OT: Read The Dictionary?

[ulthar]

dean Wrote:

>
> As for the whole wikipedia/too much information
> thing, that was my biggest problem when
> researching essays at uni: I'd get too interested
> in my topic and just read things that led off from
> my original topic too often and get bogged down in
> non-essential reading
>

Back when I was teaching, I read an article that summarized a comparison of the quality of English papers from several years before the Internet and  then (this was around 2002, or so).  The quality had markedly decreased.

The information overload on the Internet has a real downside.  Plus, a lot of "info" on the net is just plain wrong.  Wikipedia is pretty good most of the time (especially as a starting point) because it is in a sense peer reviewed.  But the signal to noise ratio of the 'net in general is pretty low.

[dean]

ulthar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back when I was teaching, I read an article that
> summarized a comparison of the quality of English
> papers from several years before the Internet and
> then (this was around 2002, or so).  The quality
> had markedly decreased.
>
> The information overload on the Internet has a
> real downside.  Plus, a lot of "info" on the net
> is just plain wrong.  Wikipedia is pretty good
> most of the time (especially as a starting point)
> because it is in a sense peer reviewed.  But the
> signal to noise ratio of the 'net in general is
> pretty low.
>

Yeah, I can totally believe that: as we all know there's alot of crap on the internet, it's just a matter of searching through what is an academic source, and what is just a guy in an office writing down an idea, it's just a matter of finding the right place really.  The problem is for people who don't realise that just because somebody on the net at some random page says 'Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet means so-and-so' doesn't make it fact.  

But my problem was mainly with books that I was using for research and I'd read way too much of one book instead of just using the sections that I really needed, and exploring other options.

[dean]

Sorry for digging in the past, but I just thought I'd mention this funny tidbit which reminded me of this post which included stuff about wikipedia, rather than starting my own post.

Senators have been found changing their wikipedia entries in order to, for example, delete bad things about themselves, such as the use of the term 'raghead'.

The Full Story Here

I just find this funny, as it is a fairly pathetic effort to erase their quite dubious past, and also a funny way to do pranks, but that's neither here nor there.

It just annoys me how many politicians seem more willing to just erase the bad stuff and hope noone notices, rather than come out and admit they were wrong.  I guess it's a sad comment on how silly politics can really get...

[Neville]

Very sad incident. But that's not the only danger Wikipedia is facing, heard some weeks ago that many politititians and other people who think the Wikipedia describes them in negative ways may start preparing lawsuits against the site. Since Wikipedia is an NGO most probably won't be able to pay the legal fees and may have to close down in the future.

[ulthar]

There are legal foundations that could come to their rescue.

Also, how can the operators be liable? In the past year or so, they have taken a lot of 'hits' because of content, and their response has been to try to correct the process.  For example, you no longer can edit content without user id and logging in, iirc.  There is tracking of who made what content when, so I think (IANAL) this puts the onus on the person who made the content.

Besides, so long as what an article says is true (he said this, or he did that), what basis is there of a suit?  If it's made-up or pointless name calling, then wikipedia should remove it on their own accord.  It's my opinion that they should not host drivel.

[Just Plain Horse]

dean Wrote:

> It just annoys me how many politicians seem more
> willing to just erase the bad stuff and hope noone
> notices, rather than come out and admit they were
> wrong.  I guess it's a sad comment on how silly
> politics can really get...
>

There's no limit to how sad politicians can get... though I do have to say Jimmy Carter has gone a long way in restoring my respect in one of the few living role models from my parents & grandparents times.

GW Bush will always be remembered as the living embodiment of political ineptitude, falsity, and corruption... which is a shame because Nixon's ghost must be sad to give that title up...

[ulthar]

Just Plain Horse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no limit to how sad politicians can get...
> though I do have to say Jimmy Carter has gone a
> long way in restoring my respect in one of the few
> living role models from my parents &
> grandparents times.
>
> GW Bush will always be remembered as the living
> embodiment of political ineptitude, falsity, and
> corruption... which is a shame because Nixon's
> ghost must be sad to give that title up...


Please don't troll this board.  These are your opinions.  Maybe YOU will remember Bush this way or hold specific ex-Presidents in a given light; maybe others won't.  It is just begging for an arguement to post stuff like this on this board.

This is just MY opinion, but I think there are better places to rant about the specifics of politics.  Dean's comment was general - aimed at no party or person specifically.  On those general grounds, I think we can all agree.  ALL politicians have certain characteristics that we ALL don't like.

If you want to engage in honest debate about the merits of specific politicians, there are places for that.  If you just want to rant, there are places for that as well.  BadMovies.org does not have to be one of them.

[Neville]

ulthar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Besides, so long as what an article says is true
> (he said this, or he did that), what basis is
> there of a suit?  If it's made-up or pointless
> name calling, then wikipedia should remove it on
> their own accord.  It's my opinion that they
> should not host drivel.

It's not as simple as that. It doesn't matter if they are right or not, not even if they can win the lawsuits, if they get enough of their cases to court Wikipedia won't be able to pay for the legal assistance. That's worth a lot of money, and I doubt Wikipedia can afford a sustained legal battle.

[ulthar]

Well, as the first part of my post said, there are foundations out there that may provide legal assistance.  It's what they do - help groups like wikipedia fight what amounts to frivolous cases.

You only have to fight and win a small number of frivolous cases to stop the flood of suits for several reasons.  First, the suers will see that you will fight them, and it will cost THEM money *if* they lose.  Since those folks are often cowards, they don't want to risk the loss.  The suit is premised on the gamble that wikipedia will cave in and settle.

Second, once you win a case or two, there is precedent.  That makes for some case authority that the plaintiff's in future cases have to overcome; they have to show that their case is substantively different than the precedent case(s) and also that those differences will likely lead to a different outcome.

Walmart has learned this lesson.  They used to settle cases to avoid the on-going cost of legal battles.  And everyone and their brother was suing Walmart for whatever they could fathom.  A few years ago, Walmart started fighting even the most ridiculous stuff.  Sure, it cost them money for the first few, but as word spread that Walmart does not settle easily, the number of cases have dropped and the their legal expenses have dropped as well.

No.  I think it makes sense for the Wikipedia guys to try to find some representation and go full tilt after the first to file suit.  Tie it up in court for five years if need be.  Bleed the other side dry.  There are attorneys that would do this for the publicity alone.

It's what I would do.  I sure would not role over and die without a fight.