umber 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
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
f 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
Subj
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 f
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
--- 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
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 ma
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/na
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 Wik
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
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
> salaci
tex-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 ca
[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
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
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 encycloped
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.:
16 matches
Mail list logo
