Wikipedia: "You'd have to prove that you're the author and that you're releasing copyright" (!?)
Nikolay Kryachkov
I thought that Wikipedia is a kind of the friendly networked book.
I tried to ad my definition of knowledge with its inference to the
appropriate article on Wikipedia with the links to the source at my
website and added the links to my blog and this group because they have
relevant content. All this was deleted.
Wikipedia: "You'd have to prove that you're the author and that
you're releasing copyright" (!?)
Read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veinor#Deleted_content
What's going on with presumptions of innocence?
Nikolay
Nikolay Kryachkov
I thought that Wikipedia is a kind of the friendly networked book.
I tried to add my definition of knowledge with its inference to the
appropriate article on Wikipedia with the links to the source at my
website and added the links to my blog and this group because they have
relevant content. All this was deleted.
Wikipedia: "You'd have to prove that you're the author and that
you're releasing copyright" (!?)
What's going on with presumption of innocence?
Nikolay
christopher macrae
Nikolay Kryachkov <n...@au.ru> wrote:
Nikolay Kryachkov
business model. And there is a contradiction between a dispersed nature
of the web and a managerial mentality, which came from the era of
industrialization. Any rudeness, poor customer support, violation of
rights, prove that you're not a ..., etc. is from the past where
production is mass production, people are resources or customers -
just a crowd and NOT partners. It's like during the war - a corporation
(army) conquer markets (customers and their territories). If not
conquered territories exist, management will probably use war
terminology. But it's possible to win a war, impossible to win peace
because war tecnologies don't work properly when peace is needed.
The worst thing is that people usually accept that (are programmed from
outside
http://knowledgeperson.blogspot.com/2006/11/to-be-or-not-to-be-self-programmed.html
) - life is too short to change it - is a common excuse for that. If
so, why they are surprised that jobs are shifting to the East?
A what will be in the East with jobs when people will start practicing
the networked goods and services and their markets - the dispersed
business model (changes go faster and faster)?
Nikolay
"""christopher macrae писал(а):
Nikolay Kryachkov
here are 2 opinions I got from the LION's http://
finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/LinkedinLions network:
1. "Wikipedia is not worth the effort, it's actually just the Internet
"scam
du jure." Their rules are violated, most flagrantly when their founder
was caught enhancing his own biography -- a major "no no" in the land
of
the Wiki's".
2. "You can get misinformation from anywhere - Wiki, the whole world
wide Web, blogs, news,
and even LinkedIN. (How do you verify someone on LinkedIn?)".
I posted this:
http://knowledgeperson.blogspot.com/2007/01/licensing-monopolies.html
Of course you can register your work (as my contact person and the
member of this group has suggested) - http://www.file-reg.com/en/
uploadinfo.htm
But how you can characterize this kind of business - your identity is
under suspicion (no presumtion of innocence) and you must pay to
prove that you are you?
Maybe it is because current licensing is not about inventory-making of
works but is about link popularity collection to get the monopolistic
status?
By the way all this is connected with future money:
"The buzz around Second Life is mostly negative as of late, so as it
stands the bar is set pretty low when it comes to user expectations
from 3D worlds designed to mimic everyday living.
Also, if Google has a plan to construct a virtual environment, it
seems certain that the company also has a strategy to monetize the
venture as well.
One of the biggest knocks against Second Life, however, is the
restrictive nature of the in-world economy, especially the
difficulty in trying to convert Linden dollars back into tangible
cash. So if Google is planning on implementing any kind of commerce
structure within the world, the company would be wise to learn from
Linden Lab's mistakes.
Many writers (myself included) have jokingly prognosticated that
Google may someday take over the world.
Perhaps the company just plans to create a Google controlled
society from scratch, instead".
(WebProNews - Google To Create Its Own Virtual World? January 27,
2007)
An additional link: http://wikinomics.com
Nikolay
On 12 Янв., 12:57, "Nikolay Kryachkov" <n...@au.ru> wrote:
> I think one of the reasons for that is their (wkipedia's) centralized
> business model. And there is a contradiction between a dispersed nature
> of the web and a managerial mentality, which came from the era of
> industrialization. Any rudeness, poor customer support, violation of
> rights, prove that you're not a ..., etc. is from the past where
> production is mass production, people are resources or customers -
> just a crowd and NOT partners. It's like during the war - a corporation
> (army) conquer markets (customers and their territories). If not
> conquered territories exist, management will probably use war
> terminology. But it's possible to win a war, impossible to win peace
> because war tecnologies don't work properly when peace is needed.
>
> The worst thing is that people usually accept that (are programmed from
> outsidehttp://knowledgeperson.blogspot.com/2006/11/to-be-or-not-to-be-self-p...
> ) - life is too short to change it - is a common excuse for that. If
> so, why they are surprised that jobs are shifting to the East?
>
> A what will be in the East with jobs when people will start practicing
> the networked goods and services and their markets - the dispersed
> business model (changes go faster and faster)?
>
> Nikolay
>
> """christopher macrae писал(а):
> """
>
> > My own experiences of wikipedia are that it is useless for anything that is alive and fast changing, or requires cross-cultural conflict resolution until a higher order systemic perspective integrating diverse views is spaced. Its English language version is also very american dominated , hardly what the net needs more of
>
> > - try and make any sense out of what wiki says on climate crisis, and you might as well go back to the ark
>
> > it is good for something that is historical provided you can find at least some refernce to what you want to integrate into the story already edited in
>
> > wikipedia is an example of how trendy majority parts of the net are - to be in, you need to say you like wikipedia, whereas I think its a block to the system changing knowhow that I spend my life searching for
>
> > In fact the founder set up the culture that refereeing proof is needed, which explains why wikipedia is the exactly wrong space to commune around on any chnage world agenda
>
> > chris macrae
> > http://worldcitizen.tvhttp://peacecentury.tv http://guidemakers.net
>
> > Nikolay Kryachkov <n...@au.ru> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I thought that Wikipedia is a kind of the friendly networked book.
>
> > I tried to ad my definition of knowledge with its inference to the
> > appropriate article on Wikipedia with the links to the source at my
> > website and added the links to my blog and this group because they have
> > relevant content. All this was deleted.
>
> > Wikipedia: "You'd have to prove that you're the author and that
> > you're releasing copyright" (!?)
>
> > Read onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veinor#Deleted_content