So are "actors trying to look caring" the paid shills or are they doing he paying? They are obviously wealthy enough to pay a shill, but then how would they look caring? Surely their shill would get all the kudos, no?
Are the politicians looking for power the paid lackeys of global capitalism....oh, hang on - global capital has huge amounts of sunk capital in existing technologies so that doesn't work...so are the politicians paid shills of the Chinese...no, hang on, they're building a coal fired power station a week so it can't be them. I think we should be told who the dastardly bank rollers are.
Could it be the socialist of whom you speak? It's a long time since I've seen a proper socialist with enough money to pay a shill, but maybe shills are cheaper than they used to be. Who are the leaders of this group? c'mon. Who are the hippy-dippy masterminds behind the great global warming conspiracy?
And just who was that on the grassy knoll? Eh? Eh?
because it's the guys with PhDs who are more likely to make biased edits to push their view of how the field ought to be
Or, in a less tendencious construction, since you have no basis for that claim: "are in a better position to make evidence-based contributions".
But anyway, his arbitrary authority came from being and admin, arbitrator (gosh, look at that word), checkuser and oversight (this last allowing him to remove evidence of his wrong doing with impunity). And he lied his way to that authority by asserting false credentials and then using them as a weapon.
I find it fascinating that the qualities needed to prosper on Wikipedia seem to be identical to those to making it as an uber-troll on Usenet. Lie, exploit the few rules there are and never give up. The main difference is that on Usenet it is a reputation only thing: Jimbo *promoted* this guy.
Sanger's project also has a real names only policy, so if anyone claims credentials they can expect to get Googled (at the very least). There is at least some attempt at safeguarding
The point is that Essjay wasn't an expert, he merely claimed that he was. He then bragged about fooling the New Yorker, but in fact had fooled everyone and was able to exercise arbitrary authority while doing so - usinbg his faux expertise as a weapon. There is a difference between working anonymously and working deceitfully.
Can Citzendium be abused? Almost certainly, because any system can be abused by anybody determined enough. But the cancer at the heart of Wikipedia is that it not only took NO precautions at all to prevent the abuse, and then practically celebrated it (the sympathy this liar and fraud is getting after spinning a sob-story about how he only did it to keep stalkers off his back is simply breathtaking).
The one time I've had cause to complain about an iTMS purchase I got a refund within 24hrs. That was an Audible product too - no-one told 'em that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is supposed to be in stereo. So I still have their crappy mono version, got my money back and bought the CDs off play.com instead.
It seems nearly 30 years ago - in fact it *actually* 27 years ago - that my undergrad dissertation used gravity modelling to predict the impact of a new shooping centre.
The UK is one of the favourite places to launch defamation actions, because our laws are so heavily skewed in favour of the claimant.
Claimant's don't even have to prove actual harm, only that a story would *tend* to cause harm in the eyes of right thinking people. That four letter word is what makes the UK's defamation law the most pernicious in the free world.
And there's the rub: I suspect this has more to do with Asian politics than libel.
Look at the article for Sept. 11th. In the Britannica, there would be a factual story based on "official" commentary, "official" statements, etc. In Wikipedia, you get the little additional fact at the bottom: Some groups believe in a non-official conclusion that the planes were not piloted by Muslim/Arab terrorists.
Now, in Britannica, they couldn't say that, largely because a lot of their funding comes from Governments (public school libraries, etc.)
No, in Britannica they wouldn't (not couldn't) say that because their isn't a shred of evidence to support the kook...er...alternative conclusions.
With an exclusive a Mac isn't even *on* the news agenda for Time.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.
*Sigh*
News magazines aren't put together at the last minute you know.
If everything had been leaked weeks in advance they probably still would have run the feature and interview with Jobs.
But it would not have been on the cover, in front of 29 million readers, and *that* is what Apple cared about. Full page colour ads in Time *start* at $246,000
When any high end car maker announces a new/cool model, it will make the front pages of all the car mags,
Time is not a car mag. Or a Mac mag, or a PC mag or any other kind of trade or consumer mag. It is one of the world's major news titles. It doesn't have the choice of putting a Mac or a Dell on its cover, it has the choice of putting a Mac or George Bush...or JK Rowling....or Manny Ramirez...or Romano Prodi...or Tom Cruise....or anyone else who happens to be top of the news agenda at the time.
With an exclusive a Mac isn't even *on* the news agenda for Time.
If you do not understand that distinction then you do not understand how publishing works.
Ok, Britannica beats Wikipedia on accuracy 3-4. Now give us your corrections and see who beats who in publishing the most accurate new edition.
And then see who beats who in being vandalised, being reverted, being vandalised, being subtely changed such that no-one notices for ages that it is now wrong, being corrected, being vandalised, being reverted to the old wrong verion..and on...and on...and on...
I guess 33% "more" errors is a vast overstatement, when wikipedia's article's are 2.6 times longer then britannica.
An argument of quite breath-taking stupidity. That Wikipedia's articles are 2.6 times long could simply mean that they are badly over-written (and given the paucity of professional editors contributing, plus the evidence of my own eyes, that is pretty much a given). Britannica, on the other hand, most certainly is professionally copy-edited by people who have a grasp of the material.
To use an example from Estate Agent English, which is better: "Situated in close proximity to convenient retail facilites" or "near the shops". Which construction style is more likely to show up in which 'pedia? When I could be arsed with Wikipedia most of my time was spent chopping out redundant verbiage; guess why I gave up (well, that and the absence of an enforcable anti-aggression policy).
Substitute 2 months for a "less that a year" and you have my neighbour's viao story - except Sony's UK support people argued the toss for the best part of a month that the problem was not the machine but the fact that the neighbour had had the brass-bound nerve to install something that wasn't XP on it (Gentoo). He won't be buying Sony again.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, right. It's all a conspiracy to secure more grant money. Thanks for sharing.
Are the politicians looking for power the paid lackeys of global capitalism....oh, hang on - global capital has huge amounts of sunk capital in existing technologies so that doesn't work...so are the politicians paid shills of the Chinese...no, hang on, they're building a coal fired power station a week so it can't be them. I think we should be told who the dastardly bank rollers are.
Could it be the socialist of whom you speak? It's a long time since I've seen a proper socialist with enough money to pay a shill, but maybe shills are cheaper than they used to be. Who are the leaders of this group? c'mon. Who are the hippy-dippy masterminds behind the great global warming conspiracy?
And just who was that on the grassy knoll? Eh? Eh?
Who would be a paid shill for the "global warming is a serious threat to us all" side? And who is paying them?
Or, in a less tendencious construction, since you have no basis for that claim: "are in a better position to make evidence-based contributions".
But anyway, his arbitrary authority came from being and admin, arbitrator (gosh, look at that word), checkuser and oversight (this last allowing him to remove evidence of his wrong doing with impunity). And he lied his way to that authority by asserting false credentials and then using them as a weapon.
I find it fascinating that the qualities needed to prosper on Wikipedia seem to be identical to those to making it as an uber-troll on Usenet. Lie, exploit the few rules there are and never give up. The main difference is that on Usenet it is a reputation only thing: Jimbo *promoted* this guy.
The point is that Essjay wasn't an expert, he merely claimed that he was. He then bragged about fooling the New Yorker, but in fact had fooled everyone and was able to exercise arbitrary authority while doing so - usinbg his faux expertise as a weapon. There is a difference between working anonymously and working deceitfully.
Can Citzendium be abused? Almost certainly, because any system can be abused by anybody determined enough. But the cancer at the heart of Wikipedia is that it not only took NO precautions at all to prevent the abuse, and then practically celebrated it (the sympathy this liar and fraud is getting after spinning a sob-story about how he only did it to keep stalkers off his back is simply breathtaking).
Heh. Say that often enough and you'll even convince yourself.
Actually we know it's not that big because that would *have* to be declared, being just a tad share price sensitive.
The acid test of "who won" is quite simple: in a year who will ever remember that Cisco once made a product called iPhone?
The one time I've had cause to complain about an iTMS purchase I got a refund within 24hrs. That was an Audible product too - no-one told 'em that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is supposed to be in stereo. So I still have their crappy mono version, got my money back and bought the CDs off play.com instead.
You've never heard of Gerald Ratner, have you?
Lakshmanen-Hansen: some names to conjure with.
Claimant's don't even have to prove actual harm, only that a story would *tend* to cause harm in the eyes of right thinking people. That four letter word is what makes the UK's defamation law the most pernicious in the free world.
And there's the rub: I suspect this has more to do with Asian politics than libel.
You seriously thought people had filled 40g+ iPods with music bought from ITMS?
Crikey.
Geez, watch what you're saying, you're advocating indirect censorship.
Try not to be completely ridiculous.
Now, in Britannica, they couldn't say that, largely because a lot of their funding comes from Governments (public school libraries, etc.)
No, in Britannica they wouldn't (not couldn't) say that because their isn't a shred of evidence to support the kook...er...alternative conclusions.
Gee, requiring empirical evidence. Whatever next?
Which Christmas?
Fact checking. You should try it sometime.
Oh by the way: check the cover date of the *current* issue.
*Sigh*
News magazines aren't put together at the last minute you know.
If everything had been leaked weeks in advance they probably still would have run the feature and interview with Jobs.
But it would not have been on the cover, in front of 29 million readers, and *that* is what Apple cared about. Full page colour ads in Time *start* at $246,000
Time is not a car mag. Or a Mac mag, or a PC mag or any other kind of trade or consumer mag. It is one of the world's major news titles. It doesn't have the choice of putting a Mac or a Dell on its cover, it has the choice of putting a Mac or George Bush...or JK Rowling....or Manny Ramirez...or Romano Prodi...or Tom Cruise....or anyone else who happens to be top of the news agenda at the time.
With an exclusive a Mac isn't even *on* the news agenda for Time.
If you do not understand that distinction then you do not understand how publishing works.
And then see who beats who in being vandalised, being reverted, being vandalised, being subtely changed such that no-one notices for ages that it is now wrong, being corrected, being vandalised, being reverted to the old wrong verion..and on...and on...and on...
An argument of quite breath-taking stupidity. That Wikipedia's articles are 2.6 times long could simply mean that they are badly over-written (and given the paucity of professional editors contributing, plus the evidence of my own eyes, that is pretty much a given). Britannica, on the other hand, most certainly is professionally copy-edited by people who have a grasp of the material.
To use an example from Estate Agent English, which is better: "Situated in close proximity to convenient retail facilites" or "near the shops". Which construction style is more likely to show up in which 'pedia? When I could be arsed with Wikipedia most of my time was spent chopping out redundant verbiage; guess why I gave up (well, that and the absence of an enforcable anti-aggression policy).
Substitute 2 months for a "less that a year" and you have my neighbour's viao story - except Sony's UK support people argued the toss for the best part of a month that the problem was not the machine but the fact that the neighbour had had the brass-bound nerve to install something that wasn't XP on it (Gentoo). He won't be buying Sony again.
*Only*?
The story was compiled by Nature's news desk. Nature's news desk is not peer reviewed.
Was there any coverage here on /. of Britannica's rebuttal a week or so ago? I must have missed it.
No. My story got rejected.