisdom of Crowds (see the December 2004 issue of Scientific American for a nice one page review--unfortunately it isn't yet online).
But my point wasn't that the EB isn't any good--it is. It is just silly to point out flaws in the Wikipedia when the EB contains a different set of flaws. Using either as your only source of facts is a sign of laziness or ignorance. "Encyclopedic" means embracing several subjects, not being accurate, authoritative, definitive, and perfect!
It doesn't matter if Wikipedia "can be" corrected immediately, if, in practice, it is corrected more slowly than a traditional encyclopedia, or not corrected at all.
I doubt this is the case, especially for scientific and technical articles. What mistakes have stayed in the Wikipedia for a year?
Many corrections to traditional encyclopedias come from user-submitted letters. If certain articles in traditional encyclopedias are updated more frequently than the Wikipedia, I would suspect that it is because those traditional articles are read by a greater number of knowledgeable people than their wikipedia counterparts. If more people read the wikipedia for these topics, it would surely improve.
This lack of readership would seem to indicate that mistakes in the Wikipedia don't really matter that much--the only reason they aren't being corrected is that they aren't being read, which means they aren't doing harm. The same has been said for mistakes in traditional encyclopedias that have survived through several editions.
I use wikipedia as well, but just to get a starting point on a subject I know little about.
That's the same why I'd use any encyclopedia. There has been eratta in the EB too! And it used to only be corrected with the next edition the following year (I don't know if they've improved). The nice thing about wikipedia is that it can be corrected immediately & readers can review the editing process by glancing through past revisions and/or the talkback pages.
Wikipedia is the most biased "reference" source out there. The Karl Rove ariticle basically made him out to be a reincarnated Goebbels.
Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. This isn't always perfect, but there are policies in place to prevent extremist viewpoints. If you have a problem with the POV in an article, edit it! Make a comment on the talk-back page! The only reason that some views are much more biased than the views of the average wikipedia reader is a combination of apathy, laziness, or the lack of a sufficient number of readers who would "equilibrate" the article.
You are correct on the source of a lot of bottled water, but you inaccurately assume that it is the same as tapwater. It might be if you live in the municpal water plant, but a lot of water has to flow through a lot of pipe, including rather old and dirty pipes in very old buildings (some still use lead!). The municipal water is often cleaner than bottled water, but by the time it gets to your tap, it is a tough call. A cheaper and more efficient way to solve this would be to use a filter after the municipal supply gets to you.
Sure 'evian' spells 'naive' backwards & I'm sure you just feel so smug to turn up your nose because you know that, but they're not idiots: they make lots of money bottling water and selling it.
Similarly, not everyone who uses their product (or, more likely, a less expensive alternative) is an idiot either. You shouldn't judge them unless you've measured the water quality at their tap.
My offer to help is genuine. I'm not sure if I want to shoulder the lead on this by myself, but I may have to if no one else sees the need or volunteers.
http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html
In teresting case. While they had every right to include the BSD-licensed code in a GPL-licensed suite, they failed to meet obligations of the BSD license. They should correct this, but this kind of "in-fighting" isn't really what I'm most concerned with. It may be important, but I am much more concerned with violators who aren't part of the F/OSS community.
homosexuality is not moral, good, right, or equal. it is a deviation.
Note that I still haven't spoke of the morality of homosexuality and have not made an argument why you should accept homosexuals, just as I haven't declared homosexuality a sin. I've only discussed the legal rights of homosexuals. Alcoholism isn't moral, good, right, or equal. But evan alcoholics can form unions for rights under the law.
The argument "but we're just born this way," can be equally applied to paedophiles.
Note also that I've reserved judgement on whether it is nature vs. nurture vs. choice that determines are predilections. However pedophiles can never be defended as homosexuality can be defended: they prey on those who can't give legal consent. The same is true of rapists.
someone cannot just stop being black (except michael jackson), however one can choose not to do gayness.
See analogy to alcoholism. People can choose not to drink. But that doesn't mean they have any fewer rights if they don't pose a tangible threat to the public (such as throgh driving while intoxicated).
in order to give in to base animal passion which has no chance of reproduction, which not only was God's "first commandment" (go forth and multiply), it is also the reason for sex.
Sexless marriage and sex for purposes other than reproduction are legally permissable.
It will merely contribute to the spread of aids
While homosexual sex is potentially a health risk, so are many other practices. Heterosexual sex spreads STDs as well!
and the decline in birthrate.
Something I would fully support. God didn't say how much we should multiply & there is tangible evidence that excess population growth is harmful. In any case, no it won't--unless you propose to require to make sure 100% of the population engaged in heterosexual sex, you can't suppor that gay people would have children if they were denied the right to be with members of the same sex. These previous two points were the only points you brought up that are concerns of the State. And they don't support your premise.
It is a subversive, unpatriotic practice, unclean, and wicked.
No. As it is not currently illegal, it isn't in opposition to the law, so is not subversive. As loving your country has nothing to do with your sexual habits, it is not unpatriotic. Neither is pedophilia. Something can be leggally or morally wrong without being nearly treasonous.
Finally, not all that is morally wrong is legally wrong.
People disagree with what is morally wrong. They not only disagree as to what the:Laws of God are, but they disagree as to who that God is or if he even exists. If you are Christian, would you outlaw hinduism or islam or atheism in the US? These are practiced by choice & yet would be counter to your faith.
The US separates Church and State. None of the arguments that you've provided have supported the State ban of homosexual practices. While such practices remain legal under the laws of this country, those who practice them should be entitled to equal rights.
Under my wish to have the State only recongnize civil unions, homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights as others who choose to cohabitate and share their legal, financial, and personal affairs.
You can argue all you want with your Church over whether they should allow same-sex couples to marry under your God, The US has a responsibility to keep out of that argument
If you'd like to argue law, which is what I've been talking about, rather than (mostly faith-based) morals, feel free to start at anytime.
it takes no time at all to contact the copyright holder in most cases. It is also better if they fight their own battles, especially in court. It would benefit both the copyright holder and you if you team up to handle the violation. You can share legal expenses, public relations duties, etc.
If the copyright holder doesn't know what to do, direct them to this story for now.
Someone should really setup a site which helps handle GPL violations by directing copyright holders to the right legal people & offers advice for how to handle violations. A database or wiki could also be setup to record alleged GPL violations & how they were resolved. IIRC, the mplayer project keeps some information on GPL violations on their website. Many were resolved & their site records this.
I'd be happy to help with such a project with my time and content.
Sorry for making the assumption that you were taking that position.
No problem. Thanks for your interesting arguments.
I think the gay marriage issue is less about tolerance and more about acceptance. There is a difference. I tolerate the fact that you have a different opinion than I do but that doesn't mean I accept your opinion as right.
This is interesting. Since gay marriages couldn't be granted in the states, I saw the measure as preemptive and/or an act of intolerance to those who had been married by other states. The states who instituted the ban don't even recognize marriage licenses from out-of-state being signs of a civil union. Thus, gay couples living in those states did lose rights (spousal priviledge, right to visitation in hospitals, inheritance, etc., etc.) they had prior to the bans.
Legally, a homosexual has just as many rights as a heterosexual. Moreover, given the fact that hate crime legislation is only enforced for minorities, one could say they have MORE rights than heterosexuals.
Well, homosexual couples don't have the same rights as legally married heterosexual couples. No proposed civil unions would grant them the same rights: all are at the state level, some define limitations to the rights (though some states propose to handle it exaclty as marriages). Under all current propositions, they wouldn't be given the same rights and responsibilities at the federal level.
challenging of definition of the institution known as "marriage" instead of pursuing other avenues such as civil unions.
Well, they've changed my mind, but probably not in the way you or most others believe. Very few of those who were for the bans that I talked to were against same-sex couples having the same legal rights as granted by marriage. Almost universally, their arguments were based on some other conotation about "marriage," usually (but not always) springing from their faith. Because of this, I now thing the State should have nothing to do with marriage at all. There should only be "civil unions" All currently married couples should be recognized as being in such a union, which shouldn't be denied based on race, religion, sexual preference, etc. Rather than getting a marriage license, people should get a license for a civil union. Churches and other such organizations should be able to grant marriages using whatever guidelines they see fit, just as they dictate diet, ceremony, and moral (rather than legal) behavior in ways they see fit.
I would say that the gay marriage issue is a perfect example of the ideological intolerance that politically-correct politics creates. For instance, look at how those who oppose gay marriage are portrayed. They're backwater bigots or bible-thumping zealots rather than people with different opinions.
I agree with your point entirely. It often swings the other way as well. I've been called a "Godless fag" (though I'm a religious heterosexual) and a leftist queer-lover who doesn't share the morals or understand the arguments of the rest of the country. It is always refreshing to hear people who disagree who don't resort to name-calling.
Regardless of your opinion on the morality of homosexuality, the fact that some animals engage in homosexual behavior is not a good basis for the argument that humans should too.
I didn't say it was. The original post said that there was no homosexual sex outside of homo sapiens. This simply isn't true.
By your logic, should we humans do these things too?
What logic? I said there were arguments against us doing what animals did. I refuted the poster's FACTS (to say that there is homosexual sex in the animal kingdom), but reserved a value judgement on homosexuality. If you can construe an argument for homosexuality in my post, please tell me how! Conversely, if you can defend intolerance or bigotry of any group of people in anyway, let me know that too. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't you "hate the sin and love the sinner?"
and want karma, just steal it from the previous thread which discusses this article.
oops--cynical mode off. If you are interested in the article, please seach through the above thread for other interesting comments & so that your own comments can be even more interesting or insightful
Actually, there was a large push to get out the older people vote, and it's no conspiracy. It just wasn't orchestrated (directly) by the RNC.
However, if you went to church regularly before the election, church leaders were very much encouraging their congregations to get out and vote.
Well, this didn't occur at my Church, but I am aware of this happening. But there was also a push for young people to get out and vote. If you went to a college campus, I'd imagine you would get encouragement to vote against it.
I'm not saying it wasn't a volatile and partisan issue--just that I've seen no evidence that conservatives in favor of the ban outweigh the liberals against the ban & don't think we'll ever see evidence that there was a causal link of having that measure on ballots and having more Bush turnout.
You don't see cats and dogs screwing their own sex.
Yes, actually: there are animals other than man who are homosexual. Zealots brush off this evidence with comments such as "but they don't have souls" or say that leprosy isn't "right" or "normal," even if it is a natural occurance. Of course neither argument is able to defend intolerance to animals, lepers, or gay people.
So continue believing what you will, as long as you strive for education and compassion.
OK. First of all: I was against the ammendments & didn't vote for Bush (though I'm not gay and am an independent who has voted for republicans & did vote for some in the last election).
I haven't heard Rove or anyone else say that the ammendments were planned in order not to outlaw gay marriage, but to elect Bush. Please provide such evidence. I grant you that it is no secret that many for Bush were in favor of the ammendments, but correlation doesn't mean causation. And I've heard none try to claim that Bush, Rove, the RNC, or the citizens who voted for these ammendments aren't genuinely in support of them.
Also: I am skeptical that this would cause voters to come out of the woodwork in order to vote for Bush, especially in moderately liberal states such as Oregon. Why didn't the ammendment cause sympathetic liberals to show up in larger numbers too? I would have predicted this to be more likely, especially as the turnout for youth voters and other demographics who would be more inclined to be against the ammendment & against Bush & who often don't vote would showup in outrage of the ammendment.
The sad truth is that people are just less tolerant and more close-minded abouit marriage than either you or I would like to admit. But there is a very long way to go to try to prove the theory.
Paperless is a major concern, but not the only one. The largest target for fraud are the tally-machines, rather than individual booths. Hopefully, the limited ability to audit individual machines will also come to light.
and they all said the same thing as this article: more people voted across the board. Even though the number of youth voters increased, it is still an embarrasment! There was a huge push to get the youth to vote & no such push for older people (conspiracy theories regarding gay marriage ammendments aside). Yet obviously that push didn't do much!
It was the final poll numbers compared with the actual results. I thought that some polling agencies actually reported the estimated deviation as soon as the polls had closed. This was usually a few percent. I think you're right that early voting could skewthe results.
Well, we will find out at Nader's (well the supporters who donate money to him) cost.
If they results and polls differ by 10%, I would assert the networks should stop paying for them! I would also suggest that perhaps they shouldn't report to the precision that they do and that networks should be much more reluctant to call a state.
Anecdotally: in the past, polls have often had less than a 1% difference. I've very rarely seen a spread greater than 3%. In 2000, the biggest difference was Alaska--by 2.6% (even counting FL).
It would be embarrasing if the error had now increased--they changed the polling because of the closeness of the 2000 election. Polling is now done by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. I don't know if both took polls in all locations. If so, I'm really surprised no one has produced a comparison of those two polls! If one or both companies did screwup & have results with less accuracy, they could be out of work in 2 years!
Slashdot Mirror
- It is more likely the perspicacious readers will be the ones who bother to submit corrections.
- No change is uneditable. Though there is no way for you to retroactively cancel the annoying email you received, one can edit or revert wiki pages.
- Crowds are often smarter than individuals (see this post for the relevant reference, though I'd be happy to note case studies).
I'd challenge this. Many start off with a lot of room for improvement, but they are usually started by people who do have an interest in (and therefore hopefull some knowledge of) the subject. The quality of the first revision of an article is nearly always significantly better than if a random monkey was selected to write an article on a random topic.If we agree that the editing process generally improves the entries, I think you are placing the barrier in the wrong place. At the very least, any change for the detriment of the article will be reversed!If you think that the articles start off bad, you should be arguing that there should be a higher barrier for that initial submission. This is a fairly weak argument, though. As I noted, there is virtual barrier that the first author be familiar with what he writes about. If some expert is able to write a better entry, he may either revise that first entry or even replace it entirely.
There is some threat that "junk" could scare off the most helpful or informed contributors: That the content was so bad that any self-respecting expert would throw up their hands & call the endeavor "hopeless." Though Robert McHenry apparently feels this way, I don't think "everyone else" agrees with him: As "bad" as the Wikipedia is now, people are still making great contributions to make it better. I think that this process will eventually be able to produce quality that will attract even the nay-sayers to help it out.
...who will rid us of the robots?
The reason why theWikipedia model for revisions is better is that it lowers the effort required to submit corrections.
I will grant that perhaps the model for authorship could be improved. For example, it would be nice if the Wikipedia also proactively sought out high-profile experts to make original contributions.
But the Wikipedia does fundamentally have better promise to evolve into something grander.
Granted. Perhaps I should have said "aren't doing any more harm than errorsin traditional encyclopedias." Unless you can somehow assert that a higher ratio of EB readers are "experts," this would be the case. The correction of errors in any publication ultimately relies on readers. Hence my caveat: The same has been said for mistakes in traditional encyclopedias that have survived through several editions.
But my point wasn't that the EB isn't any good--it is. It is just silly to point out flaws in the Wikipedia when the EB contains a different set of flaws. Using either as your only source of facts is a sign of laziness or ignorance. "Encyclopedic" means embracing several subjects, not being accurate, authoritative, definitive, and perfect!
Many corrections to traditional encyclopedias come from user-submitted letters. If certain articles in traditional encyclopedias are updated more frequently than the Wikipedia, I would suspect that it is because those traditional articles are read by a greater number of knowledgeable people than their wikipedia counterparts. If more people read the wikipedia for these topics, it would surely improve.
This lack of readership would seem to indicate that mistakes in the Wikipedia don't really matter that much--the only reason they aren't being corrected is that they aren't being read, which means they aren't doing harm. The same has been said for mistakes in traditional encyclopedias that have survived through several editions.
You are correct on the source of a lot of bottled water, but you inaccurately assume that it is the same as tapwater. It might be if you live in the municpal water plant, but a lot of water has to flow through a lot of pipe, including rather old and dirty pipes in very old buildings (some still use lead!). The municipal water is often cleaner than bottled water, but by the time it gets to your tap, it is a tough call. A cheaper and more efficient way to solve this would be to use a filter after the municipal supply gets to you.
Sure 'evian' spells 'naive' backwards & I'm sure you just feel so smug to turn up your nose because you know that, but they're not idiots: they make lots of money bottling water and selling it.
Similarly, not everyone who uses their product (or, more likely, a less expensive alternative) is an idiot either. You shouldn't judge them unless you've measured the water quality at their tap.
Finally, not all that is morally wrong is legally wrong.
People disagree with what is morally wrong. They not only disagree as to what the
The US separates Church and State. None of the arguments that you've provided have supported the State ban of homosexual practices. While such practices remain legal under the laws of this country, those who practice them should be entitled to equal rights.
Under my wish to have the State only recongnize civil unions, homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights as others who choose to cohabitate and share their legal, financial, and personal affairs.
You can argue all you want with your Church over whether they should allow same-sex couples to marry under your God, The US has a responsibility to keep out of that argument
If you'd like to argue law, which is what I've been talking about, rather than (mostly faith-based) morals, feel free to start at anytime.
it takes no time at all to contact the copyright holder in most cases. It is also better if they fight their own battles, especially in court. It would benefit both the copyright holder and you if you team up to handle the violation. You can share legal expenses, public relations duties, etc.
If the copyright holder doesn't know what to do, direct them to this story for now.
Someone should really setup a site which helps handle GPL violations by directing copyright holders to the right legal people & offers advice for how to handle violations. A database or wiki could also be setup to record alleged GPL violations & how they were resolved. IIRC, the mplayer project keeps some information on GPL violations on their website. Many were resolved & their site records this.
I'd be happy to help with such a project with my time and content.
Please follow this advice: gather what details you can & notify whoever holds the copyright on the GPLed software you believe is being abused.
and want karma, just steal it from the previous thread which discusses this article.
oops--cynical mode off. If you are interested in the article, please seach through the above thread for other interesting comments & so that your own comments can be even more interesting or insightful
I'm not saying it wasn't a volatile and partisan issue--just that I've seen no evidence that conservatives in favor of the ban outweigh the liberals against the ban & don't think we'll ever see evidence that there was a causal link of having that measure on ballots and having more Bush turnout.
So continue believing what you will, as long as you strive for education and compassion.
OK. First of all: I was against the ammendments & didn't vote for Bush (though I'm not gay and am an independent who has voted for republicans & did vote for some in the last election).
I haven't heard Rove or anyone else say that the ammendments were planned in order not to outlaw gay marriage, but to elect Bush. Please provide such evidence. I grant you that it is no secret that many for Bush were in favor of the ammendments, but correlation doesn't mean causation. And I've heard none try to claim that Bush, Rove, the RNC, or the citizens who voted for these ammendments aren't genuinely in support of them.
Also: I am skeptical that this would cause voters to come out of the woodwork in order to vote for Bush, especially in moderately liberal states such as Oregon. Why didn't the ammendment cause sympathetic liberals to show up in larger numbers too? I would have predicted this to be more likely, especially as the turnout for youth voters and other demographics who would be more inclined to be against the ammendment & against Bush & who often don't vote would showup in outrage of the ammendment.
The sad truth is that people are just less tolerant and more close-minded abouit marriage than either you or I would like to admit. But there is a very long way to go to try to prove the theory.
Paperless is a major concern, but not the only one. The largest target for fraud are the tally-machines, rather than individual booths. Hopefully, the limited ability to audit individual machines will also come to light.
and they all said the same thing as this article: more people voted across the board. Even though the number of youth voters increased, it is still an embarrasment! There was a huge push to get the youth to vote & no such push for older people (conspiracy theories regarding gay marriage ammendments aside). Yet obviously that push didn't do much!
It was the final poll numbers compared with the actual results. I thought that some polling agencies actually reported the estimated deviation as soon as the polls had closed. This was usually a few percent. I think you're right that early voting could skewthe results.
Well, we will find out at Nader's (well the supporters who donate money to him) cost.
If they results and polls differ by 10%, I would assert the networks should stop paying for them! I would also suggest that perhaps they shouldn't report to the precision that they do and that networks should be much more reluctant to call a state.
Anecdotally: in the past, polls have often had less than a 1% difference. I've very rarely seen a spread greater than 3%. In 2000, the biggest difference was Alaska--by 2.6% (even counting FL).
It would be embarrasing if the error had now increased--they changed the polling because of the closeness of the 2000 election. Polling is now done by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. I don't know if both took polls in all locations. If so, I'm really surprised no one has produced a comparison of those two polls! If one or both companies did screwup & have results with less accuracy, they could be out of work in 2 years!
Sorry for the hasty typing!