Because there was nothing to confront them about. NPOV was not violated and the OP is talking bunk.
I've read the article that is mentioned in particular. A minor page about a card game. A few things might be better worded, but I see no flagrant violations of NPOV. Yes, one or two contributing editors may have had a conflict of interests, and probably shouldn't have been editing it. But the article as it stands is broadly neutral and reasonably cited.
If this is the best example that Wikipediocracy can produce of this outrageous practice, then I doubt Wikipedia has anything to worry about.
The OP talks of violation of the NPOV policy, but that is not what is happening. They are violating to COI (conflict of interest) policy. Violation of NPOV is easy to determine by reading the article, because a NPOV violation applies no matter who wrote it.
COI violations are less easy to determine if you do not know who the editor is.
Another disproving of intelligent design. Cos intelligence is not something that could ever be said of any Facebook post that starts "Like/Share if you agree..."
It has to be random and blind at a minimum. But ignorant, unfunny and stupid equally appears to help. Maybe that's where the comparison with evolving genes breaks down?
I can fully appreciate the danger of "death by powerpoint". Some people really do sucky presentations that positively encourage viewers to switch off. If your presentation could be as well printed out, and taken home and read, then you're not doing it right.
But sometimes when you are presenting a complex idea, that would take ages to draw, and you'd probably mess up or forget bits, you need something pre-prepared. And a bit of animation, etc, used sparingly in the right places, can really help your explanation. You can't do that with chalk or marker pen.
What's changed is that when he admits that it is him, he is suddenly a very rich guy who has access to a whole heap of money, and possibly, maybe, with the know-how to make a whole lot more. Not necessarily ethically.
Being that guy tends to attract the wrong kind of attention from the wrong kind of people.
So he has every reason to deny everything. Particularly if you're the type of person who values privacy and peace.
In which case they should just walk away... but wait. They are being asked to provide access to it. Guess they are back in the game, by specific request.
In which case it is not unreasonable that they ask for proof over who exactly owns it.
Well that's why Microsoft's marketing should be focussing where Windows 8.1 is exactly the same as XP. Users of XP are not impressed by whizzy new features. If they were, the chances are they'd have upgraded years ago. They have XP, they like XP, they are only going to upgrade grudgingly. So they want to know that Windows 8.1 isn't too different, isn't going to break all their files, and won't take another 12 years to master.
Unfortunately, we all know that Microsoft have gone out of their way to remove familiar stuff from Windows 8, and can't really say much about how it's like XP. But this is why you pay ad people; to conjure something out of nothing.
More like; what's the difference between 10 years and 20 years, if people commit a crime on the basis that they will not get caught.
Very few commit crime anticipating they will be caught. So the difference in the number of years given when convicted really doesn't much feature in their thinking.
I suspect that the street performer was more likely just engaging in banter. That's what street performers do. If you're doing/wearing something that makes you stand out, expect to be drawn into the performance.
The idea that a street performer didn't know others were recording, had a problem with it, and expected to be able to stop people doing it, really doesn't sound credible. You wouldn't last long as a street performer with that attitude. Far more likely that the performer just wanted to guilt them into putting more cash in the hat.
All countries are "artificial conglomerates". (Although you might argue that Australia has a rational based on physical geography.) Ask Cornwall how they feel about being part of the artificial conglomerate called England.
I've never been to "Whales", but expect it to be quite small as countries go.
I'm not eating because you haven't given me a a sandwich.
I haven't asked you for a sandwich, and it is not your responsibility to ensure I have sandwiches, but somehow you're getting brought into my "no sandwich" fiasco.
I'm also not eating because Will Smith, Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods and every single one of the damn Kardashians . They also have nothing to do with anything, but I'm calling them out too, because its an indisputable fact that not one of them have ever given me a single sandwich, when it is totally within their power to do so, if they so wished.
If you gave everyone on the planet a penny, would that matter? The average amount you'll give globally is a penny. A penny is a very small amount, isn't it?
A rise of 0.7C of everything is a very large amount, just like over 700 million dollars is.
1/ Write a whole lot of vague waffle that could mean anything. 2/ Wait five hundred years. 3/ Pretend waffle contains predictions about things that have happened, after the fact. Don't worry, you've 500 years of stuff to pick from, something is bound to fit somewhere if you're not too fussy about accuracy. 5/ Solved.
I don't think Facebook care if they move users over from WhatsApp or not. They don't care as much about the users as they do about their data. As long as the data can be cross referenced at the back end, then who cares if the end user's front end is totally different?
This is the way that Facebook needs to evolve. They've realised that teenagers (tomorrow's consumers) don't want to hang out on the social network that their parents use. So you establish/buy/build another social application that has the appearance of being totally separate. As long as you can still link the data up for your advertisers, it doesn't matter where its coming from. The end-user then gets the appearance of being elsewhere, but in reality its still all the same big data leech.
And in 10 years time you repeat the process for the next generation.
You say it is unfair to define the entire movement on the actions or statements of a few individuals. You say that certain Congressmen are not the tea party, they just self describe themselves as such. Fair enough.
But you can define the entire movement on what you say it is. You can distinguish those who are just co-opting it from the outside. Because you know what this disorganised organisation stands for, and it's not what these crazy other guys say it is.
If you've never had to work with someone who is completely incompetent, then you are very fortunate.
Sure they may be competent in other areas of work/life, but really I don't care about them. I only care about whether they can do the job they're being asked to do. Some people just can't.
It doesn't make them bad people (most of the time), but it does make them a liability you could do without. The worst of the incompetent are those who truly don't know what they're doing, don't know they don't know, and have decided the problem is with everyone else. They are the ones you'd cheerfully tip off a cliff.
No, it is not someone's fault if they read it. But your analogy isn't quite accurate. This is not a case of someone stumbling over a link, and innocently reading a bit. He knew it wasn't supposed to be accessible, he knew it was a mistake, but he copied it and then re-published bits in his blog.
Yes, those that left it there unsecured screwed up and should answer for that. And maybe it should have been public knowledge, I don't know. But let's not pretend it was all done in innocence.
So this is more like finding a private journal in the street that has obviously been dropped by accident, photocopying it, and then publishing bits in the local paper.
You may joke, but there is a show on UK TV where you can win 10,000 GBP by standing on one leg. You barely need to have a functioning cerebral cortex to win big money on this show!
Slashdot Mirror
Because there was nothing to confront them about. NPOV was not violated and the OP is talking bunk.
I've read the article that is mentioned in particular. A minor page about a card game. A few things might be better worded, but I see no flagrant violations of NPOV. Yes, one or two contributing editors may have had a conflict of interests, and probably shouldn't have been editing it. But the article as it stands is broadly neutral and reasonably cited.
If this is the best example that Wikipediocracy can produce of this outrageous practice, then I doubt Wikipedia has anything to worry about.
The OP talks of violation of the NPOV policy, but that is not what is happening. They are violating to COI (conflict of interest) policy. Violation of NPOV is easy to determine by reading the article, because a NPOV violation applies no matter who wrote it.
COI violations are less easy to determine if you do not know who the editor is.
Them there.
I wasn't being entirely serious. It was more a critique of moronic Facebook posts designed to gather "likes" than anything else.
Naturally I cannot disprove intelligent design. But when it comes to theories/ideas/concepts the burden lies with the proving, not the disproving.
Another disproving of intelligent design. Cos intelligence is not something that could ever be said of any Facebook post that starts "Like/Share if you agree..."
It has to be random and blind at a minimum. But ignorant, unfunny and stupid equally appears to help. Maybe that's where the comparison with evolving genes breaks down?
Have to agree.
I can fully appreciate the danger of "death by powerpoint". Some people really do sucky presentations that positively encourage viewers to switch off. If your presentation could be as well printed out, and taken home and read, then you're not doing it right.
But sometimes when you are presenting a complex idea, that would take ages to draw, and you'd probably mess up or forget bits, you need something pre-prepared. And a bit of animation, etc, used sparingly in the right places, can really help your explanation. You can't do that with chalk or marker pen.
What's changed is that when he admits that it is him, he is suddenly a very rich guy who has access to a whole heap of money, and possibly, maybe, with the know-how to make a whole lot more. Not necessarily ethically.
Being that guy tends to attract the wrong kind of attention from the wrong kind of people.
So he has every reason to deny everything. Particularly if you're the type of person who values privacy and peace.
Apple should have no skin in this game
In which case they should just walk away... but wait. They are being asked to provide access to it. Guess they are back in the game, by specific request.
In which case it is not unreasonable that they ask for proof over who exactly owns it.
Well that's why Microsoft's marketing should be focussing where Windows 8.1 is exactly the same as XP. Users of XP are not impressed by whizzy new features. If they were, the chances are they'd have upgraded years ago. They have XP, they like XP, they are only going to upgrade grudgingly. So they want to know that Windows 8.1 isn't too different, isn't going to break all their files, and won't take another 12 years to master.
Unfortunately, we all know that Microsoft have gone out of their way to remove familiar stuff from Windows 8, and can't really say much about how it's like XP. But this is why you pay ad people; to conjure something out of nothing.
More like; what's the difference between 10 years and 20 years, if people commit a crime on the basis that they will not get caught.
Very few commit crime anticipating they will be caught. So the difference in the number of years given when convicted really doesn't much feature in their thinking.
Where does it say that GEMA has claimed ownership? This is Youtube saying it may be GEMA's, so we're blocking it.
I suspect that the street performer was more likely just engaging in banter. That's what street performers do. If you're doing/wearing something that makes you stand out, expect to be drawn into the performance.
The idea that a street performer didn't know others were recording, had a problem with it, and expected to be able to stop people doing it, really doesn't sound credible. You wouldn't last long as a street performer with that attitude. Far more likely that the performer just wanted to guilt them into putting more cash in the hat.
All countries are "artificial conglomerates". (Although you might argue that Australia has a rational based on physical geography.) Ask Cornwall how they feel about being part of the artificial conglomerate called England.
I've never been to "Whales", but expect it to be quite small as countries go.
Or how about "YouTube won't pay for a licence that would cut into their advertising profit"? Honestly, I think that would make YouTube look worse.
See there's two sides to reaching a licensing agreement, and its easy to lay the blame on one.
I'm not eating because you haven't given me a a sandwich.
I haven't asked you for a sandwich, and it is not your responsibility to ensure I have sandwiches, but somehow you're getting brought into my "no sandwich" fiasco.
I'm also not eating because Will Smith, Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods and every single one of the damn Kardashians . They also have nothing to do with anything, but I'm calling them out too, because its an indisputable fact that not one of them have ever given me a single sandwich, when it is totally within their power to do so, if they so wished.
"Technically feasible" != "Feasible"
You can't just ignore all the other hurdles regarding money, politics, security and risk.
"Irish" in what way ?
If you gave everyone on the planet a penny, would that matter? The average amount you'll give globally is a penny. A penny is a very small amount, isn't it?
A rise of 0.7C of everything is a very large amount, just like over 700 million dollars is.
Nostradamus? Super debatable.
Really? Not much to debate here.
1/ Write a whole lot of vague waffle that could mean anything.
2/ Wait five hundred years.
3/ Pretend waffle contains predictions about things that have happened, after the fact. Don't worry, you've 500 years of stuff to pick from, something is bound to fit somewhere if you're not too fussy about accuracy.
5/ Solved.
I don't think Facebook care if they move users over from WhatsApp or not. They don't care as much about the users as they do about their data. As long as the data can be cross referenced at the back end, then who cares if the end user's front end is totally different?
This is the way that Facebook needs to evolve. They've realised that teenagers (tomorrow's consumers) don't want to hang out on the social network that their parents use. So you establish/buy/build another social application that has the appearance of being totally separate. As long as you can still link the data up for your advertisers, it doesn't matter where its coming from. The end-user then gets the appearance of being elsewhere, but in reality its still all the same big data leech.
And in 10 years time you repeat the process for the next generation.
We have a problem here.
You say it is unfair to define the entire movement on the actions or statements of a few individuals. You say that certain Congressmen are not the tea party, they just self describe themselves as such. Fair enough.
But you can define the entire movement on what you say it is. You can distinguish those who are just co-opting it from the outside. Because you know what this disorganised organisation stands for, and it's not what these crazy other guys say it is.
You see the problem?
If you've never had to work with someone who is completely incompetent, then you are very fortunate.
Sure they may be competent in other areas of work/life, but really I don't care about them. I only care about whether they can do the job they're being asked to do. Some people just can't.
It doesn't make them bad people (most of the time), but it does make them a liability you could do without. The worst of the incompetent are those who truly don't know what they're doing, don't know they don't know, and have decided the problem is with everyone else. They are the ones you'd cheerfully tip off a cliff.
No, it is not someone's fault if they read it. But your analogy isn't quite accurate. This is not a case of someone stumbling over a link, and innocently reading a bit. He knew it wasn't supposed to be accessible, he knew it was a mistake, but he copied it and then re-published bits in his blog.
Yes, those that left it there unsecured screwed up and should answer for that. And maybe it should have been public knowledge, I don't know. But let's not pretend it was all done in innocence.
So this is more like finding a private journal in the street that has obviously been dropped by accident, photocopying it, and then publishing bits in the local paper.
if you read the Guardian and the Daily Mail, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Let me represent that graphically for you
Left - Guardian - - - - - - - - - - Truth - - - - - - - - - - - Right - - Bigotry - - - Lies - - Daily Mail
You may joke, but there is a show on UK TV where you can win 10,000 GBP by standing on one leg. You barely need to have a functioning cerebral cortex to win big money on this show!
http://www.itv.com/thecube