So...tempted...to vandalize Wikipedia entry for Bill Gates..

[Nev]

Just one quote, that's all I want to add...he's been lying for years, can't I just lie once?

I mean, here's what's there:

* I want to make clear that we respect the role of government in our legal and economic system. — June 9, 2000
* In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid. — PBS interview with David Frost, November 1995

All I want to add is:

* I don't know why I've always been attracted to little girls...maybe it's their helplessness, their powerlessness, their
complete physical inability to resist my fumbling advances. I mean, I've never been one to play on a level playing field, so why start now? Little boys aren't too bad either.

As an explanation, I'm stuck in dev hell again because Bill Gates is too much of a tool to create a company that makes good products.

[Don]

And you for some reason have faith in the integrity of an encyclopedia created by the collaboration of people such as you?

[Tortolia]

But Wikipedia is infalliable, Don.

[Tortolia]

Hey, speaking of Wikis...

I love the internet.

[Nev]

And you for some reason have faith in the integrity of an encyclopedia created by the collaboration of people such as you?

I didn't actually do it, did I?

[Nev]

But Wikipedia is infalliable, Don.

I'm assuming this is a sarcastic jab at me. However, you don't get to speak for me, and I don't think Wikipedia is infalliable. If the truth level isn't obvious, I do tend to err on the side of trusting it.

[SineSwiper]

Hey, speaking of Wikis...

I love the internet.

Me thinks the editor to vistor ratio was waaaaaaaay too low. I'm sure they basically had one dude moderating for the hundreds of thousands of people visiting to do whatever they want. Obviously, the one moderator couldn't keep up with the thousands of trolls that posted pics. Otherwise, people could easily just shut down the many different Wikis out there because "anybody can edit it"..

Given that this is a business that started this Wiki, it really wouldn't surprise me if it was grossly understaffed. Fucking idiots think that they can basically just "hire" the Internet to do their editorials for them, and work on the cheap to maintain it. Yet another way to try to cut corners to make a buck.

[Tortolia]

The LA Times isn't the only online newspaper allowing commentary on editorials and columns they're putting online.

They're just the first (and probably the last) to use the Wiki format, which gives people significantly more ability to grief the process.

I seriously doubt the intent was "Get our content for free!". It was probably designed to get more people interested in the online content. They just went about it entirely the wrong way. The Washington Post pulls it off much better.

[SineSwiper]

Like some have posted in the comments to the story (ironic), they should have had some way to post in the comments to the stories, not a Wiki format. There's no point to trying to edit an editorial. That just defeats the purpose of an editorial, you know, written by one person.

God, what a braindead idea! No wonder it was vandalized for its sheer stupidity.

[Nev]

Given that it's the L.A. Times, I dunno that I'm too surprised that it didn't go off well. It's an okay paper, but I haven't heard that it's a great one.

[SineSwiper]

It's odd that the most of what I heard in terms of quality newspapers are NYT and Washington Post, despite the fact that California is a pretty liberal state.

[Nev]

Thing is, having been to San Fran several times and living in L.A., I feel like I might be able to understand why. I wonder if San Francisco is almost *too* liberal to have a really top-quality paper - I think the Chronicle is their paper, and I wonder if the problem could be that they're quite biased on the left. Any kind of bias is going to hold a paper back, in my opinion, though given your opinions on Hunter Thompson you may not agree. The few articles I seem to remember skimming were so liberal-minded they made me look downright moderate - there's no problem there, as long as the reporting is done well - but I seem to remember thinking that they almost seemed unwilling to accept viewpoints that smacked at all of conservativism. I imagine a lot of people must be up in arms up there about Arnold.

As for L.A., I hate to say it, but we're just too damn dumb to have a good paper. Very few people care about civic issues down here. It's a pretty self-interested city, on the whole, and I wish I could say that meant interested in itself as a city.

[SineSwiper]

Any kind of bias is going to hold a paper back, in my opinion, though given your opinions on Hunter Thompson you may not agree.

There's a subtle difference between having a bias and pretending that you have a NPOV, and having a bias and having no intention of hiding it. HST fit into the second category and was much more entertaining than the first. Not to mention that it was more human and truthful than lying about a NPOV.

[Nev]

This is true.