Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales has launched an alternative to Facebook and Twitter
- Thread starter Cal Jeffrey
- Start date
Xclusiveitalian
Posts: 879 +307
Let's wait and see what it turns into... Myspace was once top dog.
gamerk2
Posts: 971 +984
Not according to conservatives, who are against it because it won't push their conspiracy theories, despite their "evidence" in favor.
Granted, Wikipedia's management has made a few major missteps recently which has hurt their organization a bit, but their information is reliable as always.
WT Social has 6 syllables. This will not be helpful. One syllable or 2, max. for best results.
Reading through these comments, it is incredible how many right wingers attack what they know little about. Or what they do know about, shutting down real discussion and making real information inaccessible. These comments are so consistently anti-intellectual. Wikipedia is by no means a left-wing conspiracy. Considering how it is constructed, it's surprising how accurate it is.
Eldritch
Posts: 597 +1,155
Wikipedia is far from perfect but it does allow free editing of articles provided your edits are of good quality and backed by reliable sources.
Now, the problem lies with defining what are reliable sources and of course, it can be abused to some extent by powerful mods.
Further, there are edit wars between users and sometime even mods. And yes, mods abuse their power on wikipedia sometimes to push their views.
BUT
Wikipedia is hell of a lot more transparent then any other media.
You can appeal against mods decisions and can win too. I have seen it happen dozens of times. Mods can be removed if they are caught abusing their power and as every single edit is recorded, its pretty easy to track and catch abusive mods.
Bottomline is that in every single platform there is abuse is power and agenda pushing but only Wikipedia gives users right and tools to actually fight back and win on merits.
Try taking action against mods on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc and see what happens.
Now, the problem lies with defining what are reliable sources and of course, it can be abused to some extent by powerful mods.
Further, there are edit wars between users and sometime even mods. And yes, mods abuse their power on wikipedia sometimes to push their views.
BUT
Wikipedia is hell of a lot more transparent then any other media.
You can appeal against mods decisions and can win too. I have seen it happen dozens of times. Mods can be removed if they are caught abusing their power and as every single edit is recorded, its pretty easy to track and catch abusive mods.
Bottomline is that in every single platform there is abuse is power and agenda pushing but only Wikipedia gives users right and tools to actually fight back and win on merits.
Try taking action against mods on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc and see what happens.
I was just about to post this. Rebranding/renaming will REALLY help the effort. This "WT Social" basically screams "CLUELESS OUT OF TOUCH NERDS WHO HANG OUT WITH MY DAD". Granted, we don';t want to cater to f*ckin' teens and *****s, but SOME marketing chops are needed here.
There is a slowly-shrinking but ever-vocal minority of human beings that are anti-truth and anti-human-progress. Their "Type 1" thought processing (basic instinct, knee-jerk "fear" reactions, etc) are over-developed compared to their "Type 2" thought processing (analytical, statistical, forward-looking).
Republicans, Deplorables, Conservatives, "Christians", etc. are chock-full of such people. If they weren't so vocal and powerful, I'd say they deserve our pity, since their brains are not yet fully "caught up" with the advancement of human civilization. They are scared and angry, and they lash out at everything and everything, including - in the past decade - objective verifiable facts. Even basic MATH is now under attack (I am sure you read that story about the new school laws in Utah... or was that Ohio? One of those flyover states).
Right-wingers are the baggage/anchor holding back the entire human race. Wish we could "amputate", but as WW2 showed us... genocide is rarely the answer ? I personally WISH it was, but I am logical enough to realize it's not.
gamerk2
Posts: 971 +984
Ohio. They're trying to make it so a teacher can't mark an answer wrong if it goes against your "sincerely held religious beliefs", even if the answer is, simply put, wrong.
Yup. Next you'll hear a lawsuit about "1+1 = 5, because Jesus said so".
This won't end well. Honestly, I predict civil unrest next year ahead of the elections (if not outright civil war). We should either arm ourselves, or plan on moving to Canada (if they'll have us).
Yes, that's bad. But don't forget their opponents are rotten as well. In California they want to make people with cancer be force-fed with chemotherapy. They want to make it impossible for people to choose any alternative therapy other than the one making profit for big pharma. If a person has no choice over his life and his treatments, that's equal to women having no choice over giving birth or abortion in religious societies.
Liberals/democrats are pretending to be sticking to science, but whenever they don't like the results of a study, they'll attack it and declare it invalid. Whether it's about racial characteristics or energy sources or gender-related crap. They are full of ****. But their lies are much harder to detect by young people, which makes them a lot more dangerous than religious lies.
gamerk2
Posts: 971 +984
Key point you miss: States are allowed to make decisions for minors if their guardians knowingly are putting them at risk. This has long been upheld by courts. Adults are free to take whatever therapies they want, but they may "not" put their children at risk by forcing crackpot therapies that do not work on them.
Yeah, but the definition of crackpot is where the devil lies. For example, surgery is usually a pretty good way of removing cancer. Chemotherapy SHOULD be the best way, if we were living in a honest society. Unfortunately, we don't. So chemotherapy is nowadays one of the most dangerous things that can be put into your blood.
Many people who have died of cancer have actually died of chemotherapy (if they received more than 12 doses of typical cytostatic drugs). Chemotherapy is not only very dangerous (more dangerous than cancer) but also very expensive. So not only they are killing you, but they are taking your money to kill you. How is that different from armed robbery? Because death by bullet can be instant, while chemotherapy is more like torture. And the pharmaceuticals will also take more money from you than typical robbers.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,596 +5,227
I'd love to see some evidence that chemotherapy is more dangerous than cancer... please provide....
GrinchUtah
Posts: 6 +3
Wales floated Wikipedia as a non-profit almost 20 years ago, saying: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Unfortunately, he decided soon that THAT was no fun. He found that the system was summarizing pop culture and fan material ("fan cruft) in a way that meant the WF non-profit foundation was loosing out on millions of dollars.
So Wales set out to capture that, and make sure the click-bait $ went into his pocket, not Wikipedia and the WF foundation. He started Wikia (do not confuse this for-profit with Wikipedia, even though it uses the same software, and at one point, the same building and servers). On Wikia, which Wales co-owns, they hosted fan-pages, from the Klingon dictionary to Memory Alpha Star Trek, and many others (a Game of Thrones Wiki). Fans were then invited to add. The articles on pop culture now began to suffer as material started disappearing from Wikipedia and reappearing on Wikia. Wales floated the vision that Wikipedia was somehow "not appropriate" for the detailed "fan stuff or fancruft" that went to Wikia. As though Wikipedia had run out of space. In addition, users found that it was easy to post fan-detail on Wikia, but Wikipedia was much less welcoming (and getting worse and worse), as it is patrolled by administrators who are much more likely to revert your content than on Wikia, and (if you persist) block YOU. As for photos of episodes and movies, one found that Wikipedia was terrifically afraid of content "copyright" violations, whereas Wikia was not, assuming that most stuff was "fair use." So that content soon slipped over to Wikia, also. There are long knock-down drag out battles about copyright on and fair use on Wikipedia. Not on Wikia. The legal problem must not be as bad as Wikipedia paints it, eh?
Wales sat on the boards of both Wikimedia Foundation (WF, which hosts Wikipedia) and on Wikia. A clear conflict of interest. But he got away with it.
The social experience of editing Wikipedia is miserable (particularly for subject matter experts and non-full timers). Wales has had 19 years to deal with this problem (which is rather like Lord of the Flies), but since he edits little, and has all the power in edit conflicts, the experience is not the same for him. Plus, he is unable to imagine how it is for others, because he has about as much empathy as Zuckerberg does.
I can't imaging how the social experience of WT will be much better, but Wales' actions with Wikia are not those of a straight-shooter. I can imagine that if WT does well, Wales will encourage some kind of import of the content to Wikia, where he can make money from it, as Zuckerberg does. He's done it before. He is not to be trusted.
So Wales set out to capture that, and make sure the click-bait $ went into his pocket, not Wikipedia and the WF foundation. He started Wikia (do not confuse this for-profit with Wikipedia, even though it uses the same software, and at one point, the same building and servers). On Wikia, which Wales co-owns, they hosted fan-pages, from the Klingon dictionary to Memory Alpha Star Trek, and many others (a Game of Thrones Wiki). Fans were then invited to add. The articles on pop culture now began to suffer as material started disappearing from Wikipedia and reappearing on Wikia. Wales floated the vision that Wikipedia was somehow "not appropriate" for the detailed "fan stuff or fancruft" that went to Wikia. As though Wikipedia had run out of space. In addition, users found that it was easy to post fan-detail on Wikia, but Wikipedia was much less welcoming (and getting worse and worse), as it is patrolled by administrators who are much more likely to revert your content than on Wikia, and (if you persist) block YOU. As for photos of episodes and movies, one found that Wikipedia was terrifically afraid of content "copyright" violations, whereas Wikia was not, assuming that most stuff was "fair use." So that content soon slipped over to Wikia, also. There are long knock-down drag out battles about copyright on and fair use on Wikipedia. Not on Wikia. The legal problem must not be as bad as Wikipedia paints it, eh?
Wales sat on the boards of both Wikimedia Foundation (WF, which hosts Wikipedia) and on Wikia. A clear conflict of interest. But he got away with it.
The social experience of editing Wikipedia is miserable (particularly for subject matter experts and non-full timers). Wales has had 19 years to deal with this problem (which is rather like Lord of the Flies), but since he edits little, and has all the power in edit conflicts, the experience is not the same for him. Plus, he is unable to imagine how it is for others, because he has about as much empathy as Zuckerberg does.
I can't imaging how the social experience of WT will be much better, but Wales' actions with Wikia are not those of a straight-shooter. I can imagine that if WT does well, Wales will encourage some kind of import of the content to Wikia, where he can make money from it, as Zuckerberg does. He's done it before. He is not to be trusted.
GrinchUtah
Posts: 6 +3
You simply cannot make a blanket statement that chemotherapy is more dangerous than cancer. There are plenty of studies showing better survival with chemo than with untreated cancer (such as leukemias where surgery usually has no place). Many of these are even randomized. The survival rate of leukemias without chemo is very close to zero. With chemo it's about 60%. So which do you choose?
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322990.php
OK so I'm not expert, nor am I a doctor. However I read many science journals, some of then medical in nature. My understanding is: depending on the TYPE and AGGRESSIVENESS of the cancer, chemotherapy CAN often be worse than just letting the patient die. It's really the doctors' technical decision usually, but they still inform patients of the risks... it might work, it might not, the cancer might go into remission, it might come back sooner or later, the chemo might flat out kill that person... etc. There are many variables.
However one thing is certain beyond any scientific doubt: those chemicals are literally and intentionally, poisonous. It's the nature of the treatment. Poison the body in hopes that it kills all the cancer cells while leaving the body enough healthy cells/systems to repair and regenerate naturally.
Chemotherapy is - at least SHOULD be - considered the Last Resort.
Full disclosure: I lost my mother to brain cancer in 2005, even after 3 months of chemotherapy. It's painful to watch a parent slip away in such an undignified and painful manner, and I still get emotionally wrecked those memories come back.
So anyway.. with regards to what @Markoni35 said... he's technically correct. That is, from a certain point of view: if we read his comment without the tinge of "absolute-ism". This issue, much like the human body, is complicated and nuanced.
GrinchUtah
Posts: 6 +3
Why? Truth in advertising. The WT "moderation" (which WP calls administration) will be by exactly this same group of clueless anonymous nerds in basements that does the job on WP. They're the only ones who have time for it (as volunteers), and as they rise in power they really enjoy lording it over professors and professionals on WP. It's not going to be pleasant.
You speak in absolutes, which is not conducive to civil discourse... but AFAIK, there is some truth in your comments. I think we all agree that chemotherapy is basically semi-targeted poisoning of a human body. I think we can all agree on THAT, at least.
People should be empowered to educate themselves and make their own decisions. Personally, if I had terminal cancer, or even just really advanced cancer... I'd rather get into Pain Management and Salvage The Time I Have Left, than subject myself to literal poison-based torture.
You might have a point. What does "WT" stand for, anyway? I might have missed that and I am too tired to go back and re-read the article, haha
This stuff just keeps popping up elsewhere.
freebeacon.com
Wikipedia's Anti-Israel Editors Unmasked
A pro-Israel organization has exposed the identities of top Wikipedia editors who use the online encyclopedia to promote anti-Israel bias and causes.
freebeacon.com
GrinchUtah
Posts: 6 +3
The main "nuance" is that oncologists are guilty of using chemo "palliatively" in people that have no chance of cure, but rather the chemo is being used to lengthen life, with the understanding that a patient might get a few extra months, or even years. Sometimes this isn't explained well.
If chemo is "indicated" for a given cancer at a given stage, that means the FDA has recognized the indication, based on some trial where the chemo was actually used on patients with that cancer and that stage, and either more people were cured in the treatment group, or else the treatment group lived longer. Occasionally there is a quality of life problem where the chemo group lives longer (perhaps only months longer) but is more ill. So is it worth it? Oncologists have been criticized for not going through this with patients. Especially in the bad old days when oncologists often actually made a cut on administering chemo, which the FDA allowed them (a bit like veterinarians) to supplement their incomes. That can't lead to totally dispassionate recommendations.
Other nuances are that "chemo" has many definitions. It can means "cytotoxic chemo" where cells really are being poisoned. Or it can mean any chemical cancer therapy, including antibodies and tyrosine kinase drugs and various other things which can be quite benign. Even harder is the fact that oncologists are getting better using even the cytotoxics with fewer side effects. For example if you have stage III colon cancer you will get 5-FU with a 2-day portable infusor, which hardly has any side effect at all. No hair loss, no diarrhea, and you probably won't notice any blood changes. So it's not feared the way the old chemo drugs like adriamycin are feared.
GrinchUtah
Posts: 6 +3
WT was the WikiTribute part of WP (Wikipedia). Formerly used for announcements (Tribune = newspaper) and some other in-house social functions.
Huh. OK. Awfully catchy ?
Now, I didn't fact-check all those things you posted, but they sound about right. See, these are the kind of nuanced data/information that needs to be more widespread. Not just "chemo bad" or "chemo good", as MainStream Media often does with their sound bytes, or that well-meaning folks like @Markoni35 make it seem. The human body is complicated, and human medical science-tech isn't Quiet There Yet to make definitive statements one way or another.
Sadly, I doubt any of us here will live long enough to see mankind conquer the various forms of cancers...
Similar threads
