I think you should go back through - they've become very good at culling crap about anime and the like as a secondarly consequence of the push for citations. (Primary sources are devalued. It's hard to have an article about a Pokemon where the only discussion of it is the game it appears in.) However "X is less notable than Y, and X is still there!" is not a persuasive argument for keeping Y or deleting X. The whole issue has to be addressed.
The review itself cited some good sources. Edge magazine, which is pushing 20 years old itself, has extolled the site's historical relevance. The bother is that the admin in question judged those arguments as unacceptable. It should do better at deletion review, assuming it's been passed there.
A "shadow-wikipedia" isn't a good solution. It's about a notch below just putting up a specific wiki for the subject in question. Which solves the issue of having a project you want to work on, but it doesn't make Wikipedia any better. I think the answer is to have a better deletion appeals and article recovery system. Right now an article that's on the brink of falling into the deletion hole is a lot easier to fix than an article which has gone into the hole. It's like an event horizon. The way it should work is that you would happen across a subject and see that the article on it was deleted, could quite easily use your expertise to boost it back up to a level the admins found acceptable, and then easily have it flagged for an undeletion review.
Actually it's the opinion of the concensus of contributors who bother to contribute to deletion discussions. Which is just such a small group, in numbers and experience. The key to solving this is appreciating that Wikipedia is not a machine where you put in good information and get out the encyclopedia you want to see, it's about actually dealing with human beings on a large-scale collaborative project which has differences of opinion. Wikipedia needs more internal bickering, not snide remarks on the outside. You, you reading this, are the potential source of that bickering.
Rumour has it that they intend to introduce a model like that as a premium device in September, as part of a transition to doing iPad launches closer to the holiday season.
They had a segment about Kinect hacking on Science Friday last November. One of the researchers complained that the Wii Remote had become a ubiquitous tool in some fields because it packed a lot of useful sensors and a wireless connection into a cheap, sturdy gizmo, but Nintendo just weren't interested in supporting them. The MS spokesperson used this as an opportunity to wax lyrical about how they'd deliberately not engineered any barriers to talking with the hardware, and their plans for the research SDK. Whether it's cultural or not, it's obvious that Microsoft's keen to capitalise on it.
Yeah, there's some ambiguity there as to whether they were the licencor or the licencee of the Boop designs in question. In any case it seems that the decision was made on the plaintiffs' inability to demonstrate that they held any copyright over the character at all, with the trademark aspect being a secondary issue.
The ability to communicate one's ideas clearly and succinctly is a greater indicator of wit, intellect and the will to communicate than the length of the sentences one writes. It is better to communcate a set of ideas in two immediately graspable sentences than to graft the same ideas into an elaborate construct which must be decompressed. By analogy it is better for the discourse that one communicates in plaintext than code, even though it is more mentally challenging to use the latter.
The ability to communication one's ideas clearly and succinctly is a greater indicator of wit, intellect and the will to communicate than the length of the sentences one writes. It is better to communcate a set of ideas in two immediately graspable sentences than to graft the same ideas into an elaborate construct which must be decompressed. By analogy it is better for the discourse that one communicates in plaintext than code, even though it is more mentally challenging to use the latter.
If either of those were actually considered in the scientific research on the topic you might have a point, but climate scientists are amoungst the first to throw things at the screen when the news media starts linking record highs and lows with changes in climate.
The trouble is that they're the same questions that they've been answering for a decade. When the novel challenges to the concensus are things like the sun is made of iron, there's probably some pathological scepticism going on.
To be clear, the "lie" in question is a discrepancy in one scientist's account of the origin of a piece of legal advice during an FOI request. It has nothing to do with the science itself.
That depends on whether you're willing to invoke the True Scotsman fallacy. For sufficiently narrow confidence intervals, there is no valid data for anything.
Climate Audit is hardly accurately representing the situation itself (scientists conference call with attorney, misremember who actually gave what advice, are corrected by same attorney). The earth-shattering, agency-destroying advice of the report is:
"Given that federal agencies are legally obligated to publicly disclose records under FOIA, we recommend that NOAA carry out a proper search for the records sought in these FOIA requests and, as appropriate, reassess its response. Additionally, given the issues we identified in NOAA's handling ofthese particular FOIA requests, NOAA should consider whether these issues warrant an overall assessment ofthe sufficiency of its FOIA process.".
I don't know how the US got this meme that knowing your SSN somehow proved your identity. Of course once that meme has developed and companies start using the SSN as a password, people become very protective of their SSNs, and the idea that it's a special number that requires protection becomes self-reinforcing.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you should go back through - they've become very good at culling crap about anime and the like as a secondarly consequence of the push for citations. (Primary sources are devalued. It's hard to have an article about a Pokemon where the only discussion of it is the game it appears in.) However "X is less notable than Y, and X is still there!" is not a persuasive argument for keeping Y or deleting X. The whole issue has to be addressed.
The review itself cited some good sources. Edge magazine, which is pushing 20 years old itself, has extolled the site's historical relevance. The bother is that the admin in question judged those arguments as unacceptable. It should do better at deletion review, assuming it's been passed there.
A "shadow-wikipedia" isn't a good solution. It's about a notch below just putting up a specific wiki for the subject in question. Which solves the issue of having a project you want to work on, but it doesn't make Wikipedia any better. I think the answer is to have a better deletion appeals and article recovery system. Right now an article that's on the brink of falling into the deletion hole is a lot easier to fix than an article which has gone into the hole. It's like an event horizon. The way it should work is that you would happen across a subject and see that the article on it was deleted, could quite easily use your expertise to boost it back up to a level the admins found acceptable, and then easily have it flagged for an undeletion review.
Actually it's the opinion of the concensus of contributors who bother to contribute to deletion discussions. Which is just such a small group, in numbers and experience. The key to solving this is appreciating that Wikipedia is not a machine where you put in good information and get out the encyclopedia you want to see, it's about actually dealing with human beings on a large-scale collaborative project which has differences of opinion. Wikipedia needs more internal bickering, not snide remarks on the outside. You, you reading this, are the potential source of that bickering.
They already have drones so I'm going to guess "not long".
Rumour has it that they intend to introduce a model like that as a premium device in September, as part of a transition to doing iPad launches closer to the holiday season.
As noted below, I'm not sure what data transfer rates have to do with encryption.
They had a segment about Kinect hacking on Science Friday last November. One of the researchers complained that the Wii Remote had become a ubiquitous tool in some fields because it packed a lot of useful sensors and a wireless connection into a cheap, sturdy gizmo, but Nintendo just weren't interested in supporting them. The MS spokesperson used this as an opportunity to wax lyrical about how they'd deliberately not engineered any barriers to talking with the hardware, and their plans for the research SDK. Whether it's cultural or not, it's obvious that Microsoft's keen to capitalise on it.
Yeah, there's some ambiguity there as to whether they were the licencor or the licencee of the Boop designs in question. In any case it seems that the decision was made on the plaintiffs' inability to demonstrate that they held any copyright over the character at all, with the trademark aspect being a secondary issue.
You know if you click the little "check all" checkbox it asks you whether you want to extend the selection to every page of items, right?
The ability to communicate one's ideas clearly and succinctly is a greater indicator of wit, intellect and the will to communicate than the length of the sentences one writes. It is better to communcate a set of ideas in two immediately graspable sentences than to graft the same ideas into an elaborate construct which must be decompressed. By analogy it is better for the discourse that one communicates in plaintext than code, even though it is more mentally challenging to use the latter.
The ability to communication one's ideas clearly and succinctly is a greater indicator of wit, intellect and the will to communicate than the length of the sentences one writes. It is better to communcate a set of ideas in two immediately graspable sentences than to graft the same ideas into an elaborate construct which must be decompressed. By analogy it is better for the discourse that one communicates in plaintext than code, even though it is more mentally challenging to use the latter.
Had the emails been from any other discipline, the accusations would not have been made.
Ah, I've been badly misusing that term then. Thanks.
There's a difference between perjuring oneself, which by definition involves deliberate deception, and simple error.
Right, and his felony conviction was due to looking a bit like a bad person. The man was obviously a saint.
If either of those were actually considered in the scientific research on the topic you might have a point, but climate scientists are amoungst the first to throw things at the screen when the news media starts linking record highs and lows with changes in climate.
The trouble is that they're the same questions that they've been answering for a decade. When the novel challenges to the concensus are things like the sun is made of iron, there's probably some pathological scepticism going on.
To be clear, the "lie" in question is a discrepancy in one scientist's account of the origin of a piece of legal advice during an FOI request. It has nothing to do with the science itself.
That depends on whether you're willing to invoke the True Scotsman fallacy. For sufficiently narrow confidence intervals, there is no valid data for anything.
Climate Audit is hardly accurately representing the situation itself (scientists conference call with attorney, misremember who actually gave what advice, are corrected by same attorney). The earth-shattering, agency-destroying advice of the report is:
"Given that federal agencies are legally obligated to publicly disclose records under FOIA, we recommend that NOAA carry out a proper search for the records sought in these FOIA requests and, as appropriate, reassess its response. Additionally, given the issues we identified in NOAA's handling ofthese particular FOIA requests, NOAA should consider whether these issues warrant an overall assessment ofthe sufficiency of its FOIA process.".
I'll just leave this here.
I'm pretty sure you'd die of asphyxia if you tried to read that opening sentence aloud. Holy run-on sentence, copyeditman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games#Australia
It would have to be "Your kids' SSNs", given that each child only has one SSN. "Your kid's SSN" is perfectly valid for the singular.
I don't know how the US got this meme that knowing your SSN somehow proved your identity. Of course once that meme has developed and companies start using the SSN as a password, people become very protective of their SSNs, and the idea that it's a special number that requires protection becomes self-reinforcing.