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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: What? (Score 1) 325

Of course there are circumstances where it wouldn't work.

But there are circumstances where it would as well. E.g. there are plenty of niche papers cited on wikipedia. Unless there are sufficient knowledgeable people editing that page who are intimate with the relevant papers, then it is likely to go by unnoticed. As you would know, there are examples of purposeful misedits going by unnoticed for years on wikipedia.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

You replied to an explanation.

Academic - primary research papers are considered "original research".
Wikipedia - facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable published source exists are considered "original research".

The academic definition is basically all primary research. The wikipedia definition only encompasses a small subset of research which doesn't belong to a reliable source. They define different things and AFAIK one (the academic definition) existed well before the other.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

An "appeal to authority" requires that the person not be an authority on the subject.

If he and the other enthusiasts are authorities on Sunbeam Tigers then it is not an appeal to authority. I suggest that if they felt strongly enough to attempt a factorial edit in regards to Sunbeam Tigers, then they are very likely authorities on the topic.

The question is, under what circumstances do you get to decide whether or not the person has authority.

Nice guide here: http://www.nizkor.org/features...

(note - I'm arguing from prior knowledge of this fallacy, but I did look up the guide to post a link for others to read more)

Comment Re: What? (Score 1) 325

The amount of paywalled information is also higher now in 2015 than it was in 2003.

Restricting information so that the general public can't verify it's veracity without paying money makes those references useless to a very large amount of people.

You could even game a paywall system.

E.g. make an edit with a reference to a fake article behind a paywalled site that you setup. Make the subscription cost to the site very expensive. Will anyone but a very motivated, wealthy individual, with a lot of time on their hands, pay and investigate the paywalled article? Done carefully enough it may be possible to avoid detection for quite a while.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 325

Wikipedia's attempt to redefine the term original research doesn't help.

Research articles, or primary articles are based on original research. I.e. someone makes a hypothesis, tests it, and writes it up. Furthermore the person who designed and performed the test is the paper author.

It's telling that Wikipedia even has to qualify the definition as their own interpretation: 'The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.' (italics mine)

Comment Re: Colour me suspicious (Score 3, Informative) 143

It only works on phones that meet the specified criteria:

"smartphones that have their WiFi connection open, and then, employing a diverse arsenal of security vulnerabilities, gain root permission on devices"

I.e. they must have an open wifi connection and they must have an unpatched security vulnerability.

This automatically excludes millions of older phones of various brands that don't have wifi, any phone with wifi disabled, and any phone with encrypted wifi.

And if the phone is fully patched for known exploits, they need a zero day attack.

Slashdot Top Deals

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge