It will never stop being funny to me that the whole "you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit it" scare happened and now Wikipedia is the only trustworthy website because it turns out profit motive is the reason things turn to shit.
-
It will never stop being funny to me that the whole "you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit it" scare happened and now Wikipedia is the only trustworthy website because it turns out profit motive is the reason things turn to shit.
@AlSweigart it's worth noting that the thing it's replacing (professionally researched and edited encyclopedias) are still very trustworthy. For them, profit motive turns *access* into the problem instead.
-
@AlSweigart
Wikipedia didn't change, the world around it did. Just because everything around it got worse doesn't mean that it got better even if it's now one of the more reliable sources. Checking references on Wikipedia is still an important thing.To be clear, I'm not saying Wikipedia is bad and I agree capitalism is the problem but "trust, but verify" is important to follow.
@bobkmertz @AlSweigart I can remember the early days of Wikipedia and it has definitely gotten better over time. Editors have always been more or less committed to quality, but the breadth of Wikipedia has expanded so much.
-
@haunted_refrigerator @AlSweigart
You shouldn't cite Wikipedia because it's a secondary source. For any remotely serious work, you're supposed to go back to the primary sources Wikipedia is citing and reference them instead.@VATVSLPR @haunted_refrigerator @AlSweigart ok... my point was that the bottom of Wikipedia points you to their sources. From there, you can do what you will.
-
@haunted_refrigerator @AlSweigart The reason Wikipedia should not be cited is because it’s an encyclopedia, not because it’s not accurate.
@ahltorp @haunted_refrigerator @AlSweigart my point was that the bottom of Wikipedia points you to their sources. From there, you can do what you will.
-
It will never stop being funny to me that the whole "you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit it" scare happened and now Wikipedia is the only trustworthy website because it turns out profit motive is the reason things turn to shit.
@AlSweigart Wikipedia sources its articles from the same privately owned megacorps that donate to our ruling class and "NGOs" with ties to US intelligence agencies.
So no, you can't trust Wikipedia either.
-
@AlSweigart Jimmy Wales is an interesting guy- lives a very ordinary, humble, even, life. Somewhere in the UK, I think.
@SonofaGeorge @AlSweigart His real name is Jimmy Cymry
-
It will never stop being funny to me that the whole "you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit it" scare happened and now Wikipedia is the only trustworthy website because it turns out profit motive is the reason things turn to shit.
I've run several wikis, both public and private. The standard advice is that you'll want to password-protect them, but you should resist the temptation unless there's really Secret (e.g. proprietary Company) Stuff on them. Even then, it's Bad Practice to restrict access within the group.
-
It will never stop being funny to me that the whole "you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit it" scare happened and now Wikipedia is the only trustworthy website because it turns out profit motive is the reason things turn to shit.
@AlSweigart I hope that's not the case - as a @wikipedia editor, I'm always using other websites to research information for articles, especially new and stub articles.
-
I make a different argument because Im on SSI and feel like socialists and even moreso anarchists refuse to update their theory and insist on pre-welfare state thoughts that make little sense with what they are saying for someone on SSI to agree with. Like the idea my income… is not capitalist. It really isn’t at all. It requires a state.
@Energetic_Nova @sotolf @AlSweigart
I may be misunderstanding what you're saying (english isn't my first language and I don't live in the US, also I'm kinda new to this^^) but I don't see why SSI would require a state?
To clarify some stuff, I'm speaking about socialism here, not comunism. Socialism is still a system with a state.
To my understanding it wouldn't really change your life even though your SSI could be higher (no rich parasites to puncture the profits).
-
@Energetic_Nova @sotolf @AlSweigart
I may be misunderstanding what you're saying (english isn't my first language and I don't live in the US, also I'm kinda new to this^^) but I don't see why SSI would require a state?
To clarify some stuff, I'm speaking about socialism here, not comunism. Socialism is still a system with a state.
To my understanding it wouldn't really change your life even though your SSI could be higher (no rich parasites to puncture the profits).
Anarchistic socialism/comminism is the main people I end up arguing with but you actually do need a hierarchy to have a functional medical and welfare system. Someone to collect taxes and redistribute. It requires a stronger state to do that. Thinking you can do that with what amounts to federated unions at best with no means for non working who never worked to participate….
The socialism that can exist with capitalism is not the same as what Im arguing with.
-
@haunted_refrigerator @AlSweigart professors in college back in the day would rule out wikipedia for citation. This was hilarious to me as an IT professional.
What is at the bottom of every wikipedia page?
@HarlequinBastard @haunted_refrigerator @AlSweigart Right? The citations are all right there. I never understood that either. Don’t cite Wikipedia, cite Wikipedias sources.
-
Anarchistic socialism/comminism is the main people I end up arguing with but you actually do need a hierarchy to have a functional medical and welfare system. Someone to collect taxes and redistribute. It requires a stronger state to do that. Thinking you can do that with what amounts to federated unions at best with no means for non working who never worked to participate….
The socialism that can exist with capitalism is not the same as what Im arguing with.
@Energetic_Nova @sotolf @AlSweigart
I personaly see stateless communism as a perfect idea that can't be reeached. Some kind of guideline but it doesn't matter much to me as it would take multiple lives to get there.
The socialism I'm defending is the step between capitalism and communism (which to me could as much be eternal as it looks like a nice world to live in).
Basically you still have a state to distribute the profits and you don't need to participate to get your share.
-
@Energetic_Nova @sotolf @AlSweigart
I personaly see stateless communism as a perfect idea that can't be reeached. Some kind of guideline but it doesn't matter much to me as it would take multiple lives to get there.
The socialism I'm defending is the step between capitalism and communism (which to me could as much be eternal as it looks like a nice world to live in).
Basically you still have a state to distribute the profits and you don't need to participate to get your share.
So what I argue is that socialism already exists but people arent willing to accept this is a form of socialism.
-
@Energetic_Nova @sotolf @AlSweigart
I personaly see stateless communism as a perfect idea that can't be reeached. Some kind of guideline but it doesn't matter much to me as it would take multiple lives to get there.
The socialism I'm defending is the step between capitalism and communism (which to me could as much be eternal as it looks like a nice world to live in).
Basically you still have a state to distribute the profits and you don't need to participate to get your share.
@Energetic_Nova @sotolf @AlSweigart
I really don't see non-working people as an issue when you see the amount of profits that got stolen by the ultra-richs every day.
Also, it requires to define what is participating in society. Staying at home doing art is participation, taking care of other people is participation, etc...
-
@Energetic_Nova @sotolf @AlSweigart
I really don't see non-working people as an issue when you see the amount of profits that got stolen by the ultra-richs every day.
Also, it requires to define what is participating in society. Staying at home doing art is participation, taking care of other people is participation, etc...
I would like to participate in a more facilitated way like school had special ed for me.
-
I would like to participate in a more facilitated way like school had special ed for me.
Special ed is more socialist more than other kinds of education that are simply required to maintain a democracy and capitalism.
-
So what I argue is that socialism already exists but people arent willing to accept this is a form of socialism.
@Energetic_Nova @sotolf @AlSweigart
It's more like socialist features
I don't think anybody argues that social aids exists (especially in Europe where I live).
But to be a real socialist society, workers need to own the production.
Living of social aids that can disappear after any election (even without a change of system) is not socilism, being forced to work 8hrs/day just to eat and have a roof isn't socialism.
in Belgium, I feel we constantly have to fight for our social rights.
-
Special ed is more socialist more than other kinds of education that are simply required to maintain a democracy and capitalism.
ADDING some forms of socialism described a democracy derived from “the workers” and I think this is the part that makes me upset. Its clearly based on old forms of organization. If I take it historically, this expands democracy. If I take it modern, it limits it.
-
It will never stop being funny to me that the whole "you can't trust Wikipedia because anyone can edit it" scare happened and now Wikipedia is the only trustworthy website because it turns out profit motive is the reason things turn to shit.
@AlSweigart i think you can still do well consulting with open source tools/sw/apps, profit motive can be a factor but there needs to be more beyond that and open source community provides pretty good support #info for sale #who needs disinformation?
-
ADDING some forms of socialism described a democracy derived from “the workers” and I think this is the part that makes me upset. Its clearly based on old forms of organization. If I take it historically, this expands democracy. If I take it modern, it limits it.
@Energetic_Nova @sotolf @AlSweigart
Yes, I guess it's because they were definied by economists during the industrial revolution.
I think it still makes sense though since the idea is to turn labor (any kind) into value that would benefit all society.
I agree "workers" isn't a good term. It's rather "people who create value", and this value isn't just monetary/material of course (money doesn't even exist in the final stage which is communism).
