The Jurist wrote:Thought that you Marxist Monkeys would like to see some intellect from the "right" side of the fence.
This book
http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadge ... 0307269647 was written by one of the computer scientists whom was aboard the research and development "team" of the internet, or the embryonic stages of the IT technologies,"team" for lack of another term, as there was no such thing as the internet yet. Hmmmm, maybe the "internet" should not be included on wiki because at one time it was not "recognized", hell it did not even exist.
Does anyone have any idea who (or what) Bork is quoting here? It's not from a review on Amazon, and it's not from any of the discussions on Wikipedia, so what is it and where did it come from?
Bork seems to expect us to accept it as from "some intellect," but where is the evidence of intellect? A low level of errors in spelling and grammar?
The first paragraph, quoted above, posits something that is inherently absurd, which is that a fact cannot be treated as "recognized" if it was unknown at some point in time. So the fact that the earth is one of many planets cannot be included in Wikipedia because that fact was not known before Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus? And Wikipedia cannot include anything about airplanes because there was a time that airplanes didn't exist?
The author seems to be "projecting." He/she/it is certain of Absolute Truth, and so therefore Wikipedia must be certain of Absolute Truth and can be mocked because it's view of Absolute Truth is different from the author's.
some intellect wrote:Anyway...this book is somewhat damming of the contemporary "version" of the internet. And specifically condemns Wiki. What we have today as the "internet" is described in this book, to me, to be not unlike what American government has devolved to, a "hive mind" or mob, tyranny of the minority. A...democracy. A democracy of an oligarchy of "intellectuals" who know better than the "average" man what that man "needs", including...information. You see to these types, their livelihood is predicated upon the fact that the rest of us continue to "believe" the world is flat.
This is largely incoherent. What the hell is a "democracy of an oligarchy"? And in what way has the Internet, Wikipedia, or the American government become a "tyranny of the minority"?
There are obviously some noises here that Bork likes, but that's all they are, which is noises.
some intellect wrote:Think about the entire premise of Wiki; they only acknowledge "known" or "verifiable" information?
Well duh, that's pretty much what an encyclopedia does, which is collect facts. Not opinions or view or speculations or unproven theories, but facts.
So Wikipedia is being criticized for doing what it has clearly stated is what it wants to do.
some intellect wrote:Well whom is on the "panel" of verifiers, but in the instance of the State National article, attorneys?
Whom? But? And doesn't this "question" seem to try to answer itself?
Eliminating the noise words and the interjections, we're left with the rhetorical question, "Who is on the panel of verifiers but attorneys?"
Okay, there are attorneys reviewing articles about law. So what?
some intellect wrote:The ideologies of "credibility" are in question and this experience may lead to the shooting of the foot by our naivety in believing the people of wiki are anything other than a bunch of busy little maintainer bees in all their magnanimous intellect.
WOW! That's what I call incoherent.
Why are the "ideologies of credibility" in question? What is "this experience" and why might it lead to "the shooting of the foot"? How does "naivety" [sic] lead to "shooting of the foot"? Who believes anything about "the people of wiki"? "Busy little maintainer bees"? What does that mean? And "the people of wiki" have a "magnanimous intellect"? Isn't that a good thing?
It's the voice of an idiot, full of sound and fury.