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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
