MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Faces of (wikipedia) FREETARDS !  (Read 14725 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

antistock

« on: July 15, 2012, 01:29 »
0
BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!

if you ever wondered how the top freetards looked like here it is ... from BBC.

Wikipedia: Meet the men and women who write the articles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18833763

two of the guys in the articled edited a whopping 1 MILLION articles without making a dime and without getting any credit for it ... and then we complain about having to keyword our images to make money !

now look at them ...






« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2012, 01:48 »
0
Good for them - my hat's off to them for their efforts.

« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2012, 02:04 »
0
And your point is ....?

Poncke

« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2012, 02:28 »
0
What is the point you are trying to make? Rubbish thread

rubyroo

« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2012, 04:30 »
0
What have these (probably very nice, intelligent) people actually done to you directly?  A completely unwarranted attack, as far as I can see.

Microbius

« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2012, 04:56 »
0
I don't get it either, not everyone who works on WP articles is into stealing other people's copyrighted work. These could just be some very nice people helping to spread knowledge. Scatter gunning anyone who gives their time for free is no way to combat actual IP thieves. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2012, 06:08 »
0
Why not gun for the people who lift their descriptions for stock photos directly, with no editing, from Wikipedia, which is against their T&C?
Hats off to the Wikipedia people.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 07:25 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2012, 07:08 »
0
Twice I've been contacted by Wikipedia to ask if they could include info from my totally personal, not even one ad on it, website, even though I say at the bottom that info may be used for personal or educational purposes.

rubyroo

« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2012, 07:19 »
0
That's great Sue.  Personally I think Wikipedia (where the info is accurate) is one of the best things the Internet has to offer.

The original article referenced by the OP ends with this comment:

"Many people have no access to healthcare information. Wikipedia is the only viable model at this point to address that.

"We're in 284 languages. The World Health Organization is in 70."

Complete article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18833763

grafix04

« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2012, 07:43 »
0
That's great Sue.  Personally I think Wikipedia (where the info is accurate) is one of the best things the Internet has to offer.


This is the problem.  A lot of it is not accurate and unfortunately a lot of people treat anything written in Wiki as Gospel.  Spreading knowledge is a good thing but spreading fallacies does more harm than good. 



Nothing against the effort he's put in and the amount of hours he's donated but this guy who has edited 1.1 million wiki articles delivers pizza for a living.  That implies that he's not knowledgeable enough to be educating others.  Makes me wonder how many inaccurate articles that I've read were written by him.

Poncke

« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2012, 07:48 »
0


Nothing against the effort he's put in and the amount of hours he's donated but this guy who has edited 1.1 million wiki articles delivers pizza for a living.  That implies that he's not knowledgeable enough to be educating others.  Makes me wonder how many inaccurate articles that I've read were written by him.

Utter fallacy.

rubyroo

« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2012, 07:49 »
0
I don't think a person's occupation is necessarily any measure of their intelligence.  Sometimes people choose occupations on the basis of time flexibility and minimal stress in order to spend more time living their life as they want to.  But hey, none of us even know this man and judging anyone on their appearance or their occupation is a very narrow thought process.

ETA:

I just searched on that guy's name and found this article about him:

Extract:  "Knapp has degrees in philosophy and political science."

Full article here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2132526/First-man-hits-MILLION-Wikipedia-edits.html
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 07:54 by rubyroo »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2012, 07:58 »
0
Nothing against the effort he's put in and the amount of hours he's donated but this guy who has edited 1.1 million wiki articles delivers pizza for a living.  That implies that he's not knowledgeable enough to be educating others.  
What utter rubbish. I knew a guy who had double first honours degrees and chose to drive public buses for a living.
And another with an art degree who taught for five or six years, rising incredibly rapidly up the promotion ladder, gave it up, and worked for the rest of his working life as a porter in a hotel so that he could spend his non-working hours doing things he loved, including being able to spend serious quality time with his family and friends. He also became a phenomenal Renaissance Man, by having the time to follow his interests.
I just rewatched Good Will Hunting last night: the Sean Maguire character is a fictional example of someone who chose to give up the rat race for personal happiness and to help others.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 08:44 by ShadySue »

grafix04

« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2012, 08:02 »
0
The point is that a lot of information on wiki is wrong and look at the people who are updating them?  They are not experts in any fields, they are ordinary people who donate their time to write these articles.  There is no control over the crap that's written there.  Unfortunately, over time, the BS written in there will become known as truth.

Who knows, maybe that pizza guy is an ex professor but judging from the misinformation spread on wiki, I'm leaning towards thinking he's just some uneducated bum delivering pizzas and edits these incorrect articles for free to give some meaning to his uneventful life.  

I maybe making an assumption but no more than the assumption he and the other editors make when publishing these articles with false information.  

grafix04

« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2012, 08:04 »
0
Nothing against the effort he's put in and the amount of hours he's donated but this guy who has edited 1.1 million wiki articles delivers pizza for a living.  That implies that he's not knowledgeable enough to be educating others. 
What utter rubbish. I knew a guy who had double first honours degrees and chose to drive public buses for a living.
And another with an art degree who taught for five or six years, rising incredibly rapidly up the promotion ladder, gave it up, and worked for the rest of his working life as a porter in a hotel so that he could spend his non-working hours doing things he loved.
I just rewatched Good Will Hunting last night: the Sean Maguire character is a fictional example of someone who chose to give up the rat race for personal happiness and to help others.

You people are missing the point that wiki has a lot of inaccurate information and that is why I'm led to believe that this pizza guy probably doesn't have a double first honors degree.  Maybe if I didn't find so much garbage on wiki, I would think otherwise.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2012, 08:06 »
0
This is the problem.  A lot of it is not accurate and unfortunately a lot of people treat anything written in Wiki as Gospel.  Spreading knowledge is a good thing but spreading fallacies does more harm than good.  
Just like people spamming or not researching their keywords enough before putting them in as stock.
But also, it seems that some wiki topics are maliciously targetted specifically to fool readers or draw wikipedia into disrepute.
If my Wikipedia use is critical, I always cross check (and taught my pupils to do the same), and I've usually found, when I've researched a topic extensively, that the wikipedia account is more accurate and certainly more balanced than most others, even sources that might be regarded as 'more authoritative'.
With any controversial topic, you're going to have a constant back and forward as proponents of each side try to sway the balance, which is the downside. But with conventional sites, you often only get one side of the debate, presented as truth.
Just like some posts here.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 08:41 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2012, 08:07 »
0
The point is that a lot of information on wiki is wrong and look at the people who are updating them?  They are not experts in any fields, they are ordinary people who donate their time to write these articles.  There is no control over the crap that's written there.
There's very little control over any information that goes up on the internet.
Look here's one: "The moon is made of blue, not green, cheese". Who's to stop me writing that?

« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2012, 08:36 »
0
It's not that often I have a good enough excuse to hit the ignore button.

« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2012, 08:38 »
0
I don't think a person's occupation is necessarily any measure of their intelligence.  


Well said, just look at GWB as an example.

« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2012, 08:47 »
0
Well done those guys on Wikipedia! I use it all the time and it's an excellent resource. What the heck does how someone earns a living has to do with their intelligence or knowledge?

As for inaccuracies, yeah sure there are. Anyone using ANY information for critical stuff needs to check more than one source.

grafix04

« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2012, 08:47 »
0
The point is that a lot of information on wiki is wrong and look at the people who are updating them?  They are not experts in any fields, they are ordinary people who donate their time to write these articles.  There is no control over the crap that's written there.
There's very little control over any information that goes up on the internet.
Look here's one: "The moon is made of blue, not green, cheese". Who's to stop me writing that?

But that's just it yet so many people have this idea that wikipedia is accurate.  I'm not really judging this person because of his appearance or his job, I'm judging him and the rest because of the amount of inaccurate information I've come across there.  Only because of this, I'm assuming he might be a dimwit.  It would be great if we had experts in certain fields editing these wiki articles and it would be good if we could see their credentials.  But the fact is, experts wouldn't be doing something like that for free and the people here that are editing these articles are probably doing their research on the net where there's so much inaccurate information.  But once it's on wiki, it gets referenced often and the fallacy eventually becomes known as the truth.  That doesn't spread knowledge, that spreads fallacies and changes history over time.

fujiko

« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2012, 08:59 »
0

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2012, 09:00 »
0
But the fact is, experts wouldn't be doing something like that for free
This is not a fact. Some experts do contribute to Wikipedia for free. I have no idea how many, but there are some. Why wouldn't they?
Without claiming to be an 'expert', I've added new, accurate information to update a (very few) wikipedia articles.

See - you complain about wikipedia being inaccurate, but like at least one other msg member, you claim things to be 'facts' which demonstrably are not so.
If people don't realise that anyone can contribute a wikipedia article, or go in and change one, they need to be educated.
Many so-called authoritative sources of information, whether book, video, online or any other media are biased. In Scottish schools, that's a key factor in formal education - pupils are educated to look for bias and to compare sources. If it is not so elsewhere, it should be -  any 'education' system which does not develop critical learners does not educate.
Lesson One: be very wary of 'sweeping statements" like "experts wouldn't be doing something like that for free".
Lesson Two: announcing something as a 'fact' doesn't make it one.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 09:14 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2012, 09:04 »
0
 But once it's on wiki, it gets referenced often and the fallacy eventually becomes known as the truth.  That doesn't spread knowledge, that spreads fallacies and changes history over time.
Substitute 'oral tradition', history and newpapers and you'll observe that 'twere ever thus, like the African saying, "Until lions have their historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter."
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 09:15 by ShadySue »

fujiko

« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2012, 09:08 »
0
I know teachers that tell students to contribute to wikipedia as homework and then review the contributions.

Wikipedia is something new, and as something new has its share of fans and a bunch of enemies.

Humans have inaccuracies and bias, it spreads to everything we create. Wikipedia is no exception, experts are no exception.

rubyroo

« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2012, 09:11 »
0
I don't think a person's occupation is necessarily any measure of their intelligence.  


Well said, just look at GWB as an example.

 :D  Great example!

rubyroo

« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2012, 09:17 »
0
-  any 'education' system which does not develop critical learners does not educate.

Well said.  Great point.

Great examples of people who choose their occupations to suit their desired lifestyle also.  A close relative of mine has had an amazing career in technology and acadaemia is now finding that all he wants to do is get away from people and build bird boxes to sell.  He just arrived at the point where everything he was doing felt completely meaningless to him and not true to his nature.

« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2012, 09:18 »
0
snip
Humans have inaccuracies and bias, it spreads to everything we create. Wikipedia is no exception, experts are no exception.

Well said.

I follow the method of checking wikipedia first, then corroborating with some other source or two, just to be sure. But I understand what you are saying, too, grafix04. At one time I would have jumped to the conclusion that delivering pizzas meant an uneducated person, but not any more. People with serious degrees are doing lots of jobs they never thought they would just to make a buck.

I think the link pointing to the wikipedia to talk about the reliability of wikipedia is funny.  :D

rubyroo

« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2012, 09:20 »
0
Humans have inaccuracies and bias, it spreads to everything we create. Wikipedia is no exception, experts are no exception.

Yes exactly, and as you say Wikipedia is relatively new.  A constant work-in-progress.  If people don't already understand that before they use it, they really haven't been paying attention.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2012, 09:21 »
0
I just searched on that guy's name and found this article about him:
Extract:  "Knapp has degrees in philosophy and political science."
Full article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2132526/First-man-hits-MILLION-Wikipedia-edits.html

Well discovered, RubyRoo  ;D

« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2012, 09:33 »
0
Look here's one: "The moon is made of blue, not green, cheese". Who's to stop me writing that?

mmmmm......... cheeeeesse....

rubyroo

« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2012, 09:57 »
0
Thanks Sue, I'm glad to know someone saw that! 

LOL @ Noodle's cheese delight.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2012, 10:03 »
0
I think the link pointing to the wikipedia to talk about the reliability of wikipedia is funny.  :D
Yes, internal referencing was something we learned about very early at university. But at least in the case of that wikipedia article, the links are there for verification or otherwise.
When I had new courses to teach, and I was researching them, I learned very quickly that some 'authoritative' sources had links which were either moribund/non-existent (even when linked to from apparently very new sites) or the links didn't provide the evidence that the 'authority' claimed they did. Sometimes, reading the source through gave the opposite conclusion than the 'authoritative' source had come to. Maybe they hoped that the 'authority' of the link would add gravitas to their own argument, and assumed that no one would bother to actually check.

grafix04

« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2012, 10:19 »
0
I don't think a person's occupation is necessarily any measure of their intelligence.  Sometimes people choose occupations on the basis of time flexibility and minimal stress in order to spend more time living their life as they want to.  But hey, none of us even know this man and judging anyone on their appearance or their occupation is a very narrow thought process.

ETA:

I just searched on that guy's name and found this article about him:

Extract:  "Knapp has degrees in philosophy and political science."

Full article here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2132526/First-man-hits-MILLION-Wikipedia-edits.html


Okay so he's got a philosophy and political science degree.  Out of the 1.1 million articles he's edited, how many were on philosophy and political science?  Again, I didn't judge him because of his occupation, but rather judged him because there's so much inaccurate info on wiki - which leads me to believe he's not doing a very good job or there's no keeping up with the inaccurate information written on there.  I have a beef with wiki (not with the person) because it's messed up and referenced by so many as accurate.  The entire site to me is a waste of time.  The site would be useful only if experts in certain fields were allowed to write those articles which referenced credible sources.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2012, 10:33 »
0
Okay so he's got a philosophy and political science degree.  Out of the 1.1 million articles he's edited, how many were on philosophy and political science?  Again, I didn't judge him because of his occupation, but rather judged him because there's so much inaccurate info on wiki - which leads me to believe he's not doing a very good job or there's no keeping up with the inaccurate information written on there.  I have a beef with wiki (not with the person) because it's messed up and referenced by so many as accurate.  The entire site to me is a waste of time.  The site would be useful only if experts in certain fields were allowed to write those articles which referenced credible sources.
Someone with a degree knows how to research and verify information. That's a transferable skill.
If 'many' reference it blanketly as 'accurate' your beef should be directed at them. A system where people can wiki is what it is.
Experts can be biased and unscientific if they have an axe to grind - else why would you get 'expert witnesses' on opposite sides of court cases?
It's up to the user to evaluate and verify what they read/hear/see anywhere, whether it's on a forum, wikipedia, a government propoganda site, a book, a newspaper (hahahahaha), television etc etc.

« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2012, 10:44 »
0
The fact is that I've come across through inaccurate information in the wikipedia a handful of times, when searching about themes I know. That's the reason why I don't trust wikipedia to learn about themes I don't know almost nothing about.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2012, 10:58 »
0
The fact is that I've come across through inaccurate information in the wikipedia a handful of times, when searching about themes I know. That's the reason why I don't trust wikipedia to learn about themes I don't know almost nothing about.
Fair enough, but using that criterion, I wouldn't read much.
But in fact, I read widely and compare the sources. As I was taught to do, and taught others to do.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2012, 11:45 »
0
Quote
Out of the 1.1 million articles he's edited, how many were on philosophy and political science?  Again, I didn't judge him because of his occupation, but rather judged him because there's so much inaccurate info on wiki - which leads me to believe he's not doing a very good job or there's no keeping up with the inaccurate information written on there.

amazing how this thread is developing. An editor on Wikipedia doesn't write the articles - they are written by thousands of contributors with some knowledge, often detailed, of the subject. An editors job is to make sure that claims are validated, that references are followed up, that articles that are pure fantasy are marked as such, or that articles that lack sufficient factual basis are similarly marked. In no way, do they write 1.1 million articles - it would be stupid to think that they did, in my view...

When are we going to get to the real point - Wikipedia is a left wing plot to remove our freedoms... ;D

Steve

« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2012, 12:29 »
0
What have these (probably very nice, intelligent) people actually done to you directly?  A completely unwarranted attack, as far as I can see.

+ 1 (shall I shave??)

grafix04

« Reply #39 on: July 15, 2012, 12:36 »
0
Quote
Out of the 1.1 million articles he's edited, how many were on philosophy and political science?  Again, I didn't judge him because of his occupation, but rather judged him because there's so much inaccurate info on wiki - which leads me to believe he's not doing a very good job or there's no keeping up with the inaccurate information written on there.

amazing how this thread is developing. An editor on Wikipedia doesn't write the articles - they are written by thousands of contributors with some knowledge, often detailed, of the subject. An editors job is to make sure that claims are validated, that references are followed up, that articles that are pure fantasy are marked as such, or that articles that lack sufficient factual basis are similarly marked. In no way, do they write 1.1 million articles - it would be stupid to think that they did, in my view...

When are we going to get to the real point - Wikipedia is a left wing plot to remove our freedoms... ;D

Steve

Urgh, isn't that what I stated?

« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2012, 12:37 »
0
What have these (probably very nice, intelligent) people actually done to you directly?  A completely unwarranted attack, as far as I can see.

+ 1 (shall I shave??)

+2.  I use everyday Wikipedia to get updated and everything there match with editorials and newspapers.

« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2012, 15:03 »
0
....I use everyday Wikipedia to get updated and everything there match with editorials and newspapers.
Probably why they have so much information that's totally wrong.  The newspapers frequently exaggerate and often make things up.  The only thing I believe is true in newspapers is the cover price.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 15:04 by sharpshot »

« Reply #42 on: July 15, 2012, 16:59 »
0
I don't think a person's occupation is necessarily any measure of their intelligence.  


Well said, just look at GWB as an example.

Or BHO who can't crack an egg without blaming someone else.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 17:02 by Mantis »

antistock

« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2012, 01:52 »
0
why it's so hard for many here to see the light ?

i've worked and dealt in the academia and as much as we can criticize the scientific way to make things work at least if you publish a paper on something it must still be validated by expert doing a peer review, and it must be signed by the authors.

wikipedia is just a dump written by anonymous people and "reviewed" by hobbyists and enthusiasts with no academic backing, no authority in their subject of expertise, no clue about most of what they write or edit and no way for readers to know who's the author and why an article has been deleted or modified by complete strangers without any background relative to the contents they're editing.

everybody knows that and rightfully in academia people laugh about wikipedia.
even the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, thinks exactly like me.

but the sad thing is that now the average users take wikipedia for real and they trust it .. 100% !

these crazy guys editing 1 million articles are probably suffering from a few personality disorders or obsessive compulsive syndromes, it can't be otherwise as they're literally glued to wikipedia 24x7 and earning zero money back while the owner of wikipediaJimmy Wales is a millionaire and laughing all the way to the bank.

so why i'm writing this in a photo forum ? because they start with wikis and one day they will go on with photos as well ! freetardism is not just a wiki or a concept, it's a whole full fledged CULT and it's spreading like wildfire.

secondly these freetard madness infecting the whole web must be stopped and wikipedia is the first culprit, third these guys are a joke and must be exposed for all to see, fourth wikipedia bring a wrong message to its users, people think wikipedia is all for free and bla bla bla , NO wrong 100% it's backed by the millions of dollars of Unesco and their other big sponsors, it's not a charity it's a huge business and they don't pay asingle dime to those who work on it.

and finally, it's not a mistery most of these wiki articles are a rewrite of legitimate articles stolen all around the web and from paper encyclopedias and expensive specialist books.

some of these freetards in the articles even admit they're "porting" to wikipedia many books and stuff they've on paper.
isn't this plagiarism ? is this legal ? once every information in the world will be freely available on wikipedia how will publishers and authors survive ? if for instance it takes a couple month to write a scientific paper which is also only available for a 30$ fee on NCBI who the F are you to steal all the data and write some sh-it article on wikipedia for all to see and without any credit or link to my paper ? this is not fair and it's not even "fair use", it's just "steal, ripoff, and forget".
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 02:00 by antistock »

antistock

« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2012, 01:53 »
0
and by the way,

can't see why suddenly i'm ignored by more than 10 people, if you guys are not up to deal with opposing views you better stick with a blog or with facebook and leave the rest of us discussing in forums, you guys are a sad joke !

« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2012, 03:03 »
0
There's 13 sensible people that are ignoring you.  All your posts are the same.  What can be done to make things change that will actually work?  I like wikipedia.  I'm from an academic background.  It's easy to check references and see what's based on facts and what's been made up.  There's people that believe all the lies they read in the newspapers but nothings been done to stop them publishing.  All the problems with the internet were around before it was invented.  Good luck with your mission to change everything to exactly how you want it, it's a complete waste of time.

antistock

« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2012, 08:18 »
0
There's 13 sensible people that are ignoring you.  All your posts are the same.  What can be done to make things change that will actually work?  I like wikipedia.  I'm from an academic background.  It's easy to check references and see what's based on facts and what's been made up.  There's people that believe all the lies they read in the newspapers but nothings been done to stop them publishing.  All the problems with the internet were around before it was invented.  Good luck with your mission to change everything to exactly how you want it, it's a complete waste of time.

there's not a law forcing newspapers to write the truth or to double check their facts and their sources.
basically, they're only accountable in case of dematation or of going against the journalistic law of conduct.

they never pretended to be a safe and trustable source of information ! that's not their job.

encyclopedias are a whole different matter, they've been invented to be THE source par excellence and to contain articles
that are carefully checked and double checked by experts in their fields.

it's a tragedy that people is playing down the importance of peer review.

with wikipedia anyone can be an expert, but they're still not, and they never will, no matter if they edit 1 million articles, they're just crazy freetards.

EmberMike

« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2012, 08:33 »
0
...can't see why suddenly i'm ignored by more than 10 people, if you guys are not up to deal with opposing views you better stick with a blog or with facebook and leave the rest of us discussing in forums, you guys are a sad joke !

I think most people are all for opposing views, but that's not what you're presenting here. This is just a hateful rant against these writers, followed by a posting of their photos as if we're expected to glare at their images in some mocking sort of way. The term you use to describe them in the topic title isn't exactly helping your argument, either.

If you really want to open a discussion, try doing exactly that. Hold the rants, mockery, and name-calling.

fujiko

« Reply #48 on: July 16, 2012, 09:01 »
0
wikipedia is just a dump written by anonymous people and "reviewed" by hobbyists and enthusiasts with no academic backing, no authority in their subject of expertise, no clue about most of what they write or edit and no way for readers to know who's the author and why an article has been deleted or modified by complete strangers without any background relative to the contents they're editing.

You cannot claim red if green is true.
Either you know who the author is or you don't, and if you don't you cannot claim anything about their background, academic backing, authority.

Are you an expert on wikipedia?

And I'm sorry to tell you that sharing knowledge (or simply sharing anything) is much older than wikipedia or the internet.

Why so much hate?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: July 16, 2012, 09:07 »
0
Why so much hate?
Yup.
@antistock: go take a chill pill.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #50 on: July 16, 2012, 10:05 »
0
I always research the subject I am looking for. Wiki is just the starting point. A person would be foolish not to do the research of sources. Not all information is inaccurate on Wiki. Unless you are an expert in the field then how would you know the correct answer, that's why people do the research and how would you really know the correct answer unless you were the expert. So many search results come up with a google search and many sources vary in their information. It's really subject to interpretation on the researcher's part. How would you know what is correct and what is not?

antistock

« Reply #51 on: July 16, 2012, 12:41 »
0
thanks for your answers but i stand my case.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 12:46 by antistock »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #52 on: July 17, 2012, 04:34 »
0
thanks for your answers but i stand my case.
Which, when the straw men, smoke and mirrors are done away with, seems to be that you think people should not be able to choose to work pro bono. All the rest was just waffle.

antistock

« Reply #53 on: July 17, 2012, 11:01 »
0
thanks for your answers but i stand my case.
Which, when the straw men, smoke and mirrors are done away with, seems to be that you think people should not be able to choose to work pro bono. All the rest was just waffle.

working pro bono and volunteering are a wonderful thing.

but when it becomes an organization recruiting 1000s of unpaid volunteers and making 100s of million dollars $$ on their skin
sorry but that's quite another story.

wikipedia, linux, apache, mysql, wordpress, joomla, just to name a few ... the guys at the top are all rich millionaires, and the ones who wrote the code and the content never got a single dollar back.

that's what the freetard cult is all about, a scam to dupe the gullibles.

antistock

« Reply #54 on: July 17, 2012, 11:04 »
0
the next step is USER generated content.

facebook, flickr, pinterest, IMDB, etc etc etc

they give you a small free something, and once they've millions of users they make millions with advertising, upsells, and paid services.

it's a freemium model, basically the same scam but smarter.

fujiko

« Reply #55 on: July 17, 2012, 14:25 »
0
WOW!

You don't know anything of open source projects or free software, do you?
Saying that linux, apache, mysql or other similar projects are programmed by unpaid volunteers is just plain wrong.

About the other sites you mention, they sometimes fail even if they are free. It's not easy to monetize on user generated content even if you get it for free. Many sites failed and faded away. Even Facebook has trouble monetizing the content.

But really, why do you post your opinion here for free? Some experts and journalists try to earn a living giving their opinion on TV, newspapers, radio, podcasts and many other media. Why are you giving your opinion for free? You are ruining their business giving your opinion for free.

antistock

« Reply #56 on: July 18, 2012, 00:44 »
0
what do i know after all .... i just contributed to a few open source projects years ago.. just to give up quickly realizing it was modern day enslaving, i can tell you how it works, the guy at the top make the money when it's the moment to sell or licence the software to the big boys or to get the fundings from a VC, you the idiot volunteer coder get nothing, not even a thank you and if you complain they will tell you you're greedy and you should not think that way if you believe in freedom and yadda yadda.

thanks god i haven't lost much time on it, i basically needed some more function for some apps i was using already and i said what the F we can as well join their team.

sites with UGC struggle to make profits ? of course because it's junk content, but some still make millions and this is unfair.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #57 on: July 18, 2012, 06:26 »
0
thanks for your answers but i stand my case.
Which, when the straw men, smoke and mirrors are done away with, seems to be that you think people should not be able to choose to work pro bono. All the rest was just waffle.

working pro bono and volunteering are a wonderful thing.

but when it becomes an organization recruiting 1000s of unpaid volunteers and making 100s of million dollars $$ on their skin
sorry but that's quite another story.

wikipedia, [snip] ... the guys at the top are all rich millionaires, and the ones who wrote the code and the content never got a single dollar back.

that's what the freetard cult is all about, a scam to dupe the gullibles.

Would you care to explain how Jimmy Wales is making loads of money directly or indirectly from Wikipedia? (from what I can see, his wealth has been gleaned from other enterprises, but you may have other sources).
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 06:36 by ShadySue »

antistock

« Reply #58 on: July 18, 2012, 07:11 »
0
he first made millions with Bomis Inc. , part of the online porn industry.

secondly he launched NuPedia, a fiasco, then hired Larry Sanger, who is the inventor of wikipedia actually, later fired for ideological reasons, he now runs a peer-reviews clone of wikipedia called Citizendium.

the millions in funding come from Unesco and many other organizations that he managed to lure into supporting wikipedia.

on top of this he periodically begs for donations to his users.

you can find tons of more detailed info about this guy on the web, apart on wikipedia itself as he locked his personal page to downplay his past time in the porn business and his millionaire status and to make him look as a champion of freedom democracy and bla bla bla.


you know why i hate these things ? because i'm so F sick of NGOs and charities and free-something organizations telling us they're free and freedom and bla bla bla bla bla and then they have millions of dollar pouring from their as-s but they treat employees like sh-it, if and when they even pay them actually !

at the very least, it's an ideological scam, the fact there are freetards having done such a massive work for free for many years just show that there's indeed a su-cker born every minute.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 07:22 by antistock »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #59 on: July 18, 2012, 07:54 »
0
Moving away a bit from Wikipedia, things aren't always what they seem. A charity I have a little involvement with is sometimes criticised as being a 'wealthy' charity. At any given point, they do seem 'relatively' wealthy, compared to small local groups. However, their policy is a 'rolling ten weeks' - i.e. they maintain their activities so that they have approximately enough to maintain their work for ten weeks; so if income stopped totally, they'd be defunct after ten weeks.
They have paid staff and volunteers. Arguably too many volunteers, as often unemployed people volunteer to get it on their CV, and they're hardly trained up and they're off to get a different sort of work experience on their CV. Also recently retired people who want to 'do something useful', but either only want to give limited time or want to work flexibly 'as and when' (the paid staff have regular commited hours).

« Reply #60 on: July 18, 2012, 08:32 »
0
Who knows, maybe that pizza guy is an ex professor but judging from the misinformation spread on wiki, I'm leaning towards thinking he's just some uneducated bum delivering pizzas and edits these incorrect articles for free to give some meaning to his uneventful life.


The silver lining is that the Pizza Delivery page on WP is probably rock-solid accurate and a philosophical masterpiece.

Actually, if you read the "talk" page of the Pizza Delivery page... one of the photographs isn't a pizza but a disc of dough with brown soup on it... the article is considered America-centric... and there are disputes over the amount of tipping.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 09:01 by Hummingbird »

antistock

« Reply #61 on: July 18, 2012, 12:15 »
0
Who knows, maybe that pizza guy is an ex professor but judging from the misinformation spread on wiki, I'm leaning towards thinking he's just some uneducated bum delivering pizzas and edits these incorrect articles for free to give some meaning to his uneventful life.


The silver lining is that the Pizza Delivery page on WP is probably rock-solid accurate and a philosophical masterpiece.

Actually, if you read the "talk" page of the Pizza Delivery page... one of the photographs isn't a pizza but a disc of dough with brown soup on it... the article is considered America-centric... and there are disputes over the amount of tipping.


and rightfully so.
the first photo on the top is a real pizza but the one in box in the bottom is a microvawed cake !

it says enough about the value and authority of your free encyclopedia....

oh my god also a photo of Papa John's ... would you believe there's Papa Johns even in Beijing, China and it's as cr-ap as in the US ?

yes it's US-centric .. AS ALWAYS with english web sites by the way, but don't worry we non-anglos will go on with out lives,
it's business as usual.

do you how many yanks i've met claiming that pizza was invented in america ? a LOT !! and go tell them otherwise.
and when in doubt they will tell you to check your facts on ... WIKIPEDIA !! :)

antistock

« Reply #62 on: July 18, 2012, 12:22 »
0
Moving away a bit from Wikipedia, things aren't always what they seem. A charity I have a little involvement with is sometimes criticised as being a 'wealthy' charity. At any given point, they do seem 'relatively' wealthy, compared to small local groups. However, their policy is a 'rolling ten weeks' - i.e. they maintain their activities so that they have approximately enough to maintain their work for ten weeks; so if income stopped totally, they'd be defunct after ten weeks.
They have paid staff and volunteers. Arguably too many volunteers, as often unemployed people volunteer to get it on their CV, and they're hardly trained up and they're off to get a different sort of work experience on their CV. Also recently retired people who want to 'do something useful', but either only want to give limited time or want to work flexibly 'as and when' (the paid staff have regular commited hours).

there are "real" NGOs, and i've nothing against them.

my chip on the shoulder is with the top-10 ones, the ones who make billions per year, the ones setting foot here
in SE asia to make a business OUT OF POVERTY, and yes they're such a sack of sh-it and i can tell you nobody will publish anything
about them and if you manage to get it out they will sue your as-s big time as they did with a few blogs who had the guts to
point a finger at them, piss-ed off ex volunteers etc... all have been shut down and had to to shut the F up.

search any critic about the top-10 on the web and you find what .. not much .. or nothing ...how can  that be considering
they're even making money near where i live with fake orphanages where tourists pay money to get in and make photos and the kids
go back to mama and papa for dinner ????

and this is the TIP of the F iceberg...you've no idea !  no idea !!

antistock

« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2012, 12:33 »
0
NGOs are monetizing poverty.

Pharmacetical multinationals are monetizing illness.

Wikipedia is monetizing "spare time" and volunteering.


they all have a common goal .. making sh-itloads of money on the shoulders of the millions like YOU .. and giving you NOTHING back.

what the F ... i've seen a few super duper hospitals here built by european NGOs .. such a luxury ... and who pays for that ? people who lost a limb because of mines and UXOs ... absolutely pennyless... they give them everything ... and then you ask and they get like 50K or 100K euro per limb ... ?????? and all this tax-free ... and they go in TV asking for donations ... and i see their founder interviewed everywhere, with a long beard, talking like a guru or a pope ...

what ... it's 100K for a plastic prothesys they buy for what ? 5K ? 10K ? .... EU gives them money .. UNesco gives them money ..even the IMF gives them money .. everybody gives them money .. maybe even YOU.

it's all F crazy ... these peasants make 60$/month ... in the city 2-300$ a month ... if highly skilled 5-600$/month ....

and they come here spending like crazy and parking their SUVs in front of the most expensive restaurants and sleeping in the best hotels, the volunteers instead are lucky to stay in a 5$ guesthouse ridden with mosquitoes and eating the local 0.5$ meals !





 

antistock

« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2012, 12:36 »
0
all the suc-kers complaining here have no F idea of what's going on ... wikipedia is just the "end point" of a bigger ideological and political movement.

and it definetely includes ourselves as photographers as their plan is to kill copyright as it's no more useful for their mission.

they hate us, and they just tolerate us because for a while they still need us.

please wake the F up.

EmberMike

« Reply #65 on: July 18, 2012, 12:54 »
0

Wake up to what? What would you propose that we do?

Poncke

« Reply #66 on: July 18, 2012, 13:31 »
0
Jezus tapdancing *, if you can get so worked up over a pizza boy editing wikipedia, I wonder how you respond if you really get ticked off.... holy mother, warn me before you do and I will get my popcorn out.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4768 Views
Last post June 09, 2007, 19:34
by ianhlnd
4 Replies
2451 Views
Last post October 25, 2008, 12:31
by stormchaser
9 Replies
4767 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 12:34
by jm
0 Replies
1938 Views
Last post February 03, 2013, 18:20
by Hannafate
7 Replies
3485 Views
Last post May 14, 2015, 11:45
by Semmick Photo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle