Fact is that hoaxes have always existed and have always found ways of propagating. Wikipedia, like everything on the internet, has just made it easier and faster. It is not a problem of Wikipedia, it's a problem with people in general.

You say this as if it comes as a shock. That's kind of the point of an encyclopaedia and completely the point of citations. If you are going to trust an entry in Wikipedia alone for anything important, you are being very foolish.

Unfortunately, while Wikipedia has to justify itself on one hand to those who demand that everything is verified before it is shown, on the other it has those who complain bitterly that new material they have added without any verification is being removed. Wikipedia cannot do both.

Why is your computer on and browsing, with the speakers on, in the middle of the night when you're not using it?

If you're going to do this, you deserve all you get. Along with what it does to your bandwidth and electricity bill.

And those who don't, comment on those who do.

You may laugh, but there's a lot of factors that need careful analysis. Weight, dimensions, material, grip, balance, available space, ceiling height, bounce, damage.. The list goes on. You could fill at least three hour lectures on it.

That was my first thought. Wait 5-10 years and everyone else will be saying to Linux; "You can have the desktop. We're not interested in it any more."

And a mechanic to change the wheel is just a phone call away because NAS had the foresight to take out full MAA (Mars Automobile Association) membership. They'll even tow it back home!

"Ignore user" only works if everyone does it. Unfortunately there's always someone who wants to engage with the troll, wanting to put them straight, or show them up for the idiots they are. They don't realise that a troll doesn't care what is said to them. As long as they're given attention they are getting what they came for, and it ensures they keep coming back for more. Usually under multiple accounts.

It has nothing to do with skill. "Being licensed" has some implication (however imperfect it may be) of being insured and being a known citizen, with a history of following the rules of the road and laws in general.

Not being licensed means you could be an uninsured, unidentifiable, homicidal maniac fresh out of prison. Personally I'd prefer some kind of means of avoiding getting in a car alone with these people.

The idea is to stop users who may claim special authority over the content of some articles, on the basis that they represent an organisation mentioned within them. Naturally, it's the internet, so it's difficult to verify this, and those doing it would have a clear conflict of interest when editing an article related to them. So a good way of nipping this behavior in the bud this is to disallow "corporate" names.

Of course this doesn't stop organisations editing their articles under another name. But at least that's done on the same level as any other editor and the same rules apply.

By who? Who is going to pay for it that can be trusted to not push their own agenda?

Where is the money going to come from? Adverts? Do you think advertisers won't have an agenda, and interest in what appears on Wikipedia?

Why would unpaid volunteers submit articles to a commercial organisation that profits off their work?

That's the problem with a lot of the criticism of Wikipedia. Too many people think it's a place to publish news or original content. They don't understand what an encyclopaedia is.

To be fair, what you just did there relies on knowing a fair bit of statistic methodology. Not something an average journalist does.

But, yeah, any journalist worth anything should be able to spot bullshit. And an IQ of 197 is obvious bullshit. You don't need to do the sums to see that.

Exactly this. If, when driving an "almost-automated" car, I need to be in a state of constant readiness to take control, then what is the actual advantage to having the car almost-automated? The physical effort involved with driving is pretty light, it's the mental effort that's tiring. So I'm not saving myself any effort. If anything, it could be more effort, because not only am I having to monitor events around the car, I'm also having to react to what my own car does by itself.

The only reasons for using "almost automated" would be;

- You suck at driving and the computer does a better job.
- You're physically disabled in a way that makes driving arduous/impossible.

No. It means the 60% of the list are suspected of having terrorist ties.

You have confused the value of what they do with the difficulty of what they do. Or maybe you think your personal opinion of both should be the measure used by all?

Fact is that a lot of people will pay to see what they do. Who else should be getting a significant share of that money?

Whether what they do is difficult, or requires a great deal of skill, isn't the point. If people will pay to see someone pick their nose, then that someone picking their nose has a value.

Whether you personally value their work is of no relevance to anyone but yourself. More than enough people are of the opposing view.