Infobitt founder/CEO here. We want to solve this problem by creating a separate homepage for each nationality, or perhaps simply by filtering the news in a certain clever way that I won't bother to describe.
The great thing about a big online community coming together to build Infobitt will be that we can indeed compare different sources. Perhaps your impressions of U.S. news is correct. Perhaps when stacked up directly with other reporting, you'll find it's not as bad as you think. We'll be able to tell much more easily because facts from different sources will be rubbing shoulders within the same bitts (stories = collections of facts).
Infobitt founder/CEO here. Hey, I love Google News. But what they don't do is summarize the stories, nor do they make a credible effort of organizing the news in a way that makes it possible to get caught up with the news quickly and efficiently. Suppose you want to really learn about a story that is being covered by many different news sources. Google News provides the awesome service of letting you find all the coverage quickly. But what they don't do is make it any easier to extract original reporting from among the facts contained in those articles. You can read one article, and that will get your fingers on one part of the elephant...but if you want to handle the whole elephant, you'll have to wade through all the other articles as well.
A community of newshounds could do that for you, summarizing all the unique facts in a nonredundant way, putting them in order of importance. That's what we're trying to do.
Hi, I'm the Infobitt founder/CEO.
No, it's not the same thing at all. Wikinews doesn't address itself to the problem of making sense of the news in the face of facts being scattered among repetitive articles, clickbait, etc.
Traditional citizen journalism just gives people a platform to write articles and pretend to be journalists. We're not doing that. We're inviting people to find, rank, summarize both individual facts and stories (which we call bitts, which are made up of facts). Our mission isn't to add to the cacophany of the news, but to organize it.
I'm not sure why I'm replying to this, out of all the daft things that have come from this thread--maybe because I'm annoyed when people get history wrong.
"Teancum," whoever you are, you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. I am the guy who started Wikipedia. There is lots of documentation of this on larrysanger.org. I did NOT think that one had to have a Ph.D. to write articles for Wikipedia. I'm the guy who tried to get everyone working together--even kids. Others have said this about me, but they weren't there, or if they were, they're lying.
I am not, in fact, a "deletionist." I am an inclusionist. I think people should be able to write about whatever their heart desires, as long as there is a chance of there being a full complement of articles of that type. If people want to have articles about every Star Trek episode, go for it, as long as you can cover all of them.
Finally, even if there is "bad blood" between me and the current Wikipedia community--not the original one, mind you--that hardly means "there are many problems with what he says," unless you are a cultist who believes that "the Wikipedia community" is inerrant.
Otherwise, thanks for your support.
I've posted quite a few times here on Slashdot, and I have to say, this is the most civilized discussion I have seen, well, ever in this forum. I have to think that I've hit a nerve, and people are actually not just doing their usual posturing, but actually caring about the question and trying to come to grips with it. There may be hope for geeks yet.
I don't see a case of "cool to be stupid," either. Geek anti-intellectualism is not like jock anti-intellectualism. As TFA says...well, I'll just let you read it.
Well, there's more to the post than the "college is a waste of time" thing. Scan down for the points (numbered 1-5) that I'm calling anti-intellectual. "College is a waste of time" is one only of them. And besides, if you'll look at Dale Stephens' CNN article, you'll see plenty of anti-intellectual notes.
The original title of my submission mentioned Commons, but the Slashdot guys changed this to Wikipedia. It's quite true that Wikipedia is also full of porn, but Wikimedia Commons has truly stupendous amounts of it.
Of course, if you're not inclined to look for it, you might not come across it. But what curious 10-year-old boy won't look for it? Armed with the knowledge of a few terms to search for, and creativity, you can find boatloads of porn instantly. Think of any sexual fetish, position, orientation, combination, piece of anatomy, alteration of piece of anatomy, part of the whole sex process, etc., it's all there in living color! What a great educational reference work!
What are you talking about? "Libertarian" is just about the most politically safe term out there. Both liberals and conservatives (in the U.S.) like to call themselves libertarians, at least when convenient...
First of all, what very few of the commenters (at least the first commenters) noticed was that the statute I cited, 18 U.S.C. 1466A, has the following title: "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children." It specifically states: "Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that..."
That's drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings. "Visual depictions of any kind." Many people who criticized my message to the FBI really seem to have a problem with the law, which I find interesting.
Anyway, I now realize with regret that "child pornography" was probably the wrong word to use. I didn't realize that it would be so misleading. I thought that "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children" (the title of the statute) was just what we mean when we say "child pornography." It didn't occur to me until afterward that many people restrict "child pornography" to mean photographs of real children. If I had realized this sooner, I would have used "depictions of child sexual abuse" instead.
So, why did I report Wikimedia to the FBI? First some background. I am broadly a libertarian, but I am also a sincere moralist (as opposed to a cynical amoralist). Libertarianism and moralism are not--of course--contradictory. Being a libertarian, I think we have the right to do a lot of things, including a lot of things that broadly coarsen society; that's the price we pay for freedom. But, just as the law provides for, I do draw one line when it comes to photographs, or even merely realistic depictions, of child sexual abuse. Most sane libertarians recognize that some speech should be restricted by the force of law--the hackneyed examples are shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, perjury, and libel. But for me, depictions of child sexual abuse are another. I respect the opinion of those who have a principled disagreement with me when it comes to depictions of child sexual abuse. But pretending that it's just obvious, even for libertarians, that we have a right to publish such depictions is simply wrong, in my opinion.
Regarding my motives, yes, I thought I was doing my civic duty, one that I didn't really want to do, but which I felt I ought to do. Partly this was because the statute in question required me to make the report if I thought the statute applied (and it seems to me it does--those drawings sure look like obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children to me). But partly also it was because I think that this sort of thing--including some pictures of children being out-and-out raped--is completely wrong, and should not be allowed in a civilized society. Call this censorship if you like, but I don't really think you have a constitutional right to publish and consume realistic drawings of child rape and molestation.
But what outcome am I aiming at? Contrary to the insinuations of some, I have no interest in trying to get Wikimedia shut down; that would be unnecessary, and I doubt it would happen as a result of the violation of the statute. But I think and hope it may cause pressure on Wikimedia from law enforcement, politicians, and the general public to eliminate this sort of content. I also hope that Wikimedia will be persuaded, or if necessary forced, to label its "adult" content as such in a consistent and reliable way, so that it can be easily filtered by school system filters. This would be a win-win, because then Wikipedia would be used in more schools--something I don't at all oppose, except for all the grossly inappropriate material for school children--and, when used in schools, children would be less likely to find content that their parents and teachers regard as grossly inappropriate for their age.
I know that in our cynical world, a lot of people will have trouble believing t
That's the experience of the Citizendium project so far. No vandalism. No trolls. Very little actual abuse. Just the usual opinionated, argumentative people you find online--as on any good moderated mailing list.
See Eduzendium.org. In short, the Citizendium is the perfect venue for professors who want their students to do public writing. Why? Because most topics are wide open, and the project is managed in a way that will appeal to most professors. Already, we have had a half-dozen or more articles contributed by students of Citizendium editors, as part of course assignments. We hope to do serious recruitment for the program later this year and next year.
Sorry to disappoint, but I do know what "bugger all" means, and my response was perfectly aimed: the phrase "bugger all" has the implication that we have virtually no one contributing, or not enough to matter. This is false, and obviously so, to anyone who is actually familiar with the facts about the project.
Sez you: "You're stuck with the people who don't care about their own anonymity and don't care about anybody else's either." Correct on the left conjunct, not on the right one. I care about people's anonymity, and most Citizens do too, I'll bet. We simply don't think we must have the right to be anonymous everywhere. But perhaps this is a subtle point.
You do make a general point that is correct. We do exclude those people who imagine they are taking a "principled stand" in favor of anonymity by steering clear of CZ. I'm not going to get terribly upset that we're effectively excluding that rather small group of people. Also, I'm actually glad that we're excluding people who think that experts have no place in an encyclopedia project. They have Wikipedia, and hopefully they'll always have Wikipedia, so they won't come bother us.
Now, if you go further, and imply that this very negatively impacts the number of valuable people involved in the project, forgive me for being a bit skeptical, as I go approve more new accounts...
Well, David, why don't you actually argue for this interesting position, instead of simply asserting it? We've invited people to contribute their thoughts. If you feel that strongly, why not contribute an essay? We don't have to host it. You can host it yourself and we'll link to it.
This is basically a lie. You can easily sign up for an account using some other variant of your name. I could be Lawrence Sanger, Larry M. Sanger, Lawrence M. Sanger, etc.
RRRRT! Thanks for trying, no prize. More uninformed remarks based on little more than your personal biases. Really, if you're going to reply, at least have the sense to read the debunkery.
You seem to think that projects like Wikipedia just instantly spring into existence. Well, they don't; they take time to build. Wikipedia certainly took time--I ought to know. But, on your view, if there aren't instantly Wikipedia-levels of participation, it means there are no participants at all.
Wikipedia also started with few active people. Our own fund of active people is growing, with (on average) over 40 people editing the wiki each day, about 40 people making 100 edits per month, and over 200 people making some edits per month. This might not sound like a lot, but the numbers are there and are clearly trending upward, and our rate of article creation is accelerating. Moreover, we're getting lots and lots of new people with this press release, the Slashdotting (gee, how can dozens of Slashdot readers be interested in joining CZ?!), and with the recruitment drive that just started.
Expand your mind a little: maybe there really are a lot of people who actually prefer to use their real names.
We (Citizendium, Slashdotted yesterday) have no "notability" policy. Like much that is conceptually confused on Wikipedia, that policy was invented after I left.
Of relevance: we do have a maintainability policy. I'm not sure what our stance toward webcomics might be, but I suspect it would turn out to be more permissive than Wikipedia's. Just note that we do have a strict rule against self-promotion. This means that a webcomic would have to be at least important enough for someone else to want to start an article about it. Fair enough, no?
In other news, the Citizendium has just started its own funding drive. If you're boycotting Wikipedia over deletionism, but you want to support free knowledge, why not give to an outfit that really needs your money?:-)
A lot of the sort of negative comments above were anticipated and shown to be myths in TFA, right here.
Also, hey, think of this. On the one hand, (1) I have nothing whatsoever against anonymity online; there is a right to anonymity online. But (2) I also think that certain projects--like encyclopedia projects--can greatly benefit by requiring people to identify themselves. If you bring yourselves to realize that (1) and (2) are compatible, maybe you anonymity advocates won't be so hostile to CZ.
In short, I don't think that the right to anonymity requires that you have the right to be anonymous everywhere. You have the right to have sex with other consenting adults, too, but you don't have the right to have sex with other consenting adults everywhere. (Hey! Get off my car!)
Not quite, because The New Yorker apologized for the error when it was revealed, and it's not like this is the first time a source has deceived a journalist. But the management of Wikipedia rewarded the liar by giving him a job and putting him on the highest judicial body on the project--and continues to show little understanding of the seriousness of the problem.
Nobody ever suggested that Wikipedia should validate statements that people make on their user pages. But if it turns out that Essjay made up some credentials which had to have helped him get ahead in the Wikipedia game--it's silly to suggest otherwise--then it's amazingly telling for Jimmy to hire him, and to put him on ArbCom, in spite of this. And, Erik, you imply that Jimmy didn't know that Essjay had made up credentials; but of course Jimmy must have known this, because he hired him last December or January.
Also, the Citizendium does not give privileges to people who claim to be experts, as you say; we give some small privileges to people who actually have them. Or perhaps you think that every college professor and every professional is just merely claiming to be an expert?
Slashdot Mirror
Infobitt founder/CEO here. We want to solve this problem by creating a separate homepage for each nationality, or perhaps simply by filtering the news in a certain clever way that I won't bother to describe. The great thing about a big online community coming together to build Infobitt will be that we can indeed compare different sources. Perhaps your impressions of U.S. news is correct. Perhaps when stacked up directly with other reporting, you'll find it's not as bad as you think. We'll be able to tell much more easily because facts from different sources will be rubbing shoulders within the same bitts (stories = collections of facts).
Infobitt founder/CEO here. Hey, I love Google News. But what they don't do is summarize the stories, nor do they make a credible effort of organizing the news in a way that makes it possible to get caught up with the news quickly and efficiently. Suppose you want to really learn about a story that is being covered by many different news sources. Google News provides the awesome service of letting you find all the coverage quickly. But what they don't do is make it any easier to extract original reporting from among the facts contained in those articles. You can read one article, and that will get your fingers on one part of the elephant...but if you want to handle the whole elephant, you'll have to wade through all the other articles as well. A community of newshounds could do that for you, summarizing all the unique facts in a nonredundant way, putting them in order of importance. That's what we're trying to do.
Hi, I'm the Infobitt founder/CEO. No, it's not the same thing at all. Wikinews doesn't address itself to the problem of making sense of the news in the face of facts being scattered among repetitive articles, clickbait, etc. Traditional citizen journalism just gives people a platform to write articles and pretend to be journalists. We're not doing that. We're inviting people to find, rank, summarize both individual facts and stories (which we call bitts, which are made up of facts). Our mission isn't to add to the cacophany of the news, but to organize it.
I'm not sure why I'm replying to this, out of all the daft things that have come from this thread--maybe because I'm annoyed when people get history wrong. "Teancum," whoever you are, you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. I am the guy who started Wikipedia. There is lots of documentation of this on larrysanger.org. I did NOT think that one had to have a Ph.D. to write articles for Wikipedia. I'm the guy who tried to get everyone working together--even kids. Others have said this about me, but they weren't there, or if they were, they're lying. I am not, in fact, a "deletionist." I am an inclusionist. I think people should be able to write about whatever their heart desires, as long as there is a chance of there being a full complement of articles of that type. If people want to have articles about every Star Trek episode, go for it, as long as you can cover all of them. Finally, even if there is "bad blood" between me and the current Wikipedia community--not the original one, mind you--that hardly means "there are many problems with what he says," unless you are a cultist who believes that "the Wikipedia community" is inerrant. Otherwise, thanks for your support.
Hi all, author of TFA here. I have a bunch of replies, which address many of the things said here on Slashdot, on my blog.
I've posted quite a few times here on Slashdot, and I have to say, this is the most civilized discussion I have seen, well, ever in this forum. I have to think that I've hit a nerve, and people are actually not just doing their usual posturing, but actually caring about the question and trying to come to grips with it. There may be hope for geeks yet.
So, you went to an undemanding college that grants degrees easily. And that logically implies that college, in general, is a waste of time?
So, you're saying you disagree with them. Right? Just checking.
I don't see a case of "cool to be stupid," either. Geek anti-intellectualism is not like jock anti-intellectualism. As TFA says...well, I'll just let you read it.
Well, there's more to the post than the "college is a waste of time" thing. Scan down for the points (numbered 1-5) that I'm calling anti-intellectual. "College is a waste of time" is one only of them. And besides, if you'll look at Dale Stephens' CNN article, you'll see plenty of anti-intellectual notes.
The original title of my submission mentioned Commons, but the Slashdot guys changed this to Wikipedia. It's quite true that Wikipedia is also full of porn, but Wikimedia Commons has truly stupendous amounts of it. Of course, if you're not inclined to look for it, you might not come across it. But what curious 10-year-old boy won't look for it? Armed with the knowledge of a few terms to search for, and creativity, you can find boatloads of porn instantly. Think of any sexual fetish, position, orientation, combination, piece of anatomy, alteration of piece of anatomy, part of the whole sex process, etc., it's all there in living color! What a great educational reference work!
What are you talking about? "Libertarian" is just about the most politically safe term out there. Both liberals and conservatives (in the U.S.) like to call themselves libertarians, at least when convenient...
Larry Sanger here--let me clarify a few things.
First of all, what very few of the commenters (at least the first commenters) noticed was that the statute I cited, 18 U.S.C. 1466A, has the following title: "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children." It specifically states: "Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that..."
That's drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings. "Visual depictions of any kind." Many people who criticized my message to the FBI really seem to have a problem with the law, which I find interesting.
Anyway, I now realize with regret that "child pornography" was probably the wrong word to use. I didn't realize that it would be so misleading. I thought that "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children" (the title of the statute) was just what we mean when we say "child pornography." It didn't occur to me until afterward that many people restrict "child pornography" to mean photographs of real children. If I had realized this sooner, I would have used "depictions of child sexual abuse" instead.
So, why did I report Wikimedia to the FBI? First some background. I am broadly a libertarian, but I am also a sincere moralist (as opposed to a cynical amoralist). Libertarianism and moralism are not--of course--contradictory. Being a libertarian, I think we have the right to do a lot of things, including a lot of things that broadly coarsen society; that's the price we pay for freedom. But, just as the law provides for, I do draw one line when it comes to photographs, or even merely realistic depictions, of child sexual abuse. Most sane libertarians recognize that some speech should be restricted by the force of law--the hackneyed examples are shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, perjury, and libel. But for me, depictions of child sexual abuse are another. I respect the opinion of those who have a principled disagreement with me when it comes to depictions of child sexual abuse. But pretending that it's just obvious, even for libertarians, that we have a right to publish such depictions is simply wrong, in my opinion.
Regarding my motives, yes, I thought I was doing my civic duty, one that I didn't really want to do, but which I felt I ought to do. Partly this was because the statute in question required me to make the report if I thought the statute applied (and it seems to me it does--those drawings sure look like obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children to me). But partly also it was because I think that this sort of thing--including some pictures of children being out-and-out raped--is completely wrong, and should not be allowed in a civilized society. Call this censorship if you like, but I don't really think you have a constitutional right to publish and consume realistic drawings of child rape and molestation.
But what outcome am I aiming at? Contrary to the insinuations of some, I have no interest in trying to get Wikimedia shut down; that would be unnecessary, and I doubt it would happen as a result of the violation of the statute. But I think and hope it may cause pressure on Wikimedia from law enforcement, politicians, and the general public to eliminate this sort of content. I also hope that Wikimedia will be persuaded, or if necessary forced, to label its "adult" content as such in a consistent and reliable way, so that it can be easily filtered by school system filters. This would be a win-win, because then Wikipedia would be used in more schools--something I don't at all oppose, except for all the grossly inappropriate material for school children--and, when used in schools, children would be less likely to find content that their parents and teachers regard as grossly inappropriate for their age.
I know that in our cynical world, a lot of people will have trouble believing t
Nietzsche's got my vote, but really, all these politicians are liars...
That's the experience of the Citizendium project so far. No vandalism. No trolls. Very little actual abuse. Just the usual opinionated, argumentative people you find online--as on any good moderated mailing list.
See Eduzendium.org. In short, the Citizendium is the perfect venue for professors who want their students to do public writing. Why? Because most topics are wide open, and the project is managed in a way that will appeal to most professors. Already, we have had a half-dozen or more articles contributed by students of Citizendium editors, as part of course assignments. We hope to do serious recruitment for the program later this year and next year.
Sez you: "You're stuck with the people who don't care about their own anonymity and don't care about anybody else's either." Correct on the left conjunct, not on the right one. I care about people's anonymity, and most Citizens do too, I'll bet. We simply don't think we must have the right to be anonymous everywhere. But perhaps this is a subtle point.
You do make a general point that is correct. We do exclude those people who imagine they are taking a "principled stand" in favor of anonymity by steering clear of CZ. I'm not going to get terribly upset that we're effectively excluding that rather small group of people. Also, I'm actually glad that we're excluding people who think that experts have no place in an encyclopedia project. They have Wikipedia, and hopefully they'll always have Wikipedia, so they won't come bother us.
Now, if you go further, and imply that this very negatively impacts the number of valuable people involved in the project, forgive me for being a bit skeptical, as I go approve more new accounts...
Well, David, why don't you actually argue for this interesting position, instead of simply asserting it? We've invited people to contribute their thoughts. If you feel that strongly, why not contribute an essay? We don't have to host it. You can host it yourself and we'll link to it.
This is basically a lie. You can easily sign up for an account using some other variant of your name. I could be Lawrence Sanger, Larry M. Sanger, Lawrence M. Sanger, etc.
Sheesh.
RRRRT! Thanks for trying, no prize. More uninformed remarks based on little more than your personal biases. Really, if you're going to reply, at least have the sense to read the debunkery.
You seem to think that projects like Wikipedia just instantly spring into existence. Well, they don't; they take time to build. Wikipedia certainly took time--I ought to know. But, on your view, if there aren't instantly Wikipedia-levels of participation, it means there are no participants at all.
Wikipedia also started with few active people. Our own fund of active people is growing, with (on average) over 40 people editing the wiki each day, about 40 people making 100 edits per month, and over 200 people making some edits per month. This might not sound like a lot, but the numbers are there and are clearly trending upward, and our rate of article creation is accelerating. Moreover, we're getting lots and lots of new people with this press release, the Slashdotting (gee, how can dozens of Slashdot readers be interested in joining CZ?!), and with the recruitment drive that just started.
Expand your mind a little: maybe there really are a lot of people who actually prefer to use their real names.
We ( Citizendium, Slashdotted yesterday) have no "notability" policy. Like much that is conceptually confused on Wikipedia, that policy was invented after I left.
Of relevance: we do have a maintainability policy. I'm not sure what our stance toward webcomics might be, but I suspect it would turn out to be more permissive than Wikipedia's. Just note that we do have a strict rule against self-promotion. This means that a webcomic would have to be at least important enough for someone else to want to start an article about it. Fair enough, no?
In other news, the Citizendium has just started its own funding drive. If you're boycotting Wikipedia over deletionism, but you want to support free knowledge, why not give to an outfit that really needs your money? :-)
A lot of the sort of negative comments above were anticipated and shown to be myths in TFA, right here.
Also, hey, think of this. On the one hand, (1) I have nothing whatsoever against anonymity online; there is a right to anonymity online. But (2) I also think that certain projects--like encyclopedia projects--can greatly benefit by requiring people to identify themselves. If you bring yourselves to realize that (1) and (2) are compatible, maybe you anonymity advocates won't be so hostile to CZ.
In short, I don't think that the right to anonymity requires that you have the right to be anonymous everywhere. You have the right to have sex with other consenting adults, too, but you don't have the right to have sex with other consenting adults everywhere. (Hey! Get off my car!)
Not quite, because The New Yorker apologized for the error when it was revealed, and it's not like this is the first time a source has deceived a journalist. But the management of Wikipedia rewarded the liar by giving him a job and putting him on the highest judicial body on the project--and continues to show little understanding of the seriousness of the problem.
Also, the Citizendium does not give privileges to people who claim to be experts, as you say; we give some small privileges to people who actually have them. Or perhaps you think that every college professor and every professional is just merely claiming to be an expert?
Why would you think that "last January" means anything other than January 2007? The relevant URL is here: http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Essjay&o ldid=66364