Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: VO, Perhaps they need a centrally administered site across the web, some kind of extra-national thing providing bona-fides for web interactions. One would register with conventional documents such as drivers license, passport etc. and you'd log on to it (some generated bit string unique to oneself) before doing any secured site surfing to say you are currently on the net, the secured site would then quiz it to find out who you were no matter what the moniker? Just a guess without thinking things through. A sort of centralised repository of names, webs, computer serial numbers etc. If you don't sign up, you don't play. Um ... wouldn't this make identity theft awfully easy? How would you feed it the generated bit string? If it's secure, it's too long to type by hand, and a program would have to do it for you. Now suppose your system picks up a Trojan horse that just knows how to sniff for those bit strings ... oops. Even worse, assume for a moment that the central system's security isn't perfect, and somebody makes off with a snapshot of the database... Also keep in mind that every real-world financial database which requires an ID of some sort also has a back door, because losing the key could be a disaster otherwise. Mother's maiden name plus last four digits of your SS number is the most common one. So, if someone got a copy of the central database, they could get into all the accounts using the back doors, whether or not there was a whizzbang public/private key supposedly keeping it all buttoned up. Central identity databases of any sort are scary. That's one reason states and colleges don't (or can't) generally force you to use your SS number as your driver or student ID number. Sleepy and dozy at the moment so point the flaws out please. Might be back Tuesday. Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Beaty Sent: 17 December 2005 04:11 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote: At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for confirmations. Then you have to search for a free email service which the forum owners haven't added to their exclude list. Sometimes they ban fee-for-service email addresses like PObox, as well. And then I ban them and take my money elsewhere.
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Gosh Bill, Now I feel bad for using a free email and online handle. What's in a name? Is a long-used handle any more or less informative than the name your parents gave you? A family name tells where you came from. A nickname tells what your friends think about you. A Nom de Cyber tells what you feel about yourself. I go by Merlyn because thats simply the way I think of myself. My real name (for those interested) is Adam Thomas Cox, and I'm from Wichita, Ks. Since anyone can claim to be anything online, the answer is not to demand a proven identity, but perhaps to demand an identity with some history behind it. BTW Bill, thanks for not requiring a verified email addy instead of the pay ones, it would complicate thinks greatly. Adam --- William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Steven Krivit wrote: Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. In observing (or fighting with) flamer types over the years, I noticed that one of the major characteristics that reliably defines flamer is... anonymity! Serious people give their real names (and often provide a message sig with personal website, city, etc.) Immature or abusive people use handles. snip (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Correa attacks Wikipedia
VO, Perhaps they need a centrally administered site across the web, some kind of extra-national thing providing bona-fides for web interactions. One would register with conventional documents such as drivers license, passport etc. and you'd log on to it (some generated bit string unique to oneself) before doing any secured site surfing to say you are currently on the net, the secured site would then quiz it to find out who you were no matter what the moniker? Just a guess without thinking things through. A sort of centralised repository of names, webs, computer serial numbers etc. If you don't sign up, you don't play. Sleepy and dozy at the moment so point the flaws out please. Might be back Tuesday. Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Beaty Sent: 17 December 2005 04:11 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote: At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for confirmations. Then you have to search for a free email service which the forum owners haven't added to their exclude list. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Vo, Jed, Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech and what we really mean by democracy is an educated populous (adult, not a-dolt), non salacious media (not power without responsibility) and trustworthy leaders. Yes, it is a good idea to consult leaders in the field before anything is placed on the site. Inaccurate writing should be viewed as defamation and clamping down on that is not censorship or crying foul when one doesn't get one's way but human decency. Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early insight into CF and it was very interesting to see how a rational mind goes about tackling a difficult problem and putting delimiters on it. It should be more known. Regards, Remi. Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia Jed Rothwell Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:49:53 -0800 Harry Veeder wrote: Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as it did with browsers. I expect the people at Wikipedia will welcome this. They would probably agree that their model does not work for all subjects. We need a variety of different online encyclopedias, some of them completely open to the public -- that anyone can change -- and others more restricted. The one size fits all model is inadequate. We also need sites such as LENR-CANR.org where authors publish papers and represent their own points of view and no one else's. Wikipedia itself may become more sophisticated and it may implement different levels for different kinds of articles. As I said in the discussion section for the cold fusion article, if they want experts to write, they will have to promise those experts that their work will not be trashed. The work might be changed, but the expert author will be consulted, and if he objects his objections will be reviewed by other experts. - Jed ... Website http://luna.bton.ac.uk/~roc1 ...
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech . . . Why do you call it a model? In Wikipedia, anything goes. Anyone can post any comment, anonymously. This is an invitation to trolling and character assassination. The article on cold fusion is full of skeptical nonsense and unfounded opinion. At Amazon.com they used to allow anonymous reviews of books. They abolished the practice after they found out the large number of glowing reviews were written by the authors or their friends, and many attacks were written by literary rivals. They should have realized that would happen. See: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1271358,00.html I think that a serious online encyclopedia will have to be based on some compromise between unfettered unregulated open access and Encyclopaedia Britannica style the experts know best authoritarianism. Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early insight into CF . . . Do you mean the ICCF1 paper? I uploaded it to: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJnuclearene.pdf - Jed
RE: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Jed, Yes you are correct, always a fine balance between justice and progress and the forces of anarchy. Yes that was the paper I read. I believe it is stuff of that quality that is going to attract young research fellows to the subject. I'm sorry if my responses get a little patchy from now on as it is the end of the year and technically the university is meant to be closing. I just want to put my feet up for a bit anyway. Regards, Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jed Rothwell Sent: 16 December 2005 15:24 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech . . . Why do you call it a model? In Wikipedia, anything goes. Anyone can post any comment, anonymously. This is an invitation to trolling and character assassination. The article on cold fusion is full of skeptical nonsense and unfounded opinion. At Amazon.com they used to allow anonymous reviews of books. They abolished the practice after they found out the large number of glowing reviews were written by the authors or their friends, and many attacks were written by literary rivals. They should have realized that would happen. See: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1271358,00.html I think that a serious online encyclopedia will have to be based on some compromise between unfettered unregulated open access and Encyclopaedia Britannica style the experts know best authoritarianism. Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early insight into CF . . . Do you mean the ICCF1 paper? I uploaded it to: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJnuclearene.pdf - Jed
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vo, Jed, Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech and what we really mean by democracy is an educated populous (adult, not a-dolt), non salacious media (not power without responsibility) and trustworthy leaders. But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users can duck responsibility. It's ike Usenet, or like a call-in radio show where the callers have no names and they all disguise their voices. That type of setup has major consequences (e.g. the difference between sci.physics.fusion versus vortex-L.) If Wikipedia started out using the simple email-verified registration which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude trolls/flamers/spammers, it would be a very different resource today. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Yep, one hoaxster 'fessed up recently: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051211-5739.html -Original Message- From: William Beaty But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users can duck responsibility. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
William Beaty wrote: But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked . . . Actually, the editors can block people, and they have done so occasionally. I suppose the offenders can simply register a new name. If Wikipedia started out using the simple email-verified registration which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude trolls/flamers/spammers, it would be a very different resource today. Well, they might change to that model. They seem like smart people, who are willing to try new things. After the recent scandal they reduced the editing capabilities of anonymous contributors. I think they said that anonymous contributors can no longer initiate articles or sections. Against my better judgment, I added some stuff to the cold fusion article today, including three links to introductions to the subject in different languages. Some anonymous person promptly chopped them out. I wrote to him/her/it: Dear Anonymous Person: Why were these [links] moved? Did you move them to the other versions of Wikipedia? Is there there some kind of policy at Wikipedia banning non-English articles? If there is such a policy, kindly point it out to me. If not, let us put the links back. Also, I would appreciate it if you would sign your work in future. . . . - Jed
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. Steve At 02:09 PM 12/16/2005, you wrote: Yep, one hoaxster 'fessed up recently: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051211-5739.html -Original Message- From: William Beaty But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users can duck responsibility. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Others believe the Logos should be self-sustaining. Or as Mr. Grimer iterated *In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum* (bringing us back off topic ;-) -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
--- William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Wikipedia started out using the simple email-verified registration which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude trolls/flamers/spammers, it would be a very different resource today. There are two anonymizing utilities, Tor and Privoxy, which can be used together for anonymous surfing with a web browser. that includes signing up to webmail sites like yahoo.com and then subscribing to a list such as Wikipedia, or even Vortex. Since you have a real email address, you can confirm a subscription if required to do so, but neither the webmail site nor the list you are subscribing to knows your real IP. At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. I have the feeling that won't last, because more of the webmail sites are requiring that Java or Javascript be turned on in the browser before allowing you to sign up. Doing that lets the site to get past the protection of Tor and Privoxy and find out your real IP. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Steven Krivit wrote: Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. In observing (or fighting with) flamer types over the years, I noticed that one of the major characteristics that reliably defines flamer is... anonymity! Serious people give their real names (and often provide a message sig with personal website, city, etc.) Immature or abusive people use handles. I've seen a number of forums which harness this effect to improve their online community: requiring the use of real names, or at the very least requiring that users have a real email address (not free mail such as yahoo, etc.) In the online world, if your real name is like your face, then a handle is like wearing a mask. In realworld society if you're out shopping or walking down the street (or waiting in a bank,) how do you respond to people who walk in wearing masks? What would you think of a person who spent all their time wearing a mask? How about an entire town where the residents traditionally wear masks all the time? Online handles are really very weird. We got used to them, and they were a novelty at first. But whenever a community arises where mask-wearing is perfectly acceptable, then personal responsibility for our actions is disrupted, and that community seems to automatically attract all the bad parts of Marti Gras. With Wikipedia, if the point is to prevent famous experts with recognizable names from being taken more seriously than others, then they need to do the anonymity thing differently. Let people wear masks, but connect them permanently to the SAME masks, perhaps by requiring real names/addresses/emails during registration, but allowing other users to only see the online username/handle. That way the playing field is leveled, yet also you *are* your mask, so you're not really anonymous. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote: At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for confirmations. Then you have to search for a free email service which the forum owners haven't added to their exclude list. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as it did with browsers. Harry Jed Rothwell wrote: Maybe Wikipedia deserves more respect after all! This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia . . . has a link to an attack by Correa et al.: http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/ Sometimes you can judge people by their enemies. I agree with Wikipedia policy that it is not the right place for a detailed article on Aetherometry. If ever there was a subject that should be presented by supporters in their own webspace, Aetherometry is it. Actually, I thought the Wiki article on Aetherometry was pretty good, and remarkably even handed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetherometry - Jed
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Harry Veeder wrote: Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as it did with browsers. I expect the people at Wikipedia will welcome this. They would probably agree that their model does not work for all subjects. We need a variety of different online encyclopedias, some of them completely open to the public -- that anyone can change -- and others more restricted. The one size fits all model is inadequate. We also need sites such as LENR-CANR.org where authors publish papers and represent their own points of view and no one else's. Wikipedia itself may become more sophisticated and it may implement different levels for different kinds of articles. As I said in the discussion section for the cold fusion article, if they want experts to write, they will have to promise those experts that their work will not be trashed. The work might be changed, but the expert author will be consulted, and if he objects his objections will be reviewed by other experts. - Jed
