On Nov 15, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> On Friday 14 November 2008 08:24, Anthony wrote:
>
>>
>> Kurt Weber is a Libertarian. Not being familiar with Ayn Rand you
>> might
>> not get the significance of that. But if you don't understand
>> these things
>> you shouldn't be
On Friday 14 November 2008 08:24, Anthony wrote:
>
> Kurt Weber is a Libertarian. Not being familiar with Ayn Rand you might
> not get the significance of that. But if you don't understand these things
> you shouldn't be commenting on them.
I am both a Libertarian and an Objectivist.
I'm awar
Earlier I had written:
>>> I'm *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article. I like to
>>> think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of
>>> anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me.
Only to be treated with responses like
>> I really see no reason that people will
I really see no reason that people will be happy with not getting credit for
their work. They'd be either indifferent or unhappy. But to see someone
plagarize annoys.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:47 AM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:47 AM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/12 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Thanks. I think that proves my point. Wikipedia has been taken over by
> > altruists.
>
>
> 1. This is evidently some special jargon usage of the word "altruist",
> rather tha
On Nov 15, 2008, at 12:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/14/2008 9:36:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Pure philosophy would have
> been published through the existing academic discipline of
> philosophy,
> in any of the journals or scholarl
In a message dated 11/14/2008 9:36:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pure philosophy would have
been published through the existing academic discipline of philosophy,
in any of the journals or scholarly presses that exist, not in self-
published newsletters that ar
On Nov 14, 2008, at 7:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fictionalized (or novelized) philosophy was one part of what she
> wrote.
> The other part was pure philosophy and it's real-world applications.
> Many people think the only thing she wrote were a few novels.
No. The other part was not p
In a message dated 11/14/2008 12:42:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's a big Randy crowd out there that seems to forget that what she
wrote was fiction.>>
-
Fictionalized (or novelized) philosophy was one part of what she wrote.
Th
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> This is closer to Ayn's own view.
>> My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something
>> our
>> of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done
>> nothing to deserve it". Ayn was not against giving your excess to
>> charity.
>>
2008/11/13 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article?
> What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position? I'll
> grant that in some situations it might be rational to give away your work
> for free and without attribution
2008/11/12 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks. I think that proves my point. Wikipedia has been taken over by
> altruists.
1. This is evidently some special jargon usage of the word "altruist",
rather than one recognised by most English speakers using the word.
2. I question the "taken ove
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Steve Summit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article?
> > What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position? I'll
> > grant that in some situations it might be rational t
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:56 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is closer to Ayn's own view.
> My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something our
> of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done
> nothing to deserve it". Ayn was not against gi
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Someone (it doesn't really matter who)wrote:
> anyone who really cares about credit for the authorship of his text,
> should really pick some other medium than wikipedia.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Can I get some more quotes about how
non-profits are gre
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Steve Summit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Will Johnson wrote:
> > In a message dated 11/12/2008 12:47:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> In what way is the history tab unusable? Are you saying you would
> >> prefer an alternate view whi
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:31 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 11/12/2008 3:30:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Did you look at wikiblame? It does a lot more than just list a few names.
> The preamble to the GFDL says as a secondary purpose, "this Li
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:12 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "it's not usable by print media"
>
> If an article says, writen by Tom Jones, Brandy Cooper and Mike Wallace
> with numerous other contributors why wouldn't that be usable by print
> media?
>
Did you
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:38 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/12/2008 12:47:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> In what way is the history tab unusable? Are you saying you would
> prefer an alternate view which lists users in descending order by
>
In a message dated 11/13/2008 12:57:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But yes, part of the silly, delicious little thrill is precisely
that the recipient will never know who his benefactor is.>>
-
Why is this thrilling :)
**G
Anthony wrote:
> Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article?
> What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position? I'll
> grant that in some situations it might be rational to give away your work
> for free and without attribution, but to be *glad* specifi
> This is closer to Ayn's own view.
> My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something
> our
> of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done
> nothing to deserve it". Ayn was not against giving your excess to
> charity.
>
Ayn Rand never got to see
This is closer to Ayn's own view.
My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something our
of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done
nothing to deserve it". Ayn was not against giving your excess to charity.
In a message dated 11/13/2008 9
Will Johnson wrote:
> In a message dated 11/12/2008 3:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Even asking whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever --
>> to me, that sounds perilously close to WP:OWN.>>
>
> OWN however deals with the feeling by some editors t
Anthony wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Steve Summit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article. I like to
>> think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of
>> anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me.
>
> Thanks. I think
On 11/12/08, Steve Summit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm late to this thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating, but I'm
> *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article. I like to
> think of Wikipedia as being written by some large number of
> anonymous contributors, one of whom happens to be me
In a message dated 11/12/2008 7:26:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
anyone who really cares about credit for the authorship of his text,
should really pick some other medium than wikipedia. myself, I always
thought that was the implication of not own, and our warning
anyone who really cares about credit for the authorship of his text,
should really pick some other medium than wikipedia. myself, I always
thought that was the implication of not own, and our warning about
what can happen to what you write. Its not as if it cost money to set
up a blog.
On Wed, No
In a message dated 11/12/2008 3:36:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Print versions don't have history tabs. >>
-
The the print version right now violates the license.
So attribution doesn't make that situation better or worse.
**Get
In a message dated 11/12/2008 3:34:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even asking
whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever --
to me, that sounds perilously close to WP:OWN.>>
---
OWN however deals with the feeling by some editors that they have
Will Johnson wrote:
> In a message dated 11/12/2008 12:47:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> In what way is the history tab unusable? Are you saying you would
>> prefer an alternate view which lists users in descending order by
>> number of edits to the page (rather than li
In a message dated 11/12/2008 3:30:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you look at wikiblame? It does a lot more than just list a few names.
The preamble to the GFDL says as a secondary purpose, "this License preserves
for the author and publisher a way to get cre
I'm not sure what you mean by "it's not usable by print media"
If an article says, writen by Tom Jones, Brandy Cooper and Mike Wallace with
numerous other contributors why wouldn't that be usable by print media?
**Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
mo
In a message dated 11/12/2008 12:47:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In what way is the history tab unusable? Are you saying you would
prefer an alternate view which lists users in descending order by
number of edits to the page (rather than listing edits by user and
t
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:25 AM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/11 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I'm 100% sure that Rand wouldn't have condoned *that* statement. I don't
> > know if Erik still considers himself an altruist, but his efforts in
> trying
> > to relicense cont
On 11/12/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Don't try to convince me that the History link is "attribution", people who
> write for a living know that it's almost unusable for that.)
People who write for a living will starve on Wikipedia anyway.
In what way is the history tab unu
In a message dated 11/12/2008 2:21:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In order to deprive us of
honor that you may then deprive us our wealth, you have always regarded us
as slaves who deserve no moral recognition.>>
-
I.E. you do the work and your bo
2008/11/11 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm 100% sure that Rand wouldn't have condoned *that* statement. I don't
> know if Erik still considers himself an altruist, but his efforts in trying
> to relicense contributions, without the permission of authors,
The permission is the "or later". Ple
From: "Ian Woollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(...)
> We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
> imperfect world would be much better.
(...)
Something is wrong with everything. If something appears perfect on the
surface, that is because you haven't tried to abuse it. We do live
> > Or turning it around, what are the processes on Wikipedia that inhibit
> > excellence and promote safe mediocrity?
>
> Insistance on content which consists of the canon of accepted knowledge.
> While we almost sounded the alarm about the subprime mortgage we did not;
> we just repeated the info
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:19 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 5/8/2008 5:47:17 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> *To say that "Ayn gave the impression that a work created by committee
> would
> never achieve any degree of excellence" is simply untru
41 matches
Mail list logo
