"Libraries are great because recognized experts in their respective fields write books in their respective fields and get published by book companies because - guess what - since they are recognized experts in their respective fields, their results can be, for the most part, trusted to be accurate and worthy of study."
That's not a counter to my library argument. Those books can be obtained online (yes, sometimes only illegally but oftentimes perfectly legally) for free and faster. Why are you asserting that the only place to get those materials is in a library?
And the fact remains that those same authors are perfectly capable of editing Wikipedia. Why don't they? Editing an article, getting banned, and shuffling off in a temper tantrum won't get you anything. This is the goddamn internet, put up a fight if you've been unfairly treated. If Wikipedia is really that corrupt, make a brand new website that protects the teachers from censorship and blacklists the douchebags who want to control the information. They have no more power than you give them.
"Thanks for the laugh."
You're welcome. But the idea is flawless, even if its implementation was corrupted by wikipoliticians.
You're perfectly able to look up the history behind a publisher, but without the "about the author" paragraph at the back of the book, it's easier to look up the identity of the person editing a wikipedia article.
There's nothing stopping an author from writing without said expert recognition, and it's certainly possible for an author to LIE about his past, getting, say, on Oprah's list.
Wikipedia allows contributors to articles to be judged based on their contributions, not on something completely separate from what they're editing.
The faulty administration system is just a defect in an otherwise flawless idea. Wikipedia is no more politically charged than any major news source on TV, and I consider it to be significantly more reliable and trustworthy, even if the page doesn't match the source it cites. (case in point: The unemployment rate listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United _States contradicts both sources, the CIA World Factbook, and the link listed right after said number)
With published materials readily available like that, I'd say Wikipedia is doing great.
Keep in mind that the best you can hope for in an information source is something that gets you to double-check your information. Even if Wikipedia becomes the standard for information resources, it will still be mandatory to provide multiple sources for information no matter what you're looking up.
When you have the ability to add to Wikipedia like this, it's clearly eventually going to become the most reliable source of information in a few decades.
Naturally this is going to require other similar discoveries and additions, but those are a given, since it's so popular.
"I'm in Texas, and I don't get it. I think we'd get at least 30 hits in the "kill" zone."
Ahh, but there's the kicker. Would you rather hear the story of a plane that crashed because its passengers fought back, or the story of a plane that got hijacked, even if everyone survives in the end. You could read up on Entebbe or watch "The Last King of Scotland" (warning: not for children or anyone who scares easily - it's a damn scary movie, and not a cheap Horror flick) for an example of the hijacking that went "well."
"Also, things only blow up that easily in Hollywood."
I beg to disagree friend. Just yesterday, I shot a squirrel with a rubber band and ended up spending the rest of the day picking squirrel shrapnel off the roof.
It is physically impossible for me to exaggerate the truth, doing so would cause the universe to implode.
(on a more serious note, I was assuming "worst case scenario" and we were, of course, talking about a hypothetical situation of 60 legally blind elderly folk picking up rocket launchers and firing them at said terrorist who was smoking ten cigarettes and a cigar and standing in a pile of TNT and spare warheads)
Picture this story: Hijacker tries to hijack plane. 60 people get up and shoot at him, miss, and the plane explodes.
Considering that the hijacker in question was a significant member of a very tiny minority, and the passengers were a very insignificant group of a vast majority, then (statistically and economically speaking) the terrorists lose more than the rest of us. Suddenly they realize that hijacking planes is not as reliable, and they stop. Many lives would be saved by denying the terrorists the money they would have gotten from the ransom.
But then it's a lot easier to focus on the "OMG" aspect of such a hypothetical situation.
If i want to buy and view the movie "300" but a friend comes over with a movie of his and we watch that instead, I am no less inclined to eventually purchase and watch the movie 300. If he made me spend money to watch his movie, then I would be less inclined.
Even if the movie in question WAS 300, I'd still be willing to go and purchase it if I decided it was worth my money, and a lot of movies are.
The argument you're implying is that getting something for free makes you less likely to spend money, and that's not true, it's never been true, and it will never BE true. People with money and nothing better to do will spend their money on stuff they like and want.
You have to keep in mind that the guys you're supporting are the same people who catch someone watching a movie that they didn't pay for and spend hundreds of thousands in attorney fees in order to victimize said person to set an "example" of what happens to you if you ever watch movies for free before paying for them.
All for what? To save a few bucks in the future? To "save" their business from the evil pirates? Hardly. The reason these guys hunt down and victimize kids and college students is because they can write off their legal expenses as a cost of doing business and hopefully slip into a lower tax bracket, cheating the American people out of tax money.
I think we can all agree that whoever came up with the idea of designing a weapon to attack large crowds of protesters should be the test subject for their demonstration.
"Democracy is a horrible system of government, except for all the others."
Most of the people who badmouth Wikipedia's policies on editing are people who have had their stuff retracted, sometimes for reasons that are good, but reasons they can't fathom nonetheless.
Maybe you thought you noticed a typo on a country's fact sheet, fixed it, and got banned within a few seconds because you were wrong and someone assumed it was vandalism. Obviously you'd be rather infuriated that you didn't even have the chance to defend your action. But when your mistake could have cost people millions, it doesn't matter that Wikipedia is a community-driven site and not supposed to be used as a resource, or that you didn't have any ill intent, it matters that you made a mistake and you need to accept it.
Community-driven projects are a massive success simply because they get more people involved, and the sheer number of people make it more of a success. Think of the difference between the American government and the Former Soviet government. The Soviet government would have been the tried and true, respectable closed environment that these people claim is more respectable and trustworthy. It turns out that that model is a failure. Why? Because those experts are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else. ESPECIALLY on something brand new that they have no information on.
Why do you think Congress fails to understand the true workings of the Internet, and keeps supporting the RIAA and threatening Net Neutrality? They used to be a huge group of Democratic people that cooperated on things in order to make sure that many voices were heard. Now, they're a tiny group (of like-minded people) dictating to a people much more numerous (and more diverse-minded) than they, trying in futility to preserve their power.
You can say that Wikipedia is a poor model for a website designed around education, but you'd have to say the same thing about Democracy, Open Source Software, and Free Speech.
It turns out that it's always better than the alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he was hoping you'd bet otherwise.
IANAP = I am not a planet?
Pluto? is that you?
You KNOW you're not supposed to cross Star Trek with Star Wars!
"Libraries are great because recognized experts in their respective fields write books in their respective fields and get published by book companies because - guess what - since they are recognized experts in their respective fields, their results can be, for the most part, trusted to be accurate and worthy of study."
That's not a counter to my library argument. Those books can be obtained online (yes, sometimes only illegally but oftentimes perfectly legally) for free and faster. Why are you asserting that the only place to get those materials is in a library?
And the fact remains that those same authors are perfectly capable of editing Wikipedia. Why don't they? Editing an article, getting banned, and shuffling off in a temper tantrum won't get you anything. This is the goddamn internet, put up a fight if you've been unfairly treated. If Wikipedia is really that corrupt, make a brand new website that protects the teachers from censorship and blacklists the douchebags who want to control the information. They have no more power than you give them.
"Thanks for the laugh."
You're welcome. But the idea is flawless, even if its implementation was corrupted by wikipoliticians.
What if the security vulnerability ended up compromising the personal information of someone in the witness protection program?
Certainly that would qualify as a life at risk.
Hey, that's cheating!
You're perfectly able to look up the history behind a publisher, but without the "about the author" paragraph at the back of the book, it's easier to look up the identity of the person editing a wikipedia article.
d _States contradicts both sources, the CIA World Factbook, and the link listed right after said number)
There's nothing stopping an author from writing without said expert recognition, and it's certainly possible for an author to LIE about his past, getting, say, on Oprah's list.
Wikipedia allows contributors to articles to be judged based on their contributions, not on something completely separate from what they're editing.
The faulty administration system is just a defect in an otherwise flawless idea. Wikipedia is no more politically charged than any major news source on TV, and I consider it to be significantly more reliable and trustworthy, even if the page doesn't match the source it cites. (case in point: The unemployment rate listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Unite
With published materials readily available like that, I'd say Wikipedia is doing great.
Keep in mind that the best you can hope for in an information source is something that gets you to double-check your information. Even if Wikipedia becomes the standard for information resources, it will still be mandatory to provide multiple sources for information no matter what you're looking up.
Why are public libraries considered an excellent source of information?
support.
Show me a library that beats Wikipedia and I'll show you someone too old to recognize something brilliant.
When you have the ability to add to Wikipedia like this, it's clearly eventually going to become the most reliable source of information in a few decades.
Naturally this is going to require other similar discoveries and additions, but those are a given, since it's so popular.
Because it's there.
"As a group, they're not the sharpest pencils in the box." ...the ones that get caught.
And if he'd gotten lethal injection, kids would be proudly brandishing needles on their t-shirts... ...
You must have shaved using Occam's razor this morning.
Another funny real headline:
"Carpenter nails wife, kills self."
The headline guy was fired for that one.
Thus the low quality content is no longer profitable.
...and drive SUVs around it!
They also get a lot of perks from Congress by pointing their fingers and saying "see? our profits are down, so you're losing money too."
"I'm in Texas, and I don't get it. I think we'd get at least 30 hits in the "kill" zone."
Ahh, but there's the kicker. Would you rather hear the story of a plane that crashed because its passengers fought back, or the story of a plane that got hijacked, even if everyone survives in the end. You could read up on Entebbe or watch "The Last King of Scotland" (warning: not for children or anyone who scares easily - it's a damn scary movie, and not a cheap Horror flick) for an example of the hijacking that went "well."
"Also, things only blow up that easily in Hollywood."
I beg to disagree friend. Just yesterday, I shot a squirrel with a rubber band and ended up spending the rest of the day picking squirrel shrapnel off the roof.
It is physically impossible for me to exaggerate the truth, doing so would cause the universe to implode.
(on a more serious note, I was assuming "worst case scenario" and we were, of course, talking about a hypothetical situation of 60 legally blind elderly folk picking up rocket launchers and firing them at said terrorist who was smoking ten cigarettes and a cigar and standing in a pile of TNT and spare warheads)
And I doubt they'd have ever even gotten into movies if they didn't think they could get them for free.
Regardless, you can't prove otherwise.
You ain't from Texas, so you wouldn't get it.
Picture this story:
Hijacker tries to hijack plane. 60 people get up and shoot at him, miss, and the plane explodes.
Considering that the hijacker in question was a significant member of a very tiny minority, and the passengers were a very insignificant group of a vast majority, then (statistically and economically speaking) the terrorists lose more than the rest of us. Suddenly they realize that hijacking planes is not as reliable, and they stop. Many lives would be saved by denying the terrorists the money they would have gotten from the ransom.
But then it's a lot easier to focus on the "OMG" aspect of such a hypothetical situation.
That's not true and it's never been true.
If i want to buy and view the movie "300" but a friend comes over with a movie of his and we watch that instead, I am no less inclined to eventually purchase and watch the movie 300. If he made me spend money to watch his movie, then I would be less inclined.
Even if the movie in question WAS 300, I'd still be willing to go and purchase it if I decided it was worth my money, and a lot of movies are.
The argument you're implying is that getting something for free makes you less likely to spend money, and that's not true, it's never been true, and it will never BE true. People with money and nothing better to do will spend their money on stuff they like and want.
You have to keep in mind that the guys you're supporting are the same people who catch someone watching a movie that they didn't pay for and spend hundreds of thousands in attorney fees in order to victimize said person to set an "example" of what happens to you if you ever watch movies for free before paying for them.
All for what? To save a few bucks in the future? To "save" their business from the evil pirates? Hardly. The reason these guys hunt down and victimize kids and college students is because they can write off their legal expenses as a cost of doing business and hopefully slip into a lower tax bracket, cheating the American people out of tax money.
Dude, what they're talking about here is the equivalent of "if you discover the bug and report it you get banned."
I think we can all agree that whoever came up with the idea of designing a weapon to attack large crowds of protesters should be the test subject for their demonstration.
Cha-ching!
Virtual Casino Chips.
I said it first, I call eternal copyright! (or does that only work with music?)
"Democracy is a horrible system of government, except for all the others."
Most of the people who badmouth Wikipedia's policies on editing are people who have had their stuff retracted, sometimes for reasons that are good, but reasons they can't fathom nonetheless.
Maybe you thought you noticed a typo on a country's fact sheet, fixed it, and got banned within a few seconds because you were wrong and someone assumed it was vandalism. Obviously you'd be rather infuriated that you didn't even have the chance to defend your action. But when your mistake could have cost people millions, it doesn't matter that Wikipedia is a community-driven site and not supposed to be used as a resource, or that you didn't have any ill intent, it matters that you made a mistake and you need to accept it.
Community-driven projects are a massive success simply because they get more people involved, and the sheer number of people make it more of a success. Think of the difference between the American government and the Former Soviet government. The Soviet government would have been the tried and true, respectable closed environment that these people claim is more respectable and trustworthy. It turns out that that model is a failure. Why?
Because those experts are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else. ESPECIALLY on something brand new that they have no information on.
Why do you think Congress fails to understand the true workings of the Internet, and keeps supporting the RIAA and threatening Net Neutrality? They used to be a huge group of Democratic people that cooperated on things in order to make sure that many voices were heard. Now, they're a tiny group (of like-minded people) dictating to a people much more numerous (and more diverse-minded) than they, trying in futility to preserve their power.
You can say that Wikipedia is a poor model for a website designed around education, but you'd have to say the same thing about Democracy, Open Source Software, and Free Speech.
It turns out that it's always better than the alternative.