The Open Source Business Conference here will open on Tuesday to the news from the Free Standards Group that the Linux Standards Base has been approved as an ISO standard.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:Actually the meanings are quite different, since wikipedia talks about measures the other talks about rules, you see, and you are giving the reason saying that I can enter to wikipedia and change the definitin of standar, so I could enter and define standar as a "bunch of red oranges", woul'd that make it true? I don't think so, nothing backs up wikipedia definitions, only common sense, no cientific studies, nothing.
Member since:2005-07-02
Actually the meanings are quite different, since wikipedia talks about measures the other talks about rules, you see,
I see, you don't apparently: the Webster definition specifically mentions "a rule for the measures". Read it again.
"and you are giving the reason saying that I can enter to wikipedia and change the definitin of standar, so I could enter and define standar as a "bunch of red oranges", woul'd that make it true?"
Of course not. And it wouldn't stay on the page either, because there are other users and moderators tracking edits. The indicent would be noted and you would likely get your user account revoked. So, if you're asking whether Wikipedia is completely protected against this kind of pointless vandalism, then the answer is no. However, its contents do go through an informal validation process. In general, "eeer" user review plus the fact that a history is kept for all page tend to discourage this anti-social behavior.
nothing backs up wikipedia definitions, only common sense, no cientific studies, nothing.
You can't generalize like this, you don't know who wrote all 800,000 articles. Sure, the quality of information is uneven - in fact, some articles clearly indicate (in a box at the top of the page) that they need work.
However, consider that a great number of articles are written by people who know what they're talking about, since they're interested in these subjects in the first place.
Do you have any example of a page that contains erroneous data?
Member since:
Member since:
2005-07-02
I'll pass on the fact that your criticism was posted anonymously, which is quite ironic considering your charges against Wikipedia, or the fact that you made numerous spelling mistakes.
If you disagree with the definition, you can register with Wikipedia and modify it. Since it's peer-reviewed (i.e. based on consensus), if your definition is better it should be adopted.
Wikipedia is a bit of a self-correcting encyclopedia. It may not always be accurate, but any inaccuracies have an increasingly higher chance of being corrected as time goes by. And since knowledge is based on consensus, it is ultimately as reliable as a printed encyclopedia (which are known to have errors).
In any case, let me give you Merriam-Webster's definition:
"something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example (CRITERION); something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality"
Hey, guess what? It's practically identical to the Wikipedia definition!
Now, did you actually have a point, or are you just Linux is Poo trolling anonymously? Because my original agument still stands, untouched...