<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_28_0351257</id>
	<title>Wikipedia Disputes Editor Exodus Claims</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259414280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"The Wikimedia blog has a new post from Erik Moeller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Erik Zachte, a data analyst, to <a href="http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/">dispute recent reports about editors leaving Wikipedia</a> (which <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers">we discussed</a> on Wednesday). They offer these points to discredit the claims: 'The number of people reading Wikipedia continues to grow.  In October, we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world, according to comScore Media Metrix, up 6\% from September.  Wikipedia is the fifth most popular web property in the world.  The number of articles in Wikipedia keeps growing.  There are about 14.4 million articles in Wikipedia, with thousands of new ones added every day. The number of people writing Wikipedia peaked about two and a half years ago, declined slightly for a brief period, and has remained stable since then.  Every month, some people stop writing, and every month, they are replaced by new people."  They also note that it's impossible to tell whether someone has left and will never return, as their account still remains there."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " The Wikimedia blog has a new post from Erik Moeller , deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation , and Erik Zachte , a data analyst , to dispute recent reports about editors leaving Wikipedia ( which we discussed on Wednesday ) .
They offer these points to discredit the claims : 'The number of people reading Wikipedia continues to grow .
In October , we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world , according to comScore Media Metrix , up 6 \ % from September .
Wikipedia is the fifth most popular web property in the world .
The number of articles in Wikipedia keeps growing .
There are about 14.4 million articles in Wikipedia , with thousands of new ones added every day .
The number of people writing Wikipedia peaked about two and a half years ago , declined slightly for a brief period , and has remained stable since then .
Every month , some people stop writing , and every month , they are replaced by new people .
" They also note that it 's impossible to tell whether someone has left and will never return , as their account still remains there .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "The Wikimedia blog has a new post from Erik Moeller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Erik Zachte, a data analyst, to dispute recent reports about editors leaving Wikipedia (which we discussed on Wednesday).
They offer these points to discredit the claims: 'The number of people reading Wikipedia continues to grow.
In October, we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world, according to comScore Media Metrix, up 6\% from September.
Wikipedia is the fifth most popular web property in the world.
The number of articles in Wikipedia keeps growing.
There are about 14.4 million articles in Wikipedia, with thousands of new ones added every day.
The number of people writing Wikipedia peaked about two and a half years ago, declined slightly for a brief period, and has remained stable since then.
Every month, some people stop writing, and every month, they are replaced by new people.
"  They also note that it's impossible to tell whether someone has left and will never return, as their account still remains there.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257146</id>
	<title>Re:You show the reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259408400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the problem is that if you cited 'The Origins of Biblical Monotheism' on Wikipedia, some teenager might revert you because it contradicts what was found on some random webpage via google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the problem is that if you cited 'The Origins of Biblical Monotheism ' on Wikipedia , some teenager might revert you because it contradicts what was found on some random webpage via google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the problem is that if you cited 'The Origins of Biblical Monotheism' on Wikipedia, some teenager might revert you because it contradicts what was found on some random webpage via google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257668</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1259413800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The popularity of Wikipedia is one of the clearest symptoms of the human condition on the Internet</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yes, namely this: Once something gets more than a few users, the complaints will start coming in. Just because some people are complaining doesn't mean that Wikipedia is in trouble.</p><blockquote><div><p>You're not there to promote scholarship, or pedagogy: you're there to support the rules.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The rules are there for a reason. Yes, they will be enforced. Welcome to the internet. Try signing up on some web forum and breaking the rules. Let's see how long you last.</p><blockquote><div><p>The Internet was a lot easier to find introductory information from before Wikipedia: search engines returned, at the top, accessible subject-specific sites contributed to by researchers, professionals or keen amateurs</p></div></blockquote><p>
Wait, so you blame Wikipedia for Google's ranking of pages? You are crazy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The popularity of Wikipedia is one of the clearest symptoms of the human condition on the Internet Yes , namely this : Once something gets more than a few users , the complaints will start coming in .
Just because some people are complaining does n't mean that Wikipedia is in trouble.You 're not there to promote scholarship , or pedagogy : you 're there to support the rules .
The rules are there for a reason .
Yes , they will be enforced .
Welcome to the internet .
Try signing up on some web forum and breaking the rules .
Let 's see how long you last.The Internet was a lot easier to find introductory information from before Wikipedia : search engines returned , at the top , accessible subject-specific sites contributed to by researchers , professionals or keen amateurs Wait , so you blame Wikipedia for Google 's ranking of pages ?
You are crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The popularity of Wikipedia is one of the clearest symptoms of the human condition on the Internet
Yes, namely this: Once something gets more than a few users, the complaints will start coming in.
Just because some people are complaining doesn't mean that Wikipedia is in trouble.You're not there to promote scholarship, or pedagogy: you're there to support the rules.
The rules are there for a reason.
Yes, they will be enforced.
Welcome to the internet.
Try signing up on some web forum and breaking the rules.
Let's see how long you last.The Internet was a lot easier to find introductory information from before Wikipedia: search engines returned, at the top, accessible subject-specific sites contributed to by researchers, professionals or keen amateurs
Wait, so you blame Wikipedia for Google's ranking of pages?
You are crazy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</id>
	<title>Liar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259418000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone starts off saying "it ain't so" by listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question, he's either terribly stupid, or trying to pull a fast one on you. It's called misdirection and confusion. Yes, it's actually a named trick in the arsenal of con artists.</p><p>So much for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone starts off saying " it ai n't so " by listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question , he 's either terribly stupid , or trying to pull a fast one on you .
It 's called misdirection and confusion .
Yes , it 's actually a named trick in the arsenal of con artists.So much for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone starts off saying "it ain't so" by listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question, he's either terribly stupid, or trying to pull a fast one on you.
It's called misdirection and confusion.
Yes, it's actually a named trick in the arsenal of con artists.So much for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255246</id>
	<title>WSJ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259431260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this? Wall Street? That's the only place I know of where when something stops growing, because infinite growth of any human enterprise is not possible in reality, it's a signal to mark the time of death and run screaming into the hills. Oh noes! Company XYZ's growth is not going to be 50\% a year forever! They're projecting 49.9\%! Sell! Sell! Oh woes is we! Buy more bad loan products! Those are safer!</p><p>I would have thought hitting a level of stability in something like Wikipedia would be a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this ?
Wall Street ?
That 's the only place I know of where when something stops growing , because infinite growth of any human enterprise is not possible in reality , it 's a signal to mark the time of death and run screaming into the hills .
Oh noes !
Company XYZ 's growth is not going to be 50 \ % a year forever !
They 're projecting 49.9 \ % !
Sell ! Sell !
Oh woes is we !
Buy more bad loan products !
Those are safer ! I would have thought hitting a level of stability in something like Wikipedia would be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this?
Wall Street?
That's the only place I know of where when something stops growing, because infinite growth of any human enterprise is not possible in reality, it's a signal to mark the time of death and run screaming into the hills.
Oh noes!
Company XYZ's growth is not going to be 50\% a year forever!
They're projecting 49.9\%!
Sell! Sell!
Oh woes is we!
Buy more bad loan products!
Those are safer!I would have thought hitting a level of stability in something like Wikipedia would be a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254128</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Stargoat</author>
	<datestamp>1259418540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.</p><p>But a Wikipedia administrator with a bunch of tags and article locks isn't too far away from inventing a fourth type of lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three kinds of lies : lies , damned lies , and statistics.But a Wikipedia administrator with a bunch of tags and article locks is n't too far away from inventing a fourth type of lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.But a Wikipedia administrator with a bunch of tags and article locks isn't too far away from inventing a fourth type of lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30260100</id>
	<title>Re:I can appreciate their pain...</title>
	<author>Stachybotris</author>
	<datestamp>1259493780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You didn't mention which XBox game, so I'll have to take your word for it.  "Team Twinny" should be purged because pages that exist solely as self-promotion and provide no encyclopaedic content are against Wikipedia's rules.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria\_for\_speedy\_deletion#Categories" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [wikipedia.org] are their criteria for speedy deletion.  Criteria G10 states:<p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Unambiguous advertising or promotion.</b> <br>
    Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.</p></div><p>In the "Team Twinny" article, that's exactly the case.  There was another similar article for a deli in London that met an identical fate: all the article had was the street address, phone number, and a marketing blurb about what they sell.  Had there been a history of the store, or perhaps something else other than just stating 'this is where we are and what we sell' it might have made the cut.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't mention which XBox game , so I 'll have to take your word for it .
" Team Twinny " should be purged because pages that exist solely as self-promotion and provide no encyclopaedic content are against Wikipedia 's rules .
Here [ wikipedia.org ] are their criteria for speedy deletion .
Criteria G10 states : Unambiguous advertising or promotion .
Pages that are exclusively promotional , and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic .
Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.In the " Team Twinny " article , that 's exactly the case .
There was another similar article for a deli in London that met an identical fate : all the article had was the street address , phone number , and a marketing blurb about what they sell .
Had there been a history of the store , or perhaps something else other than just stating 'this is where we are and what we sell ' it might have made the cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't mention which XBox game, so I'll have to take your word for it.
"Team Twinny" should be purged because pages that exist solely as self-promotion and provide no encyclopaedic content are against Wikipedia's rules.
Here [wikipedia.org] are their criteria for speedy deletion.
Criteria G10 states: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.
Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.In the "Team Twinny" article, that's exactly the case.
There was another similar article for a deli in London that met an identical fate: all the article had was the street address, phone number, and a marketing blurb about what they sell.
Had there been a history of the store, or perhaps something else other than just stating 'this is where we are and what we sell' it might have made the cut.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254272</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the news were published on that blog the wikipedia admins noticed to their horror they coudn't roll back other web pages... What a very stupid reply, indeed makes him a liar or an idiot.</p><p>Just saying, my worthy contributions have been mangled a few times by idiots with admin powers or who have friends with admin powers. It's very disheartening, it's like a massive exercise at bureaucracy. Nobody likes a jack boot in the teeth. And there are some many fouled up policies too...</p><p>Having said that I think the whole project is an amazing construct and contains a massive amout of useful data. It's a testment to the usefullness of free software and free content. And to human altruistic collaboration.</p><p>A tough cookie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the news were published on that blog the wikipedia admins noticed to their horror they coud n't roll back other web pages... What a very stupid reply , indeed makes him a liar or an idiot.Just saying , my worthy contributions have been mangled a few times by idiots with admin powers or who have friends with admin powers .
It 's very disheartening , it 's like a massive exercise at bureaucracy .
Nobody likes a jack boot in the teeth .
And there are some many fouled up policies too...Having said that I think the whole project is an amazing construct and contains a massive amout of useful data .
It 's a testment to the usefullness of free software and free content .
And to human altruistic collaboration.A tough cookie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the news were published on that blog the wikipedia admins noticed to their horror they coudn't roll back other web pages... What a very stupid reply, indeed makes him a liar or an idiot.Just saying, my worthy contributions have been mangled a few times by idiots with admin powers or who have friends with admin powers.
It's very disheartening, it's like a massive exercise at bureaucracy.
Nobody likes a jack boot in the teeth.
And there are some many fouled up policies too...Having said that I think the whole project is an amazing construct and contains a massive amout of useful data.
It's a testment to the usefullness of free software and free content.
And to human altruistic collaboration.A tough cookie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254140</id>
	<title>Re:Liar,Christmas sale,free shipping discounts...</title>
	<author>Johnson1985</author>
	<datestamp>1259418780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]   Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]   Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254286</id>
	<title>the problem with wikipedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem with wikipedia is fairly effectively demonstrated with the following two examples:</p><p>Some guy nominates <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles\_for\_deletion/Heavy\_Metal\_(Terminator:\_The\_Sarah\_Connor\_Chronicles)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)</a> [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] for deletion and fails in his attempt. So what does he do? Merges every episode, save that one, into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List\_of\_Terminator:\_The\_Sarah\_Connor\_Chronicles\_episodes" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes</a> [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]. You see - this user knows he couldn't get consensus by an AfD so he engages in backroom deals to gain support.</p><p>And then there's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Torchic" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Torchic</a> [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]. A front page featured article with 20 paragraphs and 46 citations now reduced to redirecting to a list of pokemon, with 2-3 paragraphs (depending on whether or not a one sentence paragraph counts) and no citations. Amazing stuff.</p><p>Established editors defend this by saying stuff like "wikipedia doesn't need articles on every pokemon when so many other real world subjects are lacking!".  What such editors don't understand, however, is that when someone's pride enjoy is spat upon, as it often is at wikipedia, they not only stop contributing to those articles - they stop contributing to all articles.</p><p>And wikia isn't an alternative.  I mean, what's the definitive wiki on pokemon if it's not wikipedia?  pokemon.wikia.com? bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net? pokemon.neoseeker.com? pokemonwithus.wikia.com? pokeworldpokedex.wikia.com? pokebuddies.wikia.com? pokemates.wikia.com? pokepals.wikia.com? pokemonpokedex.wikia.com? pokemonaiman.wikia.com?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem with wikipedia is fairly effectively demonstrated with the following two examples : Some guy nominates Heavy Metal ( Terminator : The Sarah Connor Chronicles ) [ wikipedia.org ] [ wikipedia.org ] for deletion and fails in his attempt .
So what does he do ?
Merges every episode , save that one , into List of Terminator : The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes [ wikipedia.org ] [ wikipedia.org ] .
You see - this user knows he could n't get consensus by an AfD so he engages in backroom deals to gain support.And then there 's Torchic [ wikipedia.org ] [ wikipedia.org ] .
A front page featured article with 20 paragraphs and 46 citations now reduced to redirecting to a list of pokemon , with 2-3 paragraphs ( depending on whether or not a one sentence paragraph counts ) and no citations .
Amazing stuff.Established editors defend this by saying stuff like " wikipedia does n't need articles on every pokemon when so many other real world subjects are lacking ! " .
What such editors do n't understand , however , is that when someone 's pride enjoy is spat upon , as it often is at wikipedia , they not only stop contributing to those articles - they stop contributing to all articles.And wikia is n't an alternative .
I mean , what 's the definitive wiki on pokemon if it 's not wikipedia ?
pokemon.wikia.com ? bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net ?
pokemon.neoseeker.com ? pokemonwithus.wikia.com ?
pokeworldpokedex.wikia.com ? pokebuddies.wikia.com ?
pokemates.wikia.com ? pokepals.wikia.com ?
pokemonpokedex.wikia.com ? pokemonaiman.wikia.com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem with wikipedia is fairly effectively demonstrated with the following two examples:Some guy nominates Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] for deletion and fails in his attempt.
So what does he do?
Merges every episode, save that one, into List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org].
You see - this user knows he couldn't get consensus by an AfD so he engages in backroom deals to gain support.And then there's Torchic [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org].
A front page featured article with 20 paragraphs and 46 citations now reduced to redirecting to a list of pokemon, with 2-3 paragraphs (depending on whether or not a one sentence paragraph counts) and no citations.
Amazing stuff.Established editors defend this by saying stuff like "wikipedia doesn't need articles on every pokemon when so many other real world subjects are lacking!".
What such editors don't understand, however, is that when someone's pride enjoy is spat upon, as it often is at wikipedia, they not only stop contributing to those articles - they stop contributing to all articles.And wikia isn't an alternative.
I mean, what's the definitive wiki on pokemon if it's not wikipedia?
pokemon.wikia.com? bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net?
pokemon.neoseeker.com? pokemonwithus.wikia.com?
pokeworldpokedex.wikia.com? pokebuddies.wikia.com?
pokemates.wikia.com? pokepals.wikia.com?
pokemonpokedex.wikia.com? pokemonaiman.wikia.com?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257102</id>
	<title>Wikipedia lies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259407740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if they count some editors like me who intentionally add disinformation that looks credible on some level but is in fact an outright lie. Several such edits I've made have stayed there for years and nobody has put any [citation needed] tags in front of them either. As an example, I once edited John Kerry's page to say that he used to play polo in high school, and it stayed like that for 3 months.</p><p>Some people could be writing homework assignments that include my false factoids as real facts. This makes me giggle inside. If trolling was an actual trade, I'd be the CEO of a large corporation right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they count some editors like me who intentionally add disinformation that looks credible on some level but is in fact an outright lie .
Several such edits I 've made have stayed there for years and nobody has put any [ citation needed ] tags in front of them either .
As an example , I once edited John Kerry 's page to say that he used to play polo in high school , and it stayed like that for 3 months.Some people could be writing homework assignments that include my false factoids as real facts .
This makes me giggle inside .
If trolling was an actual trade , I 'd be the CEO of a large corporation right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they count some editors like me who intentionally add disinformation that looks credible on some level but is in fact an outright lie.
Several such edits I've made have stayed there for years and nobody has put any [citation needed] tags in front of them either.
As an example, I once edited John Kerry's page to say that he used to play polo in high school, and it stayed like that for 3 months.Some people could be writing homework assignments that include my false factoids as real facts.
This makes me giggle inside.
If trolling was an actual trade, I'd be the CEO of a large corporation right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254548</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1259424000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a bit much to say you're replying to a post riddled with ad hominems, I see a single one in the subject line, the rest looks looks conditional.</p><p>I also think it's a natural response when we're used to seeing politically motivated people dance around a simple claim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a bit much to say you 're replying to a post riddled with ad hominems , I see a single one in the subject line , the rest looks looks conditional.I also think it 's a natural response when we 're used to seeing politically motivated people dance around a simple claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a bit much to say you're replying to a post riddled with ad hominems, I see a single one in the subject line, the rest looks looks conditional.I also think it's a natural response when we're used to seeing politically motivated people dance around a simple claim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254908</id>
	<title>Re:What's with the "Deputy Director" stuff?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259428020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fancy titles and self esteem. Why do you think janitors are now facility managers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fancy titles and self esteem .
Why do you think janitors are now facility managers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fancy titles and self esteem.
Why do you think janitors are now facility managers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255192</id>
	<title>Re:How About Those</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1259430660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha! I thought about contributing to some articles relevant to my engineering work, but when I read some of the discussions that went on forever about obscure grammatical points or trying to decide between two perfectly (and probably equally) valid words, I ran (clicked) away very quickly.</p><p>I love Wiki, but it's the land of the obsessive compulsive. I'm terrified to even read the discussion for the article on the TV show Monk.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha !
I thought about contributing to some articles relevant to my engineering work , but when I read some of the discussions that went on forever about obscure grammatical points or trying to decide between two perfectly ( and probably equally ) valid words , I ran ( clicked ) away very quickly.I love Wiki , but it 's the land of the obsessive compulsive .
I 'm terrified to even read the discussion for the article on the TV show Monk .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha!
I thought about contributing to some articles relevant to my engineering work, but when I read some of the discussions that went on forever about obscure grammatical points or trying to decide between two perfectly (and probably equally) valid words, I ran (clicked) away very quickly.I love Wiki, but it's the land of the obsessive compulsive.
I'm terrified to even read the discussion for the article on the TV show Monk.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254176</id>
	<title>Wikipedia vs. English Wikipedia</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1259419680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the original article was talking about English Wikipedia, but Eric quotes statistics from all Wikipedias combined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the original article was talking about English Wikipedia , but Eric quotes statistics from all Wikipedias combined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the original article was talking about English Wikipedia, but Eric quotes statistics from all Wikipedias combined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254560</id>
	<title>Here is how I gave up on them</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259424120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know the tiny fastmail.fm Aussie company who just does mail business and stays afloat with their fast, simple, modern UI and advanced/up to date tech/software usage?</p><p>Someone dared to write the unique features of Fastmail, when I referenced it to a server admin (in mail business) friend, he joked back at me for using a "spammer mail company"... I asked "how?", some idiot "citation needed" type went to article and marked it as spam. Imagine you claim your local pharmacy to sell drugs, it is the same thing for a company who just stays up with mail. Like, "do business with us, check wiki article, it accuses us to be spammers of a free encyclopedia".</p><p>Fastmail guys didn't care much, I cared (as user) and reminding the nazi editor what would happen if it wasn't wikipedia and if they accused a big evil mail provider to be a spammer on a large dotcom didn't help much. "no legal threats" policy.</p><p>If I was in mail business and if Wiki did similar thing to me, I would find that editor/user and sue him for hurting my image and putting my business to risk. Their NPVO or whatever self claimed terms wouldn't matter a second. Who the hell are them and what makes them different from other dotcoms?</p><p>We should give up creating our own monopolies really...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know the tiny fastmail.fm Aussie company who just does mail business and stays afloat with their fast , simple , modern UI and advanced/up to date tech/software usage ? Someone dared to write the unique features of Fastmail , when I referenced it to a server admin ( in mail business ) friend , he joked back at me for using a " spammer mail company " ... I asked " how ?
" , some idiot " citation needed " type went to article and marked it as spam .
Imagine you claim your local pharmacy to sell drugs , it is the same thing for a company who just stays up with mail .
Like , " do business with us , check wiki article , it accuses us to be spammers of a free encyclopedia " .Fastmail guys did n't care much , I cared ( as user ) and reminding the nazi editor what would happen if it was n't wikipedia and if they accused a big evil mail provider to be a spammer on a large dotcom did n't help much .
" no legal threats " policy.If I was in mail business and if Wiki did similar thing to me , I would find that editor/user and sue him for hurting my image and putting my business to risk .
Their NPVO or whatever self claimed terms would n't matter a second .
Who the hell are them and what makes them different from other dotcoms ? We should give up creating our own monopolies really.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know the tiny fastmail.fm Aussie company who just does mail business and stays afloat with their fast, simple, modern UI and advanced/up to date tech/software usage?Someone dared to write the unique features of Fastmail, when I referenced it to a server admin (in mail business) friend, he joked back at me for using a "spammer mail company"... I asked "how?
", some idiot "citation needed" type went to article and marked it as spam.
Imagine you claim your local pharmacy to sell drugs, it is the same thing for a company who just stays up with mail.
Like, "do business with us, check wiki article, it accuses us to be spammers of a free encyclopedia".Fastmail guys didn't care much, I cared (as user) and reminding the nazi editor what would happen if it wasn't wikipedia and if they accused a big evil mail provider to be a spammer on a large dotcom didn't help much.
"no legal threats" policy.If I was in mail business and if Wiki did similar thing to me, I would find that editor/user and sue him for hurting my image and putting my business to risk.
Their NPVO or whatever self claimed terms wouldn't matter a second.
Who the hell are them and what makes them different from other dotcoms?We should give up creating our own monopolies really...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254574</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotes are not data</title>
	<author>zoney\_ie</author>
	<datestamp>1259424300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It nevertheless should tell you something that criticism of Wikipedia is now so widespread, and particularly by ex-editors/admins (one could argue that is nothing surprising - but the sheer numbers of such "exs" surely is extraordinary).</p><p>Anyway, it is interesting, sometimes useful in a sort of "ask a friend" way, and sort of a real-life H2G2, but basically, it's a bit of fanciful nonsense to think it's anything particularly special or proper (the same goes for the web in general, and "web 2.0" in particular). People are the same as always, and the information online is neither necessarily persistent, and is mostly noise (and any influence on offline "hard copy" information may be overall detrimental due to the noise/inaccuracy added).</p><p>Also too many people still haven't realised that the Internet is not some special mystical place but is in fact just part of the real world, and ultimately has to be subject to real world social, political and judicial norms, despite the difficulties in applying some of those.</p><p>A lot of the idealists who want to belief the fluff about a free magical Internet are people who in the real world would try to push their idealistic nonsense and simply allow the strongest elements in society to abuse any "freedom" to impose horrible restrictions of freedom. It's the same kind of mindset that believed the nonsense accompanying certain failed political ideologies of the 20th century, which we now have ample evidence that they are fanciful ideas that in reality just bring misery.</p><p>People need to stick to boring old tradition and the lessons we have learnt over and over again over centuries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It nevertheless should tell you something that criticism of Wikipedia is now so widespread , and particularly by ex-editors/admins ( one could argue that is nothing surprising - but the sheer numbers of such " exs " surely is extraordinary ) .Anyway , it is interesting , sometimes useful in a sort of " ask a friend " way , and sort of a real-life H2G2 , but basically , it 's a bit of fanciful nonsense to think it 's anything particularly special or proper ( the same goes for the web in general , and " web 2.0 " in particular ) .
People are the same as always , and the information online is neither necessarily persistent , and is mostly noise ( and any influence on offline " hard copy " information may be overall detrimental due to the noise/inaccuracy added ) .Also too many people still have n't realised that the Internet is not some special mystical place but is in fact just part of the real world , and ultimately has to be subject to real world social , political and judicial norms , despite the difficulties in applying some of those.A lot of the idealists who want to belief the fluff about a free magical Internet are people who in the real world would try to push their idealistic nonsense and simply allow the strongest elements in society to abuse any " freedom " to impose horrible restrictions of freedom .
It 's the same kind of mindset that believed the nonsense accompanying certain failed political ideologies of the 20th century , which we now have ample evidence that they are fanciful ideas that in reality just bring misery.People need to stick to boring old tradition and the lessons we have learnt over and over again over centuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It nevertheless should tell you something that criticism of Wikipedia is now so widespread, and particularly by ex-editors/admins (one could argue that is nothing surprising - but the sheer numbers of such "exs" surely is extraordinary).Anyway, it is interesting, sometimes useful in a sort of "ask a friend" way, and sort of a real-life H2G2, but basically, it's a bit of fanciful nonsense to think it's anything particularly special or proper (the same goes for the web in general, and "web 2.0" in particular).
People are the same as always, and the information online is neither necessarily persistent, and is mostly noise (and any influence on offline "hard copy" information may be overall detrimental due to the noise/inaccuracy added).Also too many people still haven't realised that the Internet is not some special mystical place but is in fact just part of the real world, and ultimately has to be subject to real world social, political and judicial norms, despite the difficulties in applying some of those.A lot of the idealists who want to belief the fluff about a free magical Internet are people who in the real world would try to push their idealistic nonsense and simply allow the strongest elements in society to abuse any "freedom" to impose horrible restrictions of freedom.
It's the same kind of mindset that believed the nonsense accompanying certain failed political ideologies of the 20th century, which we now have ample evidence that they are fanciful ideas that in reality just bring misery.People need to stick to boring old tradition and the lessons we have learnt over and over again over centuries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254988</id>
	<title>The revolution eats its children</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259428920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia was a very interesting concept. A free online encyclopedia that everyone could contribute to. Everyone could fill his knowledge and information in, contribute to the common knowledge and, eventually, this should lead to possibly the best, most complete collection of human knowledge ever assembled. A quite noble goal, and for a while it worked out well.</p><p>Then came the trolls, the spammers, the corporate shills, and we noticed that human is appearantly not able to cooperate without rules and boundaries. Sad. But we're humans. Driven by base interests, instincts and egoism. So the idea of editors and supervisers was born, people who should take it into their hands to make sure these shills, spammers and trolls are kept out and tossed out. A noble goal, and for a while it worked out well.</p><p>But editors are just as much human as the spammers, trolls and shills are. When you are given the power to shape and regulate the knowledge of humankind, it becomes quite tempting to not only shape and regulate it, the big temptation is to dictate it. You are the keeper of knowledge, the overseer of truth.</p><p>No nobel goal this time and behold, it doesn't work out well.</p><p>It's the same "who watches the watchers" problem we see a lot today. If there's nobody overseeing your use of power, the temptation to abuse that power becomes strong. It seems we are unable or unwilling to self regulate ourselves when we are not held accountable for what we do. As we see here (as well as in politics or business) if you are only held accountable by your peers, it's unlikely that anything but the most gross transgressions will ever be punished. And with "gross", of course I mean "whatever goes against the interests of your peers". Not what goes against the interests of your "inferiors", your users or even the project or duty itself that you agreed to oversee and manage.</p><p>So what could be done? Another superstructure above the editors? I think it's already been done, and it doesn't change jack. A broader base has to be founded, not a smaller top. Power in the hands of more people, not less. The meta-moderation system of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comes to mind, where some (or many, computers can handle it) can vote for or against a certain moderation. One person may err. Some people may conspire to push an agenda. A few millions are hard to bribe, convince or sway.</p><p>Wikipedia allegedly has millions of users. Ok, so use them. Again, certain people may have a dislike of a certain editor and will vote his edits negative no matter how much they might remove vandalism because they feel slighted by them. The majority won't. And IF the majority feels slighted by a certain editor, it might be a good idea to remove that editor. Quite obviously he's not doing a good job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia was a very interesting concept .
A free online encyclopedia that everyone could contribute to .
Everyone could fill his knowledge and information in , contribute to the common knowledge and , eventually , this should lead to possibly the best , most complete collection of human knowledge ever assembled .
A quite noble goal , and for a while it worked out well.Then came the trolls , the spammers , the corporate shills , and we noticed that human is appearantly not able to cooperate without rules and boundaries .
Sad. But we 're humans .
Driven by base interests , instincts and egoism .
So the idea of editors and supervisers was born , people who should take it into their hands to make sure these shills , spammers and trolls are kept out and tossed out .
A noble goal , and for a while it worked out well.But editors are just as much human as the spammers , trolls and shills are .
When you are given the power to shape and regulate the knowledge of humankind , it becomes quite tempting to not only shape and regulate it , the big temptation is to dictate it .
You are the keeper of knowledge , the overseer of truth.No nobel goal this time and behold , it does n't work out well.It 's the same " who watches the watchers " problem we see a lot today .
If there 's nobody overseeing your use of power , the temptation to abuse that power becomes strong .
It seems we are unable or unwilling to self regulate ourselves when we are not held accountable for what we do .
As we see here ( as well as in politics or business ) if you are only held accountable by your peers , it 's unlikely that anything but the most gross transgressions will ever be punished .
And with " gross " , of course I mean " whatever goes against the interests of your peers " .
Not what goes against the interests of your " inferiors " , your users or even the project or duty itself that you agreed to oversee and manage.So what could be done ?
Another superstructure above the editors ?
I think it 's already been done , and it does n't change jack .
A broader base has to be founded , not a smaller top .
Power in the hands of more people , not less .
The meta-moderation system of / .
comes to mind , where some ( or many , computers can handle it ) can vote for or against a certain moderation .
One person may err .
Some people may conspire to push an agenda .
A few millions are hard to bribe , convince or sway.Wikipedia allegedly has millions of users .
Ok , so use them .
Again , certain people may have a dislike of a certain editor and will vote his edits negative no matter how much they might remove vandalism because they feel slighted by them .
The majority wo n't .
And IF the majority feels slighted by a certain editor , it might be a good idea to remove that editor .
Quite obviously he 's not doing a good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia was a very interesting concept.
A free online encyclopedia that everyone could contribute to.
Everyone could fill his knowledge and information in, contribute to the common knowledge and, eventually, this should lead to possibly the best, most complete collection of human knowledge ever assembled.
A quite noble goal, and for a while it worked out well.Then came the trolls, the spammers, the corporate shills, and we noticed that human is appearantly not able to cooperate without rules and boundaries.
Sad. But we're humans.
Driven by base interests, instincts and egoism.
So the idea of editors and supervisers was born, people who should take it into their hands to make sure these shills, spammers and trolls are kept out and tossed out.
A noble goal, and for a while it worked out well.But editors are just as much human as the spammers, trolls and shills are.
When you are given the power to shape and regulate the knowledge of humankind, it becomes quite tempting to not only shape and regulate it, the big temptation is to dictate it.
You are the keeper of knowledge, the overseer of truth.No nobel goal this time and behold, it doesn't work out well.It's the same "who watches the watchers" problem we see a lot today.
If there's nobody overseeing your use of power, the temptation to abuse that power becomes strong.
It seems we are unable or unwilling to self regulate ourselves when we are not held accountable for what we do.
As we see here (as well as in politics or business) if you are only held accountable by your peers, it's unlikely that anything but the most gross transgressions will ever be punished.
And with "gross", of course I mean "whatever goes against the interests of your peers".
Not what goes against the interests of your "inferiors", your users or even the project or duty itself that you agreed to oversee and manage.So what could be done?
Another superstructure above the editors?
I think it's already been done, and it doesn't change jack.
A broader base has to be founded, not a smaller top.
Power in the hands of more people, not less.
The meta-moderation system of /.
comes to mind, where some (or many, computers can handle it) can vote for or against a certain moderation.
One person may err.
Some people may conspire to push an agenda.
A few millions are hard to bribe, convince or sway.Wikipedia allegedly has millions of users.
Ok, so use them.
Again, certain people may have a dislike of a certain editor and will vote his edits negative no matter how much they might remove vandalism because they feel slighted by them.
The majority won't.
And IF the majority feels slighted by a certain editor, it might be a good idea to remove that editor.
Quite obviously he's not doing a good job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254678</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it was a lot, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like wikipedia and all, but they don't deserve an award for not having ads.</p><p>The wiki folk constantly have fundraisers and the user community constantly donates money, which is one of the reasons they don't have ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like wikipedia and all , but they do n't deserve an award for not having ads.The wiki folk constantly have fundraisers and the user community constantly donates money , which is one of the reasons they do n't have ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like wikipedia and all, but they don't deserve an award for not having ads.The wiki folk constantly have fundraisers and the user community constantly donates money, which is one of the reasons they don't have ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254668</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1259425500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their POLITICAL opinions get in the way, which is one of the reasons I take EVERYTHING I read on Wicki with a GRAIN OF SALT.
If I can't find infomation ANYWHERE to back it up, I blow it off as someone on Wicki with a political axe to grind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their POLITICAL opinions get in the way , which is one of the reasons I take EVERYTHING I read on Wicki with a GRAIN OF SALT .
If I ca n't find infomation ANYWHERE to back it up , I blow it off as someone on Wicki with a political axe to grind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their POLITICAL opinions get in the way, which is one of the reasons I take EVERYTHING I read on Wicki with a GRAIN OF SALT.
If I can't find infomation ANYWHERE to back it up, I blow it off as someone on Wicki with a political axe to grind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256944</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>el3mentary</author>
	<datestamp>1259405520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone starts off saying "it ain't so" by listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question, he's either terribly stupid, or trying to pull a fast one on you. It's called misdirection and confusion. Yes, it's actually a named trick in the arsenal of con artists.</p><p>So much for that.</p></div><p>It ain't so!</p><p>1.Wikipedia has 14.4 million articles<br>2..The &ldquo;black box&rdquo; on an airplane is actually blaze orange so that it can be found easier among the wreckage if the plane were to crash.<br>3.Creedence Clearwater Revival had seven songs hit #2 on the pop singles chart, but never scored a number one hit.<br>4.Cockroaches can live up to two weeks without a head because their brain is located throughout their body.<br>5.Beowulf is the longest Old English manuscript in existence. It contains about a tenth of all known Anglo-Saxon poetry.<br>6.Wikipedia is the 5th most visited sit in the world.</p><p>So there, why can't you understand that's why you're wrong!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone starts off saying " it ai n't so " by listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question , he 's either terribly stupid , or trying to pull a fast one on you .
It 's called misdirection and confusion .
Yes , it 's actually a named trick in the arsenal of con artists.So much for that.It ai n't so ! 1.Wikipedia has 14.4 million articles2..The    black box    on an airplane is actually blaze orange so that it can be found easier among the wreckage if the plane were to crash.3.Creedence Clearwater Revival had seven songs hit # 2 on the pop singles chart , but never scored a number one hit.4.Cockroaches can live up to two weeks without a head because their brain is located throughout their body.5.Beowulf is the longest Old English manuscript in existence .
It contains about a tenth of all known Anglo-Saxon poetry.6.Wikipedia is the 5th most visited sit in the world.So there , why ca n't you understand that 's why you 're wrong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone starts off saying "it ain't so" by listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question, he's either terribly stupid, or trying to pull a fast one on you.
It's called misdirection and confusion.
Yes, it's actually a named trick in the arsenal of con artists.So much for that.It ain't so!1.Wikipedia has 14.4 million articles2..The “black box” on an airplane is actually blaze orange so that it can be found easier among the wreckage if the plane were to crash.3.Creedence Clearwater Revival had seven songs hit #2 on the pop singles chart, but never scored a number one hit.4.Cockroaches can live up to two weeks without a head because their brain is located throughout their body.5.Beowulf is the longest Old English manuscript in existence.
It contains about a tenth of all known Anglo-Saxon poetry.6.Wikipedia is the 5th most visited sit in the world.So there, why can't you understand that's why you're wrong!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255812</id>
	<title>Re:I can appreciate their pain...</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259437320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should a new xbox 360 game get a page but not the "Team Twinny" you've linked to? I would agree that they don't matter to me but if people do genuinely view their videos then they should have a page as it's quite likely that eventually someone will do a search on it and therefore the only thing wrong with that page is that it doesn't include enough content.
<br> <br>
Wikipedia should strive to include everything which means the self promotion too as long as it provides useful content and doesn't just create a page to effectively link to their content.
<br> <br>
There are loads of things on Wikipedia that I don't think matter at all yet they're there and I think they should be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should a new xbox 360 game get a page but not the " Team Twinny " you 've linked to ?
I would agree that they do n't matter to me but if people do genuinely view their videos then they should have a page as it 's quite likely that eventually someone will do a search on it and therefore the only thing wrong with that page is that it does n't include enough content .
Wikipedia should strive to include everything which means the self promotion too as long as it provides useful content and does n't just create a page to effectively link to their content .
There are loads of things on Wikipedia that I do n't think matter at all yet they 're there and I think they should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should a new xbox 360 game get a page but not the "Team Twinny" you've linked to?
I would agree that they don't matter to me but if people do genuinely view their videos then they should have a page as it's quite likely that eventually someone will do a search on it and therefore the only thing wrong with that page is that it doesn't include enough content.
Wikipedia should strive to include everything which means the self promotion too as long as it provides useful content and doesn't just create a page to effectively link to their content.
There are loads of things on Wikipedia that I don't think matter at all yet they're there and I think they should be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254126</id>
	<title>Wikipedia hits 3 million, dies.</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1259418480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The online encyclopedia, knowledge base, social networking site, essay repository, blog, search engine, news aggregator, dessert wax and floor topping Wikipedia has reached its three millionth article and <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/08/18/wikipedia-reaches-3-million-articles-stalls-and-dies/" title="today.com">ceased all editing</a> [today.com] as everyone gives up this "free" foolishness and goes home, to read newspapers and watch network television for the rest of their lives.</p><p>Dr Felipe Ortega reported that only 1\% of edits by random users were kept. "They were all unspeakable shit," said burnt-out administrator WikiFiddler451. "All of them. No, I'm not exaggerating. Go to Special:Newpages and read a day's entries some time. You'll <i>start</i> by deleting the whole database, before you get onto plotting the doom of humanity. Christ, why go on?"</p><p>Recent media coverage has highlighted the "inclusionist/deletionist" wars of 2005, including enquiries from Endemol looking for a "passionate deletionist" to join <i>Big Brother 11</i>, "preferably one with big tits." It is thought that Wikipedia could have had ten million articles by now had they not viciously abused their editorial powers by deleting your valuable contributions about you, your teacher at school, your garage band or your dog or the many cameraphone pictures you uploaded of your penis.</p><p>"Everything's already been written," said WikiFiddler451, burning the last of his <i>Star Wars</i> figurines before leaving for his rehabilitation course in social interaction skills and basics of hygiene. "Do you have <i>any idea</i> how big THREE MILLION articles is? A BILLION GODDAMN WORDS! Are you going to read more than a <i>droplet</i> of that in your <i>life</i>? No you <i>aren't.</i> You're following your goddamn <i>Twitter.</i> </p><p>"But hey, only two million articles are <i>The Simpsons</i> in popular culture or <i>Doctor Who</i> in popular culture. No-one actually reads this stuff, they just <i>write</i> it. We have LiveJournal for stuff people write that no-one wants to read. <i>'Oh, I wandered lonely as a cheeseburger/ My passionate angst filling my Coke with darkness.'</i> Or Knol. KNOL! I'll just Bing <i>that</i> one."</p><p>Shell-shocked veterans of Wikipedia are at a loss now that it's all over &mdash; wandering the alleyways of the Internet, mumbling to themselves about "ANI" and "we had to delete the village in order to save it," threatening the policemen moving them on with "arbitration" and bursting into tears when the policeman answers "citation needed." Mere children, sent into the culture wars to save knowledge from horrors they barely understood, and coming home as crippled wrecks. No victory parades for these brave men and women. There is only so much Citizendium, Uncyclopedia and 4chan can do for these child heroes. With your help, we can build Potemkin wikis for these honorable veterans, where they can safely ban and unban, revert and edit-war, and correct the naming of Danzig^WGdansk^WDanzig^WGdansk without the possibility of damage to actual human readers. Please donate so that they may never bug you again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The online encyclopedia , knowledge base , social networking site , essay repository , blog , search engine , news aggregator , dessert wax and floor topping Wikipedia has reached its three millionth article and ceased all editing [ today.com ] as everyone gives up this " free " foolishness and goes home , to read newspapers and watch network television for the rest of their lives.Dr Felipe Ortega reported that only 1 \ % of edits by random users were kept .
" They were all unspeakable shit , " said burnt-out administrator WikiFiddler451 .
" All of them .
No , I 'm not exaggerating .
Go to Special : Newpages and read a day 's entries some time .
You 'll start by deleting the whole database , before you get onto plotting the doom of humanity .
Christ , why go on ?
" Recent media coverage has highlighted the " inclusionist/deletionist " wars of 2005 , including enquiries from Endemol looking for a " passionate deletionist " to join Big Brother 11 , " preferably one with big tits .
" It is thought that Wikipedia could have had ten million articles by now had they not viciously abused their editorial powers by deleting your valuable contributions about you , your teacher at school , your garage band or your dog or the many cameraphone pictures you uploaded of your penis .
" Everything 's already been written , " said WikiFiddler451 , burning the last of his Star Wars figurines before leaving for his rehabilitation course in social interaction skills and basics of hygiene .
" Do you have any idea how big THREE MILLION articles is ?
A BILLION GODDAMN WORDS !
Are you going to read more than a droplet of that in your life ?
No you are n't .
You 're following your goddamn Twitter .
" But hey , only two million articles are The Simpsons in popular culture or Doctor Who in popular culture .
No-one actually reads this stuff , they just write it .
We have LiveJournal for stuff people write that no-one wants to read .
'Oh , I wandered lonely as a cheeseburger/ My passionate angst filling my Coke with darkness .
' Or Knol .
KNOL ! I 'll just Bing that one .
" Shell-shocked veterans of Wikipedia are at a loss now that it 's all over    wandering the alleyways of the Internet , mumbling to themselves about " ANI " and " we had to delete the village in order to save it , " threatening the policemen moving them on with " arbitration " and bursting into tears when the policeman answers " citation needed .
" Mere children , sent into the culture wars to save knowledge from horrors they barely understood , and coming home as crippled wrecks .
No victory parades for these brave men and women .
There is only so much Citizendium , Uncyclopedia and 4chan can do for these child heroes .
With your help , we can build Potemkin wikis for these honorable veterans , where they can safely ban and unban , revert and edit-war , and correct the naming of Danzig ^ WGdansk ^ WDanzig ^ WGdansk without the possibility of damage to actual human readers .
Please donate so that they may never bug you again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The online encyclopedia, knowledge base, social networking site, essay repository, blog, search engine, news aggregator, dessert wax and floor topping Wikipedia has reached its three millionth article and ceased all editing [today.com] as everyone gives up this "free" foolishness and goes home, to read newspapers and watch network television for the rest of their lives.Dr Felipe Ortega reported that only 1\% of edits by random users were kept.
"They were all unspeakable shit," said burnt-out administrator WikiFiddler451.
"All of them.
No, I'm not exaggerating.
Go to Special:Newpages and read a day's entries some time.
You'll start by deleting the whole database, before you get onto plotting the doom of humanity.
Christ, why go on?
"Recent media coverage has highlighted the "inclusionist/deletionist" wars of 2005, including enquiries from Endemol looking for a "passionate deletionist" to join Big Brother 11, "preferably one with big tits.
" It is thought that Wikipedia could have had ten million articles by now had they not viciously abused their editorial powers by deleting your valuable contributions about you, your teacher at school, your garage band or your dog or the many cameraphone pictures you uploaded of your penis.
"Everything's already been written," said WikiFiddler451, burning the last of his Star Wars figurines before leaving for his rehabilitation course in social interaction skills and basics of hygiene.
"Do you have any idea how big THREE MILLION articles is?
A BILLION GODDAMN WORDS!
Are you going to read more than a droplet of that in your life?
No you aren't.
You're following your goddamn Twitter.
"But hey, only two million articles are The Simpsons in popular culture or Doctor Who in popular culture.
No-one actually reads this stuff, they just write it.
We have LiveJournal for stuff people write that no-one wants to read.
'Oh, I wandered lonely as a cheeseburger/ My passionate angst filling my Coke with darkness.
' Or Knol.
KNOL! I'll just Bing that one.
"Shell-shocked veterans of Wikipedia are at a loss now that it's all over — wandering the alleyways of the Internet, mumbling to themselves about "ANI" and "we had to delete the village in order to save it," threatening the policemen moving them on with "arbitration" and bursting into tears when the policeman answers "citation needed.
" Mere children, sent into the culture wars to save knowledge from horrors they barely understood, and coming home as crippled wrecks.
No victory parades for these brave men and women.
There is only so much Citizendium, Uncyclopedia and 4chan can do for these child heroes.
With your help, we can build Potemkin wikis for these honorable veterans, where they can safely ban and unban, revert and edit-war, and correct the naming of Danzig^WGdansk^WDanzig^WGdansk without the possibility of damage to actual human readers.
Please donate so that they may never bug you again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</id>
	<title>My own experience.</title>
	<author>taxman\_10m</author>
	<datestamp>1259419800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I joined recently to update the page of a candidate running for Ted Kennedy's seat (election will be done and over with by January).  I wasn't updating much, adding the candidate's birth date, linking to a book he had written, and adding the part copied from other candidate's wiki pages that links him to the Senate race.  After a full day of back in forth with an editor deleting whatever I had just added, the only think that made it through was the link to the book he had written.  And I think that just slipped through.  Not worth the effort at all trying to update a page with new info.  That ends my time working with Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I joined recently to update the page of a candidate running for Ted Kennedy 's seat ( election will be done and over with by January ) .
I was n't updating much , adding the candidate 's birth date , linking to a book he had written , and adding the part copied from other candidate 's wiki pages that links him to the Senate race .
After a full day of back in forth with an editor deleting whatever I had just added , the only think that made it through was the link to the book he had written .
And I think that just slipped through .
Not worth the effort at all trying to update a page with new info .
That ends my time working with Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I joined recently to update the page of a candidate running for Ted Kennedy's seat (election will be done and over with by January).
I wasn't updating much, adding the candidate's birth date, linking to a book he had written, and adding the part copied from other candidate's wiki pages that links him to the Senate race.
After a full day of back in forth with an editor deleting whatever I had just added, the only think that made it through was the link to the book he had written.
And I think that just slipped through.
Not worth the effort at all trying to update a page with new info.
That ends my time working with Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254758</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it was a lot, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259426340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's odd, I can't quite remember the last time I <em>didn't</em> see ads.  They're just the annoying fundraiser thing at the top of the page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's odd , I ca n't quite remember the last time I did n't see ads .
They 're just the annoying fundraiser thing at the top of the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's odd, I can't quite remember the last time I didn't see ads.
They're just the annoying fundraiser thing at the top of the page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255000</id>
	<title>Lapsed editors</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259429040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So they don't maintain a timestamp of "last activity by author" ??? Fucking nonsense, pardon my language.</p></div><p>There is a most recent contribution for each username, and this contribution has a timestamp. But the blog post discounts inferring things based on this date as it "doesn&rsquo;t predict whether the same person will make an edit in the future". I'd make a comparison between this view and the concept of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsed\_Catholic" title="wikipedia.org">lapsed Catholic</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they do n't maintain a timestamp of " last activity by author " ? ? ?
Fucking nonsense , pardon my language.There is a most recent contribution for each username , and this contribution has a timestamp .
But the blog post discounts inferring things based on this date as it " doesn    t predict whether the same person will make an edit in the future " .
I 'd make a comparison between this view and the concept of a lapsed Catholic [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they don't maintain a timestamp of "last activity by author" ???
Fucking nonsense, pardon my language.There is a most recent contribution for each username, and this contribution has a timestamp.
But the blog post discounts inferring things based on this date as it "doesn’t predict whether the same person will make an edit in the future".
I'd make a comparison between this view and the concept of a lapsed Catholic [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254382</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259422080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>inventing a fourth type of lie.</i></p><p>I suggest <b>Wicanard</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>inventing a fourth type of lie.I suggest Wicanard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inventing a fourth type of lie.I suggest Wicanard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254198</id>
	<title>Comparision with the FLOSS communities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259419800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If someone starts off saying "it ain't so" by listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question, he's either terribly stupid, or trying to pull a fast one on you. It's called misdirection and confusion. Yes, it's actually a named trick in the arsenal of con artists.</p><p>So much for that.</p></div><p>Did you actually read the fine blog? It's titled "Wikipedia&rsquo;s <b>Volunteer</b> Story" (emphasis mine). So it's not so much an answer to a question as a question about the relevance of the supposed question. It's like asking whether nuclear warheads or terrorism is the greater danger to world peace. (I'd answer both.)</p><p>The Wikipedia blog raises an interesting point about the seemingly irrelevant statistic about an increase in the number of readers or users as against the alleged decrease in the number of editors. This invites comparison to the free and open source software communities. Majority of those in the FLOSS community aren't developers (editors) but users, users who may include the free software advocates and others whose contribution don't necessarily involve the writing and rewriting of code. For example, the helpful mailing list or forum member who might volunteer to explain to a newbie how to edit a certain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/config file to revive a bjorked installation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone starts off saying " it ai n't so " by listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question , he 's either terribly stupid , or trying to pull a fast one on you .
It 's called misdirection and confusion .
Yes , it 's actually a named trick in the arsenal of con artists.So much for that.Did you actually read the fine blog ?
It 's titled " Wikipedia    s Volunteer Story " ( emphasis mine ) .
So it 's not so much an answer to a question as a question about the relevance of the supposed question .
It 's like asking whether nuclear warheads or terrorism is the greater danger to world peace .
( I 'd answer both .
) The Wikipedia blog raises an interesting point about the seemingly irrelevant statistic about an increase in the number of readers or users as against the alleged decrease in the number of editors .
This invites comparison to the free and open source software communities .
Majority of those in the FLOSS community are n't developers ( editors ) but users , users who may include the free software advocates and others whose contribution do n't necessarily involve the writing and rewriting of code .
For example , the helpful mailing list or forum member who might volunteer to explain to a newbie how to edit a certain /etc/config file to revive a bjorked installation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone starts off saying "it ain't so" by listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question, he's either terribly stupid, or trying to pull a fast one on you.
It's called misdirection and confusion.
Yes, it's actually a named trick in the arsenal of con artists.So much for that.Did you actually read the fine blog?
It's titled "Wikipedia’s Volunteer Story" (emphasis mine).
So it's not so much an answer to a question as a question about the relevance of the supposed question.
It's like asking whether nuclear warheads or terrorism is the greater danger to world peace.
(I'd answer both.
)The Wikipedia blog raises an interesting point about the seemingly irrelevant statistic about an increase in the number of readers or users as against the alleged decrease in the number of editors.
This invites comparison to the free and open source software communities.
Majority of those in the FLOSS community aren't developers (editors) but users, users who may include the free software advocates and others whose contribution don't necessarily involve the writing and rewriting of code.
For example, the helpful mailing list or forum member who might volunteer to explain to a newbie how to edit a certain /etc/config file to revive a bjorked installation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254396</id>
	<title>Wikipedia Disputes Editor Exodus Claims</title>
	<author>DeanFox</author>
	<datestamp>1259422200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
[Citation Needed]
<br>
A more robust citation is needed.  Marked for Deletion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Citation Needed ] A more robust citation is needed .
Marked for Deletion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
[Citation Needed]

A more robust citation is needed.
Marked for Deletion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254572</id>
	<title>Wikipedia "Knowledge"</title>
	<author>Steve Franklin</author>
	<datestamp>1259424300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the difference? Wikipedia is simply a means of promoting whatever is the accepted "common knowledge" about a subject at the time. Anything resembling original research is immediately stricken from the Wikipedia "Gospel according to the Experts." In this regard, Wikipedia resembles the kind of banal nonsense one reads in high school textbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the difference ?
Wikipedia is simply a means of promoting whatever is the accepted " common knowledge " about a subject at the time .
Anything resembling original research is immediately stricken from the Wikipedia " Gospel according to the Experts .
" In this regard , Wikipedia resembles the kind of banal nonsense one reads in high school textbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the difference?
Wikipedia is simply a means of promoting whatever is the accepted "common knowledge" about a subject at the time.
Anything resembling original research is immediately stricken from the Wikipedia "Gospel according to the Experts.
" In this regard, Wikipedia resembles the kind of banal nonsense one reads in high school textbooks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256572</id>
	<title>Re:What's with the "Deputy Director" stuff?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259401080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could just look up the word "deputy" in the dictionary:</p><p><i>deputy [ d&#233;ppytee ] (plural deputies)</i></p><p><i>noun<br>Definition:</i></p><p><i>1. somebody's representative: somebody fully authorized or appointed to act on behalf of somebody else</i></p><p><i>2. second-in-command: an assistant who is authorized to act in a superior's place</i></p><p><i>3. member of parliament: a parliamentary representative in some countries, e.g. in France, Germany, or Italy</i></p><p><i>4. police<br>Same as  deputy sheriff</i></p><p>It's a perfectly cromulent word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could just look up the word " deputy " in the dictionary : deputy [ d   ppytee ] ( plural deputies ) nounDefinition : 1. somebody 's representative : somebody fully authorized or appointed to act on behalf of somebody else2 .
second-in-command : an assistant who is authorized to act in a superior 's place3 .
member of parliament : a parliamentary representative in some countries , e.g .
in France , Germany , or Italy4 .
policeSame as deputy sheriffIt 's a perfectly cromulent word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could just look up the word "deputy" in the dictionary:deputy [ déppytee ] (plural deputies)nounDefinition:1. somebody's representative: somebody fully authorized or appointed to act on behalf of somebody else2.
second-in-command: an assistant who is authorized to act in a superior's place3.
member of parliament: a parliamentary representative in some countries, e.g.
in France, Germany, or Italy4.
policeSame as  deputy sheriffIt's a perfectly cromulent word.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255126</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Geek Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1259430120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you think that he is "listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question", then you don't understand the question. The question is not, "Are editors leaving Wikipedia in droves?" The question *he* cares about is, "Does this claim that editors are leaving Wikipedia in droves mean Wikipedia is dying?" So, he states outright that this claim is being made, and then disputes it. Only after he takes care of the important stuff does he address the question of number of editors. So, no, this wasn't "smoke and mirrors" (to give the actual name to the trick). It was his attempt to address what *he* considered important before talking about the accuracy of what *you* consider "the question".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think that he is " listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question " , then you do n't understand the question .
The question is not , " Are editors leaving Wikipedia in droves ?
" The question * he * cares about is , " Does this claim that editors are leaving Wikipedia in droves mean Wikipedia is dying ?
" So , he states outright that this claim is being made , and then disputes it .
Only after he takes care of the important stuff does he address the question of number of editors .
So , no , this was n't " smoke and mirrors " ( to give the actual name to the trick ) .
It was his attempt to address what * he * considered important before talking about the accuracy of what * you * consider " the question " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think that he is "listing half a dozen facts that have nothing to do with the question", then you don't understand the question.
The question is not, "Are editors leaving Wikipedia in droves?
" The question *he* cares about is, "Does this claim that editors are leaving Wikipedia in droves mean Wikipedia is dying?
" So, he states outright that this claim is being made, and then disputes it.
Only after he takes care of the important stuff does he address the question of number of editors.
So, no, this wasn't "smoke and mirrors" (to give the actual name to the trick).
It was his attempt to address what *he* considered important before talking about the accuracy of what *you* consider "the question".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255640</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotes are not data</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1259435520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately, Wikipedia is one of Slashdot's blindspots - where the usual thought out points go out of the window in the groupthink, and mod points are dished out purely on who can criticise Wikipedia, for whatever reason, be it a personal bad experience of editing there, or some axe to grind against its policies.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which should tell you something...  because in years past, the situation was precisely the opposite.  In any article about the Wikipedia posts praising it and explaining how it was the most wonderful thing since sliced bread were 'mindlessly' modded up, while posts critiquing it or pointing out problems were 'mindlessly' modded down.  Positive articles about the Wikipedia abounded...  The few articles critical of Wikipedia that slipped through the editors blind spots were filled with '+5 Insightful' articles that amounted to <i>ad hominem</i> attacks on the article, editor, or rare post that dared to ask where the emperor's new clothes were.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , Wikipedia is one of Slashdot 's blindspots - where the usual thought out points go out of the window in the groupthink , and mod points are dished out purely on who can criticise Wikipedia , for whatever reason , be it a personal bad experience of editing there , or some axe to grind against its policies.Which should tell you something... because in years past , the situation was precisely the opposite .
In any article about the Wikipedia posts praising it and explaining how it was the most wonderful thing since sliced bread were 'mindlessly ' modded up , while posts critiquing it or pointing out problems were 'mindlessly ' modded down .
Positive articles about the Wikipedia abounded... The few articles critical of Wikipedia that slipped through the editors blind spots were filled with ' + 5 Insightful ' articles that amounted to ad hominem attacks on the article , editor , or rare post that dared to ask where the emperor 's new clothes were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, Wikipedia is one of Slashdot's blindspots - where the usual thought out points go out of the window in the groupthink, and mod points are dished out purely on who can criticise Wikipedia, for whatever reason, be it a personal bad experience of editing there, or some axe to grind against its policies.Which should tell you something...  because in years past, the situation was precisely the opposite.
In any article about the Wikipedia posts praising it and explaining how it was the most wonderful thing since sliced bread were 'mindlessly' modded up, while posts critiquing it or pointing out problems were 'mindlessly' modded down.
Positive articles about the Wikipedia abounded...  The few articles critical of Wikipedia that slipped through the editors blind spots were filled with '+5 Insightful' articles that amounted to ad hominem attacks on the article, editor, or rare post that dared to ask where the emperor's new clothes were.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254326</id>
	<title>Re:Not a decline</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259421540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Elsewhere on this page: "Wikipedia is crap! I tried to make an edit on the Elephant page, about a sudden increase in numbers, and it got <i>reverted</i>! Everytime! Well, that ends my experience of editing with Wikipedia, I don't know why I bother! And obviously therefore no one else will, and Wikipedia is doomed."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Elsewhere on this page : " Wikipedia is crap !
I tried to make an edit on the Elephant page , about a sudden increase in numbers , and it got reverted !
Everytime ! Well , that ends my experience of editing with Wikipedia , I do n't know why I bother !
And obviously therefore no one else will , and Wikipedia is doomed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Elsewhere on this page: "Wikipedia is crap!
I tried to make an edit on the Elephant page, about a sudden increase in numbers, and it got reverted!
Everytime! Well, that ends my experience of editing with Wikipedia, I don't know why I bother!
And obviously therefore no one else will, and Wikipedia is doomed.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255478</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259433780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We didn't fudge the temperature data": GW Scientists</p><p>"We aren't losing editors": Wikipedia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We did n't fudge the temperature data " : GW Scientists " We are n't losing editors " : Wikipedia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We didn't fudge the temperature data": GW Scientists"We aren't losing editors": Wikipedia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254372</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259422020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PS - what was the article (or name of the candidate)? If you're in the right, maybe other people such as myself can have a look, and put the changes back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PS - what was the article ( or name of the candidate ) ?
If you 're in the right , maybe other people such as myself can have a look , and put the changes back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS - what was the article (or name of the candidate)?
If you're in the right, maybe other people such as myself can have a look, and put the changes back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255618</id>
	<title>Re:You show the reason</title>
	<author>Theleton</author>
	<datestamp>1259435280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you're telling me that a "very very important scientist" doesn't have any publications s/he could cite? No articles in peer-reviewed journals? No books or book chapters? No proceedings from conferences held by scientific societies?<br> <br>

Or is your scientist friend just not used to providing references for claims that are based on others' work? (That would certainly explain the lack of publications.)<br> <br>

I can understand that "ordinary people" have problems with the "citation needed" thing on Wikipedia. Most people aren't used to being asked to back up whatever they say, and don't have the training to know what a reliable source is. But knowing the literature and thoroughly sourcing your statements (to grab one book from atop the nearest pile, 'The Origins of Biblical Monotheism' by Mark S. Smith is 200 pages of text followed by 100 pages of notes) is what academia is all about; within your field of expertise you should be able to name relevant papers and monographs off the top of your head. If there are any people who should have no problem with the citation requirements of Wikipedia, it's academics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're telling me that a " very very important scientist " does n't have any publications s/he could cite ?
No articles in peer-reviewed journals ?
No books or book chapters ?
No proceedings from conferences held by scientific societies ?
Or is your scientist friend just not used to providing references for claims that are based on others ' work ?
( That would certainly explain the lack of publications .
) I can understand that " ordinary people " have problems with the " citation needed " thing on Wikipedia .
Most people are n't used to being asked to back up whatever they say , and do n't have the training to know what a reliable source is .
But knowing the literature and thoroughly sourcing your statements ( to grab one book from atop the nearest pile , 'The Origins of Biblical Monotheism ' by Mark S. Smith is 200 pages of text followed by 100 pages of notes ) is what academia is all about ; within your field of expertise you should be able to name relevant papers and monographs off the top of your head .
If there are any people who should have no problem with the citation requirements of Wikipedia , it 's academics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're telling me that a "very very important scientist" doesn't have any publications s/he could cite?
No articles in peer-reviewed journals?
No books or book chapters?
No proceedings from conferences held by scientific societies?
Or is your scientist friend just not used to providing references for claims that are based on others' work?
(That would certainly explain the lack of publications.
) 

I can understand that "ordinary people" have problems with the "citation needed" thing on Wikipedia.
Most people aren't used to being asked to back up whatever they say, and don't have the training to know what a reliable source is.
But knowing the literature and thoroughly sourcing your statements (to grab one book from atop the nearest pile, 'The Origins of Biblical Monotheism' by Mark S. Smith is 200 pages of text followed by 100 pages of notes) is what academia is all about; within your field of expertise you should be able to name relevant papers and monographs off the top of your head.
If there are any people who should have no problem with the citation requirements of Wikipedia, it's academics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254476</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The popularity of Wikipedia is one of the clearest symptoms of the human condition on the Internet: a state where truth is not authority or accessibility, but authority and accessibility are truth. Put in practical terms: people refer to the top Google hit for anything they search for, and informed researchers / educators are finding it increasingly hard to reach out to the layman via the Internet.</p><p>Yes, by quantity alone, Wikipedia wins - but only after my stack of 500GB drives, filled with random bits. Yes, any printed <i>Encyclopedia Generica</i> also contains errors. So what? What are you doing using either, beyond Middle School / Junior High? Every subject has well-known compendia of knowledge and well-used text books for an introductory exposition, so why aren't you reading there? The problem is not that people aren't using traditional generic encyclopedias any more; the problem is that people are using Wikipedia where previously they would never have gone to the first random person they meet in the street and asked them for information about a subject.</p><p>So much for Wikipedia's effect on everyone else. What is most damaging, I think, is that Wikipedia itself has grown as a cult. My girlfriend is from a JW family, and I've seen what a mild cult is like: people who criticise it are met with jargon, misdirection (TFA is a fine example!), denial, and finally <i>anger</i>. Ritual is more important than enlightenment, because ritual which was initially aimed (if you're feeling generous) to fulfil the cult's vision instead becomes a method of maintaining existing power structure. A cult convinces you that you are educating yourself in the best way by propagandizing successes while ignoring endemic inefficiencies. You will learn some things from getting involved in Wikipedia, just as you will gain philosophical insight from many cult study groups - indeed, some cult / Wikipedia articles are technically brilliant - but you're unlikely to improve your condition. You're not there to promote scholarship, or pedagogy: you're there to <i>support the rules</i>.</p><p>I thrive in an academic environment. I am thoroughly scrutinised by peers. I interact with experienced educators and students so my ability to impart information is improved. I feel I've made advances to my discipline, and that those tutored by me have benefitted from my efforts in preparing myself to help them. But I've not got past first base trying to teach cult members, whether the more fundamentalist JWs I've known or through contributions to Wikipedia. The challenges are always the same:<br>- "But [authority] imparting [belief], which means [policy];"<br>- "But [inability to understand source], which means [conspiracy];"<br>- "But [disagreement], which means [call on authority to suppress dissent]."</p><p>This isn't how scholarship works. The worthiness of scholarship is measured by the question: "Have I exposed some truths?" The worthiness of cult contribution is measured by: "Have I provided an argument which pleases my masters?" The majority of non-trivial Wikipedia articles are neutrally titled subjects presenting the result of a dominant viewpoint being transformed into a supporting argument, just as a cult article on "X" will end up being "why X is right/wrong"; the majority of scholarly articles are works written to support a transparent abstract.</p><p>The Internet was a lot easier to find introductory information from before Wikipedia: search engines returned, at the top, accessible subject-specific sites contributed to by researchers, professionals or keen amateurs (N.B. an "amateur" in the sense of an expert doing something on his own dime, often with a level of qualification, such as a radio ham). Now it's Wikipedia, Wikipedia scrapes, answers.com style aggregators, random stores with products related to words, and - if you're really lucky - a subject-specific site. The latter remain popular because they're introduced to you by experts, whether on forums, at college, or among colleagues - but to find these among search results always takes more effort than just hitting "en.wikipedia.org" right at the top.</p><p>And that's the only reason's Wikipedia's popular: she's easy and you're lazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The popularity of Wikipedia is one of the clearest symptoms of the human condition on the Internet : a state where truth is not authority or accessibility , but authority and accessibility are truth .
Put in practical terms : people refer to the top Google hit for anything they search for , and informed researchers / educators are finding it increasingly hard to reach out to the layman via the Internet.Yes , by quantity alone , Wikipedia wins - but only after my stack of 500GB drives , filled with random bits .
Yes , any printed Encyclopedia Generica also contains errors .
So what ?
What are you doing using either , beyond Middle School / Junior High ?
Every subject has well-known compendia of knowledge and well-used text books for an introductory exposition , so why are n't you reading there ?
The problem is not that people are n't using traditional generic encyclopedias any more ; the problem is that people are using Wikipedia where previously they would never have gone to the first random person they meet in the street and asked them for information about a subject.So much for Wikipedia 's effect on everyone else .
What is most damaging , I think , is that Wikipedia itself has grown as a cult .
My girlfriend is from a JW family , and I 've seen what a mild cult is like : people who criticise it are met with jargon , misdirection ( TFA is a fine example !
) , denial , and finally anger .
Ritual is more important than enlightenment , because ritual which was initially aimed ( if you 're feeling generous ) to fulfil the cult 's vision instead becomes a method of maintaining existing power structure .
A cult convinces you that you are educating yourself in the best way by propagandizing successes while ignoring endemic inefficiencies .
You will learn some things from getting involved in Wikipedia , just as you will gain philosophical insight from many cult study groups - indeed , some cult / Wikipedia articles are technically brilliant - but you 're unlikely to improve your condition .
You 're not there to promote scholarship , or pedagogy : you 're there to support the rules.I thrive in an academic environment .
I am thoroughly scrutinised by peers .
I interact with experienced educators and students so my ability to impart information is improved .
I feel I 've made advances to my discipline , and that those tutored by me have benefitted from my efforts in preparing myself to help them .
But I 've not got past first base trying to teach cult members , whether the more fundamentalist JWs I 've known or through contributions to Wikipedia .
The challenges are always the same : - " But [ authority ] imparting [ belief ] , which means [ policy ] ; " - " But [ inability to understand source ] , which means [ conspiracy ] ; " - " But [ disagreement ] , which means [ call on authority to suppress dissent ] .
" This is n't how scholarship works .
The worthiness of scholarship is measured by the question : " Have I exposed some truths ?
" The worthiness of cult contribution is measured by : " Have I provided an argument which pleases my masters ?
" The majority of non-trivial Wikipedia articles are neutrally titled subjects presenting the result of a dominant viewpoint being transformed into a supporting argument , just as a cult article on " X " will end up being " why X is right/wrong " ; the majority of scholarly articles are works written to support a transparent abstract.The Internet was a lot easier to find introductory information from before Wikipedia : search engines returned , at the top , accessible subject-specific sites contributed to by researchers , professionals or keen amateurs ( N.B .
an " amateur " in the sense of an expert doing something on his own dime , often with a level of qualification , such as a radio ham ) .
Now it 's Wikipedia , Wikipedia scrapes , answers.com style aggregators , random stores with products related to words , and - if you 're really lucky - a subject-specific site .
The latter remain popular because they 're introduced to you by experts , whether on forums , at college , or among colleagues - but to find these among search results always takes more effort than just hitting " en.wikipedia.org " right at the top.And that 's the only reason 's Wikipedia 's popular : she 's easy and you 're lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The popularity of Wikipedia is one of the clearest symptoms of the human condition on the Internet: a state where truth is not authority or accessibility, but authority and accessibility are truth.
Put in practical terms: people refer to the top Google hit for anything they search for, and informed researchers / educators are finding it increasingly hard to reach out to the layman via the Internet.Yes, by quantity alone, Wikipedia wins - but only after my stack of 500GB drives, filled with random bits.
Yes, any printed Encyclopedia Generica also contains errors.
So what?
What are you doing using either, beyond Middle School / Junior High?
Every subject has well-known compendia of knowledge and well-used text books for an introductory exposition, so why aren't you reading there?
The problem is not that people aren't using traditional generic encyclopedias any more; the problem is that people are using Wikipedia where previously they would never have gone to the first random person they meet in the street and asked them for information about a subject.So much for Wikipedia's effect on everyone else.
What is most damaging, I think, is that Wikipedia itself has grown as a cult.
My girlfriend is from a JW family, and I've seen what a mild cult is like: people who criticise it are met with jargon, misdirection (TFA is a fine example!
), denial, and finally anger.
Ritual is more important than enlightenment, because ritual which was initially aimed (if you're feeling generous) to fulfil the cult's vision instead becomes a method of maintaining existing power structure.
A cult convinces you that you are educating yourself in the best way by propagandizing successes while ignoring endemic inefficiencies.
You will learn some things from getting involved in Wikipedia, just as you will gain philosophical insight from many cult study groups - indeed, some cult / Wikipedia articles are technically brilliant - but you're unlikely to improve your condition.
You're not there to promote scholarship, or pedagogy: you're there to support the rules.I thrive in an academic environment.
I am thoroughly scrutinised by peers.
I interact with experienced educators and students so my ability to impart information is improved.
I feel I've made advances to my discipline, and that those tutored by me have benefitted from my efforts in preparing myself to help them.
But I've not got past first base trying to teach cult members, whether the more fundamentalist JWs I've known or through contributions to Wikipedia.
The challenges are always the same:- "But [authority] imparting [belief], which means [policy];"- "But [inability to understand source], which means [conspiracy];"- "But [disagreement], which means [call on authority to suppress dissent].
"This isn't how scholarship works.
The worthiness of scholarship is measured by the question: "Have I exposed some truths?
" The worthiness of cult contribution is measured by: "Have I provided an argument which pleases my masters?
" The majority of non-trivial Wikipedia articles are neutrally titled subjects presenting the result of a dominant viewpoint being transformed into a supporting argument, just as a cult article on "X" will end up being "why X is right/wrong"; the majority of scholarly articles are works written to support a transparent abstract.The Internet was a lot easier to find introductory information from before Wikipedia: search engines returned, at the top, accessible subject-specific sites contributed to by researchers, professionals or keen amateurs (N.B.
an "amateur" in the sense of an expert doing something on his own dime, often with a level of qualification, such as a radio ham).
Now it's Wikipedia, Wikipedia scrapes, answers.com style aggregators, random stores with products related to words, and - if you're really lucky - a subject-specific site.
The latter remain popular because they're introduced to you by experts, whether on forums, at college, or among colleagues - but to find these among search results always takes more effort than just hitting "en.wikipedia.org" right at the top.And that's the only reason's Wikipedia's popular: she's easy and you're lazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255654</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it was a lot, but...</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1259435640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If nothing else they deserve an award for not plastering advertisements on their site.</p></div></blockquote><p>They do plaster advertisements 'all over' the site.  Right now, there is a huge banner ad begging for donations right at the top of every page.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else they deserve an award for not plastering advertisements on their site.They do plaster advertisements 'all over ' the site .
Right now , there is a huge banner ad begging for donations right at the top of every page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else they deserve an award for not plastering advertisements on their site.They do plaster advertisements 'all over' the site.
Right now, there is a huge banner ad begging for donations right at the top of every page.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254302</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1259421180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>After a full day of back in forth with an editor deleting whatever I had just added<i>"<br> <br>

I sympathise with your experience. Myself gave up after repeated abuse from the so-called unbiased editors (after a simple request for some citations). One even posted a private email from me to the forum in order to deride it with a fellow unbiased editor. Wikipedia, a heap of self-serving corporate propaganda and free advertising pretending to be an Encyclopedia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</i></i></htmltext>
<tokenext>" After a full day of back in forth with an editor deleting whatever I had just added " I sympathise with your experience .
Myself gave up after repeated abuse from the so-called unbiased editors ( after a simple request for some citations ) .
One even posted a private email from me to the forum in order to deride it with a fellow unbiased editor .
Wikipedia , a heap of self-serving corporate propaganda and free advertising pretending to be an Encyclopedia . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"After a full day of back in forth with an editor deleting whatever I had just added" 

I sympathise with your experience.
Myself gave up after repeated abuse from the so-called unbiased editors (after a simple request for some citations).
One even posted a private email from me to the forum in order to deride it with a fellow unbiased editor.
Wikipedia, a heap of self-serving corporate propaganda and free advertising pretending to be an Encyclopedia ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256844</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it was a lot, but...</title>
	<author>fyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1259403960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If nothing else they deserve an award for not plastering advertisements on their site.</p></div><p>I've been known to donate to the odd project, esp one's I use every day (if you use vim a lot, do the command<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:help iccf and follow the directions), but I don't donate to wikipedia.  Why?  Because they don't need my money.  They think they do, but they don't.  They could sell small unobtrusive text ads below the fold on the left margin and make more than enough to keep running.  That would be a lot less offensive than the big beggar banners they regularly put at the top of pages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else they deserve an award for not plastering advertisements on their site.I 've been known to donate to the odd project , esp one 's I use every day ( if you use vim a lot , do the command : help iccf and follow the directions ) , but I do n't donate to wikipedia .
Why ? Because they do n't need my money .
They think they do , but they do n't .
They could sell small unobtrusive text ads below the fold on the left margin and make more than enough to keep running .
That would be a lot less offensive than the big beggar banners they regularly put at the top of pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else they deserve an award for not plastering advertisements on their site.I've been known to donate to the odd project, esp one's I use every day (if you use vim a lot, do the command :help iccf and follow the directions), but I don't donate to wikipedia.
Why?  Because they don't need my money.
They think they do, but they don't.
They could sell small unobtrusive text ads below the fold on the left margin and make more than enough to keep running.
That would be a lot less offensive than the big beggar banners they regularly put at the top of pages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254148</id>
	<title>Exodus evidence???</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1259419020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I looked for and article about this and couldn't find it on Wikipedia, so it must not be true.</p><p>And this damn well better be modded as funny if at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I looked for and article about this and could n't find it on Wikipedia , so it must not be true.And this damn well better be modded as funny if at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I looked for and article about this and couldn't find it on Wikipedia, so it must not be true.And this damn well better be modded as funny if at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092</id>
	<title>Oh, you can tell</title>
	<author>CRCulver</author>
	<datestamp>1259418120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They also note that it's impossible to tell whether someone has left and will never return, as their account still remains there.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I stopped editing Wikipedia in 2004, IIRC. There were plenty of cases who people left and you could tell they weren't likely to return, as their User or Talk page had some spectacular meltdown where they cursed the entire project and -- in the cases of the more qualified editors -- they vowed never to write anything about their field outside of academic rounds ever again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They also note that it 's impossible to tell whether someone has left and will never return , as their account still remains there .
I stopped editing Wikipedia in 2004 , IIRC .
There were plenty of cases who people left and you could tell they were n't likely to return , as their User or Talk page had some spectacular meltdown where they cursed the entire project and -- in the cases of the more qualified editors -- they vowed never to write anything about their field outside of academic rounds ever again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also note that it's impossible to tell whether someone has left and will never return, as their account still remains there.
I stopped editing Wikipedia in 2004, IIRC.
There were plenty of cases who people left and you could tell they weren't likely to return, as their User or Talk page had some spectacular meltdown where they cursed the entire project and -- in the cases of the more qualified editors -- they vowed never to write anything about their field outside of academic rounds ever again.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257342</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1259410560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, perhaps. But it seems to me that what you describe also happens when people have different *conceptions* of a problem.</p><p>Looked at dispassionately, the idea that as editorial standards are imposed, the number of contributors would be reduced seems *obvious*.   If one imposed the requirement that firefighter recruits were able to bench press 80\% of their body weight, you'd expect the number of applicants who enter the training stage to drop. It is quite possible for that to happen, while the number of *competent new firefighters increases*.</p><p>Arguably, saying that people left after editorial standards tighten is an "exodus" is just as, if not *more* misleading than quoting statistics that show the project remains healthy.  Editorial standards *naturally* mean that fewer people will contribute. The sky *might* be falling, but in order to address *that* question, you need to something more like a study of average article quality. That's not easy to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , perhaps .
But it seems to me that what you describe also happens when people have different * conceptions * of a problem.Looked at dispassionately , the idea that as editorial standards are imposed , the number of contributors would be reduced seems * obvious * .
If one imposed the requirement that firefighter recruits were able to bench press 80 \ % of their body weight , you 'd expect the number of applicants who enter the training stage to drop .
It is quite possible for that to happen , while the number of * competent new firefighters increases * .Arguably , saying that people left after editorial standards tighten is an " exodus " is just as , if not * more * misleading than quoting statistics that show the project remains healthy .
Editorial standards * naturally * mean that fewer people will contribute .
The sky * might * be falling , but in order to address * that * question , you need to something more like a study of average article quality .
That 's not easy to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, perhaps.
But it seems to me that what you describe also happens when people have different *conceptions* of a problem.Looked at dispassionately, the idea that as editorial standards are imposed, the number of contributors would be reduced seems *obvious*.
If one imposed the requirement that firefighter recruits were able to bench press 80\% of their body weight, you'd expect the number of applicants who enter the training stage to drop.
It is quite possible for that to happen, while the number of *competent new firefighters increases*.Arguably, saying that people left after editorial standards tighten is an "exodus" is just as, if not *more* misleading than quoting statistics that show the project remains healthy.
Editorial standards *naturally* mean that fewer people will contribute.
The sky *might* be falling, but in order to address *that* question, you need to something more like a study of average article quality.
That's not easy to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254446</id>
	<title>Re:What's with the "Deputy Director" stuff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259422860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, a deputy director isn't the assistant to the director, they're next in line to be in charge (like the vice president of the United States could be considered a deputy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , a deputy director is n't the assistant to the director , they 're next in line to be in charge ( like the vice president of the United States could be considered a deputy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, a deputy director isn't the assistant to the director, they're next in line to be in charge (like the vice president of the United States could be considered a deputy)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255712</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259436060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As opposed to simply reeling off ad hominems</p></div><p>Please read this and come back when you grow up: <a href="http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html" title="plover.net" rel="nofollow">http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html</a> [plover.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to simply reeling off ad hominemsPlease read this and come back when you grow up : http : //plover.net/ ~ bonds/adhominem.html [ plover.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to simply reeling off ad hominemsPlease read this and come back when you grow up: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html [plover.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254512</id>
	<title>How About Those</title>
	<author>DeanFox</author>
	<datestamp>1259423640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then there are those who won't even try.  I have subjects I could contribute too.  But a wise man might be described as someone who doesn't make the same mistake once.
<br> <br>
I heard long ago complaints about elitism and the elitist top grand master guru cabal who control the website.  New comers are scoffed, 'good 'ol boy' network prevails.
<br> <br>
I suspect the editors who are still left are well suited for their post - elitist power hungry control freaks who validate themselves stepping on others.  I want nothing to do with them.  [Citation Needed]  and [Marked For Deletion] have become memes I suspect from people who have been burned by the wikipedia process and the control freaks who consider themselves demigods.
<br> <br>
I pass.  The frustration I hear from others who have tried to contribute I won't accept in my life let alone seek it out.  The expertise I have in a subject or two will never make it to wikipedia.  I won't even bother to get started.
<br> <br>
-[d]-</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then there are those who wo n't even try .
I have subjects I could contribute too .
But a wise man might be described as someone who does n't make the same mistake once .
I heard long ago complaints about elitism and the elitist top grand master guru cabal who control the website .
New comers are scoffed , 'good 'ol boy ' network prevails .
I suspect the editors who are still left are well suited for their post - elitist power hungry control freaks who validate themselves stepping on others .
I want nothing to do with them .
[ Citation Needed ] and [ Marked For Deletion ] have become memes I suspect from people who have been burned by the wikipedia process and the control freaks who consider themselves demigods .
I pass .
The frustration I hear from others who have tried to contribute I wo n't accept in my life let alone seek it out .
The expertise I have in a subject or two will never make it to wikipedia .
I wo n't even bother to get started .
- [ d ] -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then there are those who won't even try.
I have subjects I could contribute too.
But a wise man might be described as someone who doesn't make the same mistake once.
I heard long ago complaints about elitism and the elitist top grand master guru cabal who control the website.
New comers are scoffed, 'good 'ol boy' network prevails.
I suspect the editors who are still left are well suited for their post - elitist power hungry control freaks who validate themselves stepping on others.
I want nothing to do with them.
[Citation Needed]  and [Marked For Deletion] have become memes I suspect from people who have been burned by the wikipedia process and the control freaks who consider themselves demigods.
I pass.
The frustration I hear from others who have tried to contribute I won't accept in my life let alone seek it out.
The expertise I have in a subject or two will never make it to wikipedia.
I won't even bother to get started.
-[d]-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254580</id>
	<title>I can appreciate their pain...</title>
	<author>Stachybotris</author>
	<datestamp>1259424360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just spent the last fifteen to twenty minutes perusing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Special:NewPages</a> [wikipedia.org], and it's terrifying.  For every actual encyclopaedic or even semi-valid article, there seem to be a handful of pages that are pure garbage.  There are "articles" about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wa\_wa\_washington&amp;redirect=no" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">fictitious bands</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MINA\_OH&amp;redirect=no" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">self-promotion</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Groin\_strain&amp;redirect=no" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">slander</a> [wikipedia.org], and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Team\_Twinny&amp;redirect=no" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">things that really don't matter</a> [wikipedia.org].  On top of that, many of the new submissions seem to be very poorly written from a grammatical point of view.  They're not quite as bad as the average YouTube comment, but they're close.  If I was in charge over there, I'd be deleting things left and right as well.<br> <br>

There are probably a number of reasons for the lack of quality, but certainly the ability for anyone to contribute has got to be a big part.  Is there an easy fix?  No, probably not.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that the barriers to approval are lop-sided, so raising them won't necessarily help.  It's not like potential users will put up with taking a written exam just to be able to edit a single page...<br> <br>

I would suggest using privilege escalation to grant users more power and control based on how long they've been members and require that when people create accounts, they specify a number of areas that they possess knowledge of.  Say I create a new account.  When a user creates a login, he has to pick five to ten topics that he thinks he's qualified to write about (and these can be fairly broad, otherwise we'd have far too many checkboxes).  He can't make any changes or contributions for a week (to prevent people from signing up just to vandalize articles) and can only lurk and learn the rules.  Then, after that time period is up, he's allowed  to only make changes to existing articles <i>in his self-proclaimed fields</i>.  If he makes enough good and accepted changes, then allow him to start writing new articles <i>in his self-proclaimed fields</i>.  Finally, after a period of time has passed where he's acknowledged as knowing what he's talking about and not a jerk who does things for the lulz, let him make changes/create articles anywhere.<br> <br>

One thing I would love to see done more than anything else, however, is the clear separation of fiction and non-fiction, by at least a subdomain, if not an entirely different FQDN.  Star Wars as a film and a cultural institution in America?  That goes in Wikipedia as non-fiction.  Luke Skywalker as a person?  That's in-universe and belongs in Wookiepedia, or at least in the fiction section.  A biography of Luke doesn't belong in the same encyclopaedia as one about Louis Pasteur, plain and simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just spent the last fifteen to twenty minutes perusing the Special : NewPages [ wikipedia.org ] , and it 's terrifying .
For every actual encyclopaedic or even semi-valid article , there seem to be a handful of pages that are pure garbage .
There are " articles " about fictitious bands [ wikipedia.org ] , self-promotion [ wikipedia.org ] , slander [ wikipedia.org ] , and things that really do n't matter [ wikipedia.org ] .
On top of that , many of the new submissions seem to be very poorly written from a grammatical point of view .
They 're not quite as bad as the average YouTube comment , but they 're close .
If I was in charge over there , I 'd be deleting things left and right as well .
There are probably a number of reasons for the lack of quality , but certainly the ability for anyone to contribute has got to be a big part .
Is there an easy fix ?
No , probably not .
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the barriers to approval are lop-sided , so raising them wo n't necessarily help .
It 's not like potential users will put up with taking a written exam just to be able to edit a single page.. . I would suggest using privilege escalation to grant users more power and control based on how long they 've been members and require that when people create accounts , they specify a number of areas that they possess knowledge of .
Say I create a new account .
When a user creates a login , he has to pick five to ten topics that he thinks he 's qualified to write about ( and these can be fairly broad , otherwise we 'd have far too many checkboxes ) .
He ca n't make any changes or contributions for a week ( to prevent people from signing up just to vandalize articles ) and can only lurk and learn the rules .
Then , after that time period is up , he 's allowed to only make changes to existing articles in his self-proclaimed fields .
If he makes enough good and accepted changes , then allow him to start writing new articles in his self-proclaimed fields .
Finally , after a period of time has passed where he 's acknowledged as knowing what he 's talking about and not a jerk who does things for the lulz , let him make changes/create articles anywhere .
One thing I would love to see done more than anything else , however , is the clear separation of fiction and non-fiction , by at least a subdomain , if not an entirely different FQDN .
Star Wars as a film and a cultural institution in America ?
That goes in Wikipedia as non-fiction .
Luke Skywalker as a person ?
That 's in-universe and belongs in Wookiepedia , or at least in the fiction section .
A biography of Luke does n't belong in the same encyclopaedia as one about Louis Pasteur , plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just spent the last fifteen to twenty minutes perusing the Special:NewPages [wikipedia.org], and it's terrifying.
For every actual encyclopaedic or even semi-valid article, there seem to be a handful of pages that are pure garbage.
There are "articles" about fictitious bands [wikipedia.org], self-promotion [wikipedia.org], slander [wikipedia.org], and things that really don't matter [wikipedia.org].
On top of that, many of the new submissions seem to be very poorly written from a grammatical point of view.
They're not quite as bad as the average YouTube comment, but they're close.
If I was in charge over there, I'd be deleting things left and right as well.
There are probably a number of reasons for the lack of quality, but certainly the ability for anyone to contribute has got to be a big part.
Is there an easy fix?
No, probably not.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the barriers to approval are lop-sided, so raising them won't necessarily help.
It's not like potential users will put up with taking a written exam just to be able to edit a single page... 

I would suggest using privilege escalation to grant users more power and control based on how long they've been members and require that when people create accounts, they specify a number of areas that they possess knowledge of.
Say I create a new account.
When a user creates a login, he has to pick five to ten topics that he thinks he's qualified to write about (and these can be fairly broad, otherwise we'd have far too many checkboxes).
He can't make any changes or contributions for a week (to prevent people from signing up just to vandalize articles) and can only lurk and learn the rules.
Then, after that time period is up, he's allowed  to only make changes to existing articles in his self-proclaimed fields.
If he makes enough good and accepted changes, then allow him to start writing new articles in his self-proclaimed fields.
Finally, after a period of time has passed where he's acknowledged as knowing what he's talking about and not a jerk who does things for the lulz, let him make changes/create articles anywhere.
One thing I would love to see done more than anything else, however, is the clear separation of fiction and non-fiction, by at least a subdomain, if not an entirely different FQDN.
Star Wars as a film and a cultural institution in America?
That goes in Wikipedia as non-fiction.
Luke Skywalker as a person?
That's in-universe and belongs in Wookiepedia, or at least in the fiction section.
A biography of Luke doesn't belong in the same encyclopaedia as one about Louis Pasteur, plain and simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255794</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotes are not data</title>
	<author>stumblingblock</author>
	<datestamp>1259437020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30259040</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it was a lot, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259428860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, then they wouldn't like me very much. I'm not unique... in fact, I'm quite bland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , then they would n't like me very much .
I 'm not unique... in fact , I 'm quite bland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, then they wouldn't like me very much.
I'm not unique... in fact, I'm quite bland.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256324</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, you can tell</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259441820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of the facts quoted above really address the issue anyway.</p><p>What we are looking for is the count of distinct editors who made an edit per month. That's the only way to judge whether the number of active editors has declined or not... the blurb on this article doesn't seem to address that at all, instead giving a whole bunch of "feel-good" stats that are unrelated to the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of the facts quoted above really address the issue anyway.What we are looking for is the count of distinct editors who made an edit per month .
That 's the only way to judge whether the number of active editors has declined or not... the blurb on this article does n't seem to address that at all , instead giving a whole bunch of " feel-good " stats that are unrelated to the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of the facts quoted above really address the issue anyway.What we are looking for is the count of distinct editors who made an edit per month.
That's the only way to judge whether the number of active editors has declined or not... the blurb on this article doesn't seem to address that at all, instead giving a whole bunch of "feel-good" stats that are unrelated to the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257006</id>
	<title>Some more details</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259406540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Wikipedia-weist-Berichte-ueber-Autorenschwund-zurueck-871426.html" title="heise.de">heise</a> [heise.de] (german) reported this, too, but they had some more details about the numbers:<br> <br>

basically what wikipedia says is, that if someone just removes a typo and then never edits anything again, you shouldn't count him as leaving editor... wikipedia's own statistic counts people who stop contributing after making at least 5 changes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>heise [ heise.de ] ( german ) reported this , too , but they had some more details about the numbers : basically what wikipedia says is , that if someone just removes a typo and then never edits anything again , you should n't count him as leaving editor... wikipedia 's own statistic counts people who stop contributing after making at least 5 changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heise [heise.de] (german) reported this, too, but they had some more details about the numbers: 

basically what wikipedia says is, that if someone just removes a typo and then never edits anything again, you shouldn't count him as leaving editor... wikipedia's own statistic counts people who stop contributing after making at least 5 changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256616</id>
	<title>Re:WSJ</title>
	<author>Bragador</author>
	<datestamp>1259401380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but people are forgetting that we are speaking about the english Wikipedia. After that, we still have the other languages to work on. Right now, I suspect people prefer to use the english version of Wikipedia because it is usually more detailed and mature, but to truly give free knowledge to the world, the world must also understand the texts.</p><p>In this way, the Wikipedia project is clearly not about to be finished anytime soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but people are forgetting that we are speaking about the english Wikipedia .
After that , we still have the other languages to work on .
Right now , I suspect people prefer to use the english version of Wikipedia because it is usually more detailed and mature , but to truly give free knowledge to the world , the world must also understand the texts.In this way , the Wikipedia project is clearly not about to be finished anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but people are forgetting that we are speaking about the english Wikipedia.
After that, we still have the other languages to work on.
Right now, I suspect people prefer to use the english version of Wikipedia because it is usually more detailed and mature, but to truly give free knowledge to the world, the world must also understand the texts.In this way, the Wikipedia project is clearly not about to be finished anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255206</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia "Knowledge"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259430660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except high school textbooks are right, you clod!<br>The "neutral point of view", "reliable sources", and "no original research" rules on Wikipedia keep out the Holocaust denial, the moon-landing hoax theories, homeopathy apologists, etc.<br>What you call "banal nonsense" is normally called verifiable facts about the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except high school textbooks are right , you clod ! The " neutral point of view " , " reliable sources " , and " no original research " rules on Wikipedia keep out the Holocaust denial , the moon-landing hoax theories , homeopathy apologists , etc.What you call " banal nonsense " is normally called verifiable facts about the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except high school textbooks are right, you clod!The "neutral point of view", "reliable sources", and "no original research" rules on Wikipedia keep out the Holocaust denial, the moon-landing hoax theories, homeopathy apologists, etc.What you call "banal nonsense" is normally called verifiable facts about the universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255406</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1259433180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I can't speak about him, but I can speak for myself and say the deletionists ran me off. I originally found the idea of Wikipedia fascinating-- Kinda like a bugzilla for knowledge. Anybody could supposedly help by finding the "bugs" or adding to the knowledge base, sounded cool to me.</p><p>So one day I found an error. It wasn't a big error, or one that would make a big difference to pretty much anyone (or so I thought) just a tiny error where a character in a TV show was supposedly A as far as sexual orientation and it was actually B. I knew this because I had just read an interview with the creator and head writer discussing this very thing. So I did what you were supposed to do when you found a bug- I fixed it and cited the page along with a second source with a video of the author discussing it at a convention.</p><p>Well within hours my change was deleted and I found myself banned from editing. Apparently the page was watched by a deletionist and he/she didn't like the thought that a character they liked may not be the sexual orientation they wanted them to be. So that was the end of that and now I mainly go to answers.com when I need a quick bit of info. After it happened to me I looked into the "behind the scenes" stuff floating around the net and Wikipedia seems to have its own version of trolls, sadly though the trolls have gained quite a bit of power there--the deletionists.</p><p>

 From what I saw it pretty much doesn't matter if the info there is correct or not, just as long as the page stays the way the deletionist likes it. Which is kinda sad as it distorts the whole thing, just look at the CoS follower that watched the page on Scientology like a hawk and changed anything bad about LRH or the church no matter how much documentation there was about their activities. So there is my little anecdote to add to the pile. I just wonder how much of this exodus is being caused by the deletionists running off or frustrating those that don't fit their mindset. I have found that Wiki is fine for more obscure info that the deletionists don't care about, say info about some minerals properties, but anything that has to do with current events or pop culture is pretty much off limits if there is a deletion troll lurking it. That is my take on it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I ca n't speak about him , but I can speak for myself and say the deletionists ran me off .
I originally found the idea of Wikipedia fascinating-- Kinda like a bugzilla for knowledge .
Anybody could supposedly help by finding the " bugs " or adding to the knowledge base , sounded cool to me.So one day I found an error .
It was n't a big error , or one that would make a big difference to pretty much anyone ( or so I thought ) just a tiny error where a character in a TV show was supposedly A as far as sexual orientation and it was actually B. I knew this because I had just read an interview with the creator and head writer discussing this very thing .
So I did what you were supposed to do when you found a bug- I fixed it and cited the page along with a second source with a video of the author discussing it at a convention.Well within hours my change was deleted and I found myself banned from editing .
Apparently the page was watched by a deletionist and he/she did n't like the thought that a character they liked may not be the sexual orientation they wanted them to be .
So that was the end of that and now I mainly go to answers.com when I need a quick bit of info .
After it happened to me I looked into the " behind the scenes " stuff floating around the net and Wikipedia seems to have its own version of trolls , sadly though the trolls have gained quite a bit of power there--the deletionists .
From what I saw it pretty much does n't matter if the info there is correct or not , just as long as the page stays the way the deletionist likes it .
Which is kinda sad as it distorts the whole thing , just look at the CoS follower that watched the page on Scientology like a hawk and changed anything bad about LRH or the church no matter how much documentation there was about their activities .
So there is my little anecdote to add to the pile .
I just wonder how much of this exodus is being caused by the deletionists running off or frustrating those that do n't fit their mindset .
I have found that Wiki is fine for more obscure info that the deletionists do n't care about , say info about some minerals properties , but anything that has to do with current events or pop culture is pretty much off limits if there is a deletion troll lurking it .
That is my take on it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I can't speak about him, but I can speak for myself and say the deletionists ran me off.
I originally found the idea of Wikipedia fascinating-- Kinda like a bugzilla for knowledge.
Anybody could supposedly help by finding the "bugs" or adding to the knowledge base, sounded cool to me.So one day I found an error.
It wasn't a big error, or one that would make a big difference to pretty much anyone (or so I thought) just a tiny error where a character in a TV show was supposedly A as far as sexual orientation and it was actually B. I knew this because I had just read an interview with the creator and head writer discussing this very thing.
So I did what you were supposed to do when you found a bug- I fixed it and cited the page along with a second source with a video of the author discussing it at a convention.Well within hours my change was deleted and I found myself banned from editing.
Apparently the page was watched by a deletionist and he/she didn't like the thought that a character they liked may not be the sexual orientation they wanted them to be.
So that was the end of that and now I mainly go to answers.com when I need a quick bit of info.
After it happened to me I looked into the "behind the scenes" stuff floating around the net and Wikipedia seems to have its own version of trolls, sadly though the trolls have gained quite a bit of power there--the deletionists.
From what I saw it pretty much doesn't matter if the info there is correct or not, just as long as the page stays the way the deletionist likes it.
Which is kinda sad as it distorts the whole thing, just look at the CoS follower that watched the page on Scientology like a hawk and changed anything bad about LRH or the church no matter how much documentation there was about their activities.
So there is my little anecdote to add to the pile.
I just wonder how much of this exodus is being caused by the deletionists running off or frustrating those that don't fit their mindset.
I have found that Wiki is fine for more obscure info that the deletionists don't care about, say info about some minerals properties, but anything that has to do with current events or pop culture is pretty much off limits if there is a deletion troll lurking it.
That is my take on it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254300</id>
	<title>What's with the "Deputy Director" stuff?</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1259421180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never really could understand the title "deputy director". Isn't that just an Assistant? Does s/he get paid more if s/he is a deputy as opposed to an assistant. Or is it just another pretentious affectation? Please explain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never really could understand the title " deputy director " .
Is n't that just an Assistant ?
Does s/he get paid more if s/he is a deputy as opposed to an assistant .
Or is it just another pretentious affectation ?
Please explain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never really could understand the title "deputy director".
Isn't that just an Assistant?
Does s/he get paid more if s/he is a deputy as opposed to an assistant.
Or is it just another pretentious affectation?
Please explain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254638</id>
	<title>Merge slashdot code to Wiki if you dare?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Slashdot is open source, Perl based, it won't be a problem.</p><p>Lets merge Slashdot code to Wikipedia so people, semi-randomly selected can moderate Wiki editor responses. It will have karma system too. If an editor does too much flamebait or "troll", his karma will go negative and by default, his editing powers will be reduced to normal levels and eventually taken off.</p><p>You have no clue how your type of editor responses makes users and the real deal (one off editors) feel right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Slashdot is open source , Perl based , it wo n't be a problem.Lets merge Slashdot code to Wikipedia so people , semi-randomly selected can moderate Wiki editor responses .
It will have karma system too .
If an editor does too much flamebait or " troll " , his karma will go negative and by default , his editing powers will be reduced to normal levels and eventually taken off.You have no clue how your type of editor responses makes users and the real deal ( one off editors ) feel right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Slashdot is open source, Perl based, it won't be a problem.Lets merge Slashdot code to Wikipedia so people, semi-randomly selected can moderate Wiki editor responses.
It will have karma system too.
If an editor does too much flamebait or "troll", his karma will go negative and by default, his editing powers will be reduced to normal levels and eventually taken off.You have no clue how your type of editor responses makes users and the real deal (one off editors) feel right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254496</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not surprised by your experience.  I have recently found that I was unable to make spelling and grammar changes to several pages that were locked.  Lots of the pages that I was interested in contributing to were in some kind of locked state.  It seems strange that someone could justify locking a page and controlling it without satisfying the basic requirements that he or she be fluent in the language in which the page is written.  I found myself hoping that some other group with less anti-social tendencies would fork from wikipedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not surprised by your experience .
I have recently found that I was unable to make spelling and grammar changes to several pages that were locked .
Lots of the pages that I was interested in contributing to were in some kind of locked state .
It seems strange that someone could justify locking a page and controlling it without satisfying the basic requirements that he or she be fluent in the language in which the page is written .
I found myself hoping that some other group with less anti-social tendencies would fork from wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not surprised by your experience.
I have recently found that I was unable to make spelling and grammar changes to several pages that were locked.
Lots of the pages that I was interested in contributing to were in some kind of locked state.
It seems strange that someone could justify locking a page and controlling it without satisfying the basic requirements that he or she be fluent in the language in which the page is written.
I found myself hoping that some other group with less anti-social tendencies would fork from wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30262480</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259519820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wiki is playing the field, they where hopeing that some of the big media comps would buy them out and no one did. They made it easy for any moron and a computer to cite information (not citing wiki itself, but the references used in the wiki article). Although having a single source of information is benfitical to us all, it does pose as a problem to some. On top of that, having nearly ever editor being freelance unpaid to add/delete/edit articles all the time, well, will eventually slow down. Editors are not leaving 100\%, they just are not maintaining content like before, why? because people have lives.</p><p>Also, I really could care less about the indept bios on movie actors. If you where to go word for word in articles, I'm sure there is more about hollywood in wiki then there is about science and what does that say about us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wiki is playing the field , they where hopeing that some of the big media comps would buy them out and no one did .
They made it easy for any moron and a computer to cite information ( not citing wiki itself , but the references used in the wiki article ) .
Although having a single source of information is benfitical to us all , it does pose as a problem to some .
On top of that , having nearly ever editor being freelance unpaid to add/delete/edit articles all the time , well , will eventually slow down .
Editors are not leaving 100 \ % , they just are not maintaining content like before , why ?
because people have lives.Also , I really could care less about the indept bios on movie actors .
If you where to go word for word in articles , I 'm sure there is more about hollywood in wiki then there is about science and what does that say about us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wiki is playing the field, they where hopeing that some of the big media comps would buy them out and no one did.
They made it easy for any moron and a computer to cite information (not citing wiki itself, but the references used in the wiki article).
Although having a single source of information is benfitical to us all, it does pose as a problem to some.
On top of that, having nearly ever editor being freelance unpaid to add/delete/edit articles all the time, well, will eventually slow down.
Editors are not leaving 100\%, they just are not maintaining content like before, why?
because people have lives.Also, I really could care less about the indept bios on movie actors.
If you where to go word for word in articles, I'm sure there is more about hollywood in wiki then there is about science and what does that say about us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254618</id>
	<title>You show the reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading your lengthy post shows anectodal evidence of why people doesn't like Wikipedia editing.</p><p>Trust me, people likes Feynman, Einstein, Hawking like scientists not just because their amazing breakthroughs... They like them because they were friendly to average people.</p><p>"Editing an article, dealing with editors feels something like snail mailing a typed letter to Britannica HQ in 1980s. At least, Britannica guys were polite people."</p><p>Here is another "anecdotal" evidence, a quote told to me by a very very important Scientist who were horrified by some issues on articles and tried to fix them. As citation, what would you need? Name? Home address? Phone? On web? No, thank you, I better stay as another anecdotal guy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading your lengthy post shows anectodal evidence of why people does n't like Wikipedia editing.Trust me , people likes Feynman , Einstein , Hawking like scientists not just because their amazing breakthroughs... They like them because they were friendly to average people .
" Editing an article , dealing with editors feels something like snail mailing a typed letter to Britannica HQ in 1980s .
At least , Britannica guys were polite people .
" Here is another " anecdotal " evidence , a quote told to me by a very very important Scientist who were horrified by some issues on articles and tried to fix them .
As citation , what would you need ?
Name ? Home address ?
Phone ? On web ?
No , thank you , I better stay as another anecdotal guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading your lengthy post shows anectodal evidence of why people doesn't like Wikipedia editing.Trust me, people likes Feynman, Einstein, Hawking like scientists not just because their amazing breakthroughs... They like them because they were friendly to average people.
"Editing an article, dealing with editors feels something like snail mailing a typed letter to Britannica HQ in 1980s.
At least, Britannica guys were polite people.
"Here is another "anecdotal" evidence, a quote told to me by a very very important Scientist who were horrified by some issues on articles and tried to fix them.
As citation, what would you need?
Name? Home address?
Phone? On web?
No, thank you, I better stay as another anecdotal guy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255586</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1259434920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He didn't say "it ain't so". RTFA. In fact, it doesn't even dispute it even though that's presumably the intent, it simply talks of looking further into the figures.</p></div></blockquote><p>Simply looking deeper into the numbers is one thing - spouting facts and figures in an attempt to impress and overwhelm the reader and thus distract him from actually thinking about the numbers is a different thing entirely.  The latter is precisely what is happening here, and you fell for it hook line and sinker.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>The first two things listed may not be directly related to the number of editors - but that's the point! "Number of editors leaving" is a rather meaningless figure. You have to look at the whole picture, which is what he's doing. And the second one is related - they're still getting new articles, so there's yet to be any problem.</p></div></blockquote><p>Looking at the whole picture, and actually thinking about the numbers he presents rather than being impressed by their size, doesn't paint the rosy picture you and he want us to be dazzled by.  If the number of editors is remaining stable, while the number of articles is going up - that means each editor is overseeing an increasing number of articles, which means the amount of attention he can pay to any given article goes inevitably <i>down</i>.<br>
&nbsp; <br>In actuality, since editors tend to cluster, that means that more and more articles are out on the fringes - under (at best) only loose or rote supervision, or not actually watched on a regular basis but only checked when someone happens to wander by.  The first means that edits are often reverted without the editor actually spending much time looking at the new edit.  The latter means the articles are (often) increasingly out of date.  (I now routinely find articles weeks to months out of date, and found one a couple of weeks back that was <i>three years</i> out of date.)  Articles out on the fringes are also especially vulnerable to vandalism.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Your last statement is particularly troubling to me.  Just because there isn't a problem "yet", doesn't mean one can safely ignore trends.  To use the traditional Slashdot automobile analogy:  If your "check oil" light comes on, and your engine is still running normally, only a fool places a bit of tape over the light and pretends it doesn't exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't say " it ai n't so " .
RTFA. In fact , it does n't even dispute it even though that 's presumably the intent , it simply talks of looking further into the figures.Simply looking deeper into the numbers is one thing - spouting facts and figures in an attempt to impress and overwhelm the reader and thus distract him from actually thinking about the numbers is a different thing entirely .
The latter is precisely what is happening here , and you fell for it hook line and sinker .
  The first two things listed may not be directly related to the number of editors - but that 's the point !
" Number of editors leaving " is a rather meaningless figure .
You have to look at the whole picture , which is what he 's doing .
And the second one is related - they 're still getting new articles , so there 's yet to be any problem.Looking at the whole picture , and actually thinking about the numbers he presents rather than being impressed by their size , does n't paint the rosy picture you and he want us to be dazzled by .
If the number of editors is remaining stable , while the number of articles is going up - that means each editor is overseeing an increasing number of articles , which means the amount of attention he can pay to any given article goes inevitably down .
  In actuality , since editors tend to cluster , that means that more and more articles are out on the fringes - under ( at best ) only loose or rote supervision , or not actually watched on a regular basis but only checked when someone happens to wander by .
The first means that edits are often reverted without the editor actually spending much time looking at the new edit .
The latter means the articles are ( often ) increasingly out of date .
( I now routinely find articles weeks to months out of date , and found one a couple of weeks back that was three years out of date .
) Articles out on the fringes are also especially vulnerable to vandalism .
  Your last statement is particularly troubling to me .
Just because there is n't a problem " yet " , does n't mean one can safely ignore trends .
To use the traditional Slashdot automobile analogy : If your " check oil " light comes on , and your engine is still running normally , only a fool places a bit of tape over the light and pretends it does n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't say "it ain't so".
RTFA. In fact, it doesn't even dispute it even though that's presumably the intent, it simply talks of looking further into the figures.Simply looking deeper into the numbers is one thing - spouting facts and figures in an attempt to impress and overwhelm the reader and thus distract him from actually thinking about the numbers is a different thing entirely.
The latter is precisely what is happening here, and you fell for it hook line and sinker.
  The first two things listed may not be directly related to the number of editors - but that's the point!
"Number of editors leaving" is a rather meaningless figure.
You have to look at the whole picture, which is what he's doing.
And the second one is related - they're still getting new articles, so there's yet to be any problem.Looking at the whole picture, and actually thinking about the numbers he presents rather than being impressed by their size, doesn't paint the rosy picture you and he want us to be dazzled by.
If the number of editors is remaining stable, while the number of articles is going up - that means each editor is overseeing an increasing number of articles, which means the amount of attention he can pay to any given article goes inevitably down.
  In actuality, since editors tend to cluster, that means that more and more articles are out on the fringes - under (at best) only loose or rote supervision, or not actually watched on a regular basis but only checked when someone happens to wander by.
The first means that edits are often reverted without the editor actually spending much time looking at the new edit.
The latter means the articles are (often) increasingly out of date.
(I now routinely find articles weeks to months out of date, and found one a couple of weeks back that was three years out of date.
)  Articles out on the fringes are also especially vulnerable to vandalism.
  Your last statement is particularly troubling to me.
Just because there isn't a problem "yet", doesn't mean one can safely ignore trends.
To use the traditional Slashdot automobile analogy:  If your "check oil" light comes on, and your engine is still running normally, only a fool places a bit of tape over the light and pretends it doesn't exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108</id>
	<title>I knew it was a lot, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259418300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> In October, we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world, according to comScore Media Metrix, up 6\% from September.</p></div> </blockquote><p>That's a lot of eyeballs.</p><p>If nothing else they deserve an award for not plastering advertisements on their site.  I know some major newspapers that would love to see their sites get that kind of traffic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In October , we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world , according to comScore Media Metrix , up 6 \ % from September .
That 's a lot of eyeballs.If nothing else they deserve an award for not plastering advertisements on their site .
I know some major newspapers that would love to see their sites get that kind of traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In October, we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world, according to comScore Media Metrix, up 6\% from September.
That's a lot of eyeballs.If nothing else they deserve an award for not plastering advertisements on their site.
I know some major newspapers that would love to see their sites get that kind of traffic.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30260476</id>
	<title>Re:You show the reason</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1259499840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you're telling me that a "very very important scientist" doesn't have any publications s/he could cite? No articles in peer-reviewed journals? No books or book chapters? No proceedings from conferences held by scientific societies?</p></div><p>Wikipedia editors and admins don't tend to accept such citations, because they don't have the scientific knowledge to read journal articles and technical books in order to confirm the information is correct. So citing them doesn't always help in getting stuff into Wikipedia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're telling me that a " very very important scientist " does n't have any publications s/he could cite ?
No articles in peer-reviewed journals ?
No books or book chapters ?
No proceedings from conferences held by scientific societies ? Wikipedia editors and admins do n't tend to accept such citations , because they do n't have the scientific knowledge to read journal articles and technical books in order to confirm the information is correct .
So citing them does n't always help in getting stuff into Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're telling me that a "very very important scientist" doesn't have any publications s/he could cite?
No articles in peer-reviewed journals?
No books or book chapters?
No proceedings from conferences held by scientific societies?Wikipedia editors and admins don't tend to accept such citations, because they don't have the scientific knowledge to read journal articles and technical books in order to confirm the information is correct.
So citing them doesn't always help in getting stuff into Wikipedia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254608</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neat trick: create a new article and wait for it to be merged with the old one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neat trick : create a new article and wait for it to be merged with the old one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neat trick: create a new article and wait for it to be merged with the old one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254812</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259427120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but I have been working for a (dead tree) magazine for a while. It might be different for online media, but editors leaving is NOT a good sign for a paper. Even if you bring more new people on board than are leaving, you're usually losing out. It's like in every business, when your skilled, experienced workers leave and you have to replace them with new, inexperienced people, quality suffers. First, by the very law of tenure, it's not the "bad" people that stay for long. They won't be kept long, in a business they'll be fired, in a volunteer area like wikipedia they'll either be asked to leave or, if they're disruptive, banned. So you can assume that 100\% of what is leaving is "good" people. Else they would not have stayed around for a year or longer. On the other hand, you don't know what you get in. It's like hiring a new guy. Can he do his job? Is he a slacker? Is he even sabotaging you (unlikely in a professional environment, but for wikipedia? How do you determine if some new guy is going to be a dedicated editor or just a troll)? You won't know for a while.</p><p>Out with the good, in with the new is not necessarily something good...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but I have been working for a ( dead tree ) magazine for a while .
It might be different for online media , but editors leaving is NOT a good sign for a paper .
Even if you bring more new people on board than are leaving , you 're usually losing out .
It 's like in every business , when your skilled , experienced workers leave and you have to replace them with new , inexperienced people , quality suffers .
First , by the very law of tenure , it 's not the " bad " people that stay for long .
They wo n't be kept long , in a business they 'll be fired , in a volunteer area like wikipedia they 'll either be asked to leave or , if they 're disruptive , banned .
So you can assume that 100 \ % of what is leaving is " good " people .
Else they would not have stayed around for a year or longer .
On the other hand , you do n't know what you get in .
It 's like hiring a new guy .
Can he do his job ?
Is he a slacker ?
Is he even sabotaging you ( unlikely in a professional environment , but for wikipedia ?
How do you determine if some new guy is going to be a dedicated editor or just a troll ) ?
You wo n't know for a while.Out with the good , in with the new is not necessarily something good.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but I have been working for a (dead tree) magazine for a while.
It might be different for online media, but editors leaving is NOT a good sign for a paper.
Even if you bring more new people on board than are leaving, you're usually losing out.
It's like in every business, when your skilled, experienced workers leave and you have to replace them with new, inexperienced people, quality suffers.
First, by the very law of tenure, it's not the "bad" people that stay for long.
They won't be kept long, in a business they'll be fired, in a volunteer area like wikipedia they'll either be asked to leave or, if they're disruptive, banned.
So you can assume that 100\% of what is leaving is "good" people.
Else they would not have stayed around for a year or longer.
On the other hand, you don't know what you get in.
It's like hiring a new guy.
Can he do his job?
Is he a slacker?
Is he even sabotaging you (unlikely in a professional environment, but for wikipedia?
How do you determine if some new guy is going to be a dedicated editor or just a troll)?
You won't know for a while.Out with the good, in with the new is not necessarily something good...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254364</id>
	<title>citation needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why hasn't this summary been given this tag yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why has n't this summary been given this tag yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why hasn't this summary been given this tag yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254134</id>
	<title>Not a decline</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1259418660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The number of Wikipedia editors is not declining.  In fact, their population has <i>tripled</i> in the last six months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of Wikipedia editors is not declining .
In fact , their population has tripled in the last six months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of Wikipedia editors is not declining.
In fact, their population has tripled in the last six months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257650</id>
	<title>Re:Someone touched a nerve eh ?</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1259413620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't think the number of readers was actually a point of contention.</p></div></blockquote><p>
But the sensationalists keep crying about how Wikipedia is apparently dying. The author is making a point that Wikipedia is actually attracting a bigger and bigger audience.

</p><p>Also, people will always complain. Wikipedia is so well known and popular that there are going to be a lot of complaints out there. Most of them probably nonsense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the number of readers was actually a point of contention .
But the sensationalists keep crying about how Wikipedia is apparently dying .
The author is making a point that Wikipedia is actually attracting a bigger and bigger audience .
Also , people will always complain .
Wikipedia is so well known and popular that there are going to be a lot of complaints out there .
Most of them probably nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the number of readers was actually a point of contention.
But the sensationalists keep crying about how Wikipedia is apparently dying.
The author is making a point that Wikipedia is actually attracting a bigger and bigger audience.
Also, people will always complain.
Wikipedia is so well known and popular that there are going to be a lot of complaints out there.
Most of them probably nonsense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259420520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to simply reeling off ad hominems, and attacking his writing strategy rather than his argument?</p><p>He didn't say "it ain't so". RTFA. In fact, it doesn't even dispute it even though that's presumably the intent, it simply talks of looking further into the figures.</p><p>The first two things listed may not be directly related to the number of editors - but that's the point! "Number of editors leaving" is a rather meaningless figure. You have to look at the whole picture, which is what he's doing. And the second one is related - they're still getting new articles, so there's yet to be any problem.</p><p>The third one is directly related.</p><p>He then goes in depth in discussing the alleged claims of the 49,000 figure.</p><p>Am I reading the same article as you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to simply reeling off ad hominems , and attacking his writing strategy rather than his argument ? He did n't say " it ai n't so " .
RTFA. In fact , it does n't even dispute it even though that 's presumably the intent , it simply talks of looking further into the figures.The first two things listed may not be directly related to the number of editors - but that 's the point !
" Number of editors leaving " is a rather meaningless figure .
You have to look at the whole picture , which is what he 's doing .
And the second one is related - they 're still getting new articles , so there 's yet to be any problem.The third one is directly related.He then goes in depth in discussing the alleged claims of the 49,000 figure.Am I reading the same article as you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to simply reeling off ad hominems, and attacking his writing strategy rather than his argument?He didn't say "it ain't so".
RTFA. In fact, it doesn't even dispute it even though that's presumably the intent, it simply talks of looking further into the figures.The first two things listed may not be directly related to the number of editors - but that's the point!
"Number of editors leaving" is a rather meaningless figure.
You have to look at the whole picture, which is what he's doing.
And the second one is related - they're still getting new articles, so there's yet to be any problem.The third one is directly related.He then goes in depth in discussing the alleged claims of the 49,000 figure.Am I reading the same article as you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254892</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259427900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It gets into the field of bizarre when you see editors revert cleanups.</p><p>My personal story: I read a (probably little read) article to find it being vandalized (something like "$whateverperson is gay" sprinkled into the article) so I went and edited it. I admit, I didn't bother to register just for that. It was neither a locked article nor was it in any way controversal, so anonymous editing was possible. I removed the "xxx is gay" parts and checked it in with a remark noting that it was a vandalism removal.</p><p>2 hours later it was reverted by an editor.</p><p>Maybe it was pertinent for an article about Greek column styles to know that a certain person likes "Greek love", dunno...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It gets into the field of bizarre when you see editors revert cleanups.My personal story : I read a ( probably little read ) article to find it being vandalized ( something like " $ whateverperson is gay " sprinkled into the article ) so I went and edited it .
I admit , I did n't bother to register just for that .
It was neither a locked article nor was it in any way controversal , so anonymous editing was possible .
I removed the " xxx is gay " parts and checked it in with a remark noting that it was a vandalism removal.2 hours later it was reverted by an editor.Maybe it was pertinent for an article about Greek column styles to know that a certain person likes " Greek love " , dunno.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gets into the field of bizarre when you see editors revert cleanups.My personal story: I read a (probably little read) article to find it being vandalized (something like "$whateverperson is gay" sprinkled into the article) so I went and edited it.
I admit, I didn't bother to register just for that.
It was neither a locked article nor was it in any way controversal, so anonymous editing was possible.
I removed the "xxx is gay" parts and checked it in with a remark noting that it was a vandalism removal.2 hours later it was reverted by an editor.Maybe it was pertinent for an article about Greek column styles to know that a certain person likes "Greek love", dunno...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255754</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259436540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And that's the only reason's Wikipedia's popular: she's easy and you're lazy.</p></div><p>You say that like it's a bad thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's the only reason 's Wikipedia 's popular : she 's easy and you 're lazy.You say that like it 's a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's the only reason's Wikipedia's popular: she's easy and you're lazy.You say that like it's a bad thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255422</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1259433300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you seriously just assume that the first poster had RTFA?! I found it shocking that he even read TFS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you seriously just assume that the first poster had RTFA ? !
I found it shocking that he even read TFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you seriously just assume that the first poster had RTFA?!
I found it shocking that he even read TFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254354</id>
	<title>Anecdotes are not evidence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anecdotes are not evidence, and tell us nothing about trends in contributions.</p><p>But yes, basically some people have a bad experience about working with other people online anonymously. But it is a mistake to think that this means Wikipedia is flawed - for all we know, the other person is also here complaining about people who kept adding "rubbish" to an article... I'm sure you think your change was valid, and maybe it was, but <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1459602&amp;cid=30254326" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">that's not always the case</a> [slashdot.org]. There's no right answer, yet people will always come away, complaining about Wikipedia, no matter what their edit was.</p><p>It's entirely natural that some people aren't cut out for Wikipedia editing - I wouldn't expect a massive collabation with large numbers of anonymous people online to be easy. I mean, what do you propose? That all edits should be allowed to stay? Well no, that would be unworkable.</p><p>Many things in life, especially those in life that involve working with other people, require cooperation and time, and sometimes not everything goes your way. It is a mistake to think that making the edit is the only work necessary, because such a policy of no reverts would be unworkable. You have to sometimes discuss changes with other people - that's true of all sorts of things in life, such as open source projects, volunteer work, or jobs. But that doesn't mean that <i>no one</i> is interested, nor does it mean that there is something wrong with the activity. Imagine someone saying <i>"I tried working in a band once, but it was hopeless, the other guys didn't want to play any of the songs I wrote or listen to my suggestions, so I left"</i> - sure, it's a nice little anecdote, but it tells us nothing about (a) whether you were in the right or not, (b) about trends in music, or (c) whether working in bands is a good idea or not, other than the obvious point that you have to be prepared to work with other people, who sometimes may not agree with you.</p><p>Why is Wikipedia so different? Yes, by all means tell us about how you didn't like being an editor, but please don't present that as criticism of the project, or evidence of a trend - anymore than my dislike of playing football is valid criticism of football, or evidence of a decline in the sport.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anecdotes are not evidence , and tell us nothing about trends in contributions.But yes , basically some people have a bad experience about working with other people online anonymously .
But it is a mistake to think that this means Wikipedia is flawed - for all we know , the other person is also here complaining about people who kept adding " rubbish " to an article... I 'm sure you think your change was valid , and maybe it was , but that 's not always the case [ slashdot.org ] .
There 's no right answer , yet people will always come away , complaining about Wikipedia , no matter what their edit was.It 's entirely natural that some people are n't cut out for Wikipedia editing - I would n't expect a massive collabation with large numbers of anonymous people online to be easy .
I mean , what do you propose ?
That all edits should be allowed to stay ?
Well no , that would be unworkable.Many things in life , especially those in life that involve working with other people , require cooperation and time , and sometimes not everything goes your way .
It is a mistake to think that making the edit is the only work necessary , because such a policy of no reverts would be unworkable .
You have to sometimes discuss changes with other people - that 's true of all sorts of things in life , such as open source projects , volunteer work , or jobs .
But that does n't mean that no one is interested , nor does it mean that there is something wrong with the activity .
Imagine someone saying " I tried working in a band once , but it was hopeless , the other guys did n't want to play any of the songs I wrote or listen to my suggestions , so I left " - sure , it 's a nice little anecdote , but it tells us nothing about ( a ) whether you were in the right or not , ( b ) about trends in music , or ( c ) whether working in bands is a good idea or not , other than the obvious point that you have to be prepared to work with other people , who sometimes may not agree with you.Why is Wikipedia so different ?
Yes , by all means tell us about how you did n't like being an editor , but please do n't present that as criticism of the project , or evidence of a trend - anymore than my dislike of playing football is valid criticism of football , or evidence of a decline in the sport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anecdotes are not evidence, and tell us nothing about trends in contributions.But yes, basically some people have a bad experience about working with other people online anonymously.
But it is a mistake to think that this means Wikipedia is flawed - for all we know, the other person is also here complaining about people who kept adding "rubbish" to an article... I'm sure you think your change was valid, and maybe it was, but that's not always the case [slashdot.org].
There's no right answer, yet people will always come away, complaining about Wikipedia, no matter what their edit was.It's entirely natural that some people aren't cut out for Wikipedia editing - I wouldn't expect a massive collabation with large numbers of anonymous people online to be easy.
I mean, what do you propose?
That all edits should be allowed to stay?
Well no, that would be unworkable.Many things in life, especially those in life that involve working with other people, require cooperation and time, and sometimes not everything goes your way.
It is a mistake to think that making the edit is the only work necessary, because such a policy of no reverts would be unworkable.
You have to sometimes discuss changes with other people - that's true of all sorts of things in life, such as open source projects, volunteer work, or jobs.
But that doesn't mean that no one is interested, nor does it mean that there is something wrong with the activity.
Imagine someone saying "I tried working in a band once, but it was hopeless, the other guys didn't want to play any of the songs I wrote or listen to my suggestions, so I left" - sure, it's a nice little anecdote, but it tells us nothing about (a) whether you were in the right or not, (b) about trends in music, or (c) whether working in bands is a good idea or not, other than the obvious point that you have to be prepared to work with other people, who sometimes may not agree with you.Why is Wikipedia so different?
Yes, by all means tell us about how you didn't like being an editor, but please don't present that as criticism of the project, or evidence of a trend - anymore than my dislike of playing football is valid criticism of football, or evidence of a decline in the sport.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256836</id>
	<title>Re:Someone touched a nerve eh ?</title>
	<author>sponga</author>
	<datestamp>1259403780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Google buys it and they become another product of theirs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Google buys it and they become another product of theirs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Google buys it and they become another product of theirs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255170</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259430540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, for once, the term "begging the question" can be used properly!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , for once , the term " begging the question " can be used properly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, for once, the term "begging the question" can be used properly!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254530</id>
	<title>How did they dispute it...</title>
	<author>the\_raptor</author>
	<datestamp>1259423880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did they dispute it? Did they just edit the wiki article about editors leaving?</p><p>But seriously wikipedia started dying the second they handed out enhanced powers for being a no lifer trolling Wikipedia all day. Later on top management showed no interest in reigning in abusive admins, and even rewarded several who were shown to be taking part in out right fraud and lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did they dispute it ?
Did they just edit the wiki article about editors leaving ? But seriously wikipedia started dying the second they handed out enhanced powers for being a no lifer trolling Wikipedia all day .
Later on top management showed no interest in reigning in abusive admins , and even rewarded several who were shown to be taking part in out right fraud and lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did they dispute it?
Did they just edit the wiki article about editors leaving?But seriously wikipedia started dying the second they handed out enhanced powers for being a no lifer trolling Wikipedia all day.
Later on top management showed no interest in reigning in abusive admins, and even rewarded several who were shown to be taking part in out right fraud and lying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254994</id>
	<title>it is a decline</title>
	<author>darrenkopp</author>
	<datestamp>1259428980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the fact that there isn't a wikipedia entry about this proves that there is a decline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the fact that there is n't a wikipedia entry about this proves that there is a decline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fact that there isn't a wikipedia entry about this proves that there is a decline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256474</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259400180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He reverted THE BIRTH DATE!!??! Christ almighty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He reverted THE BIRTH DATE ! ! ? ? !
Christ almighty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He reverted THE BIRTH DATE!!??!
Christ almighty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256084</id>
	<title>Case-in-point.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259439660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#In\_anime" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#In\_anime</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Everything currently wrong with wikipedia can be summed up by this one link, as well as the edit war currently going on over the section.  The people most willing to fight over revisions are the generally the ones you don't want involved.  Qualified academic writers are driven out by people who will fight for hours over the importance of crucifixion in an episode of their favorite anime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion # In \ _anime [ wikipedia.org ] Everything currently wrong with wikipedia can be summed up by this one link , as well as the edit war currently going on over the section .
The people most willing to fight over revisions are the generally the ones you do n't want involved .
Qualified academic writers are driven out by people who will fight for hours over the importance of crucifixion in an episode of their favorite anime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#In\_anime [wikipedia.org]Everything currently wrong with wikipedia can be summed up by this one link, as well as the edit war currently going on over the section.
The people most willing to fight over revisions are the generally the ones you don't want involved.
Qualified academic writers are driven out by people who will fight for hours over the importance of crucifixion in an episode of their favorite anime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257614</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdotes are not data</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1259413260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>criticism of Wikipedia is now so widespread</p></div></blockquote><p>
Wikipedia has a huge audience. You are never going to please everyone. You will always have some people complaining. That's life. Just because there are a few complaints doesn't mean that the complaints actually represent the majority.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>criticism of Wikipedia is now so widespread Wikipedia has a huge audience .
You are never going to please everyone .
You will always have some people complaining .
That 's life .
Just because there are a few complaints does n't mean that the complaints actually represent the majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>criticism of Wikipedia is now so widespread
Wikipedia has a huge audience.
You are never going to please everyone.
You will always have some people complaining.
That's life.
Just because there are a few complaints doesn't mean that the complaints actually represent the majority.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254774</id>
	<title>Re:Liar</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259426520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the Chewbacca Defense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the Chewbacca Defense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the Chewbacca Defense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255018</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>gabebear</author>
	<datestamp>1259429220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I joined recently to update the page of a candidate running for Ted Kennedy's seat (election will be done and over with by January).  I wasn't updating much, adding the candidate's birth date, linking to a book he had written, and adding the part copied from other candidate's wiki pages that links him to the Senate race.  After a full day of back in forth with an editor deleting whatever I had just added, the only think that made it through was the link to the book he had written.  And I think that just slipped through.  Not worth the effort at all trying to update a page with new info.  That ends my time working with Wikipedia.</p></div><p>Just pulled the wikipedia articles for the five candidates... they all have their birth-dates and none mention a book.
</p><ul>
<li>Martha Coakley </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike\_Capuano" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike\_Capuano</a> [wikipedia.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan\_Khazei" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Alan Khazei</a> [wikipedia.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen\_Pagliuca" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Stephen Pagliuca</a> [wikipedia.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott\_P.\_Brown" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Scott P. Brown</a> [wikipedia.org] </li></ul><p>
Who were you talking about? If they weren't really a candidate or Ted Kennedy's seat then your work should have been deleted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I joined recently to update the page of a candidate running for Ted Kennedy 's seat ( election will be done and over with by January ) .
I was n't updating much , adding the candidate 's birth date , linking to a book he had written , and adding the part copied from other candidate 's wiki pages that links him to the Senate race .
After a full day of back in forth with an editor deleting whatever I had just added , the only think that made it through was the link to the book he had written .
And I think that just slipped through .
Not worth the effort at all trying to update a page with new info .
That ends my time working with Wikipedia.Just pulled the wikipedia articles for the five candidates... they all have their birth-dates and none mention a book .
Martha Coakley http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike \ _Capuano [ wikipedia.org ] Alan Khazei [ wikipedia.org ] Stephen Pagliuca [ wikipedia.org ] Scott P. Brown [ wikipedia.org ] Who were you talking about ?
If they were n't really a candidate or Ted Kennedy 's seat then your work should have been deleted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I joined recently to update the page of a candidate running for Ted Kennedy's seat (election will be done and over with by January).
I wasn't updating much, adding the candidate's birth date, linking to a book he had written, and adding the part copied from other candidate's wiki pages that links him to the Senate race.
After a full day of back in forth with an editor deleting whatever I had just added, the only think that made it through was the link to the book he had written.
And I think that just slipped through.
Not worth the effort at all trying to update a page with new info.
That ends my time working with Wikipedia.Just pulled the wikipedia articles for the five candidates... they all have their birth-dates and none mention a book.
Martha Coakley  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike\_Capuano [wikipedia.org]  Alan Khazei [wikipedia.org]  Stephen Pagliuca [wikipedia.org]  Scott P. Brown [wikipedia.org] 
Who were you talking about?
If they weren't really a candidate or Ted Kennedy's seat then your work should have been deleted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264</id>
	<title>Anecdotes are not data</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259420760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point being, there's no automated way to do this, in order come up with statistics about the site.</p><p>An anecdote of "Well I stopped editing in 2004, and so did some people I know" may make for interesting discussion, but doesn't tell us anything useful about trends in Wikipedia editing as a whole, and <i>certainly</i> doesn't support the recent story.</p><p>Unfortunately, Wikipedia is one of Slashdot's blindspots - where the usual thought out points go out of the window in the groupthink, and mod points are dished out purely on who can criticise Wikipedia, for whatever reason, be it a personal bad experience of editing there, or some axe to grind against its policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point being , there 's no automated way to do this , in order come up with statistics about the site.An anecdote of " Well I stopped editing in 2004 , and so did some people I know " may make for interesting discussion , but does n't tell us anything useful about trends in Wikipedia editing as a whole , and certainly does n't support the recent story.Unfortunately , Wikipedia is one of Slashdot 's blindspots - where the usual thought out points go out of the window in the groupthink , and mod points are dished out purely on who can criticise Wikipedia , for whatever reason , be it a personal bad experience of editing there , or some axe to grind against its policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point being, there's no automated way to do this, in order come up with statistics about the site.An anecdote of "Well I stopped editing in 2004, and so did some people I know" may make for interesting discussion, but doesn't tell us anything useful about trends in Wikipedia editing as a whole, and certainly doesn't support the recent story.Unfortunately, Wikipedia is one of Slashdot's blindspots - where the usual thought out points go out of the window in the groupthink, and mod points are dished out purely on who can criticise Wikipedia, for whatever reason, be it a personal bad experience of editing there, or some axe to grind against its policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254362</id>
	<title>Someone touched a nerve eh ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The number of people reading Wikipedia continues to grow. In October, we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world, according to comScore Media Metrix, up 6\% from September.</i></p><p>I don't think the number of readers was actually a point of contention. How long those readers actually stay on Wikipedia and how useful they find it now that everything is getting culled by overzealous moderators citing "lack of sources" etc. is possibly more the point.</p><p><i>Wikipedia is the fifth most popular web property in the world. The number of articles in Wikipedia keeps growing. There are about 14.4 million articles in Wikipedia, with thousands of new ones added every day.</i></p><p>Wikipedia's own article on Wikipedia has a nice graph of article count. Since Jul 2007 it seems they've typically been adding about 2000 articles a day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so "thousands" is being used in it's most literal sense. But without the number of articles being edited down to nothing, or simply being culled, this data is useless, and they damn well know it. Tell us how many articles are being deleted each day, and that that number isn't increasing !</p><p><i>The number of people writing Wikipedia peaked about two and a half years ago, declined slightly for a brief period, and has remained stable since then. Every month, some people stop writing, and every month, they are replaced by new people.</i></p><p>Interesting this is exactly the point at which the increase in articles per day flatlined, meanign that the number of editors they ave maintained since means a linear addition to the total volume of articles, and not the "projected doubling that they expected" on the graph.</p><p><i>They also note that it's impossible to tell whether someone has left and will never return, as their account still remains there.</i></p><p>So they don't maintain a timestamp of "last activity by author" ??? Fucking nonsense, pardon my language.</p><p>The report touched a nerve, and their response with half-assed, half-complete figures does nothing to convince me the report was incorrect.</p><p>And they have the gall to ask for 7.5 million US in donations for a diminshing product. Jimbo's days of champagne, caviar and jet planes are numbered methinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of people reading Wikipedia continues to grow .
In October , we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world , according to comScore Media Metrix , up 6 \ % from September.I do n't think the number of readers was actually a point of contention .
How long those readers actually stay on Wikipedia and how useful they find it now that everything is getting culled by overzealous moderators citing " lack of sources " etc .
is possibly more the point.Wikipedia is the fifth most popular web property in the world .
The number of articles in Wikipedia keeps growing .
There are about 14.4 million articles in Wikipedia , with thousands of new ones added every day.Wikipedia 's own article on Wikipedia has a nice graph of article count .
Since Jul 2007 it seems they 've typically been adding about 2000 articles a day ... so " thousands " is being used in it 's most literal sense .
But without the number of articles being edited down to nothing , or simply being culled , this data is useless , and they damn well know it .
Tell us how many articles are being deleted each day , and that that number is n't increasing ! The number of people writing Wikipedia peaked about two and a half years ago , declined slightly for a brief period , and has remained stable since then .
Every month , some people stop writing , and every month , they are replaced by new people.Interesting this is exactly the point at which the increase in articles per day flatlined , meanign that the number of editors they ave maintained since means a linear addition to the total volume of articles , and not the " projected doubling that they expected " on the graph.They also note that it 's impossible to tell whether someone has left and will never return , as their account still remains there.So they do n't maintain a timestamp of " last activity by author " ? ? ?
Fucking nonsense , pardon my language.The report touched a nerve , and their response with half-assed , half-complete figures does nothing to convince me the report was incorrect.And they have the gall to ask for 7.5 million US in donations for a diminshing product .
Jimbo 's days of champagne , caviar and jet planes are numbered methinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of people reading Wikipedia continues to grow.
In October, we had 344 million unique visitors from around the world, according to comScore Media Metrix, up 6\% from September.I don't think the number of readers was actually a point of contention.
How long those readers actually stay on Wikipedia and how useful they find it now that everything is getting culled by overzealous moderators citing "lack of sources" etc.
is possibly more the point.Wikipedia is the fifth most popular web property in the world.
The number of articles in Wikipedia keeps growing.
There are about 14.4 million articles in Wikipedia, with thousands of new ones added every day.Wikipedia's own article on Wikipedia has a nice graph of article count.
Since Jul 2007 it seems they've typically been adding about 2000 articles a day ... so "thousands" is being used in it's most literal sense.
But without the number of articles being edited down to nothing, or simply being culled, this data is useless, and they damn well know it.
Tell us how many articles are being deleted each day, and that that number isn't increasing !The number of people writing Wikipedia peaked about two and a half years ago, declined slightly for a brief period, and has remained stable since then.
Every month, some people stop writing, and every month, they are replaced by new people.Interesting this is exactly the point at which the increase in articles per day flatlined, meanign that the number of editors they ave maintained since means a linear addition to the total volume of articles, and not the "projected doubling that they expected" on the graph.They also note that it's impossible to tell whether someone has left and will never return, as their account still remains there.So they don't maintain a timestamp of "last activity by author" ???
Fucking nonsense, pardon my language.The report touched a nerve, and their response with half-assed, half-complete figures does nothing to convince me the report was incorrect.And they have the gall to ask for 7.5 million US in donations for a diminshing product.
Jimbo's days of champagne, caviar and jet planes are numbered methinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256918</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259405100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People on the internet aren't usually looking for truth.  They're looking for useful.  As a result, the first Google hit usually serves (which goes to show how freaking awesome Google is).  Aristotle warned us thousands of years ago to remember that "the same degree of precision is not to be expected in all discussions..."<br>
<br>
Do you really think that nobody out of after High School should be using an encyclopedias?  I sure hope I'm misunderstanding you.  Saying that folk should be finding these mythical compendia and/or reading a textbook suggests elitism of the worst kind.  My training in maths and physics didn't cover a lot of chemistry or biology, and if a question comes up at a party about basic metallurgy (yes, I'm a geek, I associate with geeks), what is wrong with using an encyclopedia?  We're in the middle of a game of Charades here, not writing a dissertation.  I'm not calling a certain welding family member of mine in a different time zone.<br>
<br>
Comparing the use of Wikipedia to asking the first random person you meet is just stupid.<br>
<br>
Let me reiterate:  <b>Wikipedia articles are not written by random people.</b>  Wikipedia articles are written by people who have gathered under the banner of that article, akin to a tribe.  Yes, any person can sneak in and mess things up, but the people who flocked to that banner by design will fix it as best they can given their level of concern.<br>
<br>
Comparing Wikipedia to a cult just fails.  Yes, there are some fundamental principles that are not supported by "logic", but the same can be said of the wood frame construction industry.  Everyone tacitly agrees that volunteers can collaborate, measures of effectiveness aside.  By the metrics you offer, academia is a cult too:  critics are met with jargon, misdirection, denial, and anger.  If you don't believe me, try telling your department head that their reliance on dialectic obscures proper understanding the world as it is, and leads their students away from truth.<br>
<br>
Wikipedia is not about scholarship, it's about useful information.  Pointing out how wikipedia fails at scholastic rigour won't deter anyone who wants to know some basics about something <b>quickly</b> - it's build right in to the name, for ${LC\_DEITY}\'s sake!<br>
<br>
Plus, conflating the rise of Wikipedia with the rise of internet noise makes you look dumb.<br>
<br>
No wonder you posted AC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People on the internet are n't usually looking for truth .
They 're looking for useful .
As a result , the first Google hit usually serves ( which goes to show how freaking awesome Google is ) .
Aristotle warned us thousands of years ago to remember that " the same degree of precision is not to be expected in all discussions... " Do you really think that nobody out of after High School should be using an encyclopedias ?
I sure hope I 'm misunderstanding you .
Saying that folk should be finding these mythical compendia and/or reading a textbook suggests elitism of the worst kind .
My training in maths and physics did n't cover a lot of chemistry or biology , and if a question comes up at a party about basic metallurgy ( yes , I 'm a geek , I associate with geeks ) , what is wrong with using an encyclopedia ?
We 're in the middle of a game of Charades here , not writing a dissertation .
I 'm not calling a certain welding family member of mine in a different time zone .
Comparing the use of Wikipedia to asking the first random person you meet is just stupid .
Let me reiterate : Wikipedia articles are not written by random people .
Wikipedia articles are written by people who have gathered under the banner of that article , akin to a tribe .
Yes , any person can sneak in and mess things up , but the people who flocked to that banner by design will fix it as best they can given their level of concern .
Comparing Wikipedia to a cult just fails .
Yes , there are some fundamental principles that are not supported by " logic " , but the same can be said of the wood frame construction industry .
Everyone tacitly agrees that volunteers can collaborate , measures of effectiveness aside .
By the metrics you offer , academia is a cult too : critics are met with jargon , misdirection , denial , and anger .
If you do n't believe me , try telling your department head that their reliance on dialectic obscures proper understanding the world as it is , and leads their students away from truth .
Wikipedia is not about scholarship , it 's about useful information .
Pointing out how wikipedia fails at scholastic rigour wo n't deter anyone who wants to know some basics about something quickly - it 's build right in to the name , for $ { LC \ _DEITY } \ 's sake !
Plus , conflating the rise of Wikipedia with the rise of internet noise makes you look dumb .
No wonder you posted AC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People on the internet aren't usually looking for truth.
They're looking for useful.
As a result, the first Google hit usually serves (which goes to show how freaking awesome Google is).
Aristotle warned us thousands of years ago to remember that "the same degree of precision is not to be expected in all discussions..."

Do you really think that nobody out of after High School should be using an encyclopedias?
I sure hope I'm misunderstanding you.
Saying that folk should be finding these mythical compendia and/or reading a textbook suggests elitism of the worst kind.
My training in maths and physics didn't cover a lot of chemistry or biology, and if a question comes up at a party about basic metallurgy (yes, I'm a geek, I associate with geeks), what is wrong with using an encyclopedia?
We're in the middle of a game of Charades here, not writing a dissertation.
I'm not calling a certain welding family member of mine in a different time zone.
Comparing the use of Wikipedia to asking the first random person you meet is just stupid.
Let me reiterate:  Wikipedia articles are not written by random people.
Wikipedia articles are written by people who have gathered under the banner of that article, akin to a tribe.
Yes, any person can sneak in and mess things up, but the people who flocked to that banner by design will fix it as best they can given their level of concern.
Comparing Wikipedia to a cult just fails.
Yes, there are some fundamental principles that are not supported by "logic", but the same can be said of the wood frame construction industry.
Everyone tacitly agrees that volunteers can collaborate, measures of effectiveness aside.
By the metrics you offer, academia is a cult too:  critics are met with jargon, misdirection, denial, and anger.
If you don't believe me, try telling your department head that their reliance on dialectic obscures proper understanding the world as it is, and leads their students away from truth.
Wikipedia is not about scholarship, it's about useful information.
Pointing out how wikipedia fails at scholastic rigour won't deter anyone who wants to know some basics about something quickly - it's build right in to the name, for ${LC\_DEITY}\'s sake!
Plus, conflating the rise of Wikipedia with the rise of internet noise makes you look dumb.
No wonder you posted AC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30262708</id>
	<title>not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259521740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>-site:wikipedia.org</htmltext>
<tokenext>-site : wikipedia.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-site:wikipedia.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30259040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30260476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30260100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_0351257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254572
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30260100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254574
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254618
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255618
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30260476
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30257146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_0351257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30259040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30256844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30255654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_0351257.30254678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
