Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The moderationg system needs an overhaul. (Score 1) 1822

If this is done, then also put the moderation history behind a clickthrough access such that you have to be logged in AND select the access button in order to see the moderators. In this way, the folks who reviewed my moderation history can be known to me... if abuse starts you ought to be able to see who's been looking you up.

Comment University of Calgary (Score 1) 320

I remember watching the launch and aftermath on the Dinnie's Den (the campus bar) big screen TV. Thinking back now, the weeks immediately following included an off-colour lost-and-found ad in the campus newspaper, which was then turned into an awesome (but still inappropriate) prank on its editors by some students with whom I may or may not have been associated.

Comment Re:Read on (Score 2) 132

It just gets better... "The company has taken another step toward its goal of taking the well off and adventurous on suborbital jaunts for fun and profit."

Huh? I keep trying to interpret that.

I think all companies should "take the well off" and "adventurous on suborbital jaunts'

That's not so bad. You need to read it as The company has taken another step toward its goal of taking the well off and adventurous on suborbital jaunts for fun and profit.

"the well off" and "adventurous" refer to people. "suborbital jaunts" is what they'd be taking part in.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

Yeah, I recall getting similar feedback from others at the time (regarding this particular editor).

I understand the system and the reason for preferring summaries of "reliable sources" over "independent truth", but it was (and is) really frustrating that this particular guy was absolutely against making any changes to the article largely because it had achieved "featured article" status at some point, under his purview. It was, in fact, that FA status that made Tiger folks pay attention to the article and realize it was full of errors. The editor would not accept any sources (in popular press or otherwise) other than the ones he'd decided were "most reliable", which essentially makes it un-fixable within the Wikipedia rules.

Comment Re:What? (Score 2) 325

What you describe is called an "appeal to authority", it is a logical fallacy.

Point taken. The issue with the particular page I have a vested interest in, is that it mostly concerns hard facts for which there is documentation in the form of build records, inter-company correspondence, as well as the physical evidence of features on cars that I've seen, touched, and owned. For a variety of reasons, the authors of the books used as reference on the Wiki page did not have access to all the documentation that is now known to exist, at the time they published their books; but, due to the arcane machinations of Wikipedia, even those authors are not currently able to refute themselves in the eyes of the editors and get the pages fixed... evidently the only "authority" are the Wikipedia editors, which is just as wrong.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

I understand the Wikipedia use of the word "reliable" and it's unfortunate they adopted an approach where an oft-repeated story by a coffee-table-book author can obliterate facts that were learned only through years of careful research by niche enthusiasts.

If Jimmy had created a way for expert information to be included (with appropriate justification from non-mainstream references), rather than just depending on regurgitated mainstream dreck, then Wikipedia would not be the lowest common denominator that it is, and maybe he would not have such a hard time getting donations to keep it going.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

Wikipedia wants to reflect the mainstream press and most reliable sources..

The problem is that "reliable" is only as good as the background knowledge of the editor on the particular topic being discussed, and his/her willingness to be objective in the light of new information.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

I completely appreciate the need to vet any contribution, but the system puts too much power in the hands of the established editor, to reject the addition of new references that may provide a counter viewpoint to what is currently on the page. Even a new analysis of the merits of the posted references (eg. saying "I added up all the production numbers posted by references X, Y, and Z, and I can arrive at a different conclusion from what is posted"), can be disallowed as being independent research, where in fact it is exactly the same process that the original editor used.

Comment Re:Let newbies be hazed (Score 2) 325

Totally wrong, because the right of not being micro-offended should more directly point at the editors, not the new contributors. In fact, if Wikipedia doesn't want to become completely irrelevant it will need to recognize that new folks would probably only go to the trouble of trying to add or change content, if there was a problem with the existing content. The main problem with Wikipedia is that it is too strongly founded with the idea of being a meta-encyclopedia and to not allow the exposition of independent research.

Comment Re:All the easy articles are gone (Score 5, Insightful) 325

That's thin ice because of the requirement of verifiable sources. If you are an expert and have access to obscure sources (eg. club publications that are not widely available) or personal knowledge, that actual knowledge must not be allowed to taint the previously published tripe because the "tripe" is a "verifiable reference" and your actual knowledge is not.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.

Working...