ever more on Wikipedia
Dover Beach
Where the hell is Gifford, anyway?
The Wall Street Journal today is reporting on Encyclopedia Britannica's
battle to get Nature to retract its article comparing Wikipedia
favorably to Britannica. Usually I can post a link that works for one
week, but it doesn't seem to be working today, so here's the whole
thang:
<begin>
In a War of Words,
Famed Encyclopedia
Defends Its Turf
At Britannica, Comparisons
To an Online Upstart
Are Bad Work of 'Nature'
By SARAH ELLISON
March 24, 2006; Page A1
The venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica is launching an unusual public
war to defend itself against a scientific article that argued it's
scarcely better than a free-for-all Web upstart.
On Dec. 15, the scientific journal Nature ran a two-page "special
report" titled "Internet encyclopedias go head to head." It compared the
accuracy of science entries for the online encyclopedia Wikipedia and
the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Founded in 1768 in Edinburgh, Scotland, Britannica is painstakingly
compiled by a collection of scholars and other experts around the world.
Wikipedia came to life in California five years ago under a
"user-generated" model: That is, anyone who wants to can contribute, or
change, an entry.
The Nature report, published in the journal's news section, said there
was not much difference between the two. For every four errors in
Wikipedia, Britannica had three. "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in
terms of the accuracy of its science entries," the study concluded.
The article was immediately cited by dozens of newswires, papers and
magazines around the world. Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the
Council on Foreign Relations and a member of Britannica's editorial
board, said he first heard about the article from his son-in-law, who
taunted him, saying, "Your Britannica is no different from Wikipedia,"
Mr. Gelb recalls. "He was tormenting me."
Now, Britannica's editors are firing back with a strongly worded open
letter demanding that Nature retract its article and a 7,000-word
rebuttal on its Web site. Executives at Britannica say the letter will
appear in half-page ads in The Times of London, the New York Times and
the Chicago Tribune as early as Monday. The letter says that Nature's
study "was so poorly carried out and its findings so error-laden that it
was completely without validity." The letter was emailed Wednesday to
roughly 5,000 librarians, school-district administrators and curriculum
coordinators.
The editors of Nature, a leading scientific publication based in London,
posted a lengthy response to Britannica's open letter yesterday on its
Web site, defending its article and concluding: "We do not intend to
retract our article." The report carried six bylines, and used as its
basis critiques from 50 reviewers who are "independent scholars" in
various scientific fields. Nature is owned by closely held Verlagsgruppe
Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH of Germany.
The scrape comes as Encyclopaedia Britannica, once a household staple,
has struggled to maintain its relevance in a world of free search
engines and online research tools. The company, which stopped selling
encyclopedias door to door in 1996 in the U.S. and Canada, is part of
Luxembourg-based Encyclopaedia Britannica Holding SA. Today, only a
third of its profits come from its print encyclopedias. The rest is made
up in online subscriptions and other ventures.
In its past two meetings, the Britannica board discussed the possibility
of making its online content mainly free. "We've been arguing about it
and here this thing comes along," Mr. Gelb says.
In the 42 entries examined in each publication, Nature said it found 162
problems in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica. Among the alleged errors:
Britannica spelled the name of an Italian town where the ancient
mathematician Pythagoras lived for part of his life as Crotone. It's
Crotona, according to Nature. Britannica said a cloud was formed by
"supersaturation." Nature's reviewer said simple "saturation" would have
been more accurate. In an entry on lipids, Nature had no qualm with
Wikipedia's entries but said Britannica failed to mention "saturated"
and "unsaturated" fats, and used "outdated nomenclature."
Britannica rejected these and other findings. Crotone, it said, is the
"proper modern spelling." Saturation, it argued, is a "transitional
stage" leading up to supersaturation. As for the entry on lipids,
Britannica objected to Nature reviewing only a 350-word excerpt of its
6,000-word entry on the subject. Although it did acknowledge some
errors, Britannica claimed that they were minor and far fewer than those
in Wikipedia.
"This is about reputation," says Theodore Pappas, Britannica's executive
editor. "It's about the trust we've enjoyed for 238 years." In its
response to Nature, Britannica deployed a team of 30 staff members and
outside scholars that spent six weeks going over each alleged error.
Nature says that Britannica has taken issue with fewer than half of the
points its reviewers raised, and that both Wikipedia and Britannica have
made some corrections to entries since the publication of the article.
Tom Panelas, Britannica's director of corporate communications, said in
an email: "A number of the reviewers made suggestions worth considering,
and in some cases we thought they were worth taking."
In an entry on famed physicist Hans Bethe, for instance, Britannica said
the German-born scientist was dismissed from an early academic post in
1933. The Nature reviewer thought the entry should have explained that
his mother was Jewish, and counted the lack of Nazi-era perspective as
an error.
The suggestion "seemed reasonable to us, so we added that, but there was
no inaccuracy in our article," Mr. Panelas says. He added that some of
Nature's reviewers suggested changes that were already in Britannica's
editorial pipeline, "but it doesn't mean those changes were a response
to Nature."
The day the Nature article appeared, Britannica asked Nature for more
data on its study. A week later, Nature sent Britannica a document
explaining how the study was carried out, and a summary of all the
disputed entries on both sides. But Britannica wanted more --
specifically, the raw survey data so Britannica could assess Nature's
findings. Jim Giles, the lead reporter on the piece, declined, saying
that doing so would compromise the anonymity of Nature's reviewers.
Mr. Gelb and others on the editorial board see more than Britannica's
reputation at stake. "I have no problem with there being a Wikipedia,
and people wanting to use it," says Mr. Gelb, "as long as people don't
think it is in and of itself serious scholarship."
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says the site does have a serious
editorial process. "You don't need to be credentialed expert to be a
reasonable one," he says. The site operates on what he calls an
accountability model as opposed to a gatekeeper model.
Roughly 1,500 to 2,000 volunteers contribute to Wikipedia on a regular
basis and thousands more make occasional contributions, Mr. Wales says.
According to the site, on Feb. 27, 2006, Wikipedia surpassed one million
registered users. In its own entry on Wikipedia, the Web site concedes
that there has been "controversy over its reliability."
Last fall, John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of the Tennessean
newspaper who had worked as an assistant to Attorney General Robert
Kennedy in the early 1960s, discovered that his biography on Wikipedia
had been altered to include a reference that linked him to the
assassinations of Mr. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. Mr. Seigenthaler
wrote an op-ed piece in USA Today assailing Wikipedia, and the site
altered its user-registration rules to attempt to prevent what Mr. Wales
calls "vandalism" on the site.
Mr. Wales says he was "pleased" with Nature's study, but adds, "It's
hardly true we're as good as Britannica." He says he was glad Nature
chose to compare science-related themes "because on history and the
social sciences, we're much weaker." In other areas -- including
computer science and the history of "Star Trek," he says, Wikipedia is
"way better."
<end>
--
Dover
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>
>Where the hell is Gifford, anyway?
He must be alive, as his company web page was updated recently, but he
disappeared at the time of the floods.
http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/
>
>The Wall Street Journal today is reporting on Encyclopedia Britannica's
>battle to get Nature to retract its article comparing Wikipedia
>favorably to Britannica. Usually I can post a link that works for one
>week, but it doesn't seem to be working today, so here's the whole
>thang:
I like this. I wonder who'll win.
The twins informed me the other day that a favorite pastime of theirs
and their friends is to go into Wiki and play with entries. I assume
they are not unique in this.
Boron
Mary
>The twins informed me the other day that a favorite pastime of theirs
>and their friends is to go into Wiki and play with entries. I assume
>they are not unique in this.
No, which is why I always take anything I read there with a grain of
salt.
It appears from this article, though, that your choices are between a
mixture of deliberate and accidental falsehoods posted on Wiki by
people who are either mischevious or wrong, and accidental falsehoods
in the Britannica because they were, well, wrong.
I guess you just can't trust anyone. Then again, it might be valid to
ask who was deciding that the various Wiki and Britannica entries were
incorrect in the first place. This whole thing may just be differences
of opinion or political bias or something.
Mary
Opus the Penguin
> Nature is owned by closely held Verlagsgruppe
> Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH of Germany.
I almost ROT-13ed that.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Kevin
>Boron wrote:
>>The twins informed me the other day that a favorite pastime of theirs
>>and their friends is to go into Wiki and play with entries. I assume
>>they are not unique in this.
Heh, vandalism, neat.
>No, which is why I always take anything I read there with a grain of
>salt.
Sure. When I look at entries on stuff I know about, I usually find
that it's surprisingly good.
>It appears from this article, though, that your choices are between a
>mixture of deliberate and accidental falsehoods posted on Wiki by
>people who are either mischevious or wrong, and accidental falsehoods
>in the Britannica because they were, well, wrong.
>
>I guess you just can't trust anyone. Then again, it might be valid to
>ask who was deciding that the various Wiki and Britannica entries were
>incorrect in the first place. This whole thing may just be differences
>of opinion or political bias or something.
The idea that Britannica or the like is always right has never held
water with me. When I was about twelve I found a mistake in a sidebar
Britannica article on robotics; the sidebar was on robots in science
fiction, and they had got the order of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics
wrong. I wrote them a letter. It was very exciting, to a twelve year
old.
--
Kevin
Asterbark
> Dover Beach (moon.b...@gmail.com) quoted:
>
>> Nature is owned by closely held Verlagsgruppe
>> Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH of Germany.
>
> I almost ROT-13ed that.
>
> Angher vf bjarq ol pybfryl uryq Ireyntftehccr
> Trbet iba Ubygmoevapx TzoU bs Treznal.
Boron Elgar
>On 24 Mar 2006 10:13:55 -0800, "Mary" <mrfea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Boron wrote:
>>>The twins informed me the other day that a favorite pastime of theirs
>>>and their friends is to go into Wiki and play with entries. I assume
>>>they are not unique in this.
>
>Heh, vandalism, neat.
>
Think of it as graffiti, or perhaps dogs marking territory. I lectured
them, but not too seriously. Some of the stuff they did was pretty
funny.
Boron
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Kevin wrote:
>
> On 24 Mar 2006 10:13:55 -0800, "Mary" <mrfea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Boron wrote:
> >>The twins informed me the other day that a favorite pastime of theirs
> >>and their friends is to go into Wiki and play with entries. I assume
> >>they are not unique in this.
>
> Heh, vandalism, neat.
>
If they go in and add silly comments, those can probably be culled, but
how about just changing some numbers around a little bit?
> >No, which is why I always take anything I read there with a grain of
> >salt.
>
> Sure. When I look at entries on stuff I know about, I usually find
> that it's surprisingly good.
>
On science and the like. Controversial subjects tend to attract the riff
raff who think it's funny to try to destroy the concept.
> >It appears from this article, though, that your choices are between a
> >mixture of deliberate and accidental falsehoods posted on Wiki by
> >people who are either mischevious or wrong, and accidental falsehoods
> >in the Britannica because they were, well, wrong.
> >
> >I guess you just can't trust anyone. Then again, it might be valid to
> >ask who was deciding that the various Wiki and Britannica entries were
> >incorrect in the first place. This whole thing may just be differences
> >of opinion or political bias or something.
>
> The idea that Britannica or the like is always right has never held
> water with me. When I was about twelve I found a mistake in a sidebar
> Britannica article on robotics; the sidebar was on robots in science
> fiction, and they had got the order of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics
> wrong. I wrote them a letter. It was very exciting, to a twelve year
> old.
>
Britannica is a necessary resource. I think that Wikipedia has become
that too. They compliment each other and I'd love to find another paper
copy of Britannica.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
It would be funny if Britannica did a report on open science journals
and how they are just about as good as Nature.
DT
>The twins informed me the other day that a favorite pastime of theirs
>and their friends is to go into Wiki and play with entries. I assume
>they are not unique in this.
Hmm, if you go to any entry in Wiki and click on 'edit', then read the
requirements and click on 'verifiable' you get this:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable
sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or
it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to
include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
They further amplify in bold letters that the added material must have already
been published, in other words, someone else is doing their peer review. They
even go so far as to say that they *don't care if it is true*, just that it is
previously published.
So, does the stuff the twins submit get added to the entry if they don't
give a cite? If so, does it get removed later?
Dennis
Boron Elgar
wrote:
I have no idea, but it seems to be the favorite game at their school.
Boron
bill van
Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If any of your kids' Wikipedia dog markings end up being cited on afca
in a serious argument, the cabal should burn your house down.
art...@yahoo.com
Dover Beach wrote:
>
> The venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica is launching an unusual public
> war to defend itself against a scientific article that argued it's
> scarcely better than a free-for-all Web upstart.
>
> was not much difference between the two. For every four errors in
> Wikipedia, Britannica had three. "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in
> terms of the accuracy of its science entries," the study concluded.
Since when is 4 errors close to 3? I mean, think what would happen if
some idiot had decided that pi=4.
OTOH, Encyclopedia Brittanica will never tell you alternate meanings of
words like
"Santorum".
Boron Elgar
Deal.
Boron
Bill Kinkaid
Sounds like the national anthem of Albania.
--
Bill in Vancouver
Blinky the Shark
> The venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica is launching an unusual public
> war to defend itself against a scientific article that argued it's
> scarcely better than a free-for-all Web upstart.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/25/wikipedia_comical_ali_small.jpg
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients
Mike
"Kevin" <K_S_O...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tge822duihvdlqsmn...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Mar 2006 10:13:55 -0800, "Mary" <mrfea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Boron wrote:
>>>The twins informed me the other day that a favorite pastime of theirs
>>>and their friends is to go into Wiki and play with entries. I assume
>>>they are not unique in this.
>
> Heh, vandalism, neat.
>
>>No, which is why I always take anything I read there with a grain of
>>salt.
>
> Sure. When I look at entries on stuff I know about, I usually find
> that it's surprisingly good.
I generally find exactly the opposite. I looked at SMART disk drives a few
weeks ago. The author doesn't understand reliability, yet wrote the entry as
though he's an expert.
One of my coworkers spends much of his free time writing Wiki entries. As
far as I can tell, his area of actual expertise is very narrow, but he
writes articles about a wide variety of topics, using information he
collects from various google links. I've never read one of his Wiki entries,
but our conversations have led me to conclude that his thought process is
relatively ineffective. I'm sure he has his fans, but I'm also sure his
entries are just as accurate as usenet posts.
-- Mike --
groo
Somebody needs a good spanking. Graffiti is just a word for a specific
type of vandalism.
I have no complaint about dogs marking territory.
--
"Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants
on every morning." - Hunter S. Thompson
groo
>
> Dover Beach wrote:
>>
>> The venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica is launching an unusual public
>> war to defend itself against a scientific article that argued it's
>> scarcely better than a free-for-all Web upstart.
>>
>> The Nature report, published in the journal's news section, said
>> there was not much difference between the two. For every four errors
>> in Wikipedia, Britannica had three. "Wikipedia comes close to
>> Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries," the
>> study concluded.
>
> Since when is 4 errors close to 3? I mean, think what would happen if
> some idiot had decided that pi=4.
Yeah! After all, it's important in many calculations to use the proper
value of pi=3.
--
"Missed it by THAT much!"
Boron Elgar
>Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:34:00 GMT, Kevin <K_S_O...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Mar 2006 10:13:55 -0800, "Mary" <mrfea...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Boron wrote:
>>>>>The twins informed me the other day that a favorite pastime of theirs
>>>>>and their friends is to go into Wiki and play with entries. I assume
>>>>>they are not unique in this.
>>>
>>>Heh, vandalism, neat.
>>>
>> Think of it as graffiti, or perhaps dogs marking territory. I lectured
>> them, but not too seriously. Some of the stuff they did was pretty
>> funny.
>
>Somebody needs a good spanking. Graffiti is just a word for a specific
>type of vandalism.
>
>I have no complaint about dogs marking territory.
There is graffiti and graffiti...I was classifying it more along the
lines of the big rock by the highway that the seniors/frats always
paint over, rather than the windows in the subway car that the tag
freaks paint over.
Boron
groo
While I agree that some graffiti is worse than others, I think it pretty
much all sucks.
I generally support anyone trying to make the world a more fun place,
but not in a destructive manner. You might point out to the twins that
there are ways to have similar fun without ruining something valuable
that someone else took the time and effort to create. Or you could cut
off one of their thumbs or something.
For example, one of my pastimes in college was parodying the cafeteria
menu posted on the dorm bulletin board. I created my alternate version
of the week's menu (a mixture of vile and disgusting food items) and
tacked it over the real menu using thumbtacks only at the top. To see
the real thing, one only had to lift up the bottom of the page I'd
posted.
Boron Elgar
>Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:04:54 GMT, groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Somebody needs a good spanking. Graffiti is just a word for a specific
>>>type of vandalism.
>>>
>>>I have no complaint about dogs marking territory.
>>
>>
>> There is graffiti and graffiti...I was classifying it more along the
>> lines of the big rock by the highway that the seniors/frats always
>> paint over, rather than the windows in the subway car that the tag
>> freaks paint over.
>>
>
>While I agree that some graffiti is worse than others, I think it pretty
>much all sucks.
I have no qualms about them and Wiki. None whatsoever.
>
>I generally support anyone trying to make the world a more fun place,
>but not in a destructive manner. You might point out to the twins that
>there are ways to have similar fun without ruining something valuable
>that someone else took the time and effort to create. Or you could cut
>off one of their thumbs or something.
In my mind, there is nothing destructive about what they are doing on
Wiki.
>For example, one of my pastimes in college was parodying the cafeteria
>menu posted on the dorm bulletin board. I created my alternate version
>of the week's menu (a mixture of vile and disgusting food items) and
>tacked it over the real menu using thumbtacks only at the top. To see
>the real thing, one only had to lift up the bottom of the page I'd
>posted.
All someone has to do it change what is there on Wiki....or treat it
with a grain of salt, as it should be treated, regardless of what
"Nature" says.
Boron
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:00:52 GMT, groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:04:54 GMT, groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >>>
> >>>Somebody needs a good spanking. Graffiti is just a word for a specific
> >>>type of vandalism.
> >>>
> >>>I have no complaint about dogs marking territory.
> >>
> >>
> >> There is graffiti and graffiti...I was classifying it more along the
> >> lines of the big rock by the highway that the seniors/frats always
> >> paint over, rather than the windows in the subway car that the tag
> >> freaks paint over.
> >>
> >
> >While I agree that some graffiti is worse than others, I think it pretty
> >much all sucks.
>
> I have no qualms about them and Wiki. None whatsoever.
>
That's because evidently you don't care about user supported activities.
Do you think the same thing about getting involved in software writing
and then putting bugs in intentionally to mess up peoples' machines? I
can't see any functional difference between that and what you've
described.
> >I generally support anyone trying to make the world a more fun place,
> >but not in a destructive manner. You might point out to the twins that
> >there are ways to have similar fun without ruining something valuable
> >that someone else took the time and effort to create. Or you could cut
> >off one of their thumbs or something.
>
> In my mind, there is nothing destructive about what they are doing on
> Wiki.
>
What they are doing is damaging Wiki's database. It's one thing when
it's a controversial issue, people are just disagreeing. I recall that
there was a big thing about Dr Laura and competing peoples' views about
her. But to go in and change some data that someone carefully and
helpfully worked up just to be an arse is really malevolent.
> >For example, one of my pastimes in college was parodying the cafeteria
> >menu posted on the dorm bulletin board. I created my alternate version
> >of the week's menu (a mixture of vile and disgusting food items) and
> >tacked it over the real menu using thumbtacks only at the top. To see
> >the real thing, one only had to lift up the bottom of the page I'd
> >posted.
>
> All someone has to do it change what is there on Wiki....or treat it
> with a grain of salt, as it should be treated, regardless of what
> "Nature" says.
>
Basically you think that Britannica should instead of fixing its own
errors go into Wiki and make more there? Or do you draw the line on
trashing other people's stuff when they are doing it for personal
profit? So if someone keys your car but they don't work for Maaco, you
are down with that?
K_S_ONeill
Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:00:52 GMT, groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:04:54 GMT, groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >>>
> >>>Somebody needs a good spanking. Graffiti is just a word for a specific
> >>>type of vandalism.
> >>>
> >>>I have no complaint about dogs marking territory.
> >>
> >>
> >> There is graffiti and graffiti...I was classifying it more along the
> >> lines of the big rock by the highway that the seniors/frats always
> >> paint over, rather than the windows in the subway car that the tag
> >> freaks paint over.
> >>
> >
> >While I agree that some graffiti is worse than others, I think it pretty
> >much all sucks.
>
> I have no qualms about them and Wiki. None whatsoever.
Oddly enough, I don't really care if someone drives by and throws rocks
at your windows, either.
> >I generally support anyone trying to make the world a more fun place,
> >but not in a destructive manner. You might point out to the twins that
> >there are ways to have similar fun without ruining something valuable
> >that someone else took the time and effort to create. Or you could cut
> >off one of their thumbs or something.
>
> In my mind, there is nothing destructive about what they are doing on
> Wiki.
Let's have a few more details, perhaps we're missing the point of the
story. Were they not going in and intentionally inserting false facts?
That's not destructive?
> >For example, one of my pastimes in college was parodying the cafeteria
> >menu posted on the dorm bulletin board. I created my alternate version
> >of the week's menu (a mixture of vile and disgusting food items) and
> >tacked it over the real menu using thumbtacks only at the top. To see
> >the real thing, one only had to lift up the bottom of the page I'd
> >posted.
>
> All someone has to do it change what is there on Wiki....or treat it
> with a grain of salt, as it should be treated, regardless of what
> "Nature" says.
Yeah, and all you have to do is put new glass in the windows, and you
shouldn't sit there in a rainstorm anyway.
--
Kevin
Dover Beach
news:Xns97947A376B8BD94...@207.115.17.102:
>
> For example, one of my pastimes in college was parodying the cafeteria
> menu posted on the dorm bulletin board. I created my alternate version
> of the week's menu (a mixture of vile and disgusting food items) and
> tacked it over the real menu using thumbtacks only at the top. To see
> the real thing, one only had to lift up the bottom of the page I'd
> posted.
>
And yet you complain that you didn't get laid enough in college? You
clearly went to the wrong college. Or maybe it was an all-male dorm.
--
Dover (I would've done you, Dana would've done you, where the hell were
you?)
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Whether pi is 3 or 4 depends on how much you have to warp the two by
fours to get them to fit together.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>Yeah, and all you have to do is put new glass in the windows, and you
>shouldn't sit there in a rainstorm anyway.
Horsefeathers. Wiki isn't the some sort of bible, nor is it
inviolate. It offers the capability to go in and play with it. It has
been shown that a lot of people enjoy the humor aspects of that
capability.
Why do you consider it comparable to breaking someone's window?
Exactly who's window is being broken? Who gets wet - the idiots that
take Wiki as a primary source of info? Best it be liberally sprinkled
with humor then, to ward off the fools and amuse those more diligent
in researching.
'Tis the season...think of it as Easter Eggs.
Boron
darkon
>
>
> groo wrote:
>>
>> "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Dover Beach wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica is launching an
>> >> unusual public war to defend itself against a scientific
>> >> article that argued it's scarcely better than a free-for-all
>> >> Web upstart.
>> >>
>> >> The Nature report, published in the journal's news section,
>> >> said there was not much difference between the two. For
>> >> every four errors in Wikipedia, Britannica had three.
>> >> "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the
>> >> accuracy of its science entries," the study concluded.
>> >
>> > Since when is 4 errors close to 3? I mean, think what would
>> > happen if some idiot had decided that pi=4.
>>
>> Yeah! After all, it's important in many calculations to use the
>> proper value of pi=3.
>>
> Whether pi is 3 or 4 depends on how much you have to warp the
> two by fours to get them to fit together.
You can transcend that problem by using a plane.
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
It's one of the only secondary sources online for a lot of information
including highly current material. It's almost as accurate as Britannica
and many people take what it says at least seriously even if they know
that some minger might intentionally be there munging things up.
K_S_ONeill
Boron Elgar wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006 12:42:50 -0800, "K_S_ONeill" <K_S_O...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Yeah, and all you have to do is put new glass in the windows, and you
> >shouldn't sit there in a rainstorm anyway.
>
>
> Horsefeathers. Wiki isn't the some sort of bible, nor is it
> inviolate.
No, it's a resource, like a book, or a library.
>It offers the capability to go in and play with it.
And your car offers the capability to go out and throw paint on it.
> It has
> been shown that a lot of people enjoy the humor aspects of that
> capability.
"It has been shown"?
> Why do you consider it comparable to breaking someone's window?
You know, it's vandalism.
> Exactly who's window is being broken?
Indeed. Who is damaged when a library is vandalized, or when someone
breaks into my web page and vandalizes it?
> Who gets wet - the idiots that
> take Wiki as a primary source of info?
Sure. Also, that's a really crappy car you're driving, so you
shouldn't mind that I throw paint on it.
> Best it be liberally sprinkled
> with humor then, to ward off the fools and amuse those more diligent
> in researching.
Methinketh you're full of it.
> 'Tis the season...think of it as Easter Eggs.
I think of it as vandalism, but I'm glad you enjoy your kids pranks.
--
Kevin
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2006 12:42:50 -0800, "K_S_ONeill" <K_S_O...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Yeah, and all you have to do is put new glass in the windows, and you
>> >shouldn't sit there in a rainstorm anyway.
>>
>>
>> Horsefeathers. Wiki isn't the some sort of bible, nor is it
>> inviolate.
>
>No, it's a resource, like a book, or a library.
Resource? Like a public bathroom wall is a resource?
It is nothing like a book or a library, either. There is no comparison
whatsoever, the ability of the masses to go in and play with it, being
a primary difference.
>
>>It offers the capability to go in and play with it.
>
>And your car offers the capability to go out and throw paint on it.
Hello, Wiki is not a car, either.
What makes you hold it in such rarified esteem? Is it the new hot
search engine over at your house?
>
>> It has
>> been shown that a lot of people enjoy the humor aspects of that
>> capability.
>
>"It has been shown"?
Yes. Sure has. Get in touch with your inner teen and ask around.
>
>> Why do you consider it comparable to breaking someone's window?
>
>You know, it's vandalism.
Bullshit. It's going in and tweaking Wiki.
>
>> Exactly who's window is being broken?
>
>Indeed. Who is damaged when a library is vandalized, or when someone
>breaks into my web page and vandalizes it?
The very idea that you equate Wiki with a library is beyond me.
You do not have to "break into" Wiki. They invite comment. If you
invite comments on your web page, you'll get them, too. Funny ones
among them.
>> Who gets wet - the idiots that
>> take Wiki as a primary source of info?
>
>Sure. Also, that's a really crappy car you're driving, so you
>shouldn't mind that I throw paint on it.
Wiki is not a car, either. Surprise!
>
>> Best it be liberally sprinkled
>> with humor then, to ward off the fools and amuse those more diligent
>> in researching.
>
>Methinketh you're full of it.
At least I know the difference between Wiki and a car, Wiki and a book
and Wiki and a library. You might want to destinkify yourself a bit.
And then try to come up with some reasons why you think Wiki is such
hot and holy shit.
>
>> 'Tis the season...think of it as Easter Eggs.
>
>I think of it as vandalism, but I'm glad you enjoy your kids pranks.
You can think of it any way you like. It has no affect on me
whatsoever. This is not family-restricted, but a rather popular past
time among a lot of kids all over the place. Part of the play is
contests to see who gets changed back the fastest and slowest.
Why don't you drop your car, uh, book, uh, library, uh, window, uh
Wiki a line and find out about this, eh?
Boron
rob...@bestweb.net
Ulo Melton
>On 28 Mar 2006 14:55:06 -0800, "K_S_ONeill" <K_S_O...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>It is nothing like a book or a library, either. There is no comparison
>whatsoever, the ability of the masses to go in and play with it, being
>a primary difference.
I've checked out plenty of books that have been played with by the
masses. Some dickwipe underlines passages, or writes typo corrections in
the margins, or circles a passage and writes "This is SO true!!!" next
to it, or slices out a color plate. Do not underestimate the destructive
abilities of the masses.
>>And your car offers the capability to go out and throw paint on it.
>
>Hello, Wiki is not a car, either.
Analogies are like cars: they always break down eventually.
--
Ulo Melton
http://www.sewergator.com - Your Pipeline To Adventure
"Show me a man who is not afraid of being eaten by an alligator
in a sewer, and I'll show you a fool." -Roger Ebert
groo
> groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns97947A376B8BD94...@207.115.17.102:
>>
>> For example, one of my pastimes in college was parodying the cafeteria
>> menu posted on the dorm bulletin board. I created my alternate version
>> of the week's menu (a mixture of vile and disgusting food items) and
>> tacked it over the real menu using thumbtacks only at the top. To see
>> the real thing, one only had to lift up the bottom of the page I'd
>> posted.
>>
>
> And yet you complain that you didn't get laid enough in college? You
> clearly went to the wrong college. Or maybe it was an all-male dorm.
The dorm was co-ed. Every even numbered floor was all female, the odd
floors were male. (I lived on an odd numbered floor.) I did once get an
invitation to live with three girls, two of whom were quite attractive.
But they only wanted me for my stereo.
> Dover (I would've done you, Dana would've done you, where the hell were
> you?)
Sure, you say that now. Where the hell were YOU? I was at the University
of Iowa, 1976-1981.
groo
Boron Elgar
<melt...@sewergator.com> wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>>On 28 Mar 2006 14:55:06 -0800, "K_S_ONeill" <K_S_O...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>It is nothing like a book or a library, either. There is no comparison
>>whatsoever, the ability of the masses to go in and play with it, being
>>a primary difference.
>
>I've checked out plenty of books that have been played with by the
>masses. Some dickwipe underlines passages, or writes typo corrections in
>the margins, or circles a passage and writes "This is SO true!!!" next
>to it, or slices out a color plate. Do not underestimate the destructive
>abilities of the masses.
You don't need to think that people who go into Wiki for humor are
necessarily being destructive. The net is constantly evolving.
>
>>>And your car offers the capability to go out and throw paint on it.
>>
>>Hello, Wiki is not a car, either.
>
>Analogies are like cars: they always break down eventually.
Making entries into Wiki is not against the law. No windows are
broken, no cars have paint splashed on them, no books owned by your
library are forever physically defaced.
Boron
Dover Beach
news:Xns9794A536A4F4294...@207.115.17.102:
> Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns97947A376B8BD94...@207.115.17.102:
>>>
>>> For example, one of my pastimes in college was parodying the
>>> cafeteria menu posted on the dorm bulletin board. I created my
>>> alternate version of the week's menu (a mixture of vile and
>>> disgusting food items) and tacked it over the real menu using
>>> thumbtacks only at the top. To see the real thing, one only had to
>>> lift up the bottom of the page I'd posted.
>>>
>>
>> And yet you complain that you didn't get laid enough in college? You
>> clearly went to the wrong college. Or maybe it was an all-male dorm.
>
>
> The dorm was co-ed. Every even numbered floor was all female, the odd
> floors were male. (I lived on an odd numbered floor.)
You're defensive, but you're sweet.
> I did once get
> an invitation to live with three girls, two of whom were quite
> attractive. But they only wanted me for my stereo.
>
Purist. You and the stereo were a package deal, you shoulda gone for
it. I bet you had one of those little velvet thingies to clean your
records.
>
>> Dover (I would've done you, Dana would've done you, where the hell
>> were you?)
>
> Sure, you say that now. Where the hell were YOU? I was at the
> University of Iowa, 1976-1981.
>
Sigh. Hiding from my dorm-mates in Santa Cruz, all of them named Dave.
(The loudest one was a surfer was called Dave Wave, who used the word
"gnarly" to describe everything, good, bad, or indifferent.) I was
sleeping with the future semi-prominent scientist because he stuck a
table knife into a banana, called it Reconnaissance Banana, and caused
it to patrol up and down the dining hall table making snarky remarks
about the other diners. See how desperate I was? Menu parodists
would've been six places ahead of him in line.
--
Dover (well, five maybe. He had a nice smile.)
Hank Gillette
Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Resource? Like a public bathroom wall is a resource?
>
You'd have no problems with your kids writing graffiti on a public
bathroom wall?
They didn't recently accuse someone of being involved in the Kennedy
assassination on there, did they?
I really don't understand why you are defending their actions. If
nothing else, they are destroying other people's (presumably serious)
work.
--
Hank Gillette
"Everyone who thought this war was a good idea was wrong and ought to admit
it. Those who still think it's a good idea should get therapy." -Bob Herbert
Hank Gillette
groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did once get an
> invitation to live with three girls, two of whom were quite attractive.
> But they only wanted me for my stereo.
Well, that's what they said. You didn't think they'd come right out and
say they wanted your body, did you?
David Zeiger
>It is nothing like a book or a library, either. There is no comparison
>whatsoever, the ability of the masses to go in and play with it, being
>a primary difference.
Let's try an analogya little closer to your area of experience then.
Take a community theatre. Small, not really any sort of "resource"
and on a shoestring budget. So, let's say that one of the things
they try and do to get by is to let people sign up as unpaid
volunteers, and give those people the combo code to the workshop.
The intent of doing so is that the volunteers help out with set/prop
construction--one guy spends a couple free hours building a set of
three steps, another guy paints it the black they need, a few
other people paint a serviceable town backdrop, etc. Mind you,
it's obvious what the *intent* is for the volunteer sign-up,
but they don't make you sign any legaleese document stating that
you won't do any harm when you sign up and get the code.
So, you find out that your daughters signed up and spend time
over at the workshop, but they're not really helping. Instead,
they've painted pink polka dots on the steps, and scrawled
grafitti on the town backdrop.
To me, this seems similar to vandalizing wiki entries. You're
right, nobody should use Wikipedia as a primary source for
anything important on its own, so no full harm should come
from vandalizing it, and in my case, well, it's freaking
community theatre, if I can put aside the fact that 2/3 of
the cast can't act, then the fact that the town backdrop for
"Oklahoma" has "Hook 'Em Horns" scrawled across it should just
be amusingly ironic, right?
And hey, in both cases, there is no permanent damage. All the
kids are doing in either case is wasting the time of the
unpaid volunteers who choose to come in and clean up their
messes--the Wiki entries can be corrected, and the steps and
the backdrops can be painted over.
So would you find it acceptable for your daughters to be
involved in this type of behavior? If not, what exactly
is the difference?
(and feel free to assume that my example is also a "popular"
pastime among teens. Though exactly why you think "All the
other kids are doing it" is a valid defense escapes me)
--
David Zeiger dze...@the-institute.net
Whenever I find myself in a difficult situation, I ask myself "What
Would Jesus Do?" The mental image of my opposition being cast into
pits of hellfire for all eternity *is* comforting, but probably not
what the inventors of the phrase had in mind.
Boron Elgar
<hankgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <bofj22le2cbjvorsb...@4ax.com>,
> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Resource? Like a public bathroom wall is a resource?
>>
>
>You'd have no problems with your kids writing graffiti on a public
>bathroom wall?
I was making a comment on the idea that Wiki could be seriously
considered a resource.
Graffiti is against the law. Throwing paint on a car is against the
law. Breaking someone's window is against the law. Making an entry
into Wiki, even a fun one, isn't against the law. That seems to be a
very big distinction that has been repetedly overlooked in this
discussion.
>They didn't recently accuse someone of being involved in the Kennedy
>assassination on there, did they?
>
>I really don't understand why you are defending their actions. If
>nothing else, they are destroying other people's (presumably serious)
>work.
Sorry, Hank, I don't take Wiki seriously at all.
And nothing is destroyed. If you do not understand how Wiki works, why
not find out before you take up against my boys, eh?
This is way more serious fun and I get a kick out of it, too.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/31/113032.shtml
************************
Congressional aides have been tampering with the biographies of
elected officials on the encyclopedia Web site Wikipedia to such an
extent that three times Wikipedia has blocked the entire House
computer network from accessing the site.
Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can
edit.” That editing has often taken the form of enhancing some bios
and sabotaging others, the Washington, D.C., publication Roll Call
reports on its "Heard on the Hill” column.
When the site’s operators find posted information that is scurrilous
or wrong, they remove it. But Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales calls the
more than 1,000 changes made by House staffers "vandalism."
************************
Now to me, that is more fun than a barrel of monkies, but if you call
yourself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," you're gonna
have folks editing all sorts of thing the way they want to see them on
the screen. And just becuase Wales likes to use the term "vandalism,"
doesn't mean that is what it really is. If you invite everyone to come
to the site and make entries as they see fit, this is going to happen,
and to complain about it, or whine over is really pretty damn dumb.
I think I am really going to have to do some of this myself.
Boron
David Zeiger
>Graffiti is against the law. Throwing paint on a car is against the
>law. Breaking someone's window is against the law. Making an entry
>into Wiki, even a fun one, isn't against the law. That seems to be a
>very big distinction that has been repetedly overlooked in this
>discussion.
I suspect it's overlooked because it's completely irrelevent.
Legality has precious little to do with what is right or
wrong (was spamming OK before laws were passed against it?)
If you're going to argue that that which is not illegal is
acceptable, then you probably need to not be critical of the
Bushies so much, since, after all, pretty much nothing of what
they do can be conclusively shown to be illegal.
Really, though, I wonder if it's not your kids actually writing
this instead of you. I mean, look at the arguments you are
putting forth to justify this behavior.
1) All the cool kids are doing it.
2) It's not techniclly illegal.
3) They can't stop me and I don't much like the place anyway,
why should I care if other people do find it valuable?
Those are the arguments I would expect from a teen, and
arguments that pretty much any decent parent should slap
down out of hand.
Blinky the Shark
> In article <bofj22le2cbjvorsb...@4ax.com>,
> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Resource? Like a public bathroom wall is a resource?
>>
>
> You'd have no problems with your kids writing graffiti on a public
> bathroom wall?
>
> They didn't recently accuse someone of being involved in the Kennedy
> assassination on there, did they?
>
> I really don't understand why you are defending their actions. If
> nothing else, they are destroying other people's (presumably serious)
> work.
Elle Syndrome.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Does that constitute a doubly anchored pun?
Boron Elgar
Zeiger) wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:02:55 -0500, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Graffiti is against the law. Throwing paint on a car is against the
>>law. Breaking someone's window is against the law. Making an entry
>>into Wiki, even a fun one, isn't against the law. That seems to be a
>>very big distinction that has been repetedly overlooked in this
>>discussion.
>
>I suspect it's overlooked because it's completely irrelevent.
I suspect it makes a lot of sense, especially if people in this thread
are comparing Wiki entries for fun to throwing paint on cars, graffiti
and breaking people's windows
>Legality has precious little to do with what is right or
>wrong (was spamming OK before laws were passed against it?)
Sure was. And now there are all sorts of "legal" spamming.
>If you're going to argue that that which is not illegal is
>acceptable, then you probably need to not be critical of the
>Bushies so much, since, after all, pretty much nothing of what
>they do can be conclusively shown to be illegal.
The legality issue was strictly a counter to others' posts that
compared this to actual crimes, like attacking a library or breaking
windows and "destroying" things.
>
>Really, though, I wonder if it's not your kids actually writing
>this instead of you. I mean, look at the arguments you are
>putting forth to justify this behavior.
>
>1) All the cool kids are doing it.
Not what I said. Just said it was common. I made no value judgement on
it being "cool," just funny - oh, and pretty common.
>2) It's not techniclly illegal.
I said it was not comparable to paint tossing, etc, that IS illegal.
>3) They can't stop me and I don't much like the place anyway,
>why should I care if other people do find it valuable?
But that came out of your ass, not mine. They do stop it if they do
not like it and are exercising their own editorial bias, then. If they
don't like it a lot, they block the domain from which it comes. .
School domains get blocked all the time - for a few minutes or maybe
the whole day. Perhaps permanently.
Again, I must remind you that Wiki sets itself up as "the free
encyclopedia that anyone can edit." As long as that stands, your leg
doesn't.
>Those are the arguments I would expect from a teen, and
>arguments that pretty much any decent parent should slap
>down out of hand.
Hey, this is Usenet and you are absolutely entitled to imply that I am
not a decent parent. I then, get my chance to reply back that you're
an asshole.
Boron
Boron Elgar
Zeiger) wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:15:33 -0500, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>It is nothing like a book or a library, either. There is no comparison
>>whatsoever, the ability of the masses to go in and play with it, being
>>a primary difference.
>
>Let's try an analogya little closer to your area of experience then.
No...let's not get carried away with your attempt at a far-fetched
story that got rejected by all the publishers in town, and stick to
what Wiki really is:
"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
End of story.
Boron
darkon
>
>
> darkon wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') <john.m...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> > Whether pi is 3 or 4 depends on how much you have to warp the
>> > two by fours to get them to fit together.
>>
>> You can transcend that problem by using a plane.
>>
> Does that constitute a doubly anchored pun?
By intent, yes. It's a bit weak on the punniness, but has some nice
echoes.
groo
> Now to me, that is more fun than a barrel of monkies, but if you call
> yourself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," you're gonna
> have folks editing all sorts of thing the way they want to see them on
> the screen. And just becuase Wales likes to use the term "vandalism,"
> doesn't mean that is what it really is.
I didn't even know I was Welsh.
--
"God bless those pagans!" - H. Simpson
groo
Probably not the end, but the current status. When Wikipedia was
invented, they may not have forseen that some people would deliberately
edit entries to be untrue, even if just for humor value. They certainly
must know that now, and it is in the best interest of the Wiki community
to take reasonable steps to curtail such actions.
Just because it is currently allowed, however, doesn't make it right.
Some altruistic people put forth time and energy (and sometimes money) to
make the world a little better place. People who think it's OK to destroy
the fruit of those efforts just because it isn't illegal have a bit to
learn about respect for others. It shouldn't surprise anyone that lots of
kids haven't yet absorbed this to the point where it changes their
behavior.
Charles Bishop
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Except that "encyclopedia" and "edit" have meanings that would preclude
vandalism, I'd think.
charles, "they were such good kids", bishop
groo
> groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9794A536A4F4294...@207.115.17.102:
>
>> Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:Xns97947A376B8BD94...@207.115.17.102:
>>>>
>>>> For example, one of my pastimes in college was parodying the
>>>> cafeteria menu posted on the dorm bulletin board. I created my
>>>> alternate version of the week's menu (a mixture of vile and
>>>> disgusting food items) and tacked it over the real menu using
>>>> thumbtacks only at the top. To see the real thing, one only had to
>>>> lift up the bottom of the page I'd posted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And yet you complain that you didn't get laid enough in college? You
>>> clearly went to the wrong college. Or maybe it was an all-male dorm.
>>
>>
>> The dorm was co-ed. Every even numbered floor was all female, the odd
>> floors were male. (I lived on an odd numbered floor.)
>
> You're defensive, but you're sweet.
Yeah, I always got "sweet" a lot. Hardly ever "sexy" or "hot" or "I want
to fuck you like a crazed weasel on acid".
>> I did once get
>> an invitation to live with three girls, two of whom were quite
>> attractive. But they only wanted me for my stereo.
>>
>
> Purist. You and the stereo were a package deal, you shoulda gone for
> it. I bet you had one of those little velvet thingies to clean your
> records.
I knew that they didn't want me for my body, and they didn't really have
room for me. I'd been sleeping on a floor for the past few months and
they figured I could do that at their place. They'd had possession of my
stereo and record collection for a while since I had no place for it at
the time, and they wanted to keep it. They were willing to put up with
me, but they weren't interested in me that way.
I did have a DiscWasher!
>>> Dover (I would've done you, Dana would've done you, where the hell
>>> were you?)
>>
>> Sure, you say that now. Where the hell were YOU? I was at the
>> University of Iowa, 1976-1981.
>>
>
> Sigh. Hiding from my dorm-mates in Santa Cruz, all of them named Dave.
> (The loudest one was a surfer was called Dave Wave, who used the word
> "gnarly" to describe everything, good, bad, or indifferent.) I was
> sleeping with the future semi-prominent scientist because he stuck a
> table knife into a banana, called it Reconnaissance Banana, and caused
> it to patrol up and down the dining hall table making snarky remarks
> about the other diners. See how desperate I was? Menu parodists
> would've been six places ahead of him in line.
I always get in the wrong line, too.
groo
> In article <Xns9794A536A4F4294...@207.115.17.102>,
> groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I did once get an
>> invitation to live with three girls, two of whom were quite
>> attractive. But they only wanted me for my stereo.
>
> Well, that's what they said. You didn't think they'd come right out
> and say they wanted your body, did you?
I was already pretty sure that they weren't interested. At least, the
two cute ones weren't. If I was wrong about that, and they really wanted
me to live with them so we could have wild orgies every night and I
turned them down, I'd probably rather not know that now. I'd hate to
have to kill myself over something stupid that I did a quarter-century
ago.
Boron Elgar
You're a Prince. Oh, and you look like shit in purple.
You are also wrong. If you invite everyone to make entries as they
wish, you are, of course, entitled to decide at any point that
specific entries not remain, but you cannot complain that the entries
are made in the first place.
The premise of Wiki is that so many will read it, that the genius of
the public will come to the fore and any and all errors will be
eliminated. Of course, it doesn't work this way, as that genius has
differing opinions on all sorts of topics, political slants and
agendas, more or less of a sense of humor, and is also prone to
boo-boos, typos and oopsies and plain old stupidity or cupidity.
The very idea that the site is becoming one of worship and the current
hotclick that tops so many searches on Google is charming, of course,
but as long as it remains open to any and all comers, you makes your
clicks and you takes your chances. Give it awhile and you'll be
swearing about it just like everyone does about Google these days.
Keep repeating this mantra when you get your britches up your butt
about something that is purposefully open to all who wish to
participate, then screams when it is used that way:
Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
And lighten up. You'll live longer.
If anyone can catch what I uploaded there, I'll offer a quarter.
My tits may not be what they once were, but my brain is still perky.
Boron
Les Albert
>Hank Gillette <hankgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9794A536A4F4294...@207.115.17.102>,
>> groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I did once get an
>>> invitation to live with three girls, two of whom were quite
>>> attractive. But they only wanted me for my stereo.
>> Well, that's what they said. You didn't think they'd come right out
>> and say they wanted your body, did you?
>I was already pretty sure that they weren't interested. At least, the
>two cute ones weren't. If I was wrong about that, and they really wanted
>me to live with them so we could have wild orgies every night and I
>turned them down, I'd probably rather not know that now. ....
It's probably for the best. As Jerry Seinfeld said when he refused an
invitation for orgy living within a threesome, you would have to get
new orgy friends and new orgy clothes.
Les
Boron Elgar
Bishop) wrote:
>>"the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
>
>Except that "encyclopedia" and "edit" have meanings that would preclude
>vandalism, I'd think.
Thank you, Bill Clinton.
As soon as you find these meanings, you let me know, ok?
>
>charles, "they were such good kids", bishop
They are, and you should be so lucky.
Boron
David Zeiger
>>I suspect it's overlooked because it's completely irrelevent.
>
>I suspect it makes a lot of sense, especially if people in this thread
>are comparing Wiki entries for fun to throwing paint on cars, graffiti
>and breaking people's windows
>
>>Legality has precious little to do with what is right or
>>wrong (was spamming OK before laws were passed against it?)
>
>Sure was. And now there are all sorts of "legal" spamming.
So if breaking windows, throwing paint on cars, etc were not
violations of the law, then they would be OK? That's
your *only* objection to those types of behaviors?
That's pretty fucked up.
>Again, I must remind you that Wiki sets itself up as "the free
>encyclopedia that anyone can edit." As long as that stands, your leg
>doesn't.
Nowhere is it stated or implied that they want people to
vandalize or intentionally post misinformation. In fact,
it says pretty much the opposite, that the open editing feature
so that anyone can fix errors or correct omissions.
It is understood that this open policy means that there are
assholes out there that will abuse the site, but the fact
that you *can* do something hardly means that you *should* do
something.
Peter Boulding
wrote in <01el221d17h1lgcld...@4ax.com>:
Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron on this
one?
Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as reprehensible as
usenet's religious wingnuts, alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed
Conrads?
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Boron Elgar
>Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:01:59 -0000, dze...@the-institute.net (David
>> Zeiger) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:15:33 -0500, Boron Elgar
>>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>It is nothing like a book or a library, either. There is no
>>>>comparison whatsoever, the ability of the masses to go in and play
>>>>with it, being a primary difference.
>>>
>>>Let's try an analogya little closer to your area of experience then.
>>
>> No...let's not get carried away with your attempt at a far-fetched
>> story that got rejected by all the publishers in town, and stick to
>> what Wiki really is:
>>
>> "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
>>
>> End of story.
>>
>
>Probably not the end, but the current status. When Wikipedia was
>invented, they may not have forseen that some people would deliberately
>edit entries to be untrue, even if just for humor value. They certainly
>must know that now, and it is in the best interest of the Wiki community
>to take reasonable steps to curtail such actions.
What exactly is the "Wiki community"? And whatever or whoever it or
they are, I bet if they want to "curtail such actions," they will do
so. If they want to stop the most delightful "whack a mole" on the
Internet, I am guessing they will make some attempt at it or change
the rules, but so far, they are basking in the glory of the publicity.
LOTS of publicity.
>
>Just because it is currently allowed, however, doesn't make it right.
>Some altruistic people put forth time and energy (and sometimes money) to
>make the world a little better place. People who think it's OK to destroy
>the fruit of those efforts just because it isn't illegal have a bit to
>learn about respect for others. It shouldn't surprise anyone that lots of
>kids haven't yet absorbed this to the point where it changes their
>behavior.
And there are a lot of humorists out there who poke holes in
pretentious bullshit, too. Long may they live.
There is an entire produce department of fruits in on this topic - low
hanging, overripe ones who are pursing their cherry lips and playing a
Tight Assed Old Lady Get off of My Lawn routine.
And remove Wiki from it's pedestal, or next you'll be burning things
in the streets in protest of those who offend your holy object.
Boron
Dover Beach
news:68fl22hjbc3g7joed...@4ax.com:
From an early interview with Jon Stewart:
"I had what the French would call a menage a trois, but what I would
call two-ladies-I-met-in-a-bar. It was incredibly awkward. I had enough
trouble with one and then there was another person sitting there going,
'Uh-huh.' I was also still not too in tune with... well, let me just
say, walk before you run. Boy, this is going to be one ugly piece of
journalism!"
--
Dover
groo
> Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron on
> this one?
>
> Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as
> reprehensible as usenet's religious wingnuts,
> alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed Conrads?
>
Is there a middle ground? I'd prefer to be there.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:34:49 -0500, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>I suspect it's overlooked because it's completely irrelevent.
> >
> >I suspect it makes a lot of sense, especially if people in this thread
> >are comparing Wiki entries for fun to throwing paint on cars, graffiti
> >and breaking people's windows
> >
> >>Legality has precious little to do with what is right or
> >>wrong (was spamming OK before laws were passed against it?)
> >
> >Sure was. And now there are all sorts of "legal" spamming.
> So if breaking windows, throwing paint on cars, etc were not
> violations of the law, then they would be OK? That's
> your *only* objection to those types of behaviors?
> That's pretty fucked up.
Nah, it's just Boron pulling a Bonde and refusing to admit that she's
fucked up.
> >Again, I must remind you that Wiki sets itself up as "the free
> >encyclopedia that anyone can edit." As long as that stands, your leg
> >doesn't.
> Nowhere is it stated or implied that they want people to
> vandalize or intentionally post misinformation. In fact,
> it says pretty much the opposite, that the open editing feature
> so that anyone can fix errors or correct omissions.
> It is understood that this open policy means that there are
> assholes out there that will abuse the site, but the fact
> that you *can* do something hardly means that you *should* do
> something.
Yep, she'd be on much firmer ground if she simply stated that ti was a
pretty damn tiny sin as such things go.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Mean People Suck - It takes two deviations to get cool.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:03:10 -0500, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <01el221d17h1lgcld...@4ax.com>:
> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
> >
> >
> >If anyone can catch my crabs, I'll offer a quarter.
> >
> >My tits may not be what they once were, but my brain is still porky.
> Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron on this
> one?
Not I. Just becuase one can edit things, doesn't make it always right,
sure, sometimes you do it to make a point, but by and large, it's really
not the thing to do.
> Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as reprehensible as
> usenet's religious wingnuts, alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed
> Conrads?
Well, what do you know: after enough time, even you get something right.
Congratualtions, Peter, order an extra pint tonight, you earned it.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> > Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron on
> > this one?
> >
> > Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as
> > reprehensible as usenet's religious wingnuts,
> > alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed Conrads?
> Is there a middle ground? I'd prefer to be there.
That's where you get run down by traffic and caught in the crossfire.
Charles Bishop
>Yeah, I always got "sweet" a lot. Hardly ever "sexy" or "hot" or "I want
>to fuck you like a crazed weasel on acid".
Trust me, this last isn't as enjoyable as you might think.
charles, especially if it goes on for three days, bishop
Charles Bishop
<afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
"How did you break your arm"?
"Well, you see, 20 years ago, I was in college. . ."
charles, heard it told by Roy Blount, Jr, but it's probably not his, bishop
Charles Bishop
>On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:42:52 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
>Bishop) wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>Except that "encyclopedia" and "edit" have meanings that would preclude
>>vandalism, I'd think.
>
>I've thought it over and have decided that I was wrong to defend the
vandalism >of my kids. Vandalism for the sake of humor cannot be
reasonably defended and >I'm sorry I originally took this position.
Reasonable discussion has allowed me >to rethink my premises and I'd like
to thank those who participated. I'm >probably wrong in other areas also,
and as soon as I can overcome the >embarassment, I'll admit to those, as
well.
I appreciate this correction.
--
charles
Glenn Dowdy
<ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
news:442ad091$0$3680$6c5e...@news.westnet.com...
> groo <afca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Boulding <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron on
>> > this one?
>> >
>> > Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as
>> > reprehensible as usenet's religious wingnuts,
>> > alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed Conrads?
>
>> Is there a middle ground? I'd prefer to be there.
>
> That's where you get run down by traffic and caught in the crossfire.
>
Glenn D.
Charles Bishop
<p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron on this
>one?
One way to know that Boron is wrong on this is to notice the absence of
the usual members of the triumvirate. Or, quadumvirate
>
>Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as reprehensible as
>usenet's religious wingnuts, alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed
>Conrads?
Can I have a third choice? The two extremes (though Boron isn't as extreme
as the other choice you give) don't appeal all that much.
--
charles
K_S_ONeill
Boron Elgar wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006 14:55:06 -0800, "K_S_ONeill" <K_S_O...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Boron Elgar wrote:
> >> On 28 Mar 2006 12:42:50 -0800, "K_S_ONeill" <K_S_O...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Yeah, and all you have to do is put new glass in the windows, and you
> >> >shouldn't sit there in a rainstorm anyway.
> >>
> >>
> >> Horsefeathers. Wiki isn't the some sort of bible, nor is it
> >> inviolate.
> >
> >No, it's a resource, like a book, or a library.
>
> Resource? Like a public bathroom wall is a resource?
No, though both sorts of vandalism cost someone time and/or money to
clean up.
> It is nothing like a book or a library, either.
Of course it is, it's quite a lot like both.
> There is no comparison whatsoever, the ability of the masses to go in and play with it, being a primary difference.
I can go in and 'play' with library books too.
> >>It offers the capability to go in and play with it.
> >
> >And your car offers the capability to go out and throw paint on it.
>
> Hello, Wiki is not a car, either.
Perhaps you should go look up 'analogy' on wiki, presuming your
children have not already vandalized the entry.
> What makes you hold it in such rarified esteem? Is it the new hot
> search engine over at your house?
It's not a search engine, and I don't hold it in rarified esteem,
actually. I use it at times. I've never written an entry, and I don't
know anyone who has written more than one. I do think it's kind of
cool, in the same way I think open source software is cool, or a
community theater, or a dog park people get together and build, and I
dislike destructive little vandals who trash parks, or damage community
theaters, too. I think what your kids are doing is more or less like
going in to an open source software site and changing the data so that,
I dunno, all the multiplication works mod three or something, only less
original. They think it's funny, but someone who has volunteered his
time has to go clean up after them. Cute!
> >> It has
> >> been shown that a lot of people enjoy the humor aspects of that
> >> capability.
> >
> >"It has been shown"?
>
> Yes. Sure has. Get in touch with your inner teen and ask around.
I see twenty or so teens twice a week at my fencing club. I'll ask
them this Friday if they think it's funny. In fact, I'll print out
your defense and read it to them, so as to not prejudice the question
by my wording. Want to bet the term " worthless dickweed" doesn't come
up from the girl who's going to Harvard next year?
> >> Why do you consider it comparable to breaking someone's window?
> >
> >You know, it's vandalism.
>
> Bullshit. It's going in and tweaking Wiki.
Which volunteers then have to go clean up after you.
> >> Exactly who's window is being broken?
> >
> >Indeed. Who is damaged when a library is vandalized, or when someone
> >breaks into my web page and vandalizes it?
>
> The very idea that you equate Wiki with a library is beyond me.
It also seems beyond you to figure out that I didn't equate them, I
compared them. Really, I bet wiki has a really good entry on
'analogy', you should go look.
> You do not have to "break into" Wiki. They invite comment. If you
> invite comments on your web page, you'll get them, too. Funny ones
> among them.
Sure. Are your kids making funny comments, or are they entering
incorrect data? An invitation to comment or to edit is not an
invitation to vandalize.
> >> Who gets wet - the idiots that
> >> take Wiki as a primary source of info?
> >
> >Sure. Also, that's a really crappy car you're driving, so you
> >shouldn't mind that I throw paint on it.
>
> Wiki is not a car, either. Surprise!
Oh, for god's sake, here, I'll look it up for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
> >> Best it be liberally sprinkled
> >> with humor then, to ward off the fools and amuse those more diligent
> >> in researching.
> >
> >Methinketh you're full of it.
>
> At least I know the difference between Wiki and a car, Wiki and a book
> and Wiki and a library. You might want to destinkify yourself a bit.
> And then try to come up with some reasons why you think Wiki is such
> hot and holy shit.
This seems to be the crux of your defense at times, that wiki sucks so
it's ok for your kids to fuck it up.
> >> 'Tis the season...think of it as Easter Eggs.
> >
> >I think of it as vandalism, but I'm glad you enjoy your kids pranks.
>
> You can think of it any way you like.
I thought you wanted me to think of it as Easter Eggs?
> It has no affect on me
> whatsoever. This is not family-restricted, but a rather popular past
> time among a lot of kids all over the place.
Then there's the 'everyone's doing it' defense, that's good too.
> Part of the play is
> contests to see who gets changed back the fastest and slowest.
>
> Why don't you drop your car, uh, book, uh, library, uh, window, uh
> Wiki a line and find out about this, eh?
I think wiki thinks it's vandalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism
At any rate, it's clear that you understand what they're doing and
think it's cute, so I'm glad I don't live down the street from you, and
I'm mildly sorry your offspring ever learned to type.
ta
--
Kevin
Bob Ward
Mooooom... Johnny hit me back first!
Bob Ward
>
>Yeah, I always got "sweet" a lot. Hardly ever "sexy" or "hot" or "I want
>to fuck you like a crazed weasel on acid".
How DOES one fuck a crazed weasel on acid? Any similarity to how
porcupines do it?
Glenn Dowdy
"Charles Bishop" <ctbi...@earthlink.netttt> wrote in message
news:ctbishop-290...@user-2ivfijf.dialup.mindspring.com...
> In article <0tgl22lkorngrsgic...@4ax.com>, Peter Boulding
> <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>>Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron on
>>this
>>one?
>
> One way to know that Boron is wrong on this is to notice the absence of
> the usual members of the triumvirate. Or, quadumvirate
>>
Who dem?
Glenn D.
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> David Zeiger <dze...@the-institute.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:34:49 -0500, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>I suspect it's overlooked because it's completely irrelevent.
> > >
> > >I suspect it makes a lot of sense, especially if people in this thread
> > >are comparing Wiki entries for fun to throwing paint on cars, graffiti
> > >and breaking people's windows
> > >
> > >>Legality has precious little to do with what is right or
> > >>wrong (was spamming OK before laws were passed against it?)
> > >
> > >Sure was. And now there are all sorts of "legal" spamming.
>
> > So if breaking windows, throwing paint on cars, etc were not
> > violations of the law, then they would be OK? That's
> > your *only* objection to those types of behaviors?
>
> > That's pretty fucked up.
>
> Nah, it's just Boron pulling a Bonde and refusing to admit that she's
> fucked up.
>
That's out of the blue. It amazes me that I win the debates on the
actual issues and I still get attacked.
> > >Again, I must remind you that Wiki sets itself up as "the free
> > >encyclopedia that anyone can edit." As long as that stands, your leg
> > >doesn't.
>
> > Nowhere is it stated or implied that they want people to
> > vandalize or intentionally post misinformation. In fact,
> > it says pretty much the opposite, that the open editing feature
> > so that anyone can fix errors or correct omissions.
>
> > It is understood that this open policy means that there are
> > assholes out there that will abuse the site, but the fact
> > that you *can* do something hardly means that you *should* do
> > something.
>
> Yep, she'd be on much firmer ground if she simply stated that ti was a
> pretty damn tiny sin as such things go.
>
What if someone at Boeing uses data from Wiki to build a jetliner and it
crashes because he two twerps were muxing around with Wiki's numbers?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Bob Ward
I'm pretty sure she and her horse are on their own this time.
Bob Ward
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>And there are a lot of humorists out there who poke holes in
>pretentious bullshit, too. Long may they live.
>
>There is an entire produce department of fruits in on this topic - low
>hanging, overripe ones who are pursing their cherry lips and playing a
>Tight Assed Old Lady Get off of My Lawn routine.
>
>And remove Wiki from it's pedestal, or next you'll be burning things
>in the streets in protest of those who offend your holy object.
Don't forget your horse...
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron
> on this one?
> Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as
> reprehensible as usenet's religious wingnuts,
> alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed Conrads?
Worse. Identifying usenet wingnuts is trivial. Identifying malicious
or stupid wikipedia editors much more difficult. You can trivially
killfile usenet wingnuts, but you can't trivially killfile malicious
or stupid wikipedia editors. And usenet has been significantly damaged
by the lack of policing for vandals over the last few years, while
wikipedia continues to gain in popularity and will need more and more
policing as that occurs. ...or, it'll suffer the same fate Usenet has.
--
Huey
groo
My horse is in the basement. And I don't have a basement.
--
Just like Kim.
groo
Dunno. No one has ever offered me the opportunity to fuck a crazed weasel
on acid, and I'd turn them down if they did. No attractive women ever asked
me to fuck them like a crazed weasel on acid, so I don't know what it is
like either. Ask Charles.
--
What happens after three days?
Charles Bishop
I used triumvirate because it made me sound learned, but there may be more
or fewer-Dana and Kim came to mind, i.e. friends who can be counted on to
defend you when they think you're right. They may just be busy with other
things though and haven't had time to post.
--
charles
Richard R. Hershberger
I'm not willing to fully take Boron's position. Were my children to
indulge in Wikipedia vandalism I would chastise them and endevour to
find more productive ways for them to use their time. But... It is
also true that in a free-ish society such things are inevitable, like
televangelists and top-40 radio stations. One of Wikipedia's great
claims is that it has a nearly self-correcting mechanism to deal with
vandalism. The only relevant question for the user is if this claim is
true or not. If yes, then there is no problem for the user.
For whatever it is worth, in my experience Wikipedia is actually quite
good at dealing with vandalism. It's problem is helpful improvements
that made the entries unintelligable gibberish. This is a problem that
Wikipedia and its enthusiasts seem to ignore, whistling past the
graveyard.
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
Boron Elgar wrote:
> Keep repeating this mantra when you get your britches up your butt
> about something that is purposefully open to all who wish to
> participate, then screams when it is used that way:
>
> Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
> Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
> Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
> Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
> Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
>
> And lighten up. You'll live longer.
Actually, I'm mildly ticked at the Library of Congress. I was there
last weekend. They finally, on the third try, managed to have in the
bound volumes of the All-Day City Item (Philadelphia) from the 1870s
I've been trying to get for the past couple of months. Bound
newspapers are stored off site and have to be requested in advance.
The Library is understaffed, so even that doesn't always work.
So far so good, but I also wanted to read the Wilke's Spirit of the
Times from the same era, which they allegedly have on microfilm, which
need not be requested in advance. Except that the entire box was
missing from the shelf. I have yet to find out if it was misfiled,
lost, out on loan, or what. Their computer system isn't up to that
task.
And to think that they have jobs because of my family! The Library of
Congress began life as Thomas Jefferson's personal library, which
Congress bought from him as an honorable way of tossing some cash his
way. He was broke because he has a bunch of useless relatives--the
descendants of his brother-in-law Dabney Carr--sponging off of him.
Dabney Carr is my direct ancestor. I think that rates some special
consideration!
Richard R. Hershberger
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
"Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
>
> huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Peter Boulding <p...@unspampboulding.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron
> > > on this one?
> > > Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as
> > > reprehensible as usenet's religious wingnuts,
> > > alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed Conrads?
> >
> > Worse. Identifying usenet wingnuts is trivial. Identifying malicious
> > or stupid wikipedia editors much more difficult. You can trivially
> > killfile usenet wingnuts, but you can't trivially killfile malicious
> > or stupid wikipedia editors. And usenet has been significantly damaged
> > by the lack of policing for vandals over the last few years, while
> > wikipedia continues to gain in popularity and will need more and more
> > policing as that occurs. ...or, it'll suffer the same fate Usenet has.
>
> I'm not willing to fully take Boron's position. Were my children to
> indulge in Wikipedia vandalism I would chastise them and endevour to
> find more productive ways for them to use their time. But... It is
> also true that in a free-ish society such things are inevitable, like
> televangelists and top-40 radio stations. One of Wikipedia's great
> claims is that it has a nearly self-correcting mechanism to deal with
> vandalism. The only relevant question for the user is if this claim is
> true or not. If yes, then there is no problem for the user.
>
It self corrects over time, like how it might not matter to the outcome
in a thousand years whether Hitler lived through that car crash or
killed himself as the war ended. The problem is for all those millions
of people who were killed by Hitler or were steered wrong by the
intentionally bad Wiki entry.
Peter Boulding
<fmml22pdvjbu4aqho...@4ax.com>:
>>Yeah, I always got "sweet" a lot. Hardly ever "sexy" or "hot" or "I want
>>to fuck you like a crazed weasel on acid".
>
>How DOES one fuck a crazed weasel on acid?
If you check the syntax I think you'll find that the crazed weasel fucks
you.
>Any similarity to how porcupines do it?
I suspect that the crazed weasel is preferable.
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
rob...@bestweb.net
> > How should we pronounce that?
> Just like it sounds.
OK: ever moron Wikipedia.
Boron Elgar
<rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
I am a fan of Jefferson and the LOC.
Congress sucks right now, though.
Boron
Richard R. Hershberger
Well, if that's the claim, then Wikipedia is even more problematic than
I think it is. But as I understand it, the claim is that vandalism is
repaired promptly, so that I, the user, am unlikely to happen to click
on an article in its brief vandalized phase. And, as I wrote above,
this is generally the case. Helpful good intentions are far more of a
problem than bored kids.
Richard R. Hershberger
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
But obviously attractive entries can be checked often, but what about
the guy who changes some data deep in the article? It says in one
article that coal fires in China account for as much global CO2 release
as all the cars in the US. Is that really true? So I went to the cite
and it gave the amount of CO2 released but not the comparison with the
US auto fleet. That might have been from taking that number and the next
cite but I didn't look. In any case, what if someone went into Wikipedia
and changed "cars in the US" to something like "all the vehicles in the
world"? Or to "the world's transportation sector"? Would that instantly
pop out as bad in a sanity test?
Boron Elgar
<rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>
>
>For whatever it is worth, in my experience Wikipedia is actually quite
>good at dealing with vandalism. It's problem is helpful improvements
>that made the entries unintelligable gibberish. This is a problem that
>Wikipedia and its enthusiasts seem to ignore, whistling past the
>graveyard.
>
>Richard R. Hershberger
I have a very big problem referring to any playing in Wiki as
vandalism. Again, they have taken delight in the word, of course, as
it carries enormous baggage with it. It is an excellent way to play
Sweet Sixteen Virgin while the fucking every member of the football
team at once.
At some point Wiki in this incarnation will either self-implode or
switch to a for-profit method and cut the donation crap. At that point
people can wring their hands and get to see what real editorializing
is all about.
Everyone bemoans the loss of Usenet as it used to be, IRC as it used
to be, the Net as it used to be...that I find a true steaming bucket
of bullshit. The touchy-feelie community crap does not make gazillions
for its pet tenders. There is not much in the way of
anti-establishment areas of the net that have great worth. Too
expensive to maintain without a lot of advt. I am no more sentimental
about Wiki than I was about Deja or Google or Usenet.
There is no way any of this stuff should really be given a romantic
aura of belonging to the masses or any subset of them. This is tightly
controlled stuff, likely with a shorter or longer-term plan to go
public. I am not losing any sleep over the touchy-feelie stuffed
animal attitude a lot of folks around here seem so focused on.
There is more manipulation of the data on Wiki than I have skin pores.
It goes on 24/7 in many different languages. As long as it is open
season, this will be the way it is. It is what we call in marketing,
the "cost of entry." It is designed to be changed and changed it will
be, by kids, by pols, nationalities, religions and their devotees or
detractors, for fun or for profit or for pure piss and vinegar.
There is nothing sacrosanct about it. It can be fun and sometimes
informative, but also prone to garbage - and garbage that is not from
people playing games in it. The idea that it has been embraced by so
many and so warmly and so quickly as the Ultimate Font of Knowledge is
rather depressing. It is instant coffee, a fast food burger, and a
Good Humor ice cream.
Getting sucked into the idea that there is one source of information
for everything the universe has to offer is rather dangerous, don't
you think? At least Google pointed folks to many sources, most of them
bogus, but at least there was a chance of falling fortuitously into
something good - it was like Heechee ships. This is just the Event
Horizon - and it isn't even blue.
Boron
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> On 29 Mar 2006 12:41:25 -0800, "Richard R. Hershberger"
> <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >For whatever it is worth, in my experience Wikipedia is actually quite
> >good at dealing with vandalism. It's problem is helpful improvements
> >that made the entries unintelligable gibberish. This is a problem that
> >Wikipedia and its enthusiasts seem to ignore, whistling past the
> >graveyard.
> >
> >Richard R. Hershberger
>
> I have a very big problem referring to any playing in Wiki as
> vandalism. Again, they have taken delight in the word, of course, as
> it carries enormous baggage with it.
>
Maybe we should call it what it is, "terrorism".
Richard R. Hershberger
I once looked up my home town in Wikipedia. The entry gave two wildly
different population numbers. I looked at the history and found where
the contradiction was introduced. Was this vandalism, or was it an
honest and sloppy attempt at providing information? I have no way of
knowing.
The claim I have seen is that there is a vigilant army of Wikipedia
enthusiasts who examine edits for signs of vandalism. This clearly is
not the case, or at leastj if it is, they do a poor job in catching
stuff like the population of my home town. Subtle vandalism can be
indistinguishable from incompetance. So to that extent we are in
agreement.
Richard R. Hershberger
HVS
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:03:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in
-snip-
> Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with
> Boron on this one?
I've come late to this, but I'm with Boron.
> Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as
> reprehensible as usenet's religious wingnuts,
> alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed Conrads?
Nah: the basic model of Wikipedia is virtually a request -- nay, a
*demand* -- to be 'vandalised' in this way.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Richard R. Hershberger
Boron Elgar wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2006 12:41:25 -0800, "Richard R. Hershberger"
> <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >For whatever it is worth, in my experience Wikipedia is actually quite
> >good at dealing with vandalism. It's problem is helpful improvements
> >that made the entries unintelligable gibberish. This is a problem that
> >Wikipedia and its enthusiasts seem to ignore, whistling past the
> >graveyard.
> >
> >Richard R. Hershberger
>
>
> I have a very big problem referring to any playing in Wiki as
> vandalism. Again, they have taken delight in the word, of course, as
> it carries enormous baggage with it. It is an excellent way to play
> Sweet Sixteen Virgin while the fucking every member of the football
> team at once.
Since we are arguing by analogy, I'll toss my own in: Imagine a family
holding a birthday party in the city park. They are having a good time
and not hurting anybody. Some outside kids decide that the height of
sophisticated humor is to ride their bikes through the middle of the
party while screaming. Is this a crime against humanity? Of course
not. Are they being jerks? Absolutely.
I find Wikipedia enthusiasts collectively very annoying. They tend
toward self-righteousness and make the absurd claim that I am somehow
obligated to join in their game. But regardless, they are doing their
own thing and that is fine. I feel free to critique their game, but to
actively interfere with it would be rude.
Richard R. Hershberger
groo
> I'm not willing to fully take Boron's position. Were my children to
> indulge in Wikipedia vandalism I would chastise them and endevour to
> find more productive ways for them to use their time. But... It is
> also true that in a free-ish society such things are inevitable, like
> televangelists and top-40 radio stations.
Good parents don't let their kids grow up to be televangelists.
--
I know I'm going to burn for that, somehow.
Alistair Gale
>Peter Boulding <p...@unspampboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:03:10 -0500, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in <01el221d17h1lgcld...@4ax.com>:
><snip>
>> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
>> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
>> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
>> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
>> >Wiki is not the Library of Congress. The Internet evolves.
>> >
>> >And lighten up. My child is my schumck. Taco.
>> >
>> >If anyone can catch my crabs, I'll offer a quarter.
>> >
>> >My tits may not be what they once were, but my brain is still porky.
>
>> Does anyone, apart from the absent Gifford, want to side with Boron on this
>> one?
>
>Not I. Just becuase one can edit things, doesn't make it always right,
>sure, sometimes you do it to make a point, but by and large, it's really
>not the thing to do.
>
>> Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as reprehensible as
>> usenet's religious wingnuts, alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed
>> Conrads?
>
>Well, what do you know: after enough time, even you get something right.
>Congratualtions, Peter, order an extra pint tonight, you earned it.
What Raven said. But I want to see some of the awesome jokes
perpetrated chez Boron.
--
alistair
groo
> groo wrote:
>
>> > How should we pronounce that?
>
No, I didn't write that.
>> Just like it sounds.
I did write that.
> OK: ever moron Wikipedia.
>
>
--
"God bless those pagans!" - H. Simpson
Alistair Gale
Bishop) wrote:
>Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com>
>
>>On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:42:52 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
>>Bishop) wrote:
>[snip]
>>>
>>>Except that "encyclopedia" and "edit" have meanings that would preclude
>>>vandalism, I'd think.
>>
>>I've thought it over and have decided that I was wrong to defend the
>vandalism >of my kids. Vandalism for the sake of humor cannot be
>reasonably defended and >I'm sorry I originally took this position.
>Reasonable discussion has allowed me >to rethink my premises and I'd like
>to thank those who participated. I'm >probably wrong in other areas also,
>and as soon as I can overcome the >embarassment, I'll admit to those, as
>well.
>
>I appreciate this correction.
>>I've thought it over and have decided that I was wrong to defend the
>>Taco of my kids. Taco for the sake of humor cannot be
>>reasonably defended and I'm sorry I originally took this position.
>>Reasonable discussion has allowed me to rethink my Taco and I'd
>>like to thank those who participated. I'm probably Taco in other
>>areas also, and as soon as I can overcome the embarassment, I'll
>>admit to those, as well.
IFYPFY.
--
alistair
Boron Elgar
<rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>Since we are arguing by analogy, I'll toss my own in: Imagine a family
>holding a birthday party in the city park. They are having a good time
>and not hurting anybody. Some outside kids decide that the height of
>sophisticated humor is to ride their bikes through the middle of the
>party while screaming. Is this a crime against humanity? Of course
>not. Are they being jerks? Absolutely.
But that analogy does not work. If the family is having a party *and*
invites everyone in the park and the rest of the world to join them -
then the analogy works. And it is even closer if there is a diligent
battalion of parents at the party who have dedicated themselves to
making sure any exuberant kids are tended to right away.
>I find Wikipedia enthusiasts collectively very annoying. They tend
>toward self-righteousness and make the absurd claim that I am somehow
>obligated to join in their game.
Agreed.
>But regardless, they are doing their
>own thing and that is fine. I feel free to critique their game, but to
>actively interfere with it would be rude.
>
If your analogy were to hold, yeah, but I do not think it does at all
without the open invitation to the world.
Boron
Tim Wright
I don't know. Seems like the pay's pretty damn good.
--
Tim W
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on
people."
W. C. Fields
Peter Boulding
<Xns9795ECA7...@62.253.170.163>:
>I've come late to this, but I'm with Boron.
>
>> Or do all the rest of us view Wikipedia vandals as being as
>> reprehensible as usenet's religious wingnuts,
>> alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonkers and Ed Conrads?
>
>Nah: the basic model of Wikipedia is virtually a request -- nay, a
>*demand* -- to be 'vandalised' in this way.
<sigh> Yup - you're with Boron.
Mary
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') wrote:
>
> > vandalism. Again, they have taken delight in the word, of course, as
> > it carries enormous baggage with it.
> >
> Maybe we should call it what it is, "terrorism".
Oh, brother.
Over the top much?
Mary