Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales: If somebody registers david-shay.co.il and you want to register shay-david.co.il or davidshay.co.il or david-shay.com or anything similar, you're allowed to do so. Nobody will stop you. The only way to stop you is with legal means, such as an arbitration or court order. There are laws and there are ways to enforce the laws. And these laws always seem to favor those who are strong, or have a lot of money, not who is right. Forgive me if I don't join you (and Oleg) in cheers for our (or perhaps, the American) legal system, where a guy molests children can get away with it if he's famous enough and has 270 million dollars to pour into his defence, and another guy can literally get away with murder in criminal court, and yet be found guilty in a civilian court. (for those who don't follow famous American cases, I referred to Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson respectively). One of my random signatures defines it succinctly: Jury: Twelve people who determine which client has the better lawyer. But in Wikipedia, there are no laws. If a system administrator (esp. a strong one, such as David Shay or Gilgamesh) doesn't like you for any reason - he can delete you, ban your username, ban your IP or just make your life miserable until you leave Wikipedia. Don't believe me? Try for yourself. Make them angry and see what happens. Like I told you, in Wikipedia there are laws, like there are in any community. After you (or whoever you're retelling this story for) broke the three-revert law, you apparently broke several other rules. One of them is do not impersonate; You are free to be completely anonymous on Wikipedia, but if you want to choose an identity, at least don't choose a confusing one (choosing an *identical* name is not the only way to confuse). Calling yourself Shay David when that is NOT your name and you only chose it to cause confusion is a despised behavior in any civilized society, as well as in Wikipedia. Imagine, for example, that you came to this list (linux-il), calling yourself Torvalds Linus (not Linus Torvalds, but Torvalds Linus). Don't you think this trick is going to annoy people? And what gives you the right to annoy people?? And even if that was your *real* name, imagine this: a real person called Even-Chen Uri joins a group that you were very active in. Wouldn't you expect this new guy to agree to choose some sort of nickname, alias, or address, which reduces confusion? If he doesn't do so, and even uses the resulting confusion for his favor, then, well, he wouldn't have my sympathy. By the way, a person (who's name is NOT Bruce Springsteen) registered the domain name brucespringsteen.com. Bruce Springsteen didn't like it and filed a complaint against him (UDRP). The arbitrators decided that the man is ALLOWED to keep the name. Read it: And this proves that... ??? To me, it just proves that in America, lowlifes and creeps can misuse the justice system to bully on other people. Someone who was not strong enough as a kid to steal other kids' lunch money, grows up and learns that he doesn't have to be strong, because he can (mis)use the justice system to bully other people. He starts with squatting (of physical property), cybersquatting (of virtual property), patent lawsuites, and, if he really has the balls, suing IBM (I'm referring to SCO vs. IBM). It is obvious that if a guy buys brucespringsteen.com, he had no thought in his mind other than to bully and extort money from Bruce Springsteen. If you think that the legal system should help him in pulling off this crime, then, good for you. I don't. My friend was so disappointed that he left Wikipedia. He didn't try to impersonate as David Shay or anybody else, he just used his name when he registered. But because of the reactions he decided to leave Wikipedia. I know quite a few people who left Wikipedia. Look, I don't know David Shay and I'm not a Hebrew wikipedia contributer (I only use and write on the English one). But generally, the people on Wikipedia are reasonable. They won't accuse you of things like impersonation unless you're really causing a mess. It's very easy for a guy called, by pure chance, Shay David, to convince he's not an impersonator if he does useful edits and behaves like a good guy. He could also show his good faith by modifying his nickname to be less confusing (e.g., who said that a nickname has to be your full name? What if your full name was already taken?) But, if someone comes in with this confusing name and only does very controversial edits, and begins edit wars and other games right from the start, it won't be long before the Wikipedia society decides to put a stop to this distraction and to expel him. It's the society's right to protect itself. -- Nadav Har'El| Saturday, Dec 10 2005, 9 Kislev 5766 [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
If we're so much offtopic... NH dollars to pour into his defence, and another guy can literally get away NH with murder in criminal court, and yet be found guilty in a civilian court. That happens because the burden of proof in the civil court is lower than in the criminal court. And that is because civil courts mostly deal with matters of money and such and with conflicts between citizens, while criminal courts can use incanceration and sometimes even death penalty and represent the state against citizens. Since the state has superior power and is the only entity that is entitled to use violence up to, in certain circumstances, killing humans, it is considered reasonable that this exercise of power is restricted by requiring high degree of certainity that the actions are indeed correct and just. Sometimes it happens that due to the circumstances or the incompetence of the state's agents this degree can not be reached, and thus the power of the state can not be exercised in these cases. It is, of course, regretful, but results of an unrestricted exercise of the state power would be much more regretful. Of course, those with more money can more successully exploit said circumstances and incompetence, because they are able to hire better professionals and more of them. That does not meanthe law is different for rich and poor, just that the rich has more chance to achieve proper execution of the law. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall be counsels taken Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells phone +972-54-6524945 /\ JRRT LotR. whois:!SM8333 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Uri Even-Chen wrote: OK, you asked for an example, you got it. Look at the history of שיחה:אריאל שרון from 28 May 2005. There were comments by an anonymous user which were deleted by the system administrators. Read the discussion and then read the comments that were deleted. http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9Faction=history I'm not so sure about the deleted comments, but I did go over all the changes to the actual page (not the discussion) that took place during those two days. It seems that the page was in the middle of a stupid edit war. Most of the deleted comments, as far as I could tell, were about why was the page locked. You may not agree with the specific decisions, but it's hard to call them unreasonable. And it's just one example. There are many examples. Also, check why משתמש:שי דוד was deleted. Can you find any explanation? Or is the explanation deleted too? No. The explanation says מתחזה. There was a short discussion about it, but I cannot see the discussion itself. I'm assuming that the discussion ended with the assertion that David Shy is too well known, so that your friend's name was too confusing. The thing is, such things happen everywhere names are used. I had the exact same problem trying to buy a .co.il domain (and the collision was with someone that ISOC agreed is a cyber-squater). I eventually had to buy a totally different name. Such things happen. Don't get me wrong. My experience with wikipedia is not all positive myself. See http://israblog.nana.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=35850blogcode=2483976. I still think your criticism seems excess. http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:%D7%A9%D7%99_%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93 Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Shachar Shemesh wrote: I'm not so sure about the deleted comments, but I did go over all the changes to the actual page (not the discussion) that took place during those two days. It seems that the page was in the middle of a stupid edit war. Most of the deleted comments, as far as I could tell, were about why was the page locked. You may not agree with the specific decisions, but it's hard to call them unreasonable. Read all the deleted comments and check why they were deleted. And it's just one example. There are many examples. No. The explanation says מתחזה. There was a short discussion about it, but I cannot see the discussion itself. I'm assuming that the discussion ended with the assertion that David Shy is too well known, so that your friend's name was too confusing. The thing is, such things happen everywhere names are used. I had the exact same problem trying to buy a .co.il domain (and the collision was with someone that ISOC agreed is a cyber-squater). I eventually had to buy a totally different name. Such things happen. If somebody registers david-shay.co.il and you want to register shay-david.co.il or davidshay.co.il or david-shay.com or anything similar, you're allowed to do so. Nobody will stop you. The only way to stop you is with legal means, such as an arbitration or court order. There are laws and there are ways to enforce the laws. But in Wikipedia, there are no laws. If a system administrator (esp. a strong one, such as David Shay or Gilgamesh) doesn't like you for any reason - he can delete you, ban your username, ban your IP or just make your life miserable until you leave Wikipedia. Don't believe me? Try for yourself. Make them angry and see what happens. By the way, a person (who's name is NOT Bruce Springsteen) registered the domain name brucespringsteen.com. Bruce Springsteen didn't like it and filed a complaint against him (UDRP). The arbitrators decided that the man is ALLOWED to keep the name. Read it: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1532.html In a similar dispute over the domain name madonna.com, the arbitrators decided that the singer Madonna should have the name: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0847.html The difference is - with domain names there are arbitrators who are not a part of the dispute, and you can appeal their decisions to court. In Wikipedia there are only system administrators who do anything they want. My friend was so disappointed that he left Wikipedia. He didn't try to impersonate as David Shay or anybody else, he just used his name when he registered. But because of the reactions he decided to leave Wikipedia. I know quite a few people who left Wikipedia. Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Stanislav Malyshev wrote: You won't believe if I told you what happens in paper encyclopedia. These evil pits of corruption are ruled by absolute dictators hiding under the name of editors, and not only they are not obliged to accept input from anybody - everybody is actually permanently banned from making any change into their work even before it is published and remains banned forever! And there's no place you can complain except to the dictator editors themselves and even then there's absolutely no way to ensure that they would accept your correction or at least note its existance in the proper place in the next release of their so called encyclopedia. I can not believe something so corrupt is not only allowed to exist but actually is referred to as an ultimate information source! Some people have no shame, indeed. It's like if I say Saddam Hussein is evil and you'll say Hitler was more evil. If there somebody more evil it doesn't mean Saddam Hussein is not evil. Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: Nadav Har'El [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales: Believe me, I know. Uri, I am sorry, I don't think this particular argument sounds very convincing... ;-) But the fact is that anybody (including you and me) can go to Wikipedia and fix what we find wrong. If you decide to go to Wikipedia's site, you can set its agenda. This is very different from other sites, like http://google-watch.org itself, where I cannot modify what they say if I don't like them. So perhaps google-watch.org is more dangerous than Wikipedia?? Personally, I think neither is dangerous. It's ironic how this guy's main blaim of Wikipedia is that anybody can come in and write a article badmouthing him. And this when this guy's job and hobby is writing sites that badmouthing others (politicians, Google, and now Wikipedia)? At least in Wikipedia, the victim can correct the errors - on his sites, his victims have no recourse. I don't want to pour fuel onto this fire, but, without voicing any opinion on that particular guy (who may or may not be a scumbag), I think he raises a couple of good points. 1) He is quite aware of the fact that one can go and change a Wikipedia article. He makes what seems to be a valid point that anyone else can, too, anonymously, and as a result one can never be sure that the site is fair, correct, non-defaming, non-libelous, etc., at any given moment. 2) His other point is also valid. If anyone puts libelous information on a website, presumably one can be sued. Now, that guy is looking for someone whom he can sue over what he considers libel on Wikipedia (OK, he maybe a litigious bastard, but that's besides the point). Now, the people who run Wikipedia apparently tell him they are not responsible for the content, and he has no idea who the authors of the offending material are. Granted, this situation is no different from, say, Slashdot, where one can post comments anonymously. However, it brings up an interesting, and possibly new, legal point. The guy faces what he considers libel in a very popular online publication, and he is seeking satisfaction by legal means. It is not up to any of us to decide whether he is right or wrong. The point is, the modern society based on the rule of law should give him a way to defend himself against what he considers libel (he may lose the battle - that is irrelevant). There are traditional publications that publish anonymous articles. Among periodicals, possibly the best known is The Economist. They have no by-lines, but I presume that the editors and the publishers are fully responsible for the contents, including potential responsibility for libel. Are Wikipedia owners/editors/whoever equally responsible? Thus, Nadav, I think you got it quite backwards when you say that if one publishes libel on a personal site the victims have no recourse. In that case, they do. The guy is looking for a similar recourse in the case of Wikipedia. Once again, this does not imply that the guy has a good case or is not a bastard - I don't care. I really don't think that the situation is so clear-cut either way. I am not a big fan of the justice systems of most country, but in this case maybe some good might result from a court hearing and a thoroughly considered opinion of a competent judge. Oleg, Thanks for your support. Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Hi Nadav, Can you explain why you recommend reading those sites, much of which appear to be the writings of a nudnik at best, or a raving lunatic at worst? Wikipedia's method of operation is well-known. Nothing written on it comes with any promise of being correct. But, unlike much of the rest of the Internet which contains falsehoods and half-truths by the millions, in Wikipedia you can actually correct these falsehoods yourself. You don't need to resort to anti-sites which cry about the falsehoods, or to law-suites to force the site owner to change something. This guy's view of Wikipedia reminds me of SCO's view of free software. They think that the fact that someone *can* put stolen copyrighted material into some free software project, means that free software is inherently evil, and that they don't need any proof (like showing an actual case of stolen code) to win a lawsuit. Similarly, just because somebody *can* put libel in wikipedia does not prove that a specific article about Mr. Dan paranoid Brandt is in fact libel, or that Wikipedia is evil. These views make as much sense as charging every cook with murder, because he uses knives who can be easily used to kill people. Wikipedia is not free. Wikipedia is operated by people, with hierarchic ranks, who control it. Anything in the articles which doesn't fit their agenda will be removed or modified, and any person whom they don't like (for any reason) will be banned from Wikipedia. Believe me, I know. Wikipedia is not objective, and not free. It reminds me the book Animal Farm. Remember the sentence All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others? That's Wikipedia. You can't correct falsehoods in Wikipedia. Believe me, I tried. If the editors (system operators) don't like what you wrote, it will be changed back and you will be banned. Wikipedia is a dictatorship. There is no way to appeal on a system operator's decision to ban you or change what you wrote. There are excellent articles in Wikipedia, in areas such as mathematics, science etc. But when it gets to politics or to anything else where there are different opinions - Wikipedia is not neutral. By the way, www.google-watch.org has a Google PageRank of 6, and appears #17 when searching google on Google. The first 14 websites are operated by Google, so it's #3 site which is not operated by Google. Ok, and that says what? www.google-watch.org is the third most popular site about Google, which is not operated by Google. And that says something. I expect that in one or two years, www.wikipedia-watch.org will reach a similar popularity. Best Regards, Uri Even-Chen Speedy Net Raanana, Israel. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +972-9-7715013 Website: www.uri.co.il = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Uri Even-Chen wrote: You can't correct falsehoods in Wikipedia. Believe me, I tried. If the editors (system operators) don't like what you wrote, it will be changed back and you will be banned. Wikipedia is a dictatorship. There is no way to appeal on a system operator's decision to ban you or change what you wrote. Care to give specific examples, so we can form an independent opinion? The articles you tried to fix, as well as the username you were using, would be greatly appreciated. Unless you claim your edits were also erased from the history, that is. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:34:09AM +0200, Uri Even-Chen wrote: Wikipedia is not free. Wikipedia is operated by people, with hierarchic ranks, who control it. Anything in the articles which doesn't fit their agenda will be removed or modified, and any person whom they don't like (for any reason) will be banned from Wikipedia. Believe me, I know. Wikipedia is not objective, and not free. It reminds me the book Animal Farm. Remember the sentence All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others? That's Wikipedia. You can't correct falsehoods in Wikipedia. Believe me, I tried. If the editors (system operators) don't like what you wrote, it will be changed back and you will be banned. Wikipedia is a dictatorship. There is no way to appeal on a system operator's decision to ban you or change what you wrote. Actually one thing that is rarely edited away in wikipedia is the discussion pages. Thus we generally know what those faceless system operators did. We can also tell when they did it and in many cases why. Could you point out one such biased article? Because I've heard this criticism before and every time I checked the editors' judgement seemed very reasonable. There are excellent articles in Wikipedia, in areas such as mathematics, science etc. But when it gets to politics or to anything else where there are different opinions - Wikipedia is not neutral. By the way, www.google-watch.org has a Google PageRank of 6, and appears #17 when searching google on Google. The first 14 websites are operated by Google, so it's #3 site which is not operated by Google. Ok, and that says what? www.google-watch.org is the third most popular site about Google, which is not operated by Google. And that says something. That there are enough fools? Heck, that site criticises google's pagerank method. So its pagerank should be irrelevant, if you buy its arguments, right? Another reminder: http://mozillaquest.com/ . Try looking at its archives. As a reminder for why it's called that way, look at http://mozillaquestquest.com/ BTW: there is a simpler explenation: no one with a sane mind wants to starts fighting with google over the name. Because then you know you'll automatically loose the first page (first 10 places). Unless you spell google backwards, or something (see the search results) ;-) -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | best ICQ# 16849755 | | friend = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales: Wikipedia is not free. Wikipedia is operated by people, with hierarchic ranks, who control it. Anything in the articles which doesn't fit their agenda will be removed or modified, and any person whom they don't like (for any reason) will be banned from Wikipedia. Believe me, I know. But the fact is that anybody (including you and me) can go to Wikipedia and fix what we find wrong. If you decide to go to Wikipedia's site, you can set its agenda. This is very different from other sites, like http://google-watch.org itself, where I cannot modify what they say if I don't like them. So perhaps google-watch.org is more dangerous than Wikipedia?? Personally, I think neither is dangerous. It's ironic how this guy's main blaim of Wikipedia is that anybody can come in and write a article badmouthing him. And this when this guy's job and hobby is writing sites that badmouthing others (politicians, Google, and now Wikipedia)? At least in Wikipedia, the victim can correct the errors - on his sites, his victims have no recourse. By the way, your comment about Heirarchic ranks is wrong. There are no ranks, just tens of thousands of editors (anyone can be one, you can even be anonymous), and there is one layer of system operators who have very few special privilages (among them, the privilage to delete a page, something which an ordinary user cannot do). Any computer system I know of have such operators, and it doesn't make every such system a dictatorship. Wikipedia is not objective, and not free. It reminds me the book Animal Farm. Remember the sentence All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others? That's Wikipedia. All projects run by humans, including Wikipedia, have their share of power struggles and people who try to enforce their opinions on others. But unlike any other site where the site operator can easily force their opinions on others (e.g., try getting a controversial announcement into slashdot), on Wikipedia its far easier for any Tom, Dick and Harry to write opinions which differ from those of the owners of Wikipedia. You can't correct falsehoods in Wikipedia. Believe me, I tried. If the editors (system operators) don't like what you wrote, it will be changed back and you will be banned. If you can't convince others that your change is worthwhile, then maybe they were right and your change shouldn't be on Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is not your personal site and not a soapbox. I've been editing on Wikipedia, and using it, for about two years, and nothing even close to what you described ever happened to me. There are excellent articles in Wikipedia, in areas such as mathematics, science etc. But when it gets to politics or to anything else where there are different opinions - Wikipedia is not neutral. Wikipedia is not perfect, and some articles are crappy because of such edit wars between people of opposing political views. But from that to saying that Wikipedia is evil, there is a long way. www.google-watch.org is the third most popular site about Google, which is not operated by Google. And that says something. It doesn't say anything to me... It looks like a totally unimpressive statistic. Heck, my own site had pagerank 7 until recently, beating this google-watch.org. -- Nadav Har'El| Thursday, Dec 8 2005, 7 Kislev 5766 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Take my advice, I don't use it anyway. http://nadav.harel.org.il | = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Shachar Shemesh wrote: Care to give specific examples, so we can form an independent opinion? The articles you tried to fix, as well as the username you were using, would be greatly appreciated. I prefer not to give specific examples. I refer to Wikipedia in general and not to specific examples. But if you're interested, check the history of any article about politicians, or related to politics. Tzafrir Cohen wrote: Actually one thing that is rarely edited away in wikipedia is the discussion pages. Thus we generally know what those faceless system operators did. We can also tell when they did it and in many cases why. Some of my comments were removed from discussion pages too. Could you point out one such biased article? Because I've heard this criticism before and every time I checked the editors' judgement seemed very reasonable. Any politically related article in Hebrew is biased towards the points of view of most Israelis, comparing to Americans, Europeans or Palestinians. Take any politically related article in Hebrew in Wikipedia and compare it to other languages - you will find big differences in content. I suppose the same is also true for any language. Nadav Har'El wrote: But the fact is that anybody (including you and me) can go to Wikipedia and fix what we find wrong. If you decide to go to Wikipedia's site, you can set its agenda. This is very different from other sites, like http://google-watch.org itself, where I cannot modify what they say if I don't like them. So perhaps google-watch.org is more dangerous than Wikipedia?? Personally, I think neither is dangerous. It's not true. Not anybody can edit Wikipedia. You can edit Wikipedia only if there is no editor (system operator) who doesn't like you, and if your username IP address are not banned. And even then, if your agenda is different than other editors, it will be reverted. By the way, your comment about Heirarchic ranks is wrong. There are no ranks, just tens of thousands of editors (anyone can be one, you can even be anonymous), and there is one layer of system operators who have very few special privilages (among them, the privilage to delete a page, something which an ordinary user cannot do). Any computer system I know of have such operators, and it doesn't make every such system a dictatorship. There are ranks. Not all editors have the same privileges. Some are allowed just to edit, some are allowed to ban other editors (system operators), some are allowed to give take privileges from other system operators (super operators) and some are allowed to give take privileges of super operators. It is hierarchic. Wikipedia is not perfect, and some articles are crappy because of such edit wars between people of opposing political views. But from that to saying that Wikipedia is evil, there is a long way. Wikipedia is not evil. The people who operate it are evil. It's a hierarchic dictatorship. By the way, I think any person can become evil if given enough power upon others. Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
By the way... A friend of mine has a name which is slightly similar to a Wikipedia operator. He tried to register to Wikipedia but was immediately banned just because of his name. If you think that's not an evil dictatorship then what is? Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Uri Even-Chen wrote: Shachar Shemesh wrote: Care to give specific examples, so we can form an independent opinion? The articles you tried to fix, as well as the username you were using, would be greatly appreciated. I prefer not to give specific examples. I refer to Wikipedia in general and not to specific examples. I'm sorry, Uri, but when raising such serious allegations, i.e. that you were banned based on the fact that you tried to correct incorrect information, I feel the specifics of the case had better be given light. If you prefer not to, please understand that I will have to treat this critisizm as hearsay, and thus unsubstantiated. This is, of course, only speaking on my own behalf. From reading at least what Tzafrir wrote, however, you can see that others seem to share this opinion of mine. If Wikipedia is, indeed, sick, this is no way to critisize it. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Hi Shachar, I'm sorry, Uri, but when raising such serious allegations, i.e. that you were banned based on the fact that you tried to correct incorrect information, There is no absolute incorrect information. There are opinions. I tried to change something that was wrong in my opinion, and it was reverted. I changed it again and I was banned. I don't have a problem with my change being reverted, but I do have a problem when I was banned. Some people have the right to ban other people in Wikipedia, and some don't. Which means, not everybody is equal. In Wikipedia, like in any other system or society, some people have more power than others. Sometimes these people abuse their power. It happens in Wikipedia and it happens in the police, army or any system where people have power. But in Wikipedia there is nowhere to complain. Nobody will do anything to people who abuse their power. So eventually, I think Wikipedia is corrupt. If I didn't convince you that Wikipedia is corrupt, it's OK. Some people just don't get it. Even most people. It depends on the way you perceive life, justice, relationships between people etc. Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
OK, you asked for an example, you got it. Look at the history of שיחה:אריאל שרון from 28 May 2005. There were comments by an anonymous user which were deleted by the system administrators. Read the discussion and then read the comments that were deleted. http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9Faction=history And it's just one example. There are many examples. Also, check why משתמש:שי דוד was deleted. Can you find any explanation? Or is the explanation deleted too? http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:%D7%A9%D7%99_%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93 Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
This doesn't have much to do with Linux, but since most people interested in free software are also interested in free content, I hope that people aren't too upset about this thread of discussion. On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales: There is no absolute incorrect information. There are opinions. I tried to change something that was wrong in my opinion, and it was reverted. I changed it again and I was banned. I don't have a problem with my change being reverted, but I do have a problem when I was banned. Some people have the right to ban other people in Wikipedia, and some don't. Which means, not everybody is equal. When you want to join some society, it has the right to impose some rules that make that society work, or stop it from collapsing. In this case, to make Wikipedia work and keep it from turning into more of a mess than it already is, Wikipedians developed a set of rules, ettiquettes and procedures, that a civilized Wikipedian is supposed to abide by. These rules were developed over the years by dozens or hundreds of wikipedians, and by no means they were dictated by a dictator. If you don't follow these rules, you won't get jailed, won't get fined. All that happens is that you won't be welcome in Wikipedia, because you're ruining everybody else's resource. It's as simple as that. One of the most established rule in Wikipedia is the three revert rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_revert_rule). It says that you must not try to revert a single page more than 3 in 24 hours. This is probably exactly what you did: you changed something to fit your opinion, and somebody changed it back. You changed it again, and someone changed it again. You did it for the third time... and you were banned. What were you supposed to do instead of writing your opinion over and over? If you'd had spent some time learning about Wikipedia procedures before engaging in edit wars, you'd have realized that the first thing you should have done after somebody un-edited your edit, is to explain your position in the discussion page and wait for the other person's reply. Argue all you want on that discussion page until a resolution is reached with the other interested editors. You can also try conducting a servey, and when you give up, even can look for arbitration. For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution In Wikipedia, like in any other system or society, some people have more power than others. Sometimes these people abuse their power. It happens in Wikipedia and it happens in the police, army or any system where people have power. But in Wikipedia there is nowhere to complain. Nobody will do anything to people who abuse their power. So eventually, I think Wikipedia is corrupt. You couldn't be more wrong. In wikipedia, there are a lot of venues to complain, and almost any editor (basically, any body) can help you solve your problems. Compare this to a closed site (say, http://www.google-watch.com) in which one person has absolute power to write anything he wants, and there you *really* have nobody to complain to if you don't like what's written there. -- Nadav Har'El| Thursday, Dec 8 2005, 8 Kislev 5766 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog http://nadav.harel.org.il |vendor? Make me one with everything. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales: OK, you asked for an example, you got it. Look at the history of שיחה:אריאל שרון from 28 May 2005. There were comments by an anonymous user which were deleted by the system administrators. Read the discussion and then read the comments that were deleted. http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9Faction=history I can't for the life of me understand what you're complaining about. It appears that a few children (or adults acting like children) continuously blank the page and replace it by complaints. They also appear to have used sock-puppet accounts (the same person using multiple accounts to disguise their identity). I really hope that these people were banned from Wikipedia. I really hope this wasn't you... Also, check why משתמש:שי דוד was deleted. Can you find any explanation? Or is the explanation deleted too? Again, what are you trying to say??? You simple wrote his name wrong! His name is דוד שי, and not שי דוד. See http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%A9%D7%99 This David Shay guy is a well-respected member of the Hebrew Wikipedia community, and contributed dozens of articles to the Hebrew Wikipedia. Have you contributed more to it? -- Nadav Har'El| Thursday, Dec 8 2005, 8 Kislev 5766 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |I have an open mind - it's just closed http://nadav.harel.org.il |for repairs. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Nadav Har'El [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales: Believe me, I know. Uri, I am sorry, I don't think this particular argument sounds very convincing... ;-) But the fact is that anybody (including you and me) can go to Wikipedia and fix what we find wrong. If you decide to go to Wikipedia's site, you can set its agenda. This is very different from other sites, like http://google-watch.org itself, where I cannot modify what they say if I don't like them. So perhaps google-watch.org is more dangerous than Wikipedia?? Personally, I think neither is dangerous. It's ironic how this guy's main blaim of Wikipedia is that anybody can come in and write a article badmouthing him. And this when this guy's job and hobby is writing sites that badmouthing others (politicians, Google, and now Wikipedia)? At least in Wikipedia, the victim can correct the errors - on his sites, his victims have no recourse. I don't want to pour fuel onto this fire, but, without voicing any opinion on that particular guy (who may or may not be a scumbag), I think he raises a couple of good points. 1) He is quite aware of the fact that one can go and change a Wikipedia article. He makes what seems to be a valid point that anyone else can, too, anonymously, and as a result one can never be sure that the site is fair, correct, non-defaming, non-libelous, etc., at any given moment. 2) His other point is also valid. If anyone puts libelous information on a website, presumably one can be sued. Now, that guy is looking for someone whom he can sue over what he considers libel on Wikipedia (OK, he maybe a litigious bastard, but that's besides the point). Now, the people who run Wikipedia apparently tell him they are not responsible for the content, and he has no idea who the authors of the offending material are. Granted, this situation is no different from, say, Slashdot, where one can post comments anonymously. However, it brings up an interesting, and possibly new, legal point. The guy faces what he considers libel in a very popular online publication, and he is seeking satisfaction by legal means. It is not up to any of us to decide whether he is right or wrong. The point is, the modern society based on the rule of law should give him a way to defend himself against what he considers libel (he may lose the battle - that is irrelevant). There are traditional publications that publish anonymous articles. Among periodicals, possibly the best known is The Economist. They have no by-lines, but I presume that the editors and the publishers are fully responsible for the contents, including potential responsibility for libel. Are Wikipedia owners/editors/whoever equally responsible? Thus, Nadav, I think you got it quite backwards when you say that if one publishes libel on a personal site the victims have no recourse. In that case, they do. The guy is looking for a similar recourse in the case of Wikipedia. Once again, this does not imply that the guy has a good case or is not a bastard - I don't care. I really don't think that the situation is so clear-cut either way. I am not a big fan of the justice systems of most country, but in this case maybe some good might result from a court hearing and a thoroughly considered opinion of a competent judge. Is Haim Ravia reading this? -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.goldshmidt.org = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
UE happens in Wikipedia and it happens in the police, army or any system UE where people have power. But in Wikipedia there is nowhere to complain. UE Nobody will do anything to people who abuse their power. So UE eventually, I think Wikipedia is corrupt. You won't believe if I told you what happens in paper encyclopedia. These evil pits of corruption are ruled by absolute dictators hiding under the name of editors, and not only they are not obliged to accept input from anybody - everybody is actually permanently banned from making any change into their work even before it is published and remains banned forever! And there's no place you can complain except to the dictator editors themselves and even then there's absolutely no way to ensure that they would accept your correction or at least note its existance in the proper place in the next release of their so called encyclopedia. I can not believe something so corrupt is not only allowed to exist but actually is referred to as an ultimate information source! Some people have no shame, indeed. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall be counsels taken Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells phone +972-54-6524945 /\ JRRT LotR. whois:!SM8333 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
Hi people, I recommend reading this article (in Hebrew), and looking at the websites below: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3180710,00.html http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ http://www.google-watch.org/ By the way, www.google-watch.org has a Google PageRank of 6, and appears #17 when searching google on Google. The first 14 websites are operated by Google, so it's #3 site which is not operated by Google. Best Regards, Uri Even-Chen Speedy Net Raanana, Israel. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +972-9-7715013 Website: www.uri.co.il = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about [off topic] Wikipedia Jimmy Wales: I recommend reading this article (in Hebrew), and looking at the websites below: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3180710,00.html http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ http://www.google-watch.org/ Can you explain why you recommend reading those sites, much of which appear to be the writings of a nudnik at best, or a raving lunatic at worst? Wikipedia's method of operation is well-known. Nothing written on it comes with any promise of being correct. But, unlike much of the rest of the Internet which contains falsehoods and half-truths by the millions, in Wikipedia you can actually correct these falsehoods yourself. You don't need to resort to anti-sites which cry about the falsehoods, or to law-suites to force the site owner to change something. This guy's view of Wikipedia reminds me of SCO's view of free software. They think that the fact that someone *can* put stolen copyrighted material into some free software project, means that free software is inherently evil, and that they don't need any proof (like showing an actual case of stolen code) to win a lawsuit. Similarly, just because somebody *can* put libel in wikipedia does not prove that a specific article about Mr. Dan paranoid Brandt is in fact libel, or that Wikipedia is evil. These views make as much sense as charging every cook with murder, because he uses knives who can be easily used to kill people. This guy's rambling have started to annoy people, and one of them even created a Google-watch watch site: :-) http://www.google-watch-watch.org/ By the way, www.google-watch.org has a Google PageRank of 6, and appears #17 when searching google on Google. The first 14 websites are operated by Google, so it's #3 site which is not operated by Google. Ok, and that says what? -- Nadav Har'El| Wednesday, Dec 7 2005, 7 Kislev 5766 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |All those who believe in psychokinesis, http://nadav.harel.org.il |raise my hand. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
