Ah, so you're the magical person who proved that god doesn't exist? I'm agnostic and I consider religion to be a incredable waste of time, an excuse for a social gathering at best. But logic still applies even if the question is absurd (does the unknowable exist?).
Well as some others have pointed out, then you'd have no problem if people were to use wikipedia as a blog? How about a place to store fanfics? Articles on the greatest poop person xyz took in their life? Backups of all the discussion on 4chan and its ilk (we'll add a summary in there to make it an article)? How about an article with no content except tons of ads? Notability guidelines prevent such contents. So I disagree such discussions are meaningless. Even though most would agree these rules are imperfect, I doubt the alternative are better.
While I haven't been active on wikipeida, I have seen a deletes being overturned simply by person or people x basically arguing that topic x have the same amount of popularity/relevance as another article. Unfortunately only example I can think of is the article for the webcomic Erfworld, which was speedy deleted then recreated. Still, when was the last time you heard someone recant and state a book they found offensive was actually a good example of what their religion/beliefs stood for?
One can argue that someone incorrectly "measured" notability with data (the webcomic artist is popular enough to survive selling his material as printed books for example). It's virtually impossible to argue that something is immoral. Notability has some degree of objectivity, while morals are completely subjective gut feelings.
It's "this content is disgusting filth!" vs. "this content isn't noteworthy." Yes, in the end the rationale can be reduced to "I don't approve of this content for reasons I deem valid, therefore I will deny the access to this material to everybody else," but I'd argue that's oversimplification since difference in rationales, and emotions are very important. Afterall one could rationally convince someone an article is notable. Will you ever be able to say... convince a Muslim "The Satanic Verses" is a worthy work of literature with logical and/or emotional arguments? Convince a fundamentalist Christian that Harry Potter isn't a gateway to Satanism?
It seems that if people were to use wikipedia as a blog you'll consider this acceptable. Heck, why not use it to host fanfiction as well? Neither can't be proven false. I'd say such materials would make a not trivial dent on wikipedia's costs, not to mention I doubt you actually condone such material being on wiki in the first place. I'm mildly curious how you'll deal with such content since you seem to have put some thought into this.
Book burning are conducted because the material is morally offensive to a group. Wiki deletions happen becuase someone or a group thinks a topic isn't worth remembering on wikipedia. The analogy is far too simplistic since the motives and vitriol are completly different.
Consider how people cried RACIST! when the PS3 ad with the white woman/PS3 attacking a black woman/PS3 (or was it PSP, I forget) came out. Correct people all you want, but when you use actual humans viewers aren't going to assume the actors are anthromorphic personifications of product x, at least not completly, theyre going to see them as actual people.
The way I see it, Anonymous is a group in the same way Christianity is a group. Members of both groups agree on certain things (Scientology must die/Jesus is lord and savior), but otherwise folks within the groups can be radically different.
I personally find it easier to use NoScript to block most animated/generally irritating ads (and disabled gif animation for the rest). Sure I miss out on some inoffensive flash ads, but meh how many of those actually exist?
I believe the counter argument to posts like this is something like "I hated the game but I stayed on because of the community." Usually things then go into questioning whether or not the community can be considered part of gameplay.
Isn't there a somewhat popular book where in an alternative universe the Jews were given Alaska instead? I believe there're unpopulated areas in the center of N. America as well.
Pfft, admirable? How have you lived your life without meeting the fringes of ANY fandom? Picard/Q/Worf is gay for Riker! Papa Adama wants to screw his son(s)! Despicable villian A who rapes puppies is a poor misunderstoof soul! Etc, etc.
Lets see, pointing out lesbians have the worse chance of getting HIV is offensive? I guess talking about god could be offensive in certain places, but this is slashdot. Finally this one likes girl on girl action. One would have to be a prude to take offense at that.
Luckily (or oddly) the cooch licking female queers have the best chance of not getting HIV. Well I'll be, think I just stumbled on indisputable proof that God is male. Who here doesn't like girl on girl action?
What obvious joke? Without any cues (emoticons and shit) people will assume you're being serious. The internet is way to dumb to assume otherwise, well that least that's what I assume.
Sez who? A casual glance at the porn available at torrent sites, emule servers, etc show rather clearly the ones who offer their material as downloadable no DRM video files are the most pirated, then come the ones that only offer their products as DVD, the least pirated folks are the ones who use DRM. It's not about stopping piracy which like you said is easily overcome with some tenacity, but making piracy difficult. I know that in the worst (or best) case senario some material got pirated by sheer accident because some idiot shared his entire hard drive which contained said donwnloadable no DRM videos.
What's the rationale behind that quote? Is it because then he might be forced to choose between his family and his job? Because as a son you're duty is to continue the family name to risk it in combat?
I'd argue the issues of a suicide mission is finding the highly qualified people in question, and making sure that the entire crew (who've nothing to lose whether or not they actually do the mission or blow themselves up seconds after breaking earth orbit) actually stay motivated.
Offtopic yes, though when was stating ones opinion over something trivial like a computer game in a calm fashion a fucking flamebait? Hell, this post is more flambait, it has hell and fuck! *gasp*
Huh... you just made me relize THAT could be the reasons why Beijing was chosen for the Olympics. Few care about the sports themselves, but the drama... ah now that's a cash cow.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so you're the magical person who proved that god doesn't exist? I'm agnostic and I consider religion to be a incredable waste of time, an excuse for a social gathering at best. But logic still applies even if the question is absurd (does the unknowable exist?).
Well as some others have pointed out, then you'd have no problem if people were to use wikipedia as a blog? How about a place to store fanfics? Articles on the greatest poop person xyz took in their life? Backups of all the discussion on 4chan and its ilk (we'll add a summary in there to make it an article)? How about an article with no content except tons of ads? Notability guidelines prevent such contents. So I disagree such discussions are meaningless. Even though most would agree these rules are imperfect, I doubt the alternative are better.
While I haven't been active on wikipeida, I have seen a deletes being overturned simply by person or people x basically arguing that topic x have the same amount of popularity/relevance as another article. Unfortunately only example I can think of is the article for the webcomic Erfworld, which was speedy deleted then recreated. Still, when was the last time you heard someone recant and state a book they found offensive was actually a good example of what their religion/beliefs stood for?
One can argue that someone incorrectly "measured" notability with data (the webcomic artist is popular enough to survive selling his material as printed books for example). It's virtually impossible to argue that something is immoral. Notability has some degree of objectivity, while morals are completely subjective gut feelings.
It's "this content is disgusting filth!" vs. "this content isn't noteworthy." Yes, in the end the rationale can be reduced to "I don't approve of this content for reasons I deem valid, therefore I will deny the access to this material to everybody else," but I'd argue that's oversimplification since difference in rationales, and emotions are very important. Afterall one could rationally convince someone an article is notable. Will you ever be able to say... convince a Muslim "The Satanic Verses" is a worthy work of literature with logical and/or emotional arguments? Convince a fundamentalist Christian that Harry Potter isn't a gateway to Satanism?
It seems that if people were to use wikipedia as a blog you'll consider this acceptable. Heck, why not use it to host fanfiction as well? Neither can't be proven false. I'd say such materials would make a not trivial dent on wikipedia's costs, not to mention I doubt you actually condone such material being on wiki in the first place. I'm mildly curious how you'll deal with such content since you seem to have put some thought into this.
Book burning are conducted because the material is morally offensive to a group. Wiki deletions happen becuase someone or a group thinks a topic isn't worth remembering on wikipedia. The analogy is far too simplistic since the motives and vitriol are completly different.
Consider how people cried RACIST! when the PS3 ad with the white woman/PS3 attacking a black woman/PS3 (or was it PSP, I forget) came out. Correct people all you want, but when you use actual humans viewers aren't going to assume the actors are anthromorphic personifications of product x, at least not completly, theyre going to see them as actual people.
The way I see it, Anonymous is a group in the same way Christianity is a group. Members of both groups agree on certain things (Scientology must die/Jesus is lord and savior), but otherwise folks within the groups can be radically different.
I personally find it easier to use NoScript to block most animated/generally irritating ads (and disabled gif animation for the rest). Sure I miss out on some inoffensive flash ads, but meh how many of those actually exist?
I believe the counter argument to posts like this is something like "I hated the game but I stayed on because of the community." Usually things then go into questioning whether or not the community can be considered part of gameplay.
Isn't there a somewhat popular book where in an alternative universe the Jews were given Alaska instead? I believe there're unpopulated areas in the center of N. America as well.
Pfft, admirable? How have you lived your life without meeting the fringes of ANY fandom? Picard/Q/Worf is gay for Riker! Papa Adama wants to screw his son(s)! Despicable villian A who rapes puppies is a poor misunderstoof soul! Etc, etc.
Try again good sir.
Luckily (or oddly) the cooch licking female queers have the best chance of not getting HIV. Well I'll be, think I just stumbled on indisputable proof that God is male. Who here doesn't like girl on girl action?
What obvious joke? Without any cues (emoticons and shit) people will assume you're being serious. The internet is way to dumb to assume otherwise, well that least that's what I assume.
Sez who? A casual glance at the porn available at torrent sites, emule servers, etc show rather clearly the ones who offer their material as downloadable no DRM video files are the most pirated, then come the ones that only offer their products as DVD, the least pirated folks are the ones who use DRM. It's not about stopping piracy which like you said is easily overcome with some tenacity, but making piracy difficult. I know that in the worst (or best) case senario some material got pirated by sheer accident because some idiot shared his entire hard drive which contained said donwnloadable no DRM videos.
Violence is the tool of the idiot who didn't take his/her time to read the contract, or ask a rep/the internet if that's too much work.
What's the rationale behind that quote? Is it because then he might be forced to choose between his family and his job? Because as a son you're duty is to continue the family name to risk it in combat?
Lets not forget the freakishly popular "Professor Layton and the Curious Village" for the DS. Damn thing is nothing but puzzles.
I'd argue the issues of a suicide mission is finding the highly qualified people in question, and making sure that the entire crew (who've nothing to lose whether or not they actually do the mission or blow themselves up seconds after breaking earth orbit) actually stay motivated.
Not funny, but really really hot.
Offtopic yes, though when was stating ones opinion over something trivial like a computer game in a calm fashion a fucking flamebait? Hell, this post is more flambait, it has hell and fuck! *gasp*
Huh... you just made me relize THAT could be the reasons why Beijing was chosen for the Olympics. Few care about the sports themselves, but the drama... ah now that's a cash cow.
I'd say yes. I think he could've accomplished much more by using his financial and political ties to clean up Gotham in the mundane fashion.
Course women are almost never sent to the front lines so your point is rather moot.
Out of curiosity what are your sources for these numbers? The data will be most enlightening.