Wikipedia used to be the "site that everyone could edit". Now it is the site that everyone can edit, so long as everyone is a Wikipedia admin. Everyone ELSE's edits get removed.
One time I created a Wikipedia page for something I considered interesting, which didn't have a page yet. I wrote a detailed page with lots of links and information. It took me at least an hour. I wanted to contribute this small piece of knowledge to the whole, which I understood to be the whole point of Wikipedia. In less than 12 hours, my page had been removed and tagged as not being noteworthy enough for whoever. So I wasted my time trying to share my knowledge. Nowaways, if you want a page to be added, you cannot add it yourself. You have to ASK THAT IT BE ADDED.
Not only that, but edits to existing pages--no matter whether they are of value or not--are almost always reverted.
My time is much better spent sharing my knowledge by answering people's questions on Quora. Wikipedia clearly is not interested in what I have to say.
Time to start "migrating" them to other storage mediums then.
Oh wait, the RIAA/MPAA doesn't want you to do that. They want you to buy them again. And again. And again. In fact, they go so far as to tell you you are not "allowed" to do that, because you might want to do nefarious things with it.
Keeping your content in the "cloud" makes perfect sense
If you think the internet is going to just "forget" who this guy is, and that it won't have any impact on future potential employers of his, you're wrong. Sorry.
The media's attention span is not the point. Popular culture is not the point.
The point is that his name is now enshrined in the internet for the foreseeable future. The internet does not forget things, or notorious people. No matter how short a season their fame lasted. This has become an invisible, but permanent, attachment stapled to every job application and cover letter he ever submits again in this field. Will some employers choose to overlook this transgression? Hopefully, for him. But the assertion that he will quietly slip back into safe cozy anonymity, where the internet is concerned, is simply ignorant.
> But, 6 months from now, no one will have a clue who this guy is
You really have no idea how the internet works, do you?
> he looks fine, and even if he's not fine...
So does a depressed person who feigns a smile once in a while.
Neither the AP nor Reuters is a consolidation. They are wire services, making it possible for news and art to be distributed to papers far and wide who pay for their services. They actually do more to support a greater multitude of newsrooms that can rely on their service for world news while remaining local to their communities to report their regional and local stories.
I disagree completely. I think people will absolutely pay for news--but opinion is, as said upwards of here, worth exactly crap in terms of monetary value. And so little of newsreporting today has even the PRETENSE of objectivity and professional integrity that nobody is interested in paying for it. Why pay for bloggers? Blogs are free and free for a reason.
This is why the Wall Street Journal's readership is actually going UP while their competitors are losing money right and left. The WSJ has actual reporting going on, which is thorough, professionally edited and mostly free from bias and agenda. And they do a good job of keeping their news pages and opinion pages distinct from each other, unlike the Times and most of the now-dying newspaper industry.
Journalism used to be a craft, one that involved not only finding out what happened but reporting what happened objectively, leaving it to the reader to make up his or her own mind about what the story really means. Nowadays ersatz "journalists" think it's ok to be social crusaders, and objectivity is laughed off as though it were obsolete and unreasonable. (I graduated one of the nation's top journalism schools, and saw this firsthand.) This mindset is what has the newsroom in the grip of death.
10 to the minus 6th power mouthwashes = 1 Microscope