Ah, but the secret is, what reason to we have to believe that what's in that article is true? When the knowledge becomes so esoteric as to have not a single published source describing it, is it really knowledge(that is to say a substantiated belief) and not data? No matter what criteria you use to separate the helpful from the helpful, something will fall into a gray area.
Suppose we have an article on, say, "i kan reed" that suggests he is the legitimate heir to the throne of England. Since no one really knows shit about me, who can contest that fact? Notability from published sources doesn't just establish existence, it provides a means of verification.
{{subst:prod|This comment duplicates thousands of other comments all over the internet}}
But seriously, what constitutes signal, and what constitutes noise is a very complex question that can't really be answered by arbitrarily categorizing people into "deletionists" and "completionists". Some things, like hoaxes, ads, and self-promotion, hinder informed-ness, and some things are really boring and minute, but informative.
I think I can answer that one. 1. Free means free as in speech. It's not necessary to clarify that detail in a title. Anyone interested can read more about wikipedia on wikipedia. 2. Brevity is crucial. Since the title of individual pages is incorporated, it's natural to sacrifice some of the text to squeeze it in.
As an adendum, I think Jimmy Wales has more or less sworn off the work of actually managing wikipedia and its content, and has instead relegated himself as a neutral final arbiter of disputes among people managing the site.
On a more serious note, Wikipedia, quite clearly knocked off Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedias themselves evolved out of a need to catalog the immense amount of knowledge that existed.
What do you imagine to be the technology or concept that will eventually push Wikipedia(as it currently exists) off the throne of general knowledge?
People are constantly posting that they know better than you because you are constantly posting utterly moronic things. Haven't you noticed that it's just you? Stop being a moron.
Yeah, it is, but at the same time, it feels like the legitimate intent of those laws is still doing more harm than good. We could, in theory, be facing a revolution(I don't personally think so because engineering is complicated), and instead we'll get the complete and utter inability to refine the new technology since only one organization is allowed to do so.
I wasn't saying otherwise. I was just saying that in the first world, we have good enough medicine, that non-bacterial problems represent the biggest health concerns.
Again these anonymous "chemicals". You keep telling me to open my eyes, but then flailing wildly in all directions when I ask where to look with, what I assure you, is quite capable vision. You don't understand what you're saying, and worse, you don't understand that you don't understand what you're saying.
DHMO(or as I like to call it, hydrogen hydroxide), is actually an important part of treating heart disease. Sodium chloride was the particular example I was thinking of, so way to steal my thunder, jerkface.
Had to look it up. You're saying something that is statistically associated with lower risk of heart disease as a cause of heart disease. It's actually being considered as a treatment, according to wikipedia. I find the basis for that assertion a little "woo"ish for my tastes, but that's aside the point.
Apparently having a basic understanding of biology, nutrition, and chemistry is "brainwashed". The difference between prosciutto and bacon is how the poor-little-piggy is butchered. You'll find prosciutto with plenty of damned preservative phosphates, basic salting, and antibiotics as common bacon, and you can, in fact, find bacon that is 100% organic with no such treatment.
You're essentially saying here: "No get the filet mignon, it's less toxic than the ribeye, you know, because it's french". There is no logical basis to your beliefs, and if you can cite so much as one "chemical" by name that you honestly believe to be the source of heart disease, I will be utterly surprised.
I certainly can name several, by you'll be surprised at just how natural they are.
Now, I don't have a lot in common with Greenpeace type environmentalism, but I've decided I'm unwilling to dismiss the environmentalist label, just because it's constantly tarred as meaning this kind of rare, bizarre, idealism. Concern with the long term, and net, impact of our productivity is really important from a pragmatic perspective.
If we make adding carbon mass to the atmosphere as expensive as it appears to be to the world as a whole(and cap and trade didn't even propose that much cost), we do ourselves a favor in terms of productivity. What a lack of regulation in this regard does is favors existing power structures. It doesn't represent a positive for our long term GDP growth.
Environmental pragmatism isn't a bad thing, and if you want to see people who favor that approach versus the straw-man of "taking us back to the 1700s", look to the plans proposed by, say, the union of concerned scientists.
No, because he'll end up reading about gas emissions on an editorializing website that supports his preconceived notions. Doing something like pulling up raw data, selecting a date range before looking at the data, and then examining that would be enough to shatter that notion.
Sunspots are trickier, because as far as popular culture is concerned, sunspots are magic.
You know that this is complete and utter garbage, and that people still get old, right? That you're a moron throwing around your ignorance like a giant ill-informed medicine ball?
"Chemicals" doesn't mean anything. You want to talk about specific chemicals and their poorly understood interaction with biology, well, that's just dandy. Like want to talk about metabolization of monosaccharides versus polysaccharides? Be my guest. Want to think that mysterious "chemicals" beyond human comprehension, then you're a goddamn moron.
The number 1 killer in the first world, by a wide margin, is heart disease, caused by aging muscles and blood pressure increases. In the third world, lots of relatively simple, preventable illnesses are a common cause of death.
In fact, I'd say on the whole, big cities have much much much lower corruption per capita. I live in a small city, and we actually have checks and balances, as well as some basic governmental transparency requirements. I never saw a hint of that from the small town I went to K12 in.
Hating Oracle just feels right. All the pointless rage we deliver to Microsoft for terrible, greedy business decisions, plus they kill popular open source projects. It's like being young and in love, except the opposite of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but the secret is, what reason to we have to believe that what's in that article is true? When the knowledge becomes so esoteric as to have not a single published source describing it, is it really knowledge(that is to say a substantiated belief) and not data? No matter what criteria you use to separate the helpful from the helpful, something will fall into a gray area.
Suppose we have an article on, say, "i kan reed" that suggests he is the legitimate heir to the throne of England. Since no one really knows shit about me, who can contest that fact? Notability from published sources doesn't just establish existence, it provides a means of verification.
Do you feel they are a problem? If so, what should be done?
http://milowent.blogspot.com/2011/03/wikipedia-deletionists-delete-article.html
{{subst:prod|This comment duplicates thousands of other comments all over the internet}}
But seriously, what constitutes signal, and what constitutes noise is a very complex question that can't really be answered by arbitrarily categorizing people into "deletionists" and "completionists". Some things, like hoaxes, ads, and self-promotion, hinder informed-ness, and some things are really boring and minute, but informative.
I think I can answer that one.
1. Free means free as in speech. It's not necessary to clarify that detail in a title. Anyone interested can read more about wikipedia on wikipedia.
2. Brevity is crucial. Since the title of individual pages is incorporated, it's natural to sacrifice some of the text to squeeze it in.
As an adendum, I think Jimmy Wales has more or less sworn off the work of actually managing wikipedia and its content, and has instead relegated himself as a neutral final arbiter of disputes among people managing the site.
On a more serious note, Wikipedia, quite clearly knocked off Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedias themselves evolved out of a need to catalog the immense amount of knowledge that existed.
What do you imagine to be the technology or concept that will eventually push Wikipedia(as it currently exists) off the throne of general knowledge?
Nope, I respond because you are a terrible person and should generally be aware of that fact.
There's no cognitive dissonance. You are actively stupid quite consistently, and have reflect zero self-awareness(or awareness of any other sort).
As to being "under my skin" comment, I don't tend to give ticks or mosquitoes much intellectual credibility either, and they are also really annoying.
People are constantly posting that they know better than you because you are constantly posting utterly moronic things. Haven't you noticed that it's just you? Stop being a moron.
Yeah, it is, but at the same time, it feels like the legitimate intent of those laws is still doing more harm than good. We could, in theory, be facing a revolution(I don't personally think so because engineering is complicated), and instead we'll get the complete and utter inability to refine the new technology since only one organization is allowed to do so.
I wasn't saying otherwise. I was just saying that in the first world, we have good enough medicine, that non-bacterial problems represent the biggest health concerns.
Pointing out how terrible something is for you != banning it.
Again these anonymous "chemicals". You keep telling me to open my eyes, but then flailing wildly in all directions when I ask where to look with, what I assure you, is quite capable vision. You don't understand what you're saying, and worse, you don't understand that you don't understand what you're saying.
DHMO(or as I like to call it, hydrogen hydroxide), is actually an important part of treating heart disease. Sodium chloride was the particular example I was thinking of, so way to steal my thunder, jerkface.
Had to look it up. You're saying something that is statistically associated with lower risk of heart disease as a cause of heart disease. It's actually being considered as a treatment, according to wikipedia. I find the basis for that assertion a little "woo"ish for my tastes, but that's aside the point.
Apparently having a basic understanding of biology, nutrition, and chemistry is "brainwashed". The difference between prosciutto and bacon is how the poor-little-piggy is butchered. You'll find prosciutto with plenty of damned preservative phosphates, basic salting, and antibiotics as common bacon, and you can, in fact, find bacon that is 100% organic with no such treatment.
You're essentially saying here: "No get the filet mignon, it's less toxic than the ribeye, you know, because it's french". There is no logical basis to your beliefs, and if you can cite so much as one "chemical" by name that you honestly believe to be the source of heart disease, I will be utterly surprised.
I certainly can name several, by you'll be surprised at just how natural they are.
Now, I don't have a lot in common with Greenpeace type environmentalism, but I've decided I'm unwilling to dismiss the environmentalist label, just because it's constantly tarred as meaning this kind of rare, bizarre, idealism. Concern with the long term, and net, impact of our productivity is really important from a pragmatic perspective.
If we make adding carbon mass to the atmosphere as expensive as it appears to be to the world as a whole(and cap and trade didn't even propose that much cost), we do ourselves a favor in terms of productivity. What a lack of regulation in this regard does is favors existing power structures. It doesn't represent a positive for our long term GDP growth.
Environmental pragmatism isn't a bad thing, and if you want to see people who favor that approach versus the straw-man of "taking us back to the 1700s", look to the plans proposed by, say, the union of concerned scientists.
No, because he'll end up reading about gas emissions on an editorializing website that supports his preconceived notions. Doing something like pulling up raw data, selecting a date range before looking at the data, and then examining that would be enough to shatter that notion.
Sunspots are trickier, because as far as popular culture is concerned, sunspots are magic.
You know that this is complete and utter garbage, and that people still get old, right? That you're a moron throwing around your ignorance like a giant ill-informed medicine ball?
"Chemicals" doesn't mean anything. You want to talk about specific chemicals and their poorly understood interaction with biology, well, that's just dandy. Like want to talk about metabolization of monosaccharides versus polysaccharides? Be my guest. Want to think that mysterious "chemicals" beyond human comprehension, then you're a goddamn moron.
The number 1 killer in the first world, by a wide margin, is heart disease, caused by aging muscles and blood pressure increases. In the third world, lots of relatively simple, preventable illnesses are a common cause of death.
Mutton never meant goat, especially not in the U.S.
In fact, I'd say on the whole, big cities have much much much lower corruption per capita. I live in a small city, and we actually have checks and balances, as well as some basic governmental transparency requirements. I never saw a hint of that from the small town I went to K12 in.
That's only true if there is no scapegoating occurring.
Hating Oracle just feels right. All the pointless rage we deliver to Microsoft for terrible, greedy business decisions, plus they kill popular open source projects. It's like being young and in love, except the opposite of that.
That's a good point, but I was pretty sure the all-powerful bike lobby would make sure everyone knew.
Another creation of the All powerful bike lobby. Helmets are just a particularly sturdy stepping stone on the way towards totalitarianism.
That is to say you have exactly zero distinguishing characteristics with the Muslims you hate other than a label? Good to know.