I think you mean; someone needs to check their server logs and use average data to investigate the truth. Rather than, say, specially selecting data that proves your point and covers your ass -- which is beyond any shadow of a doubt exactly what the BBC did.
Yes, Airstrip One is proudly ahead of the rest of Oceania. The US is many orders of magnitude freer than the UK.
The UK government is probably already doing this, who needs democratic authority in a country where citizens have no right to free speech. And most are too drunk or hungover to think clearly enough to exercise that right on any given day. Seriously, if you know what's good for you, stay away from Britain. V for Vendetta may yet turn out to be a documentary.
Incidentally, I'd be interested in how anyone defines "suspect" in this context.
The notability claim is there for a reason, and it works, it stops ego listings.
Oh the irony!!! A wikipedia admin complaining about the ego of others. Why does anyone contribute to wikipedia? Yes, that's right -- ego. The joy and bragging rights of seeing their precious and oh so important words on the Internet.
Wikiadmins are the epitome of ego. They are so egomaniacal they think they know better than the vain people who post on wikipedia. The love deleting. They love the power -- something they'd never EVER get to wield in real life.
Are there posts on wikipedia belonging to no name individuals or organizations -- yep, sure are. Many. Do they get taken down even-handedly? Oh good grief no. Who gets to decide who's famous or notable -- more admins? Today's cabal?
The one thing Wikiadmins really don't like is criticism. That's why I'd bet that they are all here, modding down every post that paints them in a bad light. The parent has been modded up and down like a YoYo.
Considering the regularity that admin-related scandals hit the pages of Slashdot alone, I'm continually astonished that anyone here defends Wikipedia, let alone donates money to it. It has been proven time, and time, and time again, that there are wikiadmins who are drunk on power and operating as part of cabals. There is corruption at the core of wikipedia -- proven. The term wikinazi is often used, and it is justifiable. There are wikiadmins who would joyfully burn books and are most surely pushing their own agenda. This goes high up in the organisation.
It's been asked before many times here -- but the wikinazis never answer. Who watches the watchers?
The only way forward for wikipedia is to remove all admins -- all of them. Even the best of them. They are self-appointed, self-important, self-aggrandizing egomaniacs -- that comes with wanting to be an admin. They are never to be trusted with the integrity of information. Never. EVER.
I wholeheartedly agree. The fundamental problem with "experts" in the wiki-sense is that they are self-appointed. And invariably self-aggrandizing.
Citizendium has the advantage, perhaps, that it's clear from the start that there is a hierarchy. At least potential cabals are the more transparent.
Wikipedia is rife with cabal-ery, and in many cases admins are deeply involved in that. This has been exposed time, after time, after time, after time, after time, all the way to the top - and even then it's probably only the tip of the iceberg of the data manipulation that goes on. Nota bene -- I do NOT mean "vandalism". "Vandalism", like "terrorism" is an emotive abstract tool exaggerated to permit lock-down and control of information. "Vandalism" is not nearly as bad as the deliberate manipulation of data to service a political agenda, for example.
The best solution is to remove all, repeat ALL, admins. If you are truly interested in the goals stated in the wikipedia mission statement, if you are interested in truth -- not wikiality -- then that is the only thing that will give you that. For every other possible scenario involving admins you are compromising truth.
Anyone who trusts anything on an encyclopedia ruled by self-appointed experts deserves all that they get.
Anonymity, free speech, and freedom from wikinazis -- it's the path of truth.
I don't know if it is just me, but I get turned off the moment I come across any reference to "Web 2.0".
Yes, agreed. As far as I can see Web 2.0 -- and most especially Wikipedia, and Citizendium too for that matter -- only exist because "search" is really not good enough for most people's needs.
It's been 10 years since Google, and what innovation has happened since then? Nothing much.
If search worked as desired you could go straight to the primary sources of data and not need to have it filtered and biased by self appointed "experts" or wiki-cabals. What need would there be for eBay, Facebook, Blogger, MySpace or YouTube or any of the rest of the Web 2.0 nonsense other than free hosting and easy content management.
My only hope is the Web 3.0 is about search that actually works, maybe then we can move away from snakeoil and wikiality.
Well, I am American, so I've probably got redcoat history wrong too. But they weren't British packs.
Quite correct -ish.
1603 Union of The Crowns
1707 Act of Union (Parliaments)
1995 Braveheart -- The Act of Gibson (the rewriting of history and the beginning of the end)
1997 Scotland Act (The Act of Fools), The End.
Since Britain refers to the island also, they could still be British Packs. But judging by their behavior I'd suggest Scots or Irish in all likelihood.
(before any nationalists switch flame-on, I was born in Edinburgh, but consider myself British. There is no country of Scotland. There was, and (sadly) there may yet be. But right now, it only exists in tiny nazi-onalist minds.)
Maybe human beings are just porn's way of making more porn.
The great thing about slashdot is that there really are some incredibly smart and funny people (two things that usually go together) here. Take the above quote for example, it is both funny and deeply profound. It is an Hall of Fame quote. Thank you, it made my day.
Any Sports team that based an evaluation purely on a video deserves everything it gets.
However, as a starting point it's an excellent way of whittling down candidates and seeing what's out there. This is a good idea as long as it doesn't become exploitative (um, which for modelling and acting such things very much already are). Yes, you can alter perception to a degree with CG, with visual effects, or even just good camera direction -- however, this is highly skilled and very few people on Earth can do it, most of them already do indeed work in the film industry.
Incidentally if you think Pixar would do a YouTube video for 50 grand... try 50 grand per second, and you'd be closer.
But if you live in the People's Democratic Republic of (formerly Great) Britain you must surely already realize that you already live in a dystopia. The police in the streets here already wear body armor and are already watching everyone on big brother cameras.
Add to that: no right to freedom of speech, no right to freedom of assembly, thought crime, Government controlled media, mind control by fear generation through creation of irrational abstract enemies like pedophiles, etc, etc, etc...
The only real difference is that you are free to leave -- for now. Assuming you have enough credit in an over-priced economy that's designed to keep you in the red, are sober enough long enough to figure out where the airport is, and one of the few people thin enough to fit on an aircraft seat.
Oh don't fight! Be like us -- Embrace!!! We're far too fat, indebted, drunk and lazy to fight.
Over here in the People's Democratic Republic of (formerly Great) Britain -- you Americans may also know it as Airstrip One -- our very beloved (or else) Premier Brown recently announced that the 30 year period for keeping sensitive Government documents secret may be extended, and may also include documents from Businesses too.
Perhaps eBay should consider moving here, I sure our Government would be most helpful as always. Just think eBay chaps, lots of secure video cameras too!
How long till this product is in an airport near you figuring out if you are happy. If you are not you get corn holed with extra screening because you must be a terrorist.
You must be new to airports. The only happy people in them are likely be terrorists. Those are ones you want to screen. Any normal person finds airports to be the singular most hellish places on Earth.
Yes, I agree. I'd like to see this site back up and running asap. I used it often.
However, I'd have some concerns about moving away from a radically different model. It think it's only the maintenance and sole ownership that are the issue. It was one of the few wiki-sites that contained factual and accurate information, and was not run at least in part by over-zealous idiots pushing their own agenda.
I'd personally prefer an for-profit model than anything that was more typically wiki.
Most people who use facebook are relatively intelligent. some people like to look at the news...
Facebook clientel definitely have a higher ~IQ than those of Bebo or myspace.
Hmmm... that depends entirely on how you look at intelligence...
I grant you that there are possibly more university students on Facebook than MySpace -- is that truly a measure of intelligence?
Certainly for the creative arts Facebook is absolutely worthless. I'm a filmmaker. To network with other filmmakers artists and musicians I must have a MySpace account. I do also have a Facebook account that I never use -- but in the unlikely event that there would be people I would wish to network with on Facebook, I have no way of finding them due to the closed nature of Facebook. It's better coded and more secure, but more closed, and has (ironically, since I know News Corp owns MySpace) a more stagnant corporate feel to it.
I am aware that MySpace is coded by chimps, and there may have been a high percentage of low-brow teens on it at one time (I think they have mostly migrated to Bebo these days), however for the creative arts it is MySpace all the way.
And creative people ARE intelligent, probably much more so that than the average lawyer or accountant, who seem to populate Facebook in their droves. Look at the networking options on Facebook - there's dozens of management consulting firms on it. Those people may have degrees, but I would strongly question the true intelligence of anyone who wastes their lives as a Management Consultant.
In the UK now something like 40% of School leavers go on to University. But there's no way that the vast majority have the intelligence to be there, and I'm sure that even 10 years ago they'd ever get accepted into one.
Thanks. If I had mod points I'd mod you up. So instead I'll thank you for taking the time to risk flames by writing the truth.
I think the majority of Zeppelin's fan base these days are made up from those who do not remember Zeppelin when they first started out. At least, in the UK they were not regarded as being anything special -- other than perhaps Bonham's drum sound. You are quite correct, they basically plagiarized every bluesman they could find. There was very little innovation in their music.
From my memory, I recall a number of the music press pointing out how unoriginal (especially ripped-off riffs like Stairway) much of Zeppelin's material actually was.
They certainly did understand the business side, and I'm sure I remember a number of highly critical articles about them from the mid 1970's concerning the formation of Swansong records. It's no surprise to me that they held out some long against downloads. They are true dinosaurs of rock.
From Hippies? No. Not at all. No. This is wrong. Led Zeppelin fans in my class at school in the early seventies all smelled of Patchouli, had long hair, wore sandals, wore combat jackets with those hand-stitched zep symbols on them, or afghan coats (in which case they also smelled of wet dog).
I think the original poster may be confusing Zeppelin with Roxy Music?
And although it sucks slightly less than most other classifieds sites, here's the problems with Craigslist...
Firstly, it's part owned by eBay -- so it's not really in their interests to do anything about it, even though the do have the technology to filter out some of these ads at least.
Secondly, reporting something to Craigslist is pissing in the wind. Their system does not really work. It relies on a significant number of users flagging off scams -- and that just doesn't always happen, and doesn't happen fast enough. It also means the the same scams show up all the time -- since there's no way of escalating a scam such that it gets added to a filter. Look at any non-American Craigslist page and you will see almost no genuine ads.
Not enough users -> lots of scams -> not enough users -> scams don't get removed -> not enough users, because the site is full of scams. It is an extremely dumb way to run a website, which clearly fails in any non-US market.
The only advantage Craigslist has for the rest of the World, is that it is not Gumtree -- also owned by eBay -- and known by many in the UK as Scumtree or Scamtree, because they seem to have absolutely no ability to remove scams. And there's some really nasty stuff on that site -- serious crime. You can report ads, but it seems an entirely manual process, and they are obviously understaffed or in no hurry to do any work (the latter seems likely). 90% of the scams on that site would be piss easy to block permanently -- they are criminally negligent in not doing so. It is incredible they have not been sued.
There is a huge gap in the market for a trusted classified ads site. All of the current models fail for exactly the same reason -- they don't much care about removing the bad guys as long as the cash is rolling in and they aren't being held accountable.
Did you miss this part? for Wikipedia. The six officials were publicly chastised for editing hundreds of Wikipedia entries during work hours
If they had gotten in trouble for doing it not during work hours I could see it being censorship, but they were doing it during work hours.
The true irony being that they were editing trivial pages from work computers for fun. Whereas in all probability their bosses or agents are altering more serious pages from anonymous computers to avoid being seen as tampering with information. Anyway, Wikipedia quite routinely bans IP addresses -- including whole country's IP address from its site -- so it's only fair perhaps for someone to return the favor every now and again?
Censorship is evil -- censorship is an intrinsic part of Wikipedia. Vanity is a precursor for evil -- Wikipedia is an exercise in vanity. Such is the nature of Wikiality.
This is great. I see this as finally what universities should have been working towards as soon as the web was created.
However can I draw everyone's attention to the course titled: "Physics for Future Presidents". Of course the lectures are interesting and useful, but the title is scary...
"Physics", "Future" and "Presidents". Three words I'd never expect to be near each other.
You're going to see a whole slough of articles on this because it's now very easy for everyone to criticize after the facts are in.
Yes, this is true. However, in this particular case there were a whole host of critical articles before, during and after the buy-out of Skype. All decent analysts pretty much said eBay were fools, and overpaid for hot air. I do not recall seeing any, any at all, serious article that said this was a good deal. As (unfortunately) someone who holds (worthless) eBay stock I followed this very closely. My stock wasn't worthless before Skype; it has been worthless on every single day ever since.
There are no surprises here. Everyone already knew this. Well, hmm, perhaps eBay for once in their corporate life admitting that they are complete fools, is actually surprising -- again, everyone has known that for sometime too.
Can anyone explain to me why that fat worthless saleswoman Meg Whitman is still employed?
Slashdot Mirror
Now if we could only apply this principle in the office - imagine the potential power wasted by not harvesting all the hot air generated in meetings.
Yes, Airstrip One is proudly ahead of the rest of Oceania. The US is many orders of magnitude freer than the UK.
The UK government is probably already doing this, who needs democratic authority in a country where citizens have no right to free speech. And most are too drunk or hungover to think clearly enough to exercise that right on any given day. Seriously, if you know what's good for you, stay away from Britain. V for Vendetta may yet turn out to be a documentary.
Incidentally, I'd be interested in how anyone defines "suspect" in this context.
Wikiadmins are the epitome of ego. They are so egomaniacal they think they know better than the vain people who post on wikipedia. The love deleting. They love the power -- something they'd never EVER get to wield in real life.
Are there posts on wikipedia belonging to no name individuals or organizations -- yep, sure are. Many. Do they get taken down even-handedly? Oh good grief no. Who gets to decide who's famous or notable -- more admins? Today's cabal?
The one thing Wikiadmins really don't like is criticism. That's why I'd bet that they are all here, modding down every post that paints them in a bad light. The parent has been modded up and down like a YoYo.
Considering the regularity that admin-related scandals hit the pages of Slashdot alone, I'm continually astonished that anyone here defends Wikipedia, let alone donates money to it. It has been proven time, and time, and time again, that there are wikiadmins who are drunk on power and operating as part of cabals. There is corruption at the core of wikipedia -- proven. The term wikinazi is often used, and it is justifiable. There are wikiadmins who would joyfully burn books and are most surely pushing their own agenda. This goes high up in the organisation.
It's been asked before many times here -- but the wikinazis never answer. Who watches the watchers?
The only way forward for wikipedia is to remove all admins -- all of them. Even the best of them. They are self-appointed, self-important, self-aggrandizing egomaniacs -- that comes with wanting to be an admin. They are never to be trusted with the integrity of information. Never. EVER.
I wholeheartedly agree. The fundamental problem with "experts" in the wiki-sense is that they are self-appointed. And invariably self-aggrandizing.
Citizendium has the advantage, perhaps, that it's clear from the start that there is a hierarchy. At least potential cabals are the more transparent.
Wikipedia is rife with cabal-ery, and in many cases admins are deeply involved in that. This has been exposed time, after time, after time, after time, after time, all the way to the top - and even then it's probably only the tip of the iceberg of the data manipulation that goes on. Nota bene -- I do NOT mean "vandalism". "Vandalism", like "terrorism" is an emotive abstract tool exaggerated to permit lock-down and control of information. "Vandalism" is not nearly as bad as the deliberate manipulation of data to service a political agenda, for example.
The best solution is to remove all, repeat ALL, admins. If you are truly interested in the goals stated in the wikipedia mission statement, if you are interested in truth -- not wikiality -- then that is the only thing that will give you that. For every other possible scenario involving admins you are compromising truth.
Anyone who trusts anything on an encyclopedia ruled by self-appointed experts deserves all that they get.
Anonymity, free speech, and freedom from wikinazis -- it's the path of truth.
It's been 10 years since Google, and what innovation has happened since then? Nothing much.
If search worked as desired you could go straight to the primary sources of data and not need to have it filtered and biased by self appointed "experts" or wiki-cabals. What need would there be for eBay, Facebook, Blogger, MySpace or YouTube or any of the rest of the Web 2.0 nonsense other than free hosting and easy content management.
My only hope is the Web 3.0 is about search that actually works, maybe then we can move away from snakeoil and wikiality.
- 1603 Union of The Crowns
- 1707 Act of Union (Parliaments)
- 1995 Braveheart -- The Act of Gibson (the rewriting of history and the beginning of the end)
- 1997 Scotland Act (The Act of Fools), The End.
Since Britain refers to the island also, they could still be British Packs. But judging by their behavior I'd suggest Scots or Irish in all likelihood.(before any nationalists switch flame-on, I was born in Edinburgh, but consider myself British. There is no country of Scotland. There was, and (sadly) there may yet be. But right now, it only exists in tiny nazi-onalist minds.)
Um, sorry... I mean, devolved.
Any Sports team that based an evaluation purely on a video deserves everything it gets.
However, as a starting point it's an excellent way of whittling down candidates and seeing what's out there. This is a good idea as long as it doesn't become exploitative (um, which for modelling and acting such things very much already are). Yes, you can alter perception to a degree with CG, with visual effects, or even just good camera direction -- however, this is highly skilled and very few people on Earth can do it, most of them already do indeed work in the film industry.
Incidentally if you think Pixar would do a YouTube video for 50 grand... try 50 grand per second, and you'd be closer.
You are quite right...
But if you live in the People's Democratic Republic of (formerly Great) Britain you must surely already realize that you already live in a dystopia. The police in the streets here already wear body armor and are already watching everyone on big brother cameras.
Add to that: no right to freedom of speech, no right to freedom of assembly, thought crime, Government controlled media, mind control by fear generation through creation of irrational abstract enemies like pedophiles, etc, etc, etc...
The only real difference is that you are free to leave -- for now. Assuming you have enough credit in an over-priced economy that's designed to keep you in the red, are sober enough long enough to figure out where the airport is, and one of the few people thin enough to fit on an aircraft seat.
Oh don't fight! Be like us -- Embrace!!! We're far too fat, indebted, drunk and lazy to fight.
Over here in the People's Democratic Republic of (formerly Great) Britain -- you Americans may also know it as Airstrip One -- our very beloved (or else) Premier Brown recently announced that the 30 year period for keeping sensitive Government documents secret may be extended, and may also include documents from Businesses too.
Perhaps eBay should consider moving here, I sure our Government would be most helpful as always. Just think eBay chaps, lots of secure video cameras too!
Doubleplusgood, that's all I have to say!
eBay has always had bugs -- oh, you meant the other kind?
Yes, I agree. I'd like to see this site back up and running asap. I used it often.
However, I'd have some concerns about moving away from a radically different model. It think it's only the maintenance and sole ownership that are the issue. It was one of the few wiki-sites that contained factual and accurate information, and was not run at least in part by over-zealous idiots pushing their own agenda.
I'd personally prefer an for-profit model than anything that was more typically wiki.
I grant you that there are possibly more university students on Facebook than MySpace -- is that truly a measure of intelligence?
Certainly for the creative arts Facebook is absolutely worthless. I'm a filmmaker. To network with other filmmakers artists and musicians I must have a MySpace account. I do also have a Facebook account that I never use -- but in the unlikely event that there would be people I would wish to network with on Facebook, I have no way of finding them due to the closed nature of Facebook. It's better coded and more secure, but more closed, and has (ironically, since I know News Corp owns MySpace) a more stagnant corporate feel to it.
I am aware that MySpace is coded by chimps, and there may have been a high percentage of low-brow teens on it at one time (I think they have mostly migrated to Bebo these days), however for the creative arts it is MySpace all the way.
And creative people ARE intelligent, probably much more so that than the average lawyer or accountant, who seem to populate Facebook in their droves. Look at the networking options on Facebook - there's dozens of management consulting firms on it. Those people may have degrees, but I would strongly question the true intelligence of anyone who wastes their lives as a Management Consultant.
In the UK now something like 40% of School leavers go on to University. But there's no way that the vast majority have the intelligence to be there, and I'm sure that even 10 years ago they'd ever get accepted into one.
Thanks. If I had mod points I'd mod you up. So instead I'll thank you for taking the time to risk flames by writing the truth.
I think the majority of Zeppelin's fan base these days are made up from those who do not remember Zeppelin when they first started out. At least, in the UK they were not regarded as being anything special -- other than perhaps Bonham's drum sound. You are quite correct, they basically plagiarized every bluesman they could find. There was very little innovation in their music.
From my memory, I recall a number of the music press pointing out how unoriginal (especially ripped-off riffs like Stairway) much of Zeppelin's material actually was.
They certainly did understand the business side, and I'm sure I remember a number of highly critical articles about them from the mid 1970's concerning the formation of Swansong records. It's no surprise to me that they held out some long against downloads. They are true dinosaurs of rock.
From Hippies? No. Not at all. No. This is wrong. Led Zeppelin fans in my class at school in the early seventies all smelled of Patchouli, had long hair, wore sandals, wore combat jackets with those hand-stitched zep symbols on them, or afghan coats (in which case they also smelled of wet dog).
I think the original poster may be confusing Zeppelin with Roxy Music?
And although it sucks slightly less than most other classifieds sites, here's the problems with Craigslist...
Firstly, it's part owned by eBay -- so it's not really in their interests to do anything about it, even though the do have the technology to filter out some of these ads at least.
Secondly, reporting something to Craigslist is pissing in the wind. Their system does not really work. It relies on a significant number of users flagging off scams -- and that just doesn't always happen, and doesn't happen fast enough. It also means the the same scams show up all the time -- since there's no way of escalating a scam such that it gets added to a filter. Look at any non-American Craigslist page and you will see almost no genuine ads.
Not enough users -> lots of scams -> not enough users -> scams don't get removed -> not enough users, because the site is full of scams. It is an extremely dumb way to run a website, which clearly fails in any non-US market.
The only advantage Craigslist has for the rest of the World, is that it is not Gumtree -- also owned by eBay -- and known by many in the UK as Scumtree or Scamtree, because they seem to have absolutely no ability to remove scams. And there's some really nasty stuff on that site -- serious crime. You can report ads, but it seems an entirely manual process, and they are obviously understaffed or in no hurry to do any work (the latter seems likely). 90% of the scams on that site would be piss easy to block permanently -- they are criminally negligent in not doing so. It is incredible they have not been sued.
There is a huge gap in the market for a trusted classified ads site. All of the current models fail for exactly the same reason -- they don't much care about removing the bad guys as long as the cash is rolling in and they aren't being held accountable.
Censorship is evil -- censorship is an intrinsic part of Wikipedia. Vanity is a precursor for evil -- Wikipedia is an exercise in vanity. Such is the nature of Wikiality.
SSSSuuuuuUUULLLLLuuuu!!!!
This is great. I see this as finally what universities should have been working towards as soon as the web was created.
However can I draw everyone's attention to the course titled: "Physics for Future Presidents". Of course the lectures are interesting and useful, but the title is scary...
"Physics", "Future" and "Presidents". Three words I'd never expect to be near each other.
There are no surprises here. Everyone already knew this. Well, hmm, perhaps eBay for once in their corporate life admitting that they are complete fools, is actually surprising -- again, everyone has known that for sometime too.
Can anyone explain to me why that fat worthless saleswoman Meg Whitman is still employed?
This will save me searching for pr0n. Now my computer will do it for me.
Yay! This is a major breakthrough.