Yup, I'm with you. It has to be said that the copyright stuff on You Tube is probably the best thing on it.
Somewhere on You Tube is material from talented filmmakers, but how do you find it? It seems that the majority of material on there is 1. tag spammed and 2. shot by people who seem to lack the understanding that a video camera works, not by digital magic, but by the principle of light entering the lens. If your subject is in front of the light, duh, guess what happens?
I'd rather see all that crap removed first. No small task to check for tag spam - but that's why tags failed for searching the net. They're exploitable and frequently exploited by the talentless.
Yep. And WGA has hurt them more than it's helped I'm sure too. I know a few people who would probably update to IE7 but can't due to WGA issues (legitimate or otherwise). So they use Firefox, and fire up IE6 on the rare occasions when some idiot developer's coded his site for IE only. Great for Mozilla and other OSS, MS is shooting themselves in the foot.
Because your average home user buying an off the shelf PC (regardless of who it's from) has no idea what Open Office is.
I'm not sure what a home user needs with any office package. Perhaps that's part of the issue. I see Open Office's main potential customers in the short term being small and medium sized businesses. Then Corporations once smaller companies had been converted.
Large companies, will get MS Office discounted when they sold their souls setting up their Intranet. No-one much outside of a corporation needs Powerpoint, home users really don't have much need for Excel or Access, and less need for Word than they think they do.
In my home, and I do a lot of freelance business from home too, I open up Excel once in a blue moon, and use Word two or three times a year (although, I do use Final Draft and Notepad daily). In fact, I'm pretty certain I use Office type products less each year. Were it to come to it, Writely and Google spreadsheets would cover all of my needs, without having to download and install anything.
Wikia is not the "company" behind Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation, which is a non-profit foundation, is what's behind Wikipedia. Wikia is a totally separate for-profit company that is run by Jimbo Wales.
No. Not really. It's only separate for admin and accounting purposes. Ultimately Jimbo Wales is the driving ego behind both of these. I know many have claimed here that Jimbo is more distanced from Wikipedia than the media reports - this is however, clearly untrue.
Jimbo is as much hands on in both organizations as Rupert Murdoch is in News Corps projects - amongst other possible parallels between the two men.
Yep, if you are based in the English Speaking World porn sites are probably the most regulated and scrutinized of all websites. You pretty much have to be honest to run one, or end up being hung drawn and quartered by the "think of the children" fascists before long. So yes, let's rule that one out.
However, one you could add would be the whole Ayn Rand thing. The promotion and protection of factually dubious and biased material in this regard goes right up to Mr Wales himself.
But I applaud the poster of the original parent. I wholly agree with him. I wish more people spoke up with their criticism of Wikipedia. It is not what it portrays itself to be.
A proper public investigation and expose of Jimbo and some of the things that go on in Wikiland is long long long overdue. It is Wikiality, an insidious weakening and poisoning of truth - sometimes deliberate (see Ayn Rand), and often just through incompetence.
Journalists, please start investigating Mr Wales and his associates in depth!
I think maybe you are overthinking this a little. Occam's Razor suggests it was just to save time. But maybe she had a diaper fetish, who knows. She's clearly nuts.
I'm puzzled. In what way is Google open source? Yes, there are some open elements, but...
And Wikipedia's success is far from proven, nor is it entirely truly open either. If anything the area where it fails the most is in Education, since the information it contains is unreliable.
I can't think of a more damaging revelation to the Wikipedian ideal than this one, and even if it isn't a death blow to Wikipedia, scholars and researchers EVERYWHERE will have a field day with this; college professors will point to this as an example of why they don't accept citations from Wikipedia. In general, Wikipedia may be totally discredited by this scandal.
Sadly, I don't think this will happen. It really should be the final nail in the coffin of wikiality, but I suspect that, although we here on/. know the perils of wikipedia's lack of provable accuracy and precision, and its ability to be easily manipulated by zealous or biased admins, the greater public largely does not.
It is of constant irk to me that Wikipedia appears high in the rankings of any search you do on Google. There are many many (most) people out there who do not know wikipedia's flaws and limitations. Which is why I have always believed that it should have clear and bold warnings and disclaimers at the top of every page. That's fair, true and responsible.
However, I seriously doubt they will until some (inevitable) lawsuit forces them to do so. The Wikipedia foundation and the admins have too much ego invested in their work to ever admit it's potentially unsafe for the public. I think this Essjay thing proves that beyond doubt. They want people to believe they are a quality factual source regardless of the reality, and sadly, I think that many do.
You need to bear in mind that traffic flow isn't confined to one junction. It relies on the complete matrix of most if not all traffic lights in a city. So, although any one red light might be holding up traffic where there's none from the other direction, that may also be to manage flow further into the city centre in the same direction.
That said, in principle there's merit in what you suggest, but all the cameras on all the lights would need to be hooked into a program to manage overall flow dynamically.
And I've never really understood why we waste energy having traffic lights on, say between 2am and 5am, in most cities.
Marty Abbot is the COO of Quigo. He was previously the VP tech for eBay. That information alone is enough to make sure that I will not willingly be one their customers this side of the Great Hades Freeze.
I could not agree more. The editorial board and some of its actions have left me very suspicious of many if not most non-science wikipedia articles. I believe the Editorial Board to be too extreme, and take everything far too seriously. I have yet to see any definition of this "vandalism" that they harp on and on and on about that does not in some way inhibit free speech or valid protest. I DO NOT see vandalism as a major problem of Wikipedia - I DO see the response to it being a major problem.
One action that might help improve wikipedia is to place a disclaimer at the top of every page that says something like " This article may have been written by someone who is not an expert in this field. Therefore we caution you in relying on the information below and suggest you seek additional alternative sources for important information" My feeling is that by doing this - and removing ALL protection and editorial board abilities, (barring, perhaps, blatant spam) - the site will take care of itself better.
If people stop taking wikipedia seriously and stop pretending that it is a high quality valid reliable source, the quality will actually improve, and it will become a useful site. There are too many people pushing agendas on the site, far too much ego, and far too much vanity - that is the core of ALL its problems. And what is the point of "vandalizing" something that have a great big it-may-not-be-true sign at the top of each page. Sure it'll still happen, but I believe it will be reduced. And no-one should then get harmed by dodgy agenda-ist information as is currently the status quo on many pages.
I would guess you're correct that ads will be a central part of this design (rather than incidental in some of wikipedia's less discerning puff pieces).
However, if ad revenue is crucial to the business model for this new venture then it's going to have be even more locked down and controlled than wikipedia already is. There are many many cases of advertisers pulling their ads from mainstream magazines because they were unhappy with editorial direction and comment. This being the main reason why most magazines don't have highly critical reviews, for example.
I can't see this succeeding personally, there are too many legal issues. Wikipedia, it addition to its many well publicized faults and failings is hardly a glamorous website. And there are many many many alternatives already up and running.
Yes, I agree, and I think it also shows how little the BBC Trust understands the classical music market (and probably how little the BMI understands too). With the greatest respect to the musicians who recorded the the BBC free to download performances, these are not the finest examples of these pieces recorded, nor are they distributed in the most lossless format - lossless is essential for classical music.
Serious classical fans will look for and purchase the finest performances, possibly several of them - and often pay through the nose for them too (since there's little choice other than, maybe, a rare flac torrent).
The advantage of the BBC programme is that it introduced many pieces of music to a new audience, who then likely would become fans and subsequently pay to see live performances and cds of the finest recordings.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, I'm with you. It has to be said that the copyright stuff on You Tube is probably the best thing on it.
Somewhere on You Tube is material from talented filmmakers, but how do you find it? It seems that the majority of material on there is 1. tag spammed and 2. shot by people who seem to lack the understanding that a video camera works, not by digital magic, but by the principle of light entering the lens. If your subject is in front of the light, duh, guess what happens?
I'd rather see all that crap removed first. No small task to check for tag spam - but that's why tags failed for searching the net. They're exploitable and frequently exploited by the talentless.
Yep. And WGA has hurt them more than it's helped I'm sure too. I know a few people who would probably update to IE7 but can't due to WGA issues (legitimate or otherwise). So they use Firefox, and fire up IE6 on the rare occasions when some idiot developer's coded his site for IE only. Great for Mozilla and other OSS, MS is shooting themselves in the foot.
Large companies, will get MS Office discounted when they sold their souls setting up their Intranet. No-one much outside of a corporation needs Powerpoint, home users really don't have much need for Excel or Access, and less need for Word than they think they do.
In my home, and I do a lot of freelance business from home too, I open up Excel once in a blue moon, and use Word two or three times a year (although, I do use Final Draft and Notepad daily). In fact, I'm pretty certain I use Office type products less each year. Were it to come to it, Writely and Google spreadsheets would cover all of my needs, without having to download and install anything.
So it's a UPS? Does it come in brown?
or more scarily, and likely...
You searched for: Bill Gates
You Got: Wikipedia Articles on how wonderful the second coming of Ayn Rand will be.
You searched for: Vaginas
You Got: Wikipedia Articles on how wonderful the second coming of Ayn Rand will be.
Jimbo is as much hands on in both organizations as Rupert Murdoch is in News Corps projects - amongst other possible parallels between the two men.
laser beams, gimme fricking laser beams on them...
Yep, if you are based in the English Speaking World porn sites are probably the most regulated and scrutinized of all websites. You pretty much have to be honest to run one, or end up being hung drawn and quartered by the "think of the children" fascists before long. So yes, let's rule that one out.
However, one you could add would be the whole Ayn Rand thing. The promotion and protection of factually dubious and biased material in this regard goes right up to Mr Wales himself.
But I applaud the poster of the original parent. I wholly agree with him. I wish more people spoke up with their criticism of Wikipedia. It is not what it portrays itself to be.
A proper public investigation and expose of Jimbo and some of the things that go on in Wikiland is long long long overdue. It is Wikiality, an insidious weakening and poisoning of truth - sometimes deliberate (see Ayn Rand), and often just through incompetence.
Journalists, please start investigating Mr Wales and his associates in depth!
It seems that you're trying to invade Iran. I can help you with that...
I think maybe you are overthinking this a little. Occam's Razor suggests it was just to save time. But maybe she had a diaper fetish, who knows. She's clearly nuts.
I'm puzzled. In what way is Google open source? Yes, there are some open elements, but...
And Wikipedia's success is far from proven, nor is it entirely truly open either. If anything the area where it fails the most is in Education, since the information it contains is unreliable.
It is of constant irk to me that Wikipedia appears high in the rankings of any search you do on Google. There are many many (most) people out there who do not know wikipedia's flaws and limitations. Which is why I have always believed that it should have clear and bold warnings and disclaimers at the top of every page. That's fair, true and responsible.
However, I seriously doubt they will until some (inevitable) lawsuit forces them to do so. The Wikipedia foundation and the admins have too much ego invested in their work to ever admit it's potentially unsafe for the public. I think this Essjay thing proves that beyond doubt. They want people to believe they are a quality factual source regardless of the reality, and sadly, I think that many do.
no-one's yet said...
that's no moon...
You need to bear in mind that traffic flow isn't confined to one junction. It relies on the complete matrix of most if not all traffic lights in a city. So, although any one red light might be holding up traffic where there's none from the other direction, that may also be to manage flow further into the city centre in the same direction.
That said, in principle there's merit in what you suggest, but all the cameras on all the lights would need to be hooked into a program to manage overall flow dynamically.
And I've never really understood why we waste energy having traffic lights on, say between 2am and 5am, in most cities.
Marty Abbot is the COO of Quigo. He was previously the VP tech for eBay. That information alone is enough to make sure that I will not willingly be one their customers this side of the Great Hades Freeze.
I could not agree more. The editorial board and some of its actions have left me very suspicious of many if not most non-science wikipedia articles. I believe the Editorial Board to be too extreme, and take everything far too seriously. I have yet to see any definition of this "vandalism" that they harp on and on and on about that does not in some way inhibit free speech or valid protest. I DO NOT see vandalism as a major problem of Wikipedia - I DO see the response to it being a major problem.
One action that might help improve wikipedia is to place a disclaimer at the top of every page that says something like " This article may have been written by someone who is not an expert in this field. Therefore we caution you in relying on the information below and suggest you seek additional alternative sources for important information" My feeling is that by doing this - and removing ALL protection and editorial board abilities, (barring, perhaps, blatant spam) - the site will take care of itself better.
If people stop taking wikipedia seriously and stop pretending that it is a high quality valid reliable source, the quality will actually improve, and it will become a useful site. There are too many people pushing agendas on the site, far too much ego, and far too much vanity - that is the core of ALL its problems. And what is the point of "vandalizing" something that have a great big it-may-not-be-true sign at the top of each page. Sure it'll still happen, but I believe it will be reduced. And no-one should then get harmed by dodgy agenda-ist information as is currently the status quo on many pages.
I would guess you're correct that ads will be a central part of this design (rather than incidental in some of wikipedia's less discerning puff pieces).
However, if ad revenue is crucial to the business model for this new venture then it's going to have be even more locked down and controlled than wikipedia already is. There are many many cases of advertisers pulling their ads from mainstream magazines because they were unhappy with editorial direction and comment. This being the main reason why most magazines don't have highly critical reviews, for example.
I can't see this succeeding personally, there are too many legal issues. Wikipedia, it addition to its many well publicized faults and failings is hardly a glamorous website. And there are many many many alternatives already up and running.
You forgot...
In Soviet Russia, car parks you.
Toy Story was Pixar, not Dreamworks. Dreamworks did Shrek, which was excellent. Shrek 2 was better and Shrek 3 is coming soon.
And while WereRabbit was a brilliant movie, Flushed away was really not.
Wait a minute...
Isn't ESPN owned by Disney...
and isn't Steve Jobs and Disney...
A coincidence. Obviously.
Shame the Astros have more tasteful uniforms these days. The brown Zune could have co-ordinated very nicely with some of their 70's uniform disasters.
Yes, I agree, and I think it also shows how little the BBC Trust understands the classical music market (and probably how little the BMI understands too). With the greatest respect to the musicians who recorded the the BBC free to download performances, these are not the finest examples of these pieces recorded, nor are they distributed in the most lossless format - lossless is essential for classical music.
Serious classical fans will look for and purchase the finest performances, possibly several of them - and often pay through the nose for them too (since there's little choice other than, maybe, a rare flac torrent).
The advantage of the BBC programme is that it introduced many pieces of music to a new audience, who then likely would become fans and subsequently pay to see live performances and cds of the finest recordings.
It's a shocking waste of a missed opportunity.