Eh....kind of. MTBF comes from the assumption of an exponential distribution for failure in devices. Depending on whether or not failures of multiple devices are independent of each other, the probability of failure for a bunch of them may be normally distributed. Or it may not.

Is anyone surprised that it has a terrible name like that? I'm actually glad they didn't call it "Livesearch Expression Web SuperPreview Pro. For windows"

Google (honestly, for most things). Or maxima.

WP:EPR
Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies

Dig in. Or we could look at the increase in "Featured" articles and "Good" article stats, though the latter is not a community process but an individual process.

Anyone with an academic background will understand the difference and the reason behind the policy. Substantive original research takes time, expertise and effort. There is a reason we have long training periods for PhDs--we try to ensure those people are capable of conducting research independently. When you can't verify who people are, you have to limit the amount of "original research" they can do.
It is just a different kind of writing than an original paper. People who make it out to be anti-academic or sneaky miss the boat entirely.

[Citation needed]
You can say a lot of things about wikipedia, but if you say that the majority of articles are worse off now than in (say) 2002, you'll be full of shit. You can point to some good articles in the past that have degraded from random edits. Or articles which have been subject to turf wars. But on the whole, there is improvement.

nail, meet head.

I guess. This kind of critique gets pretty old. The whole point of moving away from "THE TRUTH" was to suggest that no one editing on wikipedia has access to "THE TRUTH". I'm not an expert. You're not an expert. Sure, we probably have our areas of expertise, but they aren't verifiable in a pseudonymous editing environment. In the absence of that verification, we have to trust references, not people. If I say "believe me, this is THE TRUTH", the right response is "Wikipedia isn't interested in THE TRUTH, do you have a source for that."

It's cute to twist that around, but neither you nor I are Steven Colbert. We won't make it anywhere near as funny. To misread it to think "Oh, wikipedia is only interested in groupthink" is to miss the point. Lots of so called experts come on wikipedia and demand that people listen to them on the basis of their alleged expertise. When people (rightly) refuse to listen to them, those people storm off to /., their blog, or their cat and declare that Wikipedia is only interested in groupthink. Lots of time groupthink does grip wikipedia--just like any other organization. People see comments from editors they know and trust and respond accordingly. New people are often distrusted. These aren't features unique (or even uniquely salient) to wikipedia. They are features found in any community, large or small. Conflating the existence of groupthink with some underlying community desire> to govern through groupthink is inaccurate.

Really, we don't mind the truth, so long as it has a little blue superscripted number after it.

Lulz. "He's the big problem" should read "Here's the big problem. I fail at previewing.

Larry Sanger, the expert at making an online encyclopedia. We love to talk shit about Wikipedia here on /,; talk about how Knol is going to beat it or how Citizendium is better or how you wouldn't use it as a source (duh). But when push comes to shove, do we have any good competing models of how an online encyclopedia should be made?

Do we have any good reason to trust Sanger as anything other than a provocateur? What is the meat of the analysis? That open editing and cooperation is what explains wikipedia's success? I'll agree with him there. And that control of articles or processes by internal "experts" is damaging to that open editing and cooperation? I'll take two, please. He's the big problem.

We don't really know how to make a reasonably reliable, open and comprehensive encyclopedia without some deference to "local fiefdoms". We just don't. People don't contribute for money or fame. They don't have marching orders on which articles to keep free from vandalism or improve to featured status. They control their own production. Where that is the case they will bring themselves to edit on subjects they like and edit those articles in order to bring the distribution of coverage to their liking. We have to allow a little of that because it is those people who keep it from being a nuthouse. Those people spend 20-30 hours on wikipedia a week. They watch recent changes to keep subtle vandalism out. They fight back against civil POV pushers. They are an absolute necessity.

To they come with drawbacks? Hell yes. There are probably thousands of people who have avoiding wikipedia as editors because their first edits were reverted--even though they might have been productive. I find lots of those reversions and usually don't get a cooperative attitude from editors when I call them on it. Those people make subtle cultural distinctions (I like this and not that). Those people form cliques and cabals. Those people make processes and bureaucracy.

But I don't have a better way of organizing all of that free labor. Does Larry? Do you?

Re: the Sturgeon quote, I don't think we can ever be sure. It is misquoted more often than it is quoted. I'll stick to bunk. Re: Meridian 59: sure, it's less sophisticated than WoW, but it is a little different for that to be on a console in 1995. But it had (more or less), PvP, 3d graphics, character customization, and more. If you look at Birth of a Nation, all you may see is a racist black and white movie about Klansmen. But it was one of the first movies to use visual techniques that are common today: closeups (though arguably preceded by Griffith's earlier movie, The Lonedale Operator), jump cuts, tinting, tunnel vision. Remember, like movies, these games are notable for ludic, technical or narrative advances. It doesn't just have to be "Great story ZOMG". Half life has a so-so story, but the execution and technical prowess of the dev team shines through.