A babe you would have found on Wikipedia President Jimmy Wales’ former porn site.
Wired News has published a pretty funny “FAQK” which pretty much sums up my feelings about Wikipedia:
What is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is a new paradigm in human discourse. It’s a place where anyone with a browser can go, pick a subject that interests them, and without even logging in, start an argument. In fact, Wikipedia is the largest and most comprehensive collection of arguments in human history, incorporating spats and vendettas on subjects ranging from Suleiman the Magnificent to Dan the Automator. As an unexpected side effect of being the perfect argument space, it’s also a pretty good place to find information about all the characters from Battlestar: Galactica.
And my favorite!
But why should I contribute to an article? I’m no expert.
That’s fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: “Experts are scum.” For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War — and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge — get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.
PEDRO >>Part of that agenda is to dismiss anyone who has a clue on a subject.
Yours is a common sentiment here. I remember that several people said this the last time Wiki came up on this blog.
But, I have to say, this hasn’t been my experience on Wiki. Maybe I hang around in the obscure corners of wiki or maybe I don’t hang around enough since I sort of dabble.
But, anyway, on the pages I’ve worked on, everybody seemed pretty civil.
This guy says I look like Gaius Baltar from Battlestar: Galactica. Does that mean I should be in Wikipedia?
well I think its great no need to buy stupid large stacks of enclypedias now just get it off wiki and ive never been burned by it
A story about Wikipedia and SN brings up the now extict porn site of founder Jimmy Wales.
SHOCKING
“A story about Wikipedia and SN brings up the now extict porn site of founder Jimmy Wales.”
Like I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong about having a porn site. However, it shows that Wales is willing to make a quick buck when the opportunity arises. Thus, don’t be surprised when he tries to make a quick buck off all the hard work Wikipedia users have done either by selling it or using ads.
Wales can pretend to be all high and mighty now, but in my mind he’ll always be a money grabbing pornographer. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course! 😉
Yeah, I saw those sword wielding skeletons on TV. They were fighting some dude named Jason. You go Randy from Boise. Don’t let those stuck up Phd’s from Stanford, or Oxford, or one of the other fords, run over the little guy. Don’t forget to include any information from Xena, because we know that anything that was learned watching Xena must be righteous. After all they named a planet after her.
Speaking of planets. Why would they name a planet after your butt-hole? I mean really, Uranus. It would have been better if they named it something like, I don’t know. How about George?
you know… I keep seeing the same old digs at Wikipedia, all of which are generally exagerated (or in some cases completely wrong). I’ve never seen much backup to the claims, and usually it comes from people that don’t use or contribute to wikis.
Basically its the same as that crazy Harry Potter banning lady.
SN, it would be suprising if he tries to make a quick buck from all the hard work that Wikipedia users have done…since he can’t sell it.
“The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.”
It’s all under the GNU Free Documentation License. I mean, you DID know this didn’t you SN? Or did you really think that Wales could just take all the content and all of a sudden make it a pay site? So there’s really nothing stopping someone else from taking all the content of Wikipedia and making an exact same site and calling it SNpedia and continue on. So Wales “could” sell the Wikipedia.org domain if he wanted and big business could come in and take over the site….but you can bet someone else will step up and just make another site using the content under free reign of the license.
“Wales can pretend to be all high and mighty now, but in my mind he’ll always be a money grabbing pornographer. ”
That’s great. So no matter what someone tries to do with their life to try and turn it around, they should always be judged on their past. They should never, ever be forgiven for anything, even if what they did was a perfectly legit business.
Thanks for pushing your morality on us. And that’s exactly what you’re doing. Porn is a legit business on the web. What Wales did in the past was legal, was not immoral and he made money off of it. Good for him! You have an obvious problem with pornography, so you “try” to lash out in a blunted way only fail when someone calls you on it. Keep your outdated morals to yourself please.
Wiki is great for browsing and some subjects, but to throw out your encylopedias to rely on wiki isn’t a smart thing to do.
“Or did you really think that Wales could just take all the content and all of a sudden make it a pay site?”
What’s stopping the owners of Wikipedia from doing that?! Copyleft?! That’s not a government granted monopoly of any sort. The GNU?! Do you really think some guy from Boise has standing to sue for the work he did on Wikipedia? Nope.
The fun thing about licenses is that its perfectly legal to change them. All software companies change their licenses to suit their needs. And there is nothing under the law forbiding the owners of Wikipedia from dropping its present license and implimenting something new.
You’re living in a fantasy world if you think either Copyleft or the “GNU Free Documentation License” gives you any standing to sue on behalf of the work you did on Wikipedia.
“That’s great. So no matter what someone tries to do with their life to try and turn it around, they should always be judged on their past.”
No, you don’t get my point. My point is that Wales has not changed and the whole point of Wikipedia is a scam to make money off other people’s work.
“Thanks for pushing your morality on us.”
God, I never pushed anything on you. The last time I checked I was not dragging you over to your computer, forcing you to type dvorak.org/blog into your browser, then holding your eyes open while you read the blog with a gun to your head. You’re here on your own free will, and if you don’t like it, simply stop coming. Is that so hard?!
“Porn is a legit business on the web. “
And that’s exactly why I said “there’s nothing wrong about having a porn site.”
“Keep your outdated morals to yourself please.”
You should really learn how to use a browser. When you come across a site that contradicts your small world view, you should really learn how to close your browser.
“No, you don’t get my point. My point is that Wales has not changed and the whole point of Wikipedia is a scam to make money off other people’s work.”
Your proof of this is….what? Where’s the money being made? Where is anything, anywhere that says that Wales is going to sell it off and make money? Legit sources ok, not someone speculation on a blog.
“And that’s exactly why I said “there’s nothing wrong about having a porn site.”
So why this snide comment of “in my mind he’ll always be a money grabbing pornographer”?
“You should really learn how to use a browser. When you come across a site that contradicts your small world view, you should really learn how to close your browser.”
It’s not the site. I like John. I like John a lot, and we go way back. But it’s your so far unwarranted vendetta against Jimmy Wales that I don’t understand. It’s like you’re going out of your way to bring him down. And for no good reason. Only with “he may turn it into a pay site”. Also, you don’t seem to get the whole copy-left thing either. Let’s say that Wales does close down Wikipedia or makes it a pay-only site. So what? All the content, every last piece, can be put on any other free site with no problems at all. Wales might want to take that to court, but seeing that there is the EFF and the GNU foundation (and the rest of the geek world) that would be all over him if he tried to break the licence, good luck to him. Groklaw would need a whole new section for that one. And no, it wouldn’t be a individual from Boise suing for the things he wrote. It would be a huge case, probably a precedent setting case to test the bounds of the GPL. Also, if he were to change the licence, that could only effect future content and not past content that was written under the old licence. Oh, also, Jimmy Wales doesn’t own Wikipedia. I’d like to know where you came up with that gem of an idea.
If you really think he could just take it all and do with it what he wants, you’re yourself living in a fantasy world. Perhaps you should do a little more research on this matter. Or better yet, ask a copyright lawyer. But I doubt you will. You think you’re absolutely right about this, and everyone else is absolutely wrong, so trying to explain things to you will fall on deaf ears I’m afraid.
But hey, good times right?
Well, dare I say, I do think you may have achieved PWNED!!!!
I think that everyone is taking this too seriously. I say, seculation is great, and even if there might be some negitave turn- around for Wikipedia, deal with it when it comes. So far, they seem to be the good guys, although they are accurate on things that don’t matter, we always have other sites for things that do. Personally, I don’t use wiki much, and if it has dissappeared, I wouldn’t notice for a while. So what’s the fuss?
It’s called sharing knowledge as long as its knowledge your looking for and not a political opinion, whether it be science knowledge or a history of wierd science the movie, nobody likes knowledge is free, thats the fuss.