One reason he cannot contribute is trust.
He is not the underdog that many people are trying to make him.
He is just a liar.
He cannot contribute because he lied about his credentials. Since he doesnt get paid, the only reason why he lied was to satisfy his egomanical desires.
He can never be an expert on theocracy it is a vast subject. Lets us say he has been studying theocracy for 10 years(he would have to start when he was 14). Then we can consider him eligible or knowledgeable enough.
But he need not have to lie.
I think he would be an underdog only in the hypothetical situation below
Essjay contributes a lot to theocracy(or whatever subject)........other contributers ask for his credentials......he say he is self educated and has a passion for the subject.....Then and only then does the wiki decide that he cannot contribute....only in such a case may be called an underdog, only in such a case he needs sympathy and only in such a case I would be ready to fight for him and see that he remains a contributor.
It is obvious people who lie are never experts in their field because if they really were such an expert then they would be really confident. He was a living lie for crying out loud.
Moreover he seems to be very good in googling and he thought that he could contribute. If you ask me why would he want to volunteer the same reason why so many people on the internet want to channel operators in chat rooms, moderators on forums they beg and then they most of the times just love to be a in "positions of power". Yes I am still suprised as to why no phyciatrist hasnt come out with any term for such people. They have inferiority complexes and to feel superior they want to become moderater operator and in this case contributors.
Wiki will lose its reputation, you will agree if you have had enough experience with forums(when i first discovered forums to be a great source of information i joined each and every forum i saw) you get frustrated when you see such people as moderators and you are forced to leave.
It has happened in forums there has been total chaos when someone find out that one of the moderator is 11 year old kid who was googling and posting all those "intelligent" information.
Well you are honest. Essjay is not.
He did not want to admit that he learnt on the internet. He thought that after googling and "contributing" articles which started to resemlbe that of a harvard graduate he thought he could pass himself off as one.
He is damn liar for godsake why dont you figure that out first.
That is one of the cheapest and shallowest things to do. Do you think I would trust something that has such shallow contributors.
Oh please.
The comments are surprising, from comparing him to a soldier to saying that his lies is irrelevant as he contributions were good.
I can guage what exactly happened. Today with google anyone can be anything you want to.
I still remember I used to talk to a girl;-) and anything she asked me i knew(I am very knowledgable without the help of the wiki:-P). Once she asked me about Existentialism(look up the wiki:-p) and i had never heard of it inspite of the fact that I believed Existentialism(which i came to know later).
back to girl when she asked me on yahoo chat i just copy pasted it into my google search bar in firefox. And in minutes i was spewing out names like Nietzsche. She was shocked and asked me how did I know this. She was very impressed I must say. Then I told her that just googled it when she was asking me. Then i gave her links to some essay and quotes. The nest thing she told me "oh so you google everything i ask you". I told her know If i googled it then i would be giving you links.
Well coming to the point this essjay started contributing to really "heavy" topics on theology and I am damn sure that he did not want to appear as the guy who googles his information. And he lied about his credentials. He is on an egomanical trip. Wiki is full of them. They take some great pleasure in becoming the "contributors'. No matter what I dont think I will every believe the wiki because many of the contributors are liars like essjay.
I do not disagree with the fact that what they contribute may very well be accurate. Seriously I would on trust an economist to do research on economics no a college dropout. Even though I know that I myself can come up with a good report on any economic trend using google but I will never be hired to write for a economic magazine.
That is why only a surgeon who has completed his M.D. is allowed to perform surgery.
A general practitioner will never be allowed to. In India there was a case of a compounder(a doctors assistant who dispense medicine) who went to a village and became a doctor there. he lied that he was a doctor. He even started performing surgery. He cured many people from malaria and small fever. It is simple we all know that you take a paracetamol for a fever and chloroquine for malaria. He performed surgery for fractures.
Once someone discovered he was not a doctor and then he was arrested and it was a big scandal.
This led a quack hunt and many quack were arrested. Even thought this doctor had not killed anyone Many of the other quacks had killed a few patients.
I would put essjay in the same league. Just because he gave good information about certain topics does not make him an expert. If you read a drug index you can start prescribing tablet for any medicine but it is a very big risk.
Just because the "doctor" "saved" so many peooples lives or rather cured so many diseases does qualify him to be glorified. He did not become a "doctor" to save people but rather to make money. Because a person who truly want to serve manking will go and do his medicine.
The same way essjay also lied about his credentials not for money but to continue "prescribing" so that he could satisfy his own egomanical desires.
This is not selling. This is editing a wiki.
Well if you got see it is nothing but copy and paste. Anyone can do it. But why the hell should I believe anyone who enters information.
From all the people i would never believe a liar.
What he contributed or what he did to "make the wiki what it is today" is none of my bloody business.
I am only concerned about the information on the wiki and a liar is never reliable.
I will look upon all his contribution in doubt.
I am not going to support the wiki just because many people liked the idea of being a moderators and worked hard on a flawed concept. The wiki is a bit failure when it comes to reliability. Just because a bunch of people worked hard doesnt mean that I should go around writing good about it and just ignore its flaws.
Compairing a soldier to this guy is an insult to every soldier alive. YOu need to get a life.
This guy is on a egomanical trip just like many of the wiki moderators.
He is not saving anyone life. We see lot of such guyson forums before, they now exist on yahoo answers. wiki was just their dream come true.
Well said.
This can be the the one and only reason why no once can trust the wiki for anything.
Lets say you want to do a research on the effects of MSG on Obesity You will find that the wiki denies it. "There is no evidence that MSG causes obesity in humans."
This could very well be the fact that MSG is billion dollar industry and any Ajimoto can very well afford to pay a "crowd" to maintain that MSG is safe.
With more and more "protectors" leaving Wiki in frustration this is bound to happen.
I think what Colbert or the colbert report did was a the best way to prove wiki as unreliable. He made his viewers edit the wiki stating that the population of elephants in africa are increasing like mad.
Ofcourse nobody got to see the "modified" page as wiki locked that page up and it "shut down for maintianence"
So the multiply by 4 rule has changed to multiply by 8 rule with vista.
From 95 to windows XP it was a known fact that if you wanted optimum performance you always add 4 times the ram recomended by microsoft. if it was 64mb for windows me you would get good perfomance only if you put 512 ram.
with xp too you need atleast 1 gb of ram for it run smoothly.
Well that is a valid argument.
Why has p2p become famous. well reduced cost and a great way to share files.
Just imagine distributing files on ftp/http. The cost are huge.
p2p was not developed to facilitate piracy.
It was developed as a way to share files for free. When i mean free i mean non-commercial files.
Before p2p there was no way you could share your homemade video with 10000 of your myspace.com friends. So that way if not p2p but in future if a new technology of "free" transfer comes out I am sure it will be infested with piracy.
A brief history for you information
Early P2P systems were established in the 1980s for vastly different reasons and applications than seen in todayâ€s new media. Although in the late 1960's the internet itself was originally designed with P2P connectivity in mind, the first P2P applications as we know them were implemented roughly two decades ago (Internet Society 2004). They are often not recognised as pioneers in this field because for the most part they were designed for different purposes, mostly as communication devices, rather than the current more widespread use of multimedia downloading. Despite the benefits of managing centralised software, the emergence of successful systems with numerous available, interconnected peers developed. Two decentralised networks of peers, USENET and FidoNet, are credited with beginning the technology of P2P networks.
USENET began in 1979 and is a distributed application that provides newsgroups. USENETâ€s technology involved files being exchanged in batch over telephone lines. The impracticality of data tranfer over a primitive underdeveloped internet resulted in a decentralised application - a feature that is retained by P2P technology to this day. FidoNet is similar to USENET in so far as they are both decentralised, distributed applications for exchanging messages. However, FidoNet focused on exchanging messages between users of different BBS systems (Sunstead 2001).
These early applications faced similar problems to current P2P technology. Scalability was and remains an issue, and there have been numerous security and copyrighting obstacles for current companies to overcome. Despite this, P2P programming has evolved into complex systems where online global communities can access movies, music, games and other digital content. In addition to its communicative and speed networking advantages, P2P is also commonly used in the business environment because of its ability to effectively link internal company software.
If you want stupid counter arguments here is one
Well why dont we just bring down the internet.
After all the bulk of the internet traffic after porn is illegal music we all know that.
I think this countesuit rocks.
They can easily argue the above. If limewire or other p2p networks have to be sued then RIAA should also sue isps. They too can setup firewalls to block mp3files etc. They are already blocking websites(mainly porn/warez) in counries like UAE and saudi arabia.
90% of unlimited broadband connections that are really using the unlimited bandwidth are only donwloading/uploading p2p data. So sue ISPs too.
I have this habit or actually i love speaking in simple terms. The main aim of my communications is making the other person understand. Now i am freelance webdesigner. When i talk with my clients and simplify things down for them they go like..."ah its so simple..". Then they ask me for discounts and they get extra smart trying to suggest absurd things.
Then i just put so much of technical jargon on their pea sized brain that they just shut up and say OK. They dont want to show they did not understand.
Another instance i was sitting with 4 friends and one guy a wannabe geek, but doesnt know bullshit. We are having a discussion about linux and windows and he was saying that linux is dead commercially and no major companies are using linux. So i was making my point in simple english as there were 3 more friends who are totally non-technical except for one who had done a master in computer application(funnily he doesnt know how to copy in dos when i asked him to once).
Now this guy has actually heard the words the wannabe geek was using. He has only heard the words but doesnt know the meaning. In the end i just gave up the argument as the wannabe geek was just taking all the technical jargon he knew and making sentences out of it. So later my friend (the dos illiterate masters in computer application) tell with a smirk you lost it with that guy finally you met your match. I was like the guy is talking bullshit.
Then i kept quite i mean this guy was supposed to be my friend and he was so happy that i "finally met my match"
But that is what language can do and i use it many times to get my way not with close friends though
Slashdot Mirror
One reason he cannot contribute is trust. He is not the underdog that many people are trying to make him. He is just a liar. He cannot contribute because he lied about his credentials. Since he doesnt get paid, the only reason why he lied was to satisfy his egomanical desires. He can never be an expert on theocracy it is a vast subject. Lets us say he has been studying theocracy for 10 years(he would have to start when he was 14). Then we can consider him eligible or knowledgeable enough. But he need not have to lie. I think he would be an underdog only in the hypothetical situation below Essjay contributes a lot to theocracy(or whatever subject)........other contributers ask for his credentials......he say he is self educated and has a passion for the subject.....Then and only then does the wiki decide that he cannot contribute....only in such a case may be called an underdog, only in such a case he needs sympathy and only in such a case I would be ready to fight for him and see that he remains a contributor. It is obvious people who lie are never experts in their field because if they really were such an expert then they would be really confident. He was a living lie for crying out loud. Moreover he seems to be very good in googling and he thought that he could contribute. If you ask me why would he want to volunteer the same reason why so many people on the internet want to channel operators in chat rooms, moderators on forums they beg and then they most of the times just love to be a in "positions of power". Yes I am still suprised as to why no phyciatrist hasnt come out with any term for such people. They have inferiority complexes and to feel superior they want to become moderater operator and in this case contributors. Wiki will lose its reputation, you will agree if you have had enough experience with forums(when i first discovered forums to be a great source of information i joined each and every forum i saw) you get frustrated when you see such people as moderators and you are forced to leave. It has happened in forums there has been total chaos when someone find out that one of the moderator is 11 year old kid who was googling and posting all those "intelligent" information.
Well you are honest. Essjay is not. He did not want to admit that he learnt on the internet. He thought that after googling and "contributing" articles which started to resemlbe that of a harvard graduate he thought he could pass himself off as one. He is damn liar for godsake why dont you figure that out first. That is one of the cheapest and shallowest things to do. Do you think I would trust something that has such shallow contributors. Oh please.
The comments are surprising, from comparing him to a soldier to saying that his lies is irrelevant as he contributions were good. I can guage what exactly happened. Today with google anyone can be anything you want to. I still remember I used to talk to a girl ;-) and anything she asked me i knew(I am very knowledgable without the help of the wiki :-P). Once she asked me about Existentialism(look up the wiki :-p) and i had never heard of it inspite of the fact that I believed Existentialism(which i came to know later).
back to girl when she asked me on yahoo chat i just copy pasted it into my google search bar in firefox. And in minutes i was spewing out names like Nietzsche. She was shocked and asked me how did I know this. She was very impressed I must say. Then I told her that just googled it when she was asking me. Then i gave her links to some essay and quotes. The nest thing she told me "oh so you google everything i ask you". I told her know If i googled it then i would be giving you links.
Well coming to the point this essjay started contributing to really "heavy" topics on theology and I am damn sure that he did not want to appear as the guy who googles his information. And he lied about his credentials. He is on an egomanical trip. Wiki is full of them. They take some great pleasure in becoming the "contributors'. No matter what I dont think I will every believe the wiki because many of the contributors are liars like essjay.
I do not disagree with the fact that what they contribute may very well be accurate. Seriously I would on trust an economist to do research on economics no a college dropout. Even though I know that I myself can come up with a good report on any economic trend using google but I will never be hired to write for a economic magazine.
That is why only a surgeon who has completed his M.D. is allowed to perform surgery.
A general practitioner will never be allowed to. In India there was a case of a compounder(a doctors assistant who dispense medicine) who went to a village and became a doctor there. he lied that he was a doctor. He even started performing surgery. He cured many people from malaria and small fever. It is simple we all know that you take a paracetamol for a fever and chloroquine for malaria. He performed surgery for fractures.
Once someone discovered he was not a doctor and then he was arrested and it was a big scandal.
This led a quack hunt and many quack were arrested. Even thought this doctor had not killed anyone Many of the other quacks had killed a few patients.
I would put essjay in the same league. Just because he gave good information about certain topics does not make him an expert. If you read a drug index you can start prescribing tablet for any medicine but it is a very big risk.
Just because the "doctor" "saved" so many peooples lives or rather cured so many diseases does qualify him to be glorified. He did not become a "doctor" to save people but rather to make money. Because a person who truly want to serve manking will go and do his medicine.
The same way essjay also lied about his credentials not for money but to continue "prescribing" so that he could satisfy his own egomanical desires.
This is not selling. This is editing a wiki. Well if you got see it is nothing but copy and paste. Anyone can do it. But why the hell should I believe anyone who enters information. From all the people i would never believe a liar. What he contributed or what he did to "make the wiki what it is today" is none of my bloody business. I am only concerned about the information on the wiki and a liar is never reliable. I will look upon all his contribution in doubt. I am not going to support the wiki just because many people liked the idea of being a moderators and worked hard on a flawed concept. The wiki is a bit failure when it comes to reliability. Just because a bunch of people worked hard doesnt mean that I should go around writing good about it and just ignore its flaws. Compairing a soldier to this guy is an insult to every soldier alive. YOu need to get a life. This guy is on a egomanical trip just like many of the wiki moderators. He is not saving anyone life. We see lot of such guyson forums before, they now exist on yahoo answers. wiki was just their dream come true.
Well said. This can be the the one and only reason why no once can trust the wiki for anything. Lets say you want to do a research on the effects of MSG on Obesity You will find that the wiki denies it. "There is no evidence that MSG causes obesity in humans." This could very well be the fact that MSG is billion dollar industry and any Ajimoto can very well afford to pay a "crowd" to maintain that MSG is safe. With more and more "protectors" leaving Wiki in frustration this is bound to happen. I think what Colbert or the colbert report did was a the best way to prove wiki as unreliable. He made his viewers edit the wiki stating that the population of elephants in africa are increasing like mad. Ofcourse nobody got to see the "modified" page as wiki locked that page up and it "shut down for maintianence"
So the multiply by 4 rule has changed to multiply by 8 rule with vista. From 95 to windows XP it was a known fact that if you wanted optimum performance you always add 4 times the ram recomended by microsoft. if it was 64mb for windows me you would get good perfomance only if you put 512 ram. with xp too you need atleast 1 gb of ram for it run smoothly.
Ipod sucks. There are better mp3 players that are even cheaper. Iphone sucks too. It is all hype. All fart and not sh** :-P
Well that is a valid argument.
Why has p2p become famous. well reduced cost and a great way to share files.
Just imagine distributing files on ftp/http. The cost are huge.
p2p was not developed to facilitate piracy.
It was developed as a way to share files for free. When i mean free i mean non-commercial files.
Before p2p there was no way you could share your homemade video with 10000 of your myspace.com friends. So that way if not p2p but in future if a new technology of "free" transfer comes out I am sure it will be infested with piracy.
A brief history for you information
Early P2P systems were established in the 1980s for vastly different reasons and applications than seen in todayâ€s new media. Although in the late 1960's the internet itself was originally designed with P2P connectivity in mind, the first P2P applications as we know them were implemented roughly two decades ago (Internet Society 2004). They are often not recognised as pioneers in this field because for the most part they were designed for different purposes, mostly as communication devices, rather than the current more widespread use of multimedia downloading. Despite the benefits of managing centralised software, the emergence of successful systems with numerous available, interconnected peers developed. Two decentralised networks of peers, USENET and FidoNet, are credited with beginning the technology of P2P networks.
USENET began in 1979 and is a distributed application that provides newsgroups. USENETâ€s technology involved files being exchanged in batch over telephone lines. The impracticality of data tranfer over a primitive underdeveloped internet resulted in a decentralised application - a feature that is retained by P2P technology to this day. FidoNet is similar to USENET in so far as they are both decentralised, distributed applications for exchanging messages. However, FidoNet focused on exchanging messages between users of different BBS systems (Sunstead 2001).
These early applications faced similar problems to current P2P technology. Scalability was and remains an issue, and there have been numerous security and copyrighting obstacles for current companies to overcome. Despite this, P2P programming has evolved into complex systems where online global communities can access movies, music, games and other digital content. In addition to its communicative and speed networking advantages, P2P is also commonly used in the business environment because of its ability to effectively link internal company software.
If you want stupid counter arguments here is one
Well why dont we just bring down the internet.
After all the bulk of the internet traffic after porn is illegal music we all know that.
I think this countesuit rocks.
They can easily argue the above. If limewire or other p2p networks have to be sued then RIAA should also sue isps. They too can setup firewalls to block mp3files etc. They are already blocking websites(mainly porn/warez) in counries like UAE and saudi arabia.
90% of unlimited broadband connections that are really using the unlimited bandwidth are only donwloading/uploading p2p data. So sue ISPs too.
I rest my case :-)
I have this habit or actually i love speaking in simple terms. The main aim of my communications is making the other person understand. Now i am freelance webdesigner. When i talk with my clients and simplify things down for them they go like..."ah its so simple..". Then they ask me for discounts and they get extra smart trying to suggest absurd things. Then i just put so much of technical jargon on their pea sized brain that they just shut up and say OK. They dont want to show they did not understand. Another instance i was sitting with 4 friends and one guy a wannabe geek, but doesnt know bullshit. We are having a discussion about linux and windows and he was saying that linux is dead commercially and no major companies are using linux. So i was making my point in simple english as there were 3 more friends who are totally non-technical except for one who had done a master in computer application(funnily he doesnt know how to copy in dos when i asked him to once). Now this guy has actually heard the words the wannabe geek was using. He has only heard the words but doesnt know the meaning. In the end i just gave up the argument as the wannabe geek was just taking all the technical jargon he knew and making sentences out of it. So later my friend (the dos illiterate masters in computer application) tell with a smirk you lost it with that guy finally you met your match. I was like the guy is talking bullshit. Then i kept quite i mean this guy was supposed to be my friend and he was so happy that i "finally met my match" But that is what language can do and i use it many times to get my way not with close friends though