the constant begging for money is just pathetic.
I cannot agree more. This begging also really pisses me very much. (And they keep on begging even when you made a donation; every rose seller ain't that annoying.) (And some other minor points about wikipedia, like changing its look and feel, also I don't like, but I will not stress here.)
If they were short on money I had full understanding for it. But they are not. And the authors writing the articles, delivering the content, the value, doing it almost all always completely for free. While the money stays in the foundation, which is hoarding way more than is needed to maintenence the infrastructure.
That is a real nuisance. Yes.
It was like the FreeBSD foundation sat on billions of $$$, while >95% of the developers still work for free, and every end of the year they start a hardwarming whinig they were starving to death, if you don't donate.
In my eyes an absolute no go.
I fully agree.
But don't mix up, or even confuse things.
This has nothing to do with the other points, neither with free speech or censoreship, nor the quality of the articles.
If you have no standards for quality and integrity
I do have. And Wikipedia is by far the best encyclopedia I ever experienced.
Before "the internet" encyclopedias have been available as books only.
In Germany there is ("was") the
"Brockhaus", the german version of the famous
"Encyclopædia Britannica" - AFAIK the best encyclopaedia you can have in form of books. My parents had the second best: the
"Bertelsmann Lexikothek" - and I guess every other country had it's own similar one.
Those were anything but cheap. I don't know, so don't nail me on that, but the
Brockhaus - complete, of course; where is the use in only having volume "W-Z"? - cost something over 6000,-DM (before the €), while the lot smaller
Bertelsmann also already came to 2000,- (As I said: not knowing the real values anymore, but for sure nothing a middle class citizen just bought casually like the paperback novel for the weekend vacation.)
You see, those things were not updated, but outdated in no time. Of course the publishers bring out new, reviewed versions, and for the Brockhaus there were (are?) erratas - but of course only rich people and libraries could afford to buy a new edition every year.
Since I was a kid I
love to read in lexica. Not a single day goes by I don't read at leat the articles on Wikipedias main page. And I quickly can find myself lost in reading an article about some civilization in Africa while I just wanted to look something up quickly about beans...
So, let us take a closer look and compare:
If you compare the articles of Wikipedia to
any encyclopedia in book form, one major core difference just jumps directly to the eyes: The articles are longer -
way longer, many times more information about a topic than in any book.
Beancounters prevention: Even if I highly doubt it, you may dig deep and may find the single one article which is shorter as in a special picked lexicon. (And Wikipedia ain't not in all languages that comprehensive, wide-ranging, and elaborated as it is in english, or german.) But this will not contradict my point that in >99.9% it is way better than any book version of any encyclopedia I ever experienced: (way) more articles on (way) more keywords, with (way) longer, and (way) better elaborated articles.
And it's for free.
Still, after twenty(?) years without advertiments.
I bet Elon's pedia will present you ads when there are some hundertthousand's users, or so. "Because it needs to be payed somehow", this 'alturistic ensuremnt of free speach.' (While the content was stolen in the first place. Elon would already sue grokipedia if Wikipedia was his.)
While at the same time it's not errorless. Of course not. Because it simply cannot. Impossible. Everybody with some scientific backgound knows that.
But let us continue the closer look:
Additionally in many articles there are a different views respected. Not seldom you find parts saying "this is what the majority agrees on, while others contradicting, saying...", or "this is what the current situation in research looks like, while there still is not enough progress to have a final conclusion" etc.
You don't find that in any other encyclopedia.
Additionally sources are cited, with links to books, papers, or websites (this 404 crap we know since the very dawn of the www. But that's a technical issue about how the net works, and not Wikipedia's fault per se.) In bookform encyclopedias those are very rare, most of the times not even existing. In a
Brockhaus, Bertelsmann, Brittanica,... you simply have to swallow what is presented you, and what of course was reviewed by fewer people than Wikipedia, people with an opinion of their own, of course.
If you get the chance to read in some encyclopedia published before 1989 pick some articles about the Sovjet Union, or Warsaw Pact states, and filter the undertone of how stupid, and bad they were, and how great, and good "we" were. Don't get me wrong: I'm for sure not pro this soviet crap: I just wanted to give an example those for sure were not written neutral.
And that's the point: One cannot be 100% neutral. The closest you may come to it is with an open community.
(just read Grokipedia's Terms of Service, and above all the Privacy Policy and see what and who you're dealing with. "Free Speach"? I highly doubt that.)
An encyclopedia has to be written as objective, and neutral as possible. You can observe that at the news articles on Wikipedia's main page, when something currently happened that brings up emotions - some desaster, a turn of event in a war, or the death of a person who strongly polarized.
What happens most, what maybe could be named as "censorship", is adjectives, adverbs, attributes are deleted, or corrected, because "he was a nice guy, it's a pity he died so early" or "a terrible thing happened to the poor people" have no place in an encyclopedia; "he was a guy. he died", "a thing happened" Period
That's not censorship. That's the attempt to gain objectivity. That's trying to be as neutral, and scientific as possible. Assessments, valuation, standings, ratings don't belong there by defaults, and have to be examined very closely to free just the knowledge they may contain from any opinion, or at least produce a differanted view.
Wikipedia does this, or to be more correct, the authors and reviewers of an article trying to do so, while of course there are also different opinions on what is an important fact, and what is just a personal opinion, while at the same time dealing with people not discriminating facts from opinions at all.
It's hard, and sometimes simply impossible to write anything in natural language completely objective - humans are not objective beings - at least one has to try to get as close to it as possible. But not everbody even tries. And the best way to get objectivity is to include more people. Under the condition anybody involved tries to be as objective as possible, respects others, can differ between an opinion and knowledge, and can live with it, when somebody else brings up some fact which contradicts the own opinion.
Changing the own opinion, admitting oneself was wrong, and the other was right, is one of the hardest things to do in today's society, because everybody is worried to make a mistake, and feel anxious about the vultures just waiting to fall over somebody made a mistake, dragging this "moron" into public, so everybody else can see:"Here, look at this imbecile!" Those think that makes themselves better. It rises them by pointing at lower ones. No. Wrong. Lowering others don't rise anybody. Only rising yourself by your own results do.
There is a term for such people: Narcissists (one may also say asshole, or idiot.)
I don't respect nobody who points out somebody made a mistake, naming him or her because of that an idiot. But I actually do have a very large respect for anybody who openly admits a mistake.
You need real guts to do so. Pointing at others ain't brave, but cowardly. And only who admits mistakes can correct them. Ignoring errors is neglecting errors, is just ignorant; no improvement, no progress can come from that whatsoever.
Every programmer knows: Not writing errorless code improves your skills as a programmer. Also finding, and pointing them out won't. Only correcting errors does.
For that you first have to admit, it's an error you made, and not to insist on your shit works while it's not.
Idiots are not people doing mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. Idiots are people not admitting mistakes, not even trying to correct it, so repeating the same error over and over again.
What's wanted in an encyclopedia is knowledge, facts, not opinions. Finding the real truth maybe a mission impossible, but if there is any way at all to get there at least as close as possible to it, then it's to separate facts from opinions, collect the knowledge, and not to push through personal opinions.
Not being accepted to do that some feel they were limited in their free speach, while they simply don't understand the difference between an opinion to be pushed through, and the way to get to the objective truth, or to say it in other words, are not capable of having a discussion in a scientific way (even if they believe they were, and accuse the others were not.)
Additionally all articles in Wikipedia are written by more than one author, or at least reviewed, corrected, and improved by more than one. Anybody not only has the possibility, but is asked for to help improving them. All you need is to register with some email address. You cannot gain more freedom, democracy, free will, free speach than this way of let everybody spreaks freely. But this also includes, that those who want others not to speak at all, also are not allowed to speak, and let others speak. If you let those speak, who want only their authority heard, and so everybody else then has to shut up, this will be the end of free speach.
So, of course every change is reviewed by others before it's published. That's not only guarantees free speach to continue, but that's exactly how you get quality: Let some others review what you produced, and have it tested independently before it's released.
Of course it does not feel good, if some one else tells you, what you produced is not sufficient enough, needs to be corrected, has a bug, or even is completely wrong. But that's something you have to deal with personally yourself.
Because it came to this in the first place, because of you were not critical enough yourself about your own work. And you have to see that's okay. Nobody is. And besides that, nobody sees everything. That's why humans don't live as animals anymore, because they work together as a team - they correct each other, teach each other, learn from each other, help each other, prevent each other from doing mistakes. Yes, that's kind of interfering in each other's lifes. But it's a question how it's dealt with it, if this "interference" is done with respect, with love, was it called for, needed. Some things are uncalled for, but looking back were good thing. Like somebody pulls you back on the sidewalk, so you did not run into the truck, that otherwise run you over. And there are still people reacting pissed for having their lifes saved. Next time I will let them run into the truck.
Worst thing was if everybody acts for his own, but not allowing anybody to interfere, and the majority accepts that. That's exactly how dictatorships originate from, and at the same time why those are always doomed to fail. Because no one is capable of doing it all alone by itself, and needed to be corrected. Everbody ever learned the core fundamental basics of control engineering knows: Any not corrected system will sooner or late fail. Physical axiom.
On the other hand it feels pretty good when others you respect their expertise, tell you:"Good job!"
It was inconsistent if you don't want to listen to anything teaching you, but at the same time you want recognition. It's a package deal. One cannot have only one, and then expect it had any value without the other.
Imagine some idiots change the article about Hitler was a nice guy (and there still are not a few who really think that. Who wants to make room for that? We had it. Who with more than five actively self used brain cells wants to repeat that? Which also means the end of free speach, so it's not preserving it), and you have to take that back several times a day again, and those write it again - this ain't not freedom of speach. That's no freedom at all. That's worse than just being crap, only.
Imagine I had the possibility to edit, or delete
your posts - free speach! - because I feel they limit my freedom.
Imagine anybody could write anything here, edit, or delete any post or thread, without registration, or moderator. This whole forums would drown in some complete useless shit within hours. Chaos!
Imagine what if anybody in the world could freely tinker with the code of the projects you're working on. And all were allowed to commit, and release. Would this improve quality? Would you feel like there is more freedom this way, or less?
So, we have to agree on rules are needed.
I agree, anarchy was the best form we could have for our society - in theory. But it's an utopia. It could only work if everybody always and in every situation respects everybody else. To respect others are not written rules, but nonetheless rules. If there is just one single occasion when one is not playing by the rules exactly, the system fails. Our society is full of benders, who think they are smart when they find a way to not stick to the rules, but just find a clever excuse. That's exactly why we have so long, and tedious to read, complicated eleborated legal texts, and many lawyers. Because of that exactly. "You shalt not kill." It does not take a split second for at least one come up with "Yeah, but it depends on..."
It needs just one individual in an anarchy is not fully respecting a single other person in full, the chain is broken, and whole system fails. That was the end of any civilization, brings us back to be animals again, because all what in chaos counts is physical strength. Not the one with the best points, solutions, truth,... wins, but the one who shoots first (we do have weapons, so no, not the strongest wins.)
You don't gain more freedom of speach if everybody talks at the same time. All you get is a loud noise, and nothing was talked at all.
Rules limit the freedom of the individual, yes, but for to gain way more freedom for everybody - including the individual.
Of course Elon is for 'free speach.' For his own, only. He wants to say everything he likes, and not being critizised for anything he says. Everybody else has to listen quietely to what he says, not interrupting him, and above all, not contradict but agree to him, or at least keep the mouth shut. This, if even, can only be freedom of speach if he grants everybody else the same right. But that's exactly what he is not doing. He forbids everybody to talk who not agrees with him, or at least he tries.
That has nothing to do with freedom of speach at all. That's egosim.
I wasn't astonished at all that his president kicked him out. I was astonished it came so quickly. I really thought they were more professional and last longer together. That's a good example for what happens when two of this kind are confronted to each other. Two who claim they stand for free speach, while actually all they mean with that is they are not limited in their own speach. When those talk of 'free speach' all they actually demand is nobody is allowed to contradict them. Donald not only produces bullshit faster as any bull can shit, but he also contradicts himself constantly. And if somebody just points that out, he claims for himself his right of free speach. And if somebody dares to contradict a house blows up. That's just a very special kind of freedom I only new from states which are not rated as democracies (by others, not themselves.) As long as both of such kind have enough distance to each other, they also have lots of 'respect' for each other. But put them together in one room, and bring up one point they don't fully agree on, and see what happens when both are deeply convinced the other just has to listen quietly and to agree, but is not allowed to contradict. You can call it luck, when both leave the room unharmed.
That's has nothing to do with freedom of speach at all. That's called narcissism.
The majority of people in today's society believe freedom is they themselves are allowed to do, and say anything, what they want. And if anybody objects, that limits their freedom. At the same time they have very strict ideas how everybody else have to behave. They don't want to be confronted with other opinions, ideas, lifestyles, and above all nothing that could make them to change their own opinion, to reconsider something, or even think at all. They want everybody sees it the same way as they do, not seeing any contradiction in that.
That's why they vote parties, and for people promising them this will be the case, while not seeing, even ignoring, that's just simply impossible, and those they vote for are also just egoists.
They don't want be disturbed by their neighbour's motorcycle roaring in the night. But if their leaf blower roars on an early sunday morning, then this is their right, their freedom to do so.
This cannot work.
Our modern society confuses individualism with egoism.
And now trying to justify this error by spurious arguments about freedom. Which it is not. Simply no. Wrong!
(If you want to contradict, start reading at the top again.
)
Freedom is not, you can do what you want.
Freedom is to not do what you don't want.
[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]
And that's the same as:
Freedom is not telling others what to do. (Which is not the same as objecting to others telling you to not do something - but that starts to go into philosophical details.)
The personal freedom ends where other's begin.
Example from the very beginning of civilization:
I don't like you, so I wanna kill you. But naturally you don't wanna be killed.
Killing you limits your freedom. Not killing you limits mine.
Now what?
What about I surrender a smaller part of my freedom, to gain you more of yours, and not killing you.
There may come the day we forget about our argument, maybe even start to like each other, looking back laughing about how stupid we were, even if we don't agree in every single point:
I find it's the most stupid crap to do config files in XML. You disagree, and have good points why XML for some things are actually useful. I still disagree. But I not only tolerate your point of view, not trying to urge you into mine, because I'm aware of maybe some day one of us - you, or me - may change his point of view. Or you will help me. And even if not, we still can share the same laughs about other things, we fully agree on.
So it was stupid to kill you - even for me.
My personal rule for life is:
Do what you want, as long as you don't obtrude other's your will.
Or one may also say what Kant named the
Categorical imperativ
Sorry, for this long post, but maybe put some perspective into this thread.
