But in a school environment you'll run across hundreds of teachers who simply don't want to re-learn how to use a word-processor.
That's funny, when I was at school I was taught on ClarisWorks on Apples and Win3.1 at school, and used MS Word 5 on DOS at home. Now I used MS Office 2k/2003 on XP at work and OpenOffice.org on XP/Ubuntu at home. I thought learning how to use a computer meant just that - learning how to use a computer, not learning how to use Microsoft software.
Australia's Chaser had headlines such as "WTC janitor declares: Best sickie ever" and "Sydney's Centrepoint Tower climbs two places in 'worlds tallest buildings' list" in the week following September 11.
Subaru's are just the same (re-locking if you unlock and then don't open a door). However if you unlock the boot, the other doors will re-lock after the set amount of time but it will not set the alarm off.
If you're receiving voicemail it's even worse. "You have...two...new messages and one...saved message. To listen to...new messages...press one. To listen--" One. "First...message...received...at...ten...fifty eight...AM." SHUT UP. JUST PLAY THE GORRAM MESSAGE WITHOUT THE PREAMBLE.
And on Telstra provided voicemail (ie. not answering machines) I have the funny feeling that this preamble is JUST enough to get most messages over the thirty-second mark.. and Telstra charges in thirty second blocks...
This Sabbath mode thing reminds me of some pedestrian lights in a certain suburb of Melbourne, which were recently modified (at a taxpayer cost of $30k+) so that they would operate on a sensor basis, so that Jewish people wouldn't have to push a button - as pushing a button was somehow 'work'.
I guess I just think it is weird because whatever rules they have to follow, they were obviously written at a time well before traffic lights and microwaves. So who is it who decides what a Jewish person can or can't do with a traffic light on a Sunday (or is it Saturday)? Why is walking down the street OK, but pressing a button not OK, but standing in front of a sensor OK? Would leaning on the button be fine? Isn't it easier to just look both ways before crossing rather than get the local council to spend $30k?
If people want to follow a religion, then do so, and if this means not using modern appliances, I guess they should take that into account.
But going by the "-1" which appears next to most of your comments, other Slashdotters appear to agree with him, not you.
Please tell us, what exactly is your beef with Wikipedia? What edits of yours have been reverted, which made you so disappointed with the system? I'm sure there is a rational explanation for it, but if you don't tell us what the problem is, it is a bit hard to explain.
I think OP is right, there's a lot of wikipedia partisans who are just trying to bury it so nobody sees the criticisms of their out of control project and their out of control behavior...
So, we'll make a bi-lateral treaty -- we'll accept the metric system as our official measuring standard as soon as France accepts English as its official language.
I think you'll find that a much higher percentage of French people can speak English, than Americans can speak French. Speaking two or three languages isn't that unusual in Europe.
well firstly wikipedia promotes free speech. so somebody could come along and write an article, with "proof" about anything he likes, like how to create a rock from water. (go do some research before you rebut!)
And if it doesn't have and references or citations, it will be tagged original research and deleted. if it has citations which are made up, it will be tagged a hoax, and deleted.
secondly, wikipedia, promotes democracy. so if someone comes along and writes an article on why the sky is blue, the article could eventually turn out to be a thesis that is said to be proven on how some guy came along and painted the sky blue. how? coz if enough ppl or editors let this second interpretation stand long enough, and enough ppl fight for this second interpretation; the truth will be lost.
Er, no.. because when people start asking the 'second lot of people' for references or citations, and they don't have any, and they continue to re-add it - they will be blocked from editing and the article will be restored to the way it is.
A lot of people seem to think they have an idea of how Wikipedia works, without actually using it. It isn't is simple as "everyone can edit Wikipedia therefore you can put whatever you want up there." There are actual procedures, policies, rules, etc.
Summary - "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest."
For them it was practically a religious fight - I just thought my friend deserved to be added to the list of names. It's groupthink at its worst.
Wikipedians watching/maintaining a certain page don't just make up amongst themselves what goes in and what stays out. There are actually policies and guidelines about these sorts of things, and if you disagree with them then the policy pages also have their own talk pages, where you can suggest changes and reasons for doing so.
Out of interest, who is your friend and what has he/she done?
It's ridiculous that there's no way mechanism right now to recognize experts. But in some fields, there is no way to define experts. Some retiree who has lived in a particular city of 20,000 all his life, probably knows everyone and everything that has happened, and would be one of the few "experts" on that city, but how does he formally stake that claim?
Besides, experts don't need to write the text. They just need to have their work referenced by the text. Ideally, EVERY non-obvious statement should be referenced/sourced.
Well, the way it is done it is kind of a bit of both. You can't delete individual revisions - you can only delete the whole article including all history. However once that is done, you can undelete selected revisions - for example, just the latest revision, or all revisions apart from one.
This just goes to show you that you should never believe anything you read on Wikipedia. I know this because I read it on Slashdot.:P
This reminds me of the article that appeared in a couple of Australian newspapers today, mentioning Brandt's findings of 142 copyvio's on Wikipedia. By the time the newspaper article was published, Wikipedia admins had located and fixed all articles mentioned, plus another hundred or so. Good work dead-tree press!
The parents post is an example of one of those Wikipedia articles which you apparently can't trust because they have no sources, no references, and written by an anonymous user!
I don't think you will find a more thorough or correct collection of information on any of these topics elsewhere - particularly in the hours following each event. The articles were kept free of vandalism because of the huge number of people following the articles - not only the regular "EAT MY BALLS" type vandalism, but also unsourced/unreferenced information was removed pretty quickly.
Hey, they could not have an encyclopedia at all, that would surely cut their costs! But what would be the point?
Slashdot Mirror
But in a school environment you'll run across hundreds of teachers who simply don't want to re-learn how to use a word-processor.
That's funny, when I was at school I was taught on ClarisWorks on Apples and Win3.1 at school, and used MS Word 5 on DOS at home. Now I used MS Office 2k/2003 on XP at work and OpenOffice.org on XP/Ubuntu at home. I thought learning how to use a computer meant just that - learning how to use a computer, not learning how to use Microsoft software.
Australia's Chaser had headlines such as "WTC janitor declares: Best sickie ever" and "Sydney's Centrepoint Tower climbs two places in 'worlds tallest buildings' list" in the week following September 11.
Subaru's are just the same (re-locking if you unlock and then don't open a door). However if you unlock the boot, the other doors will re-lock after the set amount of time but it will not set the alarm off.
And on Telstra provided voicemail (ie. not answering machines) I have the funny feeling that this preamble is JUST enough to get most messages over the thirty-second mark.. and Telstra charges in thirty second blocks...
This Sabbath mode thing reminds me of some pedestrian lights in a certain suburb of Melbourne, which were recently modified (at a taxpayer cost of $30k+) so that they would operate on a sensor basis, so that Jewish people wouldn't have to push a button - as pushing a button was somehow 'work'.
I guess I just think it is weird because whatever rules they have to follow, they were obviously written at a time well before traffic lights and microwaves. So who is it who decides what a Jewish person can or can't do with a traffic light on a Sunday (or is it Saturday)? Why is walking down the street OK, but pressing a button not OK, but standing in front of a sensor OK? Would leaning on the button be fine? Isn't it easier to just look both ways before crossing rather than get the local council to spend $30k?
If people want to follow a religion, then do so, and if this means not using modern appliances, I guess they should take that into account.
Chairboy cannot ban anyone here.
But going by the "-1" which appears next to most of your comments, other Slashdotters appear to agree with him, not you. Please tell us, what exactly is your beef with Wikipedia? What edits of yours have been reverted, which made you so disappointed with the system? I'm sure there is a rational explanation for it, but if you don't tell us what the problem is, it is a bit hard to explain.
Yeah, right, which is why there is a Wikipedia article "Criticism of Wikipedia".
My computer screen looks like that - when it is switched off.
I think you'll find that a much higher percentage of French people can speak English, than Americans can speak French. Speaking two or three languages isn't that unusual in Europe.
And if it doesn't have and references or citations, it will be tagged original research and deleted. if it has citations which are made up, it will be tagged a hoax, and deleted.
secondly, wikipedia, promotes democracy. so if someone comes along and writes an article on why the sky is blue, the article could eventually turn out to be a thesis that is said to be proven on how some guy came along and painted the sky blue. how? coz if enough ppl or editors let this second interpretation stand long enough, and enough ppl fight for this second interpretation; the truth will be lost.
Er, no.. because when people start asking the 'second lot of people' for references or citations, and they don't have any, and they continue to re-add it - they will be blocked from editing and the article will be restored to the way it is.
A lot of people seem to think they have an idea of how Wikipedia works, without actually using it. It isn't is simple as "everyone can edit Wikipedia therefore you can put whatever you want up there." There are actual procedures, policies, rules, etc.
given the fundamental premise of Wikipedia, how can *anyone* "not be the right one" to add something?
See Wikipedia's policy on autobiographical information.
Summary - "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest."
For them it was practically a religious fight - I just thought my friend deserved to be added to the list of names. It's groupthink at its worst.
Wikipedians watching/maintaining a certain page don't just make up amongst themselves what goes in and what stays out. There are actually policies and guidelines about these sorts of things, and if you disagree with them then the policy pages also have their own talk pages, where you can suggest changes and reasons for doing so.
Out of interest, who is your friend and what has he/she done?
It's ridiculous that there's no way mechanism right now to recognize experts.
But in some fields, there is no way to define experts. Some retiree who has lived in a particular city of 20,000 all his life, probably knows everyone and everything that has happened, and would be one of the few "experts" on that city, but how does he formally stake that claim?
Besides, experts don't need to write the text. They just need to have their work referenced by the text. Ideally, EVERY non-obvious statement should be referenced/sourced.
3 km/h is the leeway given in Victoria, Australia.
3 km/h = 1.86 mph.
(Score: -1, Doesn't understand what Wikipedia is)
The whole FF install file is less than 6gb.
...
I would hope so
Well, the way it is done it is kind of a bit of both. You can't delete individual revisions - you can only delete the whole article including all history. However once that is done, you can undelete selected revisions - for example, just the latest revision, or all revisions apart from one.
This just goes to show you that you should never believe anything you read on Wikipedia. I know this because I read it on Slashdot. :P
This reminds me of the article that appeared in a couple of Australian newspapers today, mentioning Brandt's findings of 142 copyvio's on Wikipedia. By the time the newspaper article was published, Wikipedia admins had located and fixed all articles mentioned, plus another hundred or so. Good work dead-tree press!
Sure. I'll just bring over a new, pre-built, working system with Ubuntu on it and swap it with your existing system.
Oh and about those plane tickets.. I live in Australia... that won't be a problem will it?
The parents post is an example of one of those Wikipedia articles which you apparently can't trust because they have no sources, no references, and written by an anonymous user!
ya, okay, and by that logic, who in their right mind would buy a system like Windows when free-as-in-speech systems like Linux are available.
A few differences:
1. Windows isn't entrenched in the PVR market like they are with desktops.
2. People don't have a lot of existing Windows based apps that they want to run on their PVR.
3. People don't buy 3rd party peripherals for their PVR that may or may not work under different OSes.
Well I went from WS_FTP to CuteFTP to SmartFTP to FlashFXP to several in between very quickly.. and have now settled on FileZilla - its excellent.
So I guess democratically, you're wrong!
+5 Funny!
..
I guess you have to be an Australian usenet reader to get it
Or, you could use a sensible system like Preferential voting.
I actually think the "current event" type articles are some of Wikipedia's best work.
t tacks
r thquake
o mbings
_ France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_ea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_b
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in
I don't think you will find a more thorough or correct collection of information on any of these topics elsewhere - particularly in the hours following each event. The articles were kept free of vandalism because of the huge number of people following the articles - not only the regular "EAT MY BALLS" type vandalism, but also unsourced/unreferenced information was removed pretty quickly.
Hey, they could not have an encyclopedia at all, that would surely cut their costs! But what would be the point?