His name was Cowicide… 
3 Likes
I must have missed something VERY interesting.
5 Likes
Not really: someone got a 10 day suspension in another thread for not being able to “chill”; someone created a new account to post in this thread; someone got their suspension extended for their trouble.
3 Likes
and some of the people all of the time
1 Like
I’ll miss you, and you know it.
7 Likes
I don’t wanna get too OT, but it’s sad to see a long-time member flameout.
Here’s hoping he cools and apologizes to one or two people.
2 Likes
Presumably, this is just someone at Garvey Schubert Barer being an idiot, and that idiot should be fired.
Indeed, this is such a reasonable presumption, for all the “facepalm”-y reasons you list, that it perhaps should be reflected in the headline and lede, rather than tacked on in the seventh and final paragraph.
2 Likes
Well, the important thing is that you got the chance to be smug about it.
3 Likes
I wrote quite a lot there. It’s about referencing the sources, and about taking a look at the referenced sources if you really need the data to be reliable.
I also work with it fairly routinely. The technical data are pretty much reliable. As a first-stop source it is hard to beat.
It is also a perfect notebook to make certain kinds of notes.
Edit: Also, it quite often happens that entire articles or their major parts are lifted wholesale and printed by a major publisher. I have some stuff I wrote in “Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds” and quite major parts of Frances Metzger’s “Failure Modes of Electronics”; the extent of my work in the latter surprised me and I admit it is quite a vanity boost. Maybe I should write something myself…
3 Likes
No value whatsoever? Well, you and the rest of us are reading an article and posting a reply about Bernie Sanders and his team because of this. They are channeling the Streisand effect (orchestra: dan-dun-DUUNN!)
(pause)
Naah. I don’t believe it myself. They are never that clever. I bet it is some utter jobsworth sticking to the letter of his job description. He or she doesn’t have to be a Trumpista to do that sort of thing.
1 Like
Well, that would certainly explain why Sanders’ campaign is so underreported…
1 Like
Unfortunately, not everyone intends to stick to empirical facts, do careful and unbiased research, and the rest of what the ideal contributor to Wikipedia should always be doing. I’ve seen the egregious errors, the information gaps and worse. I’m sure some writers care. In any case, Wikipedia is still not a consistently reliable source of good information. It may, however, be a starting point for some research.
Did you correct the errors? Or at least try?
Depends for the cutoff. The reliability threshold has to be specified to validate this statement, as no source is 100% reliable. I saw some ancient comparison against Encyclopedia Britannica, which was quite favorable.
No source should go unverified, if the information is life-important. I saw errors in uni textbooks. In wikipedia there’s at least the talk page where one can ask for more details (and usually not get any answer, but anyway…).
As I understand it, campaign material such as logos are part of a candidate or party’s public discourse. Many of its uses fall under fair use, and misuse of it may fall under trademark laws, not copyright.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
