"vandalism" (and still waiting for an acceptable definition of that) like that in the parent is not a problem. The real issue is with the subtle changes in historical and political pages. Change one or two words and you can change the whole perception of facts. It's not easy to see those changes, and yet those changes go on all the time on Wikipedia.
And there are admins who are involved in that process. We all know about the Ayn Rand issues here. That's just one example among many.
There is a fundamental lack of trust in the Wikipedia foundation. Any attempts to validate Wikipedia -- like this one -- need to be heavily scrutinized, and rejected until such time as transparency and honesty are part of the Wikimentality (probably never).
If only Wikipedia would stop trying to be important, it would naturally become so over time. It's great for zeitgeist and trivia, but the vanity of Jimmy and his cabal try to push it beyond that. It, thus, becomes less free, less fun, and of less value.
Sure, Wikipedia has its corruptions and its problems, but so does any other human endeavor.
It does, but I wonder whether it's fair to blame The Register. I seem to recall the last time Wikipedia was doing a fundraising push there was all sorts of articles about all sorts of things Wiki-related - positive and negative (the essjay scandal for example).
Then there was a calm period where there was just the normal everyday minor background corruption/totalitarian stories about Wikipedia.
And then... now that they are back fundraising (love the little guy doing the nazi salute on the fundraising icon - woah! really uber-dumb icon for a site often accused of info-fascism) here come the stories about Wikipedia again.
Coincidence? Or is there marketing/PR people getting these stories out there to ensure high profile and more money?
I think the corruption claims are justified, and it is important they are investigated -- openly. Jimmy Wales' history seems to be a lot shadier than his Wikipedia biography would have you believe.
Wikipedia has made no claims to be a superior source of information.
Not exactly, no. That's true. However, it has delusions of grandeur as to being an authoritative source (one thing it must NEVER be while even the possibility of cabals exist (which is always going to be the case)).
As a source of zeitgeist and trivia wikipedia is fine -- a source of important information it isn't.
Look, stories like this are seriously hurting The Register's credibility, and now Slashdot's as well for reposting this nonsense credulously.
Wrong on two levels.
1. The Register -- what credibility?
2. Nonsense? -- Stories like this are essential - it's called "freedom of the press". Obviously some Wikipedians don't like that sort of vandalism... um, I mean thing.
At least The Register (for all its many faults) and Slashdot do attempt to get the truth about Wikipedia out there. That's very important, considering the kind of people who appear to be running Wikipedia.
That's one for future generations. That quote should haunt him for the rest of his career. It's right up there with all the ones Bill Gates and Ballmer have made, that are repeated here often.
Two words: "true colors".
I was going to add in the usual references to nazis and Ayn Rand and all the rest -- but honestly, Jimmy's quote says it all, and says it clearer. It's all you ever needed to know about Wikipedia.
Now the ePaper thing is cool admittedly. The DRM is as cool as chilli peppers in Hades...
But does anyone else think that the Kindle looks like an all white speak-and-spell? It really looks like a cheap 90's designed kids toy to me. And not in a retro way -- in a Made-in-Taiwan kind of way.
So much of the "emotion" people talk about in music (usually Classical or Romantic-era repertoire) is performers reading something into a piece that the composer never indicated in the score.
What? This is just completely wrong on so many levels. Music from every period has plenty of emotion which is absolutely intrinsically expressed by the composer. The romantic and classical era is particularly full of it. The clue is in the naming of "romantic" for one. Do you think that, say Beethoven, was known for his calmness and dispassion? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
100% Nonsense. In no way should the parent be modded insightful. Very much the opposite.
schools in the Alabama city will be the first US students to make use of the XO laptop
It could be the normal German usage of the word "will"? Meaning something like "should". Or it could be that the summary is sensationalist. That would be "sensationalist" in the common English usage of the word, to avoid any further confusion.
It's been obvious that the BBC's standards have been gradually eroding for about 20 years. It probably hasn't reached bottom yet. Biased tabloid journalism, and product placement to get round the no advertising rules, are the daily norm, not the exception nowadays.
Focus groups lead to mediocrity and bias. A similar thing is happening to the UK in many other areas too. If you have an IQ over 95 you're a statistical outlier, and are no longer catered to by corportations, government or the media in the UK.
I correct mistakes I see, and I add content if I see it missing and I know what goes there, beyond that there is no need for the normal person to interact further with the 'community'.
That's a pretty good philosophy up to a point. The only issue I have with it is the danger in perceiving Wikipedia to be a valid, trustworthy source of information. Since it has an over-inflated pagerank for many subjects, it is regarded by the average person in the street to be like a real encyclopedia. Most people don't follow the revelations on the cabals and deceptions that the Wikinazis use. And the Admins know that, and do use that naivety to their own ends. They want people to trust the information. At the very least, even if they aren't pushing a biased political agenda (which some have been to proven to do) it feeds their vanity -- they've become admins because they are attention starved and disenfranchised in real life. They want to be seen as important, it's the only shot they have at it in life. They people to trust the information in fact. Wikipedia is dangerous (possibly even life threatening) if its information is trusted blindly.
If wikipedia put a disclaimer at the top of every page (rather than a little green nazi saluting) saying something to the effect of "the following information may be written by someone who has no knowledge of the subject, or may display bias" -- then you're correct, it is a fine source of trivia, as long as it's taken with a pinch of salt.
With a disclaimer on the top of the page, there will be a lot less vandalism and a lot less cabal manipulation too. Thus, a double victory.
The Register has many faults. Many. In fact it is truly awful most of the time.
However, it is good that they have been consistently reporting issues with Wikiality. It has been one source that is wikispin free. Normally Slashdot is patrolled by the wikicabal too, so posts critical of Wikiality are most often modded down. I guess there's some belief that wikipedia is somehow "open source" and therefore a "good thing" -- except Wikipedia has been proven time and time again to be neither "open" nor a "source" -- in fact, it is VERY much the opposite. Thus it's wonderful to see so many objective posts on this particular Slashdot article. This story needs to get out there into the mainstream media too. Wikipedia needs to start losing its overinflated search pagerankings, and all of the little remaining credibility it has with the general public.
Maybe, finally, the sword of Truth is cutting through Wikiality, and cutting the heads off its corrupt, greedy and manipulative admins.
... Facebook users even more whiny than previously thought? ... Facebook users with even greater sense of entitlement than previously thought? ... Facebook users with even less understanding of social networking concepts than previously thought? ... Facebook users with even less sense of life's real priorities than previously thought? ... Facebook users misspending their period of youthful rebellion more than previously thought? ... Facebook users with even grander delusions of grandeur than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even greater abilities to self-promote trivial issues on Slashdot than previously thought?
it's easy to see that their goal is complete control of the business of information management.
But... but that seems kind of evil to me. They said they're not evil.
Business (i.e. large Corporations) don't need to be evil. It's just that almost all are to a greater or lesser extent. Google providing non-evil services to corporations doesn't necessarily make them evil per se. However, I do agree that it's seems improbable that if you are hosting evil that you won't somehow be tainted by it.
It seems like a dangerous path to walk down for anyone with genuine integrity.
Even The Register [theregister.co.uk] is starting to show cracks of laziness (and occasionally outright fanboyism) in their articles nowadays.
That's not new. The Register's claims of independence have always been just that -- claims. They have exhibited bias on numerous occasions. There's no evidence to back up their claims of independence.
Plus, how can you trust the opinion of "journalists" who put an "!" at the end of every word in every Yahoo related headline, that regularly trawl eBay for pictures of breasts reflected in listed objects, or make up some preposterous story about an artifact on an Google Earth Image? They also use stylized language to the point where reader comprehension is zero. To call the register "tabloid" is generous, and an insult to tabloids -- it's like a closed, more structured version of Digg.
I strongly suspect there is no-one over the age of 14 working for The Register.
I know this is a good intention on the part of everybody involved, but the Wikimedia Foundation is very much out of touch with their main user base, and has been for some time.
Not sure how out of touch they are... I note that the wikipedia fundraising icon at the top of every page has a little green nazi giving the sieg heil salute. That suggests that Wikimedia is understanding its userbase with insight, subtle acknowledgment and encouragement. I'm sure the wikicabals will be proud to salute back.
Anyone who has ever watched The Simpsons in German will agree.
Seconded! The Simpsons dubbed into German is not funny. Most things dubbed into German are not funny. The quality of the actors doing the dubbing varies, but the German networks seem to consistently hire very poor quality translators.
Slashdot Mirror
"vandalism" (and still waiting for an acceptable definition of that) like that in the parent is not a problem. The real issue is with the subtle changes in historical and political pages. Change one or two words and you can change the whole perception of facts. It's not easy to see those changes, and yet those changes go on all the time on Wikipedia.
And there are admins who are involved in that process. We all know about the Ayn Rand issues here. That's just one example among many.
There is a fundamental lack of trust in the Wikipedia foundation. Any attempts to validate Wikipedia -- like this one -- need to be heavily scrutinized, and rejected until such time as transparency and honesty are part of the Wikimentality (probably never).
If only Wikipedia would stop trying to be important, it would naturally become so over time. It's great for zeitgeist and trivia, but the vanity of Jimmy and his cabal try to push it beyond that. It, thus, becomes less free, less fun, and of less value.
Facebook users organize a mass protest against this change in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
Try 5: In Korea, only old people use spacecraft.
Then there was a calm period where there was just the normal everyday minor background corruption/totalitarian stories about Wikipedia.
And then... now that they are back fundraising (love the little guy doing the nazi salute on the fundraising icon - woah! really uber-dumb icon for a site often accused of info-fascism) here come the stories about Wikipedia again.
Coincidence? Or is there marketing/PR people getting these stories out there to ensure high profile and more money?
I think the corruption claims are justified, and it is important they are investigated -- openly. Jimmy Wales' history seems to be a lot shadier than his Wikipedia biography would have you believe.
Not exactly, no. That's true. However, it has delusions of grandeur as to being an authoritative source (one thing it must NEVER be while even the possibility of cabals exist (which is always going to be the case)).
As a source of zeitgeist and trivia wikipedia is fine -- a source of important information it isn't.
1. The Register -- what credibility?
2. Nonsense? -- Stories like this are essential - it's called "freedom of the press". Obviously some Wikipedians don't like that sort of vandalism... um, I mean thing.
At least The Register (for all its many faults) and Slashdot do attempt to get the truth about Wikipedia out there. That's very important, considering the kind of people who appear to be running Wikipedia.
This Jimmy Wales quote: "We aren't democratic."
That's one for future generations. That quote should haunt him for the rest of his career. It's right up there with all the ones Bill Gates and Ballmer have made, that are repeated here often.
Two words: "true colors".
I was going to add in the usual references to nazis and Ayn Rand and all the rest -- but honestly, Jimmy's quote says it all, and says it clearer. It's all you ever needed to know about Wikipedia.
Now the ePaper thing is cool admittedly. The DRM is as cool as chilli peppers in Hades...
But does anyone else think that the Kindle looks like an all white speak-and-spell? It really looks like a cheap 90's designed kids toy to me. And not in a retro way -- in a Made-in-Taiwan kind of way.
And anyway, surely this is a CIVIL issue and not a criminal one?
100% Nonsense. In no way should the parent be modded insightful. Very much the opposite.
They could also keep it as OLPC
One License Per Child.
Who in the UK can be surprised by this?
It's been obvious that the BBC's standards have been gradually eroding for about 20 years. It probably hasn't reached bottom yet. Biased tabloid journalism, and product placement to get round the no advertising rules, are the daily norm, not the exception nowadays.
Focus groups lead to mediocrity and bias. A similar thing is happening to the UK in many other areas too. If you have an IQ over 95 you're a statistical outlier, and are no longer catered to by corportations, government or the media in the UK.
The first rule of Guantanamo is, there are no rules.
The second rule of Guantanamo is, there are no rules.
The third rule of Guantanamo is, always obey the rules.
...isn't this one of Vista's most popular features?
Without that kill switch customers will be left with a slow, buggy OS.
actually... the number of secret mailing lists has doubled in the past six months. Seriously, check again!
If wikipedia put a disclaimer at the top of every page (rather than a little green nazi saluting) saying something to the effect of "the following information may be written by someone who has no knowledge of the subject, or may display bias" -- then you're correct, it is a fine source of trivia, as long as it's taken with a pinch of salt.
With a disclaimer on the top of the page, there will be a lot less vandalism and a lot less cabal manipulation too. Thus, a double victory.
The Register has many faults. Many. In fact it is truly awful most of the time.
However, it is good that they have been consistently reporting issues with Wikiality. It has been one source that is wikispin free. Normally Slashdot is patrolled by the wikicabal too, so posts critical of Wikiality are most often modded down. I guess there's some belief that wikipedia is somehow "open source" and therefore a "good thing" -- except Wikipedia has been proven time and time again to be neither "open" nor a "source" -- in fact, it is VERY much the opposite. Thus it's wonderful to see so many objective posts on this particular Slashdot article. This story needs to get out there into the mainstream media too. Wikipedia needs to start losing its overinflated search pagerankings, and all of the little remaining credibility it has with the general public.
Maybe, finally, the sword of Truth is cutting through Wikiality, and cutting the heads off its corrupt, greedy and manipulative admins.
Salute the little green Nazi with the "Seig hiel" arm gesture at the top of every Wikipedia page.
Two words: "true colors"
... Facebook users even more whiny than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even greater sense of entitlement than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even less understanding of social networking concepts than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even less sense of life's real priorities than previously thought?
... Facebook users misspending their period of youthful rebellion more than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even grander delusions of grandeur than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even greater abilities to self-promote trivial issues on Slashdot than previously thought?
It seems like a dangerous path to walk down for anyone with genuine integrity.
Plus, how can you trust the opinion of "journalists" who put an "!" at the end of every word in every Yahoo related headline, that regularly trawl eBay for pictures of breasts reflected in listed objects, or make up some preposterous story about an artifact on an Google Earth Image? They also use stylized language to the point where reader comprehension is zero. To call the register "tabloid" is generous, and an insult to tabloids -- it's like a closed, more structured version of Digg.
I strongly suspect there is no-one over the age of 14 working for The Register.
One day -- maybe -- Facebook users will get together and protest something really important. So much energy, so much potential...