Comment oops (Score 1) 3
sorry, I didn't mean to repeat "The Chair of the UK's Wikipedia charity is not permitted to edit Wikipedia" in the summary. Please remove it!
Submission + - Wikimedia UK's chair banned...from Wikipedia (telegraph.co.uk) 3
Larry Sanger writes: "The Chair of Wikimedia UK, a £1 million charity independent of the Wikimedia Foundation, was banned 11 days ago, for allegedly posting bondage porn of himself and otherwise violating Wikipedia policies. So he was removed as head of WMUK, right? Er, no. On July 26, their Board declared their "united" support of Van Haeften. So the chair of Wikipedia's UK £1 million charity is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. The Chair of the UK's Wikipedia charity is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. So this immediately became a big scandal, right? Er, no. Wikipedia routinely gets a pass for its many foibles. The first mainstream story to appear about it came out just this morning in the Telegraph. More background here."
Comment Re:Not a problem (Score 1) 544
I'm not sure why I'm replying to this, out of all the daft things that have come from this thread--maybe because I'm annoyed when people get history wrong.
"Teancum," whoever you are, you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. I am the guy who started Wikipedia. There is lots of documentation of this on larrysanger.org. I did NOT think that one had to have a Ph.D. to write articles for Wikipedia. I'm the guy who tried to get everyone working together--even kids. Others have said this about me, but they weren't there, or if they were, they're lying.
I am not, in fact, a "deletionist." I am an inclusionist. I think people should be able to write about whatever their heart desires, as long as there is a chance of there being a full complement of articles of that type. If people want to have articles about every Star Trek episode, go for it, as long as you can cover all of them.
Finally, even if there is "bad blood" between me and the current Wikipedia community--not the original one, mind you--that hardly means "there are many problems with what he says," unless you are a cultist who believes that "the Wikipedia community" is inerrant.
Otherwise, thanks for your support.
Submission + - What should we do about Wikipedia's porn problem? (larrysanger.org) 3
Larry Sanger writes: "In 2011, the Wikimedia Board committed to installing a "controversial content" filter even weaker than Google's SafeSearch, as proposed by the "2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content." Since then, after growing opposition by some Wikipedians, some board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Nevertheless, as TFA makes clear, Wikipedia continues to host an enormous amount of extremely gross porn and other material most parents don't want their kids stumbling across. And this content is some of the website's most-accessed. Nevertheless, children remain some of Wikipedia's heaviest users. Jimmy Wales has recently reiterated his support for such a filter, but no work is being done on it, and the Foundation has not yet issued any statement about whether they intend to continue work on it."
Submission + - Once Deemed Evil, Google Now Embraces "Paid Inclusion" (marketingland.com)
pacc writes: It was a long time a go google only provided a page with search links, and MarketingLand finds that the policy to have ads clearly separated from the search may have gone with newer services.
For example a hotel search will indicate that 'some' link payed to get listed, but not which ones and digging deeper gives less, not more info.
For example, Google Hotel Finder has no disclosures. In fact, the help page suggests that all listings are free. If that’s true, then why would Google be disclosing a financial relationship for when Google Hotel Finder results appear within a comparison box?
For example a hotel search will indicate that 'some' link payed to get listed, but not which ones and digging deeper gives less, not more info.
For example, Google Hotel Finder has no disclosures. In fact, the help page suggests that all listings are free. If that’s true, then why would Google be disclosing a financial relationship for when Google Hotel Finder results appear within a comparison box?
Comment Big ol' reply post (Score 1) 949
Hi all, author of TFA here.
I have a bunch of replies, which address many of the things said here on Slashdot, on my blog.
Comment Slashdot discussing stuff politely?! (Score 1) 949
I've posted quite a few times here on Slashdot, and I have to say, this is the most civilized discussion I have seen, well, ever in this forum. I have to think that I've hit a nerve, and people are actually not just doing their usual posturing, but actually caring about the question and trying to come to grips with it. There may be hope for geeks yet.
Comment Re:College isn't Intellectual Enough (Score 1) 949
So, you went to an undemanding college that grants degrees easily. And that logically implies that college, in general, is a waste of time?
Comment Re:None of them are geeks (Score 0) 949
So, you're saying you disagree with them. Right? Just checking.
Comment Re:Question (Score 1) 949
I don't see a case of "cool to be stupid," either. Geek anti-intellectualism is not like jock anti-intellectualism. As TFA says...well, I'll just let you read it.
Comment Re:Not anti-intellectualism (Score 1) 949
Well, there's more to the post than the "college is a waste of time" thing. Scan down for the points (numbered 1-5) that I'm calling anti-intellectual. "College is a waste of time" is one only of them. And besides, if you'll look at Dale Stephens' CNN article, you'll see plenty of anti-intellectual notes.
Submission + - Is there a new geek anti-intellectualism? (larrysanger.org) 1
Larry Sanger writes: "Geeks are supposed to be, if anything, intellectual. But it recently occurred to me that a lot of Internet geeks and digerati have sounded many puzzlingly anti-intellectual notes over the past decade, and especially lately. The Peter Thiel-inspired claim that "college is a waste of time" is just the latest example. I have encountered (and argued against) five common opinions, widely held by geeks, that seem headed down a slippery slope. J'accuse: "at the bottom of the slippery slope, you seem to be opposed to knowledge wherever it occurs, in books, in experts, in institutions, even in your own mind." So, am I right? Is there a new geek anti-intellectualism?"
Comment Re:Let him go. (Score 1) 263
The original title of my submission mentioned Commons, but the Slashdot guys changed this to Wikipedia. It's quite true that Wikipedia is also full of porn, but Wikimedia Commons has truly stupendous amounts of it.
Of course, if you're not inclined to look for it, you might not come across it. But what curious 10-year-old boy won't look for it? Armed with the knowledge of a few terms to search for, and creativity, you can find boatloads of porn instantly. Think of any sexual fetish, position, orientation, combination, piece of anatomy, alteration of piece of anatomy, part of the whole sex process, etc., it's all there in living color! What a great educational reference work!
Comment Re:"too much unnecessary porn" (Score 1) 263
What are you talking about? "Libertarian" is just about the most politically safe term out there. Both liberals and conservatives (in the U.S.) like to call themselves libertarians, at least when convenient...
Submission + - Jimmy Wales: the porn on Commons must go (wikimedia.org) 1
Larry Sanger writes: Jimmy Wales recently took a bold position against pornography on Wikimedia Commons: "Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support." Wales also restarted the "Commons:Sexual content" policy page. His basic complaint is that Wikimedia Commons hosts too much unnecessary porn, and he wants to get rid of it. He underscored his seriousness this way, stating that we can expect "a strong statement" from the WMF soon: "if the Wikimedia Foundation wants to declare that it is ok for Commons to be a porn host, they can do that, and I'll not be able to continue. That isn't going to happen, though, and in fact you should expect a strong statement from the Board and/or Sue in the next few days." This comes about a month after I originally posted my report about depictions-of-child-sexual-molestation on Wikimedia Foundation servers to the FBI, which Slashdot duly ripped to shreds (as only Slashdot can), and a little over a week after the FoxNews.com story. The latter coverage reported that one of my senators, and my representative to Congress, had forwarded the matter to the FBI's Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs. I'm happy to be able to congratulate Jimmy Wales for his good judgment on this, and I look forward to the larger Wikimedia community approaching these issues with a little more sanity.
