Sign in or 
Location: The Wikipedia
Discussion: respond to: The Wikipedia
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
sHR00m |
respond to: The Wikipedia
May 7 2008, 9:11 AM EDT
i dont know what your problem really is with your linux distribution in wikipedia but its clearly not the fault of wikipedia that you violated their trademark. if you have your own linux distribution and call it debian, their laywers will eat you for breakfest. trademarks are important, even for "non-profit" organisations. you could use all the articles in wikipedia to build your own wiki, without any problem but you mustnt steal their registered trademark. and thats at least one part of intellectual property thats worth keeping. NO organisation will allow you to steal their trademark and its simply bullshit, that you compare wikipedia to microsoft because of that.
5
out of
7 found this valuable.
Do you?
Keyword tags:
Encyclopedia
Free
Open
Wikipedia
|
|
sHR00m |
1. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 7 2008, 10:50 AM EDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5raPgKqZfiE
3
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
ultumix |
2. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 7 2008, 7:36 PM EDT
My problem is number 1: "you have no freedom of speech here;" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Usacomputertec&oldid=210070503I thought that this did not reflect the Wikipedia but a bad administrator until I was informed that they would never let me post Ultumix on the Wikipedia or any information about what I'm trying to do for people. They are only interested in what they define as notable subjects. If they don't think it's notable then it's not because they are the officials on it. It does not matter that over 40,000 computers have Ultumix GNU/Linux installed, It does not matter that I sponsored a race, or did other things. I would have never started this site if the Wikipedia didn't say "you have no freedom of speech here;". Protecting your registered trademark? Well you could say that it is important to protect it however they are saying that the domain www.openwikipedia.org which is reserved for me and I bought and I thought of is not mine and I must sell it to them. I'm calling 1and1.com to confirm this. 2 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
i'mnothere |
3. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 10 2008, 9:23 PM EDT
"you have no freedom of speech here;"translation: It's their site, they can moderate it however they choose (just as you do on your site). That's common sense, and the way it should be done, and the exact same way it is done on most forums/websites that allow posting. There is nothing difficult to understand about it. "They are only interested in what they define as notable subjects." Yes?? Again, their site, their choice. You pull numbers out of the air with how many people use your distro, fine (can you provide concrete proof to back up your statement?), but is there anything notable about it? Have you contributed anything new, at all? Did you include a new installer, or perhaps fix a bunch of bugs, make it boot faster, change the packaging type, ANYTHING to differentiate it from your base victim, oops, I mean distro? A registered trademark is a registered trademark, of course it means they legally own it, and they can take steps to protect it. Again, common sense. You mention other sites costing $300 with the same trademark, of course they are trying to sell (I mean extort) money from the rightful owner of the trademark. If the new owner does anything with the site, they can sue/take steps necessary to shut it down, if they so chose (they can also not act if they choose). I'm sorry you haven't learned anything, but I do have a suggestion. I sometimes follow the nixedreport, and I recall your friend asking posters to put in a certain format for their name as the author. You haven't been doing that. Maybe it is ok with him, I don't know, but I sure would want to not be associated with the posts you put there. 2 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
i'mnothere |
4. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 10 2008, 9:26 PM EDT
Is there freedom of speech here? If there is I'd sure have a few f#$?*** things I'd like to get off my g** d*** chest.
2
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
ultumix |
5. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 10 2008, 11:30 PM EDT
Yes there is freedom of speech within the parameters of our policy. And our policy is very straight forward and if your vocabulary extends beyond 4 letter words you can use your freedom of speech however you want.
1
out of
3 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
ultumix |
6. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 10 2008, 11:59 PM EDT
You might want to read the updated links at the bottom before you post though.
1
out of
3 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
i'mnothere |
7. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 11 2008, 10:22 AM EDT
"Yes there is freedom of speech within the parameters of our policy"That is Wikipedia's point, exactly their point, and the point I was attempting to demonstrate, which you missed, again.... I was attempting to point out that only certain things are allowed there, the SAME as here, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, they just say it differently. Like this, you can post here as long as you follow our guidlines or what we view to be right. Freedom of speech would allow someone to say anything they wanted with no restrictions. There are restrictions here, so there isn't freedom of speech. You may have different rules, but the idea is the same. You wouldn't allow someone to go on a crazy rampage here. What I'm getting at is you shouldn't have been offended by their statement, that is the point I'm trying to make. It's their site, they can have whatever they want on it. As to your content/your distro not being notable enough, I'll use another bad analogy you probably won't get, not exactly the same, but maybe you can get an idea. Let's say you buy (well it would have to be free to be the same as this, but just humor me here) a new Ford pickup. You get the thing home put on new cab steps, bed liner, bug shield, fog lights..., basically add stuff to it. Then you remove all the Ford labeling and put your own on and sell/give it away as your own product. Now, is it better than it was when it came from the factory, maybe, is it something that should be written up about, absolutely not, as anyone with a little knowledge about it can do it, after all, it is still the exact same pickup. Now, if you do something more difficult/extensive, modify the engine, interior, under the hood changes, maybe then it would justify being a notable product (as is done with the Mustang models, Cobra, Rousch, Saleen, might be wrong on the names, but maybe you can get the idea). Done. 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
ultumix |
8. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 11 2008, 1:11 PM EDT
I understand where your coming from and I knew this statement was inevitable. Everyone has a policy but some policy's are more constraining than others and restrict your rights more than they should like the Microsoft End User License Agreement for example. Under Microsoft's new agreement you have no right to privacy, freedom to share music or video content even if you made it, and Microsoft gets to use your computer for testing. This is unconstitutional.The Freedom of speech is a freedom of self expression. It is not the freedom of expressing racism, profanity, or bad words. In the United States there are laws against using bad words on TV, the Radio, and in public places for a reason. We still have the Freedom of speech. The Freedom of speech was given to us by God and not by man and we need to honor the Lord God Jesus Christ by respecting one another and his commandments. I'm not saying you must be a Christian but I am saying that we must abide by the Christian Morals and Standards our founding fathers stood for. If our country can't live up to these moral standards then we must be weaker than previous generations. It take more effort to abide by these morals than it does to proclaim profanity. The Wikipedia is not consistent in upholding their own policy and has shown this time and time again. Their Administrators have different interpretations of what the Policy means as our corrupt politicians interpret the Constitution of the Untied States. Wikipedia's policy states that Administrators are to be nice to noobs and help them and not just ban them. I haven't seen this much. The Wikipedia's policy rules in favor of the Popular and also tells people who is popular enough and who is not. Wikipedia does not have the athority to measure the worth of a Man or subject of interest. That's up to God. The Administrators are setting in God's chair and making decisions. I don't want to set in that chair. 1 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
ultumix |
9. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 11 2008, 2:05 PM EDT
Correction "It take more effort to abide by these morals" should be "It takes more effort to abide by these morals".
1
out of
3 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
raynevandunem |
10. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 16 2008, 12:33 AM EDT
" Wikipedia does not have the athority to measure the worth of a Man or subject of interest."But they're only making such decisions on who, what or where gets an article on their website, not on any other website (like, the Wikimedia Foundation, or at least Wikipedia's admins can't determine who, what or where gets a mention on Google's top 10 search results for a particular topic). They have that right, although the results suck alot of eggs. This is why they've kicked out so many articles relevant to U.S. or Japanese pop culture to separate wikis on Wikia (especially articles on particular characters in Pokemon, Naruto, Avatar: the Last Airbender, and so on); if you haven't seen it before, they call it "soft redirection". Yes, I've had many an article that I created or worked on deleted by the admins (I remember the Lakshmi Tatma article, the one on the little girl in Northeastern India who had surgery in Bangalore to extricate a parasite body that had died and was attached to her vital organs and bones. They deleted it, and I was like "WTF, mate?" But I moved on, and they redirected it to a larger article on "notable cases" of bodily twin separation. Bastards...). 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
raynevandunem |
11. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 16 2008, 12:40 AM EDT
Anyway, they're only making such decisions for their wikis, not for other wikis. But at least you started this one for the hosting of articles that may not be seen as relevant to Wikipedia. It's not like Wikipedia's the only place on the Web that will provide such an information resource, nor should it be the only one; the non-profit-driven model that they adopted, however, at least keeps them relevant, and should be enhanced to further stretches of post-profit organizational imagination by other, more specific wikis.And yes, they've deleted plenty of Linux distribution articles, too. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
ultumix |
12. RE: respond to: The Wikipedia
May 16 2008, 2:17 AM EDT
Well I think you make a very good point and a good statement. To each his own. Everyone can have their own website and everyone has the right to exclude certain people or invite everyone it just seems to me that by excluding people that aren't being bad your being a bad person as Richard Stallman said he felt he was when He could not share his software with family and friends. You probably think I'm as extreme as Richard Stallman but I'm not. I'm only as extreme as Richard Stallman when it comes to freedoms that our forefathers wrote about in the Deceleration, Constitution, and other documents. :) well raynevandunem I've been permanently banned from the Wikipedia again even though I didn't do anything more than make a personal page on my user page. Administrators didn't even have a problem with that. The reason they say they banned me was because I was not contributing. ?!?!? First they tell me to stop posting and now they tell me I should contribute? What a mind trip. I'm not going to play any more of their Mind Games. 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
x501 |
13. The Empire
May 30 2008, 10:23 PM EDT
I was never a big "Star Wars" fan, but the reality of the situation is this: we are all part of a system that is being controlled by an evil empire of corporations (Microsoft, PayPal, eBay, etc) whose sole purpose is to tell us what is best for us. Micrsoft shuts out compedition so that we will be forced to use crap that nobody wants. eBay owns PayPal and forces buyers and sellers to use crap -- and then blames us when problems arise because of that use. Great website and a good start! It's 2008 and finally we have a place -- the internet -- that is the second Wild, wild West! Let's get the word out and spread the message before the net because yet another regulated, mindless place!
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
ultumix |
14. RE: The Empire
May 30 2008, 11:14 PM EDT
YES VERY WELL PUT! You should start a page here under Politics that addresses this issue. I'll add to it and others probably will as well.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
raynevandunem |
15. RE: The Empire
May 30 2008, 11:19 PM EDT
I've actually developed this theory of the evolution of human institutions: from just basic culture we obtained increasingly non-culture-based religion (monotheism), from religion we obtained increasingly non-religion-based nation-state government (secular government and law), from government we obtained increasingly non-nationally-oriented business corporations (multinationals), and from business corporations we are obtaining increasingly non-corporately-specific media.My view is that Wikipedia and other wikis like this are the most current form of this less-corporately-backed/based/funded media; but, like the previous institutional forms from culture to government, these corporately-independent media institutions are likely to abuse a few things and callously step on a few weaker toes in their increasing power and influence, and they will engender a new breed or generation of corporations that will be much more friendly to the wikis and other media institutions in order to force their own ends (which, no doubt, will and are veering further to the left of the corporations, let alone the governments or religions who are already decreasing into irrelevance). This also means that larger wikis will compete for influence with other wikis. So we're living in interesting times. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
raynevandunem |
16. RE: The Empire
May 30 2008, 11:29 PM EDT
Also, how can the wikis commit abuses? Well, perceived offences can be suffered by those who already feel the brunt of a negatively-skewed majority view against them, or people with persecution complexes. The wikis, however, usually operate in regions where freedom of speech is already respected to various extents by the national or regional governments.But can wikis, and those other media institutions that amass even greater influence and power than the wikis in the future, commit abuses that will physically abuse a population? Cultures, religions, governments and corporations have all committed various abuses or careless mistakes against populations and ecological systems that resulted in deadly incidents, so what about the independent media institutions? What potential danger does the media pose to the population? Do you find this valuable? |
|
ultumix |
17. RE: The Empire
May 31 2008, 12:24 AM EDT
This is easy to answer raynevandunem. First of all any time a form of media makes something biased by removing certain people's rights to post things or become one sided they brain wash everyone by not providing both sides of the sorry. Many will argue that the media is liberal and not in favor of Republicans. I don't see it that way. I think that Republicans just make it easier for the media to attack them because they always respond to most everything while the democrats don't seem too eager to respond until they have thought about it or they give an indirect response and don't actually answer the question. Some times thats the smart thing to do. As far as damage you can also do damage by not letting any small fish say anything. Look at sites like digg.com. Even if it does not catch on it does get out there. Everyone gets a fair chance. So a Wiki can do damage depending on how open it is. All wiki's should be free and open. Do you find this valuable? |
