Seems like the "socialist" Scandinavian countries are the most honest and "free".
Hmm. So a country that focuses on benefits for society turns out to be better for members of the society that individuals choose to join, than a country that simply focuses on individuals who might individually make poor decisions about their own needs. Funny how that works, eh?
British libel laws allow people to sue in England for stuff done/said almost anywhere in the world.
I think that's how it should be. A government is supposed to protect and provide for the rights of its citizens, including protecting and representing them on the world stage. If someone in another country harms you, you SHOULD be able to get your own government to take that to the government of the foreign citizen.
Well, no, facts are facts. The kind that can be made by pointing at evidence and arguing using hard logic.
A bigger problem is that human knowledge is much more than just a collection of facts. Writing a collection of facts about life as a priest or a poet will not explain what a priest or poet is, why s/he does it, what the rewards are, how s/he does it, etc. Human brains are split into two sides -- one mathematical, one poetic/romantic/spiritual/creative/whatever. Some things just need to be written by people who know the subject matter. Citations will not help, unless the citations are simply quoting someone who is trusted to use that side of their brain in a way that a wikipedia editor is not.
Wikipedia is constantly struggling with these issues, and IMHO it is fascinating to watch them change and tweak their tech and procedures in an attempt to reign in basic human nature
The human side is fair enough, but if wikipedia as a project is aware of these issues, then it should be REALLY doing something to counteract them. Something like putting a big button beside editor actions on your work saying, "We know our editors get it wrong sometimes. Click here if you feel your contributions are being mis-handled."
It's more a question of what it's doing now that it wasn't doing then. The quick auto-deletion of articles is one, the locking discussed here is another. The second-classing of anonymous editors (even though there are GOOD reasons to write anonymously as wikileaks proves) is another example. Somehow there's also a much more elitist attitude now, which seems to be due to a more closely-knit, more elitist crowd of moderators. But I'm not here to analyse wikipedia's flaws; that's a research project wikipedia should be conducting with all available resources, since the site's usefulness has dropped massively due to these problems. Someone needs to identify them all, and put them right before it's too late.
a phrase can sometimes have a non-literal meaning. In this case, "perhaps Wikipedia isn't the site for you," is meant literally as "you probably won't like Wikipedia."
You're the only one interpreting it literally (and in a wilfully blinkered way). Sorry, but I call bull on this. What it's really saying is, "We do things this way, and you want a different way, so you're not one of us, and probably won't get along here. Why don't you go where you're wanted instead?" It's high-scool cliqueism at its best. That's fine, on a small, cliquey site, but as I said, when a site becomes so large that it's a public utility of sorts, then such cliques become discriminatory abuses of power that are too serious to be ignored.
Microsoft knew they they could spin this against Google if they just ignored it 'til google's best-practice deadline was up. They knew that the uneducated public would then bite google hard on their behalf.
Call me when it's 75% cheaper than other "solutions".
From the description (and a lot of guesswork), it sounds a bit like they might have put in a basic RAID system, but using separate memory chips instead of drives. In terms of price vs performance/capacity, RAID has been a good solution, so this might well make sense, IF they don't try to make it out to be some black box filled with magical gold dust, rather than a simple application of existing tech in a new area.
For some topics, it's difficult to find an impartial-but-competent editor.
No, it's really not. A versioned textarea would do just fine as an editor. You know... like it used to be, back when Wikipedia was doing the right thing, and growing at a phenomenal rate.
Of course a community site isn't going to work if a significant portion of its members are actively subverting it. Banning repeat offenders isn't such a bad idea.
Unfortunately those repeat offenders were given moderator status instead.
If that offends you, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the site for you.
p.s.: there's a certain point, when a site becomes a shared resource used by all humanity, when you don't get to tell any particular individual that "this site isn't for you" any more.
It's not hypocrisy if the rules or "ideals" are open and clear.
Which they patently aren't. The whole idea of a wiki is that people contribute what they know, and others enhance it. It's how wikipedia grew from a few small articles to a wealth of information in many languages. Yet they now have bots going around and automatically deleting anything that the nothing-better-to-do, always-there gatekeeper-zealots decide is (currently) too short or isn't (yet) worded in a uniform way.
Frankly, at this point I'm hoping someone will come along with a better, more open semantic knowledge base, import the wikipedia content, and that we can all move on to a better future.
whether we can get out of this silly zero sum game where the harder software is to write, the more secure it is.
The game is that business types want code on the cheap, and developers are afraid to say no, because their livelihoods are on the line. The game is capitalism, and developers don't make good capitalist players.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you just have sexual problems.
At beer's current valuation, it doesn't surprise me.
Hmm. So a country that focuses on benefits for society turns out to be better for members of the society that individuals choose to join, than a country that simply focuses on individuals who might individually make poor decisions about their own needs. Funny how that works, eh?
Which was preceeded by sixdegrees.com and classmates.com, at least.
Who cares? Repeatedly randomising the alphabet and removing letters until the desired word appears is just as good really.
That's fairly close to the plot of the original V mini-series... until you get to the twist(s) at least.
No :)
About a quart, if you measure on Tuesdays
I think that's how it should be. A government is supposed to protect and provide for the rights of its citizens, including protecting and representing them on the world stage. If someone in another country harms you, you SHOULD be able to get your own government to take that to the government of the foreign citizen.
Well, no, facts are facts. The kind that can be made by pointing at evidence and arguing using hard logic.
A bigger problem is that human knowledge is much more than just a collection of facts. Writing a collection of facts about life as a priest or a poet will not explain what a priest or poet is, why s/he does it, what the rewards are, how s/he does it, etc. Human brains are split into two sides -- one mathematical, one poetic/romantic/spiritual/creative/whatever. Some things just need to be written by people who know the subject matter. Citations will not help, unless the citations are simply quoting someone who is trusted to use that side of their brain in a way that a wikipedia editor is not.
The human side is fair enough, but if wikipedia as a project is aware of these issues, then it should be REALLY doing something to counteract them. Something like putting a big button beside editor actions on your work saying, "We know our editors get it wrong sometimes. Click here if you feel your contributions are being mis-handled."
This is ridiculous. What are they going to do, if not publicise the information --- go conquer the planets for themselves?
It's more a question of what it's doing now that it wasn't doing then. The quick auto-deletion of articles is one, the locking discussed here is another. The second-classing of anonymous editors (even though there are GOOD reasons to write anonymously as wikileaks proves) is another example. Somehow there's also a much more elitist attitude now, which seems to be due to a more closely-knit, more elitist crowd of moderators. But I'm not here to analyse wikipedia's flaws; that's a research project wikipedia should be conducting with all available resources, since the site's usefulness has dropped massively due to these problems. Someone needs to identify them all, and put them right before it's too late.
You're the only one interpreting it literally (and in a wilfully blinkered way). Sorry, but I call bull on this. What it's really saying is, "We do things this way, and you want a different way, so you're not one of us, and probably won't get along here. Why don't you go where you're wanted instead?" It's high-scool cliqueism at its best. That's fine, on a small, cliquey site, but as I said, when a site becomes so large that it's a public utility of sorts, then such cliques become discriminatory abuses of power that are too serious to be ignored.
Fixed that for you.
From the description (and a lot of guesswork), it sounds a bit like they might have put in a basic RAID system, but using separate memory chips instead of drives. In terms of price vs performance/capacity, RAID has been a good solution, so this might well make sense, IF they don't try to make it out to be some black box filled with magical gold dust, rather than a simple application of existing tech in a new area.
No, that would be positive reinforcement.
Citation needed.
That pretty much sums it up for me too. Well said. I miss the real Wikipedia; it was good while it lasted.
No, it's really not. A versioned textarea would do just fine as an editor. You know... like it used to be, back when Wikipedia was doing the right thing, and growing at a phenomenal rate.
Beg to differ
Unfortunately those repeat offenders were given moderator status instead.
p.s.: there's a certain point, when a site becomes a shared resource used by all humanity, when you don't get to tell any particular individual that "this site isn't for you" any more.
Which they patently aren't. The whole idea of a wiki is that people contribute what they know, and others enhance it. It's how wikipedia grew from a few small articles to a wealth of information in many languages. Yet they now have bots going around and automatically deleting anything that the nothing-better-to-do, always-there gatekeeper-zealots decide is (currently) too short or isn't (yet) worded in a uniform way.
Frankly, at this point I'm hoping someone will come along with a better, more open semantic knowledge base, import the wikipedia content, and that we can all move on to a better future.
The game is that business types want code on the cheap, and developers are afraid to say no, because their livelihoods are on the line. The game is capitalism, and developers don't make good capitalist players.