No, you can't do it perfectly. And it isn't useful to include all opinions. But it also isn't useful to deny that other opinions exist, or to declare them wrong.
But I don't think doing it by committee has shown itself to produce higher quality results, merely a larger volume of results that are updated more often. (as compared to a traditional encyclopedia)
IMO the highest quality encyclopedia would fork from wikipedia, freeze it in time, and then slowly improve the content with a small team of experts who are paid to just do that. And then there is at least a chance of improved quality; especially if you have a few competing teams.
The produced-by-the-masses one can easily be bigger, and have a mediocre treatment of a wider variety of subjects, but it has a really hard time being consistent, or intellectually honest.
And there is lots of room to disagree about the theory of gravity; surely much more room than there is to disagree on the strength of the effect! I'm still waiting for my Graviton Detector.
In 1998 I worked at a plywood mill, which shut down.
The official cause of the shutdown was trade violations by Canada.
That was the biggest industry in my whole State. Now it is tiny, only a few total jobs. And yet, that same industry in BC is quite healthy.
It is safe to say that the US and Canada have substantial, mutual disagreements about what trade practices are fair in the wood products industry, and yet both sides have a strong desire to continue that trade, with minor alterations.
It is worth considering that the history of Canada "winning" those disputes is part of what caused NAFTA to be be negotiated in the first place! And much of what was "won" before was agreed to be improper under NAFTA.
What we don't do, of course, is unilaterally pass laws that apply to the specific companies involved, as that would violate the very premise of having trade rules and fighting over them government-to-government.
My American college education was free, because Canada. Not many can say that, outside of former wood products employees.
The disputes over salmon fishing are probably more substantive, from a "can we get along well enough to have trade agreements" perspective, but even those get worked out.
People are exceptionally credulous of the power of individual governments to try to unilaterally "force" other governments to do things by simply "putting their foot down" and passing some stupid "Facebook tax." Major countries aren't going to try, even though their members of parliament are guaranteed to squawk about doing it. You won't hear it from the parts of their government actually tasked with managing those relationships, though.
You force other countries to do something three ways: 1) by being much bigger than them, and causing their economy to rely on yours. That's out for controlling the US. 2) defeat them in war. Same problem. 3) Form an international agreement with a bunch of countries that together constitute a power large enough that they want to come to a negotiated agreement for economic reasons. Doable, but it involves actually coming up with a compromise the country can accept, it doesn't work to dictate terms unless it is practicable for the group to threaten solutions 1) or 2), which in this case is still not going to work.
Americans value Freedom above Life. Many people around the world can't imagine that actually being true; but it is, and not only on the personal level but on the national level. There are enough people in the UK government that understand that, that we're close friends, with a Special Relationship.
I can bleet about the War of 1812, because our Special Relationship came out of respect borne from trying to kill each other, repeatedly, and then fighting on the same side. It is similar to the relationship between the US and Canada in that regard, except to more of an extreme.
If you claim you can't tell the difference between antifa and Democrats, you're obviously both trolling, and an asshole.
Antifa are great, but when there are no nazis around to fight, they're throwing rocks at Democrats for supporting banks and other business interests; the actual individual humans that make up antifa are not Democrats, or Liberals, or Progressives, they're Anarchists! They want to tear it all down, they really don't care about political parties.
Fighting nazis is the only constructive thing they'll probably even attempt to do their whole lives!
No, we're not so naive as to think that any Government sees a difference between "if needed" and "if we feel like it."
In any case, the Court will decide what was actually "needed," and impose a balance between the different rights. Until that happens, the Government will check whatever boxes have been provided as they do whatever they want.
The reason your government doesn't care is that your "BBQ equipment" manufacturing sector isn't large enough to lobby your government to have laws written for them. As a matter of historical fact, that is who generally asks the US government to pass laws regulating Daylight Saving Time. If it was your loggers or syrup producers asking for it, it would get done. Here, BBQ has more clout than logging.
Now, now, don't start thinking you were being smart.
You don't comprehend the difference between passing a law that applies specifically to a company, or a group of foreign companies, and a law that applies to everybody, including British companies.
That's makes you an idiot who shouldn't even be talking down to a tree frog.
You didn't comprehend what I said, it is as simple as that. What I said was actually clear, and true, and it isn't even debatable. What the policy should be is a matter of opinion; if the UK gets to pass laws that apply specifically to one American company, or to foreign companies generally, is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of extant trade agreements that would be violated; and the US does, in actual fact, have enough power in the world to stand up to big bad UK if they tried it. No, the law you're waving your hand is not at all the sort of law you're trying to pass it off as.
Don't be such an incredible dumb-fuck, jeeze. Take your damn meds for once, grandpa.
Yeah, but it adds nothing to point that out without also pointing out that under the current system, it would take 30 years to get Maxwell's Equations added, because they contradicted Newton.
The useful commentary nearest to what you said would involve looking at both sides of that equation, and identifying a purported balance point.
People are very different, our knowledge if often extremely contentious (aside from hard science) - it's amazing Wikipedia exists in the first place.
Worse, people compiling an encyclopedia shouldn't actually have any functional knowledge at all! If they accidentally make use of their knowledge, that's original research.
It isn't any better in hard science than anywhere else, either; actual science is a process, a process that includes diverse views including views that the current consensus rejects, but the encyclopedia prefers to endorse some views, and reject others, in an absolute way as if "hard science" doesn't evolve or change or have legit disagreements.
The blockchain is shaped like a tree, so if we want to make Earth immutable, we need a blockchain rooted at the Sun, and linking Earth to the outer bodies.
I've never seen anyone who is a science attacker ever advance even a remotely feasible or effective alternative. No, obviously faith in God isn't an alternative because faith doesn't teach you about the natural world - honest theologians admit that.
Your whole premise of needing to defend science against attackers is an unscientific attack on the scientific process!
It replaces actual science with the dogma of whatever is currently believed by people with letters next to their names, but that isn't the scientific process at all.
It precludes science. But luckily, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place that should not be trying to do anything scientific at all. Is there a way to get editors to stop trying? Dunno, but if so they haven't found it yet!
So... you are saying there is really no hope for science as an objective study of truth?
I dunno what that person was saying, but to me it seems obvious that you don't get there by "voting" on disagreements on the talk page!
Just an example, if you look up a page about Foo-ism, instead of an encyclopedic description of the concept, you get Foo-ist statements right in the opening paragraph claiming that Fooism affects certain Foos more than others; whereas that distinction is itself actually the very definition of Fooism!
It seems obvious that you'd have a section on "Fooism in [geographic region] in the [time period]," but that would not be objectively stated in the continuous tense as "Fooism mostly affects [subgroup divided based on Foo]."
If I write that using the word Foo, most of the response is likely to be, "What?" But if I substitute any actual real-world -ism, I'd get shouted at from multiple sides for taking the objective, removed, timeless, encyclopedic perspective on the concept.
People flatly refuse to be encyclopedic on divisive issues. Being anointed as Very Objective Keepers of the Truth doesn't seem to help, nor does voting.
why is it that whenever you hear of a politician or public administrator disenfranchising or otherwise outright fucking voters over it's virtually always a republican?
Whatabutt that guy in Chicago a hundred years ago, huh? Whatabutt that? Dems did it once!
Jeez, you don't TELL people that's what you're doing until you've finished doing it and asked them if they noticed anything. Now every luddite in the area will bitch.
Galveston TX is a narrow island where most of the giant cruise ships dock. It is almost fully covered with structures. They have amusement parks instead of neighborhood parks, including ones on the beach that jut out into the ocean.
If they ever had Luddites, they moved to West Texas decades ago.
If you don't know what the place is, look at a picture for a laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can't do it perfectly. And it isn't useful to include all opinions. But it also isn't useful to deny that other opinions exist, or to declare them wrong.
But I don't think doing it by committee has shown itself to produce higher quality results, merely a larger volume of results that are updated more often. (as compared to a traditional encyclopedia)
IMO the highest quality encyclopedia would fork from wikipedia, freeze it in time, and then slowly improve the content with a small team of experts who are paid to just do that. And then there is at least a chance of improved quality; especially if you have a few competing teams.
The produced-by-the-masses one can easily be bigger, and have a mediocre treatment of a wider variety of subjects, but it has a really hard time being consistent, or intellectually honest.
And there is lots of room to disagree about the theory of gravity; surely much more room than there is to disagree on the strength of the effect! I'm still waiting for my Graviton Detector.
In 1998 I worked at a plywood mill, which shut down.
The official cause of the shutdown was trade violations by Canada.
That was the biggest industry in my whole State. Now it is tiny, only a few total jobs. And yet, that same industry in BC is quite healthy.
It is safe to say that the US and Canada have substantial, mutual disagreements about what trade practices are fair in the wood products industry, and yet both sides have a strong desire to continue that trade, with minor alterations.
It is worth considering that the history of Canada "winning" those disputes is part of what caused NAFTA to be be negotiated in the first place! And much of what was "won" before was agreed to be improper under NAFTA.
What we don't do, of course, is unilaterally pass laws that apply to the specific companies involved, as that would violate the very premise of having trade rules and fighting over them government-to-government.
My American college education was free, because Canada. Not many can say that, outside of former wood products employees.
The disputes over salmon fishing are probably more substantive, from a "can we get along well enough to have trade agreements" perspective, but even those get worked out.
People are exceptionally credulous of the power of individual governments to try to unilaterally "force" other governments to do things by simply "putting their foot down" and passing some stupid "Facebook tax." Major countries aren't going to try, even though their members of parliament are guaranteed to squawk about doing it. You won't hear it from the parts of their government actually tasked with managing those relationships, though.
You force other countries to do something three ways:
1) by being much bigger than them, and causing their economy to rely on yours. That's out for controlling the US.
2) defeat them in war. Same problem.
3) Form an international agreement with a bunch of countries that together constitute a power large enough that they want to come to a negotiated agreement for economic reasons. Doable, but it involves actually coming up with a compromise the country can accept, it doesn't work to dictate terms unless it is practicable for the group to threaten solutions 1) or 2), which in this case is still not going to work.
Americans value Freedom above Life. Many people around the world can't imagine that actually being true; but it is, and not only on the personal level but on the national level. There are enough people in the UK government that understand that, that we're close friends, with a Special Relationship.
I can bleet about the War of 1812, because our Special Relationship came out of respect borne from trying to kill each other, repeatedly, and then fighting on the same side. It is similar to the relationship between the US and Canada in that regard, except to more of an extreme.
If you claim you can't tell the difference between antifa and Democrats, you're obviously both trolling, and an asshole.
Antifa are great, but when there are no nazis around to fight, they're throwing rocks at Democrats for supporting banks and other business interests; the actual individual humans that make up antifa are not Democrats, or Liberals, or Progressives, they're Anarchists! They want to tear it all down, they really don't care about political parties.
Fighting nazis is the only constructive thing they'll probably even attempt to do their whole lives!
No, we're not so naive as to think that any Government sees a difference between "if needed" and "if we feel like it."
In any case, the Court will decide what was actually "needed," and impose a balance between the different rights. Until that happens, the Government will check whatever boxes have been provided as they do whatever they want.
The reason your government doesn't care is that your "BBQ equipment" manufacturing sector isn't large enough to lobby your government to have laws written for them. As a matter of historical fact, that is who generally asks the US government to pass laws regulating Daylight Saving Time. If it was your loggers or syrup producers asking for it, it would get done. Here, BBQ has more clout than logging.
Now, now, don't start thinking you were being smart.
You don't comprehend the difference between passing a law that applies specifically to a company, or a group of foreign companies, and a law that applies to everybody, including British companies.
That's makes you an idiot who shouldn't even be talking down to a tree frog.
You didn't comprehend what I said, it is as simple as that. What I said was actually clear, and true, and it isn't even debatable. What the policy should be is a matter of opinion; if the UK gets to pass laws that apply specifically to one American company, or to foreign companies generally, is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of extant trade agreements that would be violated; and the US does, in actual fact, have enough power in the world to stand up to big bad UK if they tried it. No, the law you're waving your hand is not at all the sort of law you're trying to pass it off as.
Don't be such an incredible dumb-fuck, jeeze. Take your damn meds for once, grandpa.
Yeah, but it adds nothing to point that out without also pointing out that under the current system, it would take 30 years to get Maxwell's Equations added, because they contradicted Newton.
The useful commentary nearest to what you said would involve looking at both sides of that equation, and identifying a purported balance point.
Honestly, I can't think of a more brain-dead approach than dragging "reputation" into it!
Ideas weigh the same regardless of the speaker, and certainly regardless of what things the speaker has said in the past.
People are very different, our knowledge if often extremely contentious (aside from hard science) - it's amazing Wikipedia exists in the first place.
Worse, people compiling an encyclopedia shouldn't actually have any functional knowledge at all! If they accidentally make use of their knowledge, that's original research.
It isn't any better in hard science than anywhere else, either; actual science is a process, a process that includes diverse views including views that the current consensus rejects, but the encyclopedia prefers to endorse some views, and reject others, in an absolute way as if "hard science" doesn't evolve or change or have legit disagreements.
The Earth is FLAT!
Locally true, on average.
The blockchain is shaped like a tree, so if we want to make Earth immutable, we need a blockchain rooted at the Sun, and linking Earth to the outer bodies.
Fuck that, Bitcoin is going to dominate the future economy, making all that shit moot.
Won't work, if you put the CO2 on the blockchain it becomes immutable.
Anybody who always uses vim is an idiot, just like anybody who always uses emacs is an idiot.
Emacs is painful on a remote terminal, and vim klunky and slow for software development. You need both to wear the *nix expert hat.
If you're a sysadmin who can't write their own tools, or a developer who needs a help desk to keep your desktop running, shut up you don't matter.
This message was approved by the BOFH.
If we can't even agree about the facts of genital mutilation, what hope is there for consensus-based "objective" publications?
No, we are talking about Wikipedia.
I've never seen anyone who is a science attacker ever advance even a remotely feasible or effective alternative. No, obviously faith in God isn't an alternative because faith doesn't teach you about the natural world - honest theologians admit that.
Your whole premise of needing to defend science against attackers is an unscientific attack on the scientific process!
It replaces actual science with the dogma of whatever is currently believed by people with letters next to their names, but that isn't the scientific process at all.
It precludes science. But luckily, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place that should not be trying to do anything scientific at all. Is there a way to get editors to stop trying? Dunno, but if so they haven't found it yet!
So ... you are saying there is really no hope for science as an objective study of truth?
I dunno what that person was saying, but to me it seems obvious that you don't get there by "voting" on disagreements on the talk page!
Just an example, if you look up a page about Foo-ism, instead of an encyclopedic description of the concept, you get Foo-ist statements right in the opening paragraph claiming that Fooism affects certain Foos more than others; whereas that distinction is itself actually the very definition of Fooism!
It seems obvious that you'd have a section on "Fooism in [geographic region] in the [time period]," but that would not be objectively stated in the continuous tense as "Fooism mostly affects [subgroup divided based on Foo]."
If I write that using the word Foo, most of the response is likely to be, "What?" But if I substitute any actual real-world -ism, I'd get shouted at from multiple sides for taking the objective, removed, timeless, encyclopedic perspective on the concept.
People flatly refuse to be encyclopedic on divisive issues. Being anointed as Very Objective Keepers of the Truth doesn't seem to help, nor does voting.
Too bad none of the clinical results line up with that theory. It was mainstream while it lasted, though.
It may be that Chinese cops have no need for "mumbo-jumbo" and would find the concept backwards, quaint.
No, dumbass, the rural lifestyle in the US can't exist without the cities.
Nobody said that the land can't exist, or wouldn't still have a few people on it.
But they wouldn't have the same lifestyle. And they'd be using pit toilets for sure.
Well, Democrats haven't had a utter loony in office in a very long time
You haven't seen my City Council!
My advice is to wait until the Courts are done ruling before you decide that it was all legal.
You don't sound like you're even aware that there were lots of irregularities and the situation hasn't even "settled" yet.
You're making a strong statement that relies on facts that are not yet known.
why is it that whenever you hear of a politician or public administrator disenfranchising or otherwise outright fucking voters over it's virtually always a republican?
Whatabutt that guy in Chicago a hundred years ago, huh? Whatabutt that? Dems did it once!
He absolutely should have reused himself.
He's a Republican, don't expect him to come up with a whole new trick next time.
He's definitely going to try to find a way to reuse his conflict of interest, if he can.
Jeez, you don't TELL people that's what you're doing until you've finished doing it and asked them if they noticed anything. Now every luddite in the area will bitch.
Galveston TX is a narrow island where most of the giant cruise ships dock. It is almost fully covered with structures. They have amusement parks instead of neighborhood parks, including ones on the beach that jut out into the ocean.
If they ever had Luddites, they moved to West Texas decades ago.
If you don't know what the place is, look at a picture for a laugh.
Aliens. Definitely aliens.
It doesn't.
If that is what it was for, it would an airline doing it.
NASA is doing it, which means it is the US Air Force that wants it, which means it has nothing to do with cross-continent flight.
They don't mind if you hear something something after they already released the bomb and turned around to fly away.
Where I come from, the mountains are the same height flying over them either direction!
Canada is so silly!
Is this somehow related to why your upper jaw moves when you talk, instead of your lower jaw?