<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_20_1331221</id>
	<title>Jimmy Wales' Theory of Failure</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266675300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Tampa Tribune reports that Jimmy Wales recently spoke at the TEDx conference in Tampa about the <a href="http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/feb/19/wp-wikipedia-creator-had-lots-of-earlier-failures/">three big failures he had before he started Wikipedia</a>, and what he learned from them. In 1996 Wales started an Internet service to connect downtown lunchers with area restaurants. 'The result was failure,' says Wales. 'In 1996, restaurant owners looked at me like I was from Mars.' Next Wales started a <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/5fhXjrexf">search engine company called 3Apes</a>. In three months, it was taken over by Chinese hackers and the project failed. Third was an online encyclopedia called Nupedia, a free encyclopedia created by paid experts. Wales spent $250,000 for writers to make 12 articles, and it failed. Finally, Wales had a 'really dumb idea,' a free encyclopedia written by anyone who wanted to contribute. That became Wikipedia, which is now <a href="http://searchengineland.com/wikipedia-enters-top-ten-most-visited-sites-10536">one of the top 10 most-popular Web sites</a> in the world. This leads to Wales' theories of failure: fail faster &mdash; if a project is doomed, shut it down quickly; don't tie your ego to any one project &mdash; if it stumbles, you'll be unable to move forward; real entrepreneurs fail; fail a lot but enjoy yourself along the way; if you handle these things well, 'you will succeed.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Tampa Tribune reports that Jimmy Wales recently spoke at the TEDx conference in Tampa about the three big failures he had before he started Wikipedia , and what he learned from them .
In 1996 Wales started an Internet service to connect downtown lunchers with area restaurants .
'The result was failure, ' says Wales .
'In 1996 , restaurant owners looked at me like I was from Mars .
' Next Wales started a search engine company called 3Apes .
In three months , it was taken over by Chinese hackers and the project failed .
Third was an online encyclopedia called Nupedia , a free encyclopedia created by paid experts .
Wales spent $ 250,000 for writers to make 12 articles , and it failed .
Finally , Wales had a 'really dumb idea, ' a free encyclopedia written by anyone who wanted to contribute .
That became Wikipedia , which is now one of the top 10 most-popular Web sites in the world .
This leads to Wales ' theories of failure : fail faster    if a project is doomed , shut it down quickly ; do n't tie your ego to any one project    if it stumbles , you 'll be unable to move forward ; real entrepreneurs fail ; fail a lot but enjoy yourself along the way ; if you handle these things well , 'you will succeed .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Tampa Tribune reports that Jimmy Wales recently spoke at the TEDx conference in Tampa about the three big failures he had before he started Wikipedia, and what he learned from them.
In 1996 Wales started an Internet service to connect downtown lunchers with area restaurants.
'The result was failure,' says Wales.
'In 1996, restaurant owners looked at me like I was from Mars.
' Next Wales started a search engine company called 3Apes.
In three months, it was taken over by Chinese hackers and the project failed.
Third was an online encyclopedia called Nupedia, a free encyclopedia created by paid experts.
Wales spent $250,000 for writers to make 12 articles, and it failed.
Finally, Wales had a 'really dumb idea,' a free encyclopedia written by anyone who wanted to contribute.
That became Wikipedia, which is now one of the top 10 most-popular Web sites in the world.
This leads to Wales' theories of failure: fail faster — if a project is doomed, shut it down quickly; don't tie your ego to any one project — if it stumbles, you'll be unable to move forward; real entrepreneurs fail; fail a lot but enjoy yourself along the way; if you handle these things well, 'you will succeed.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31216446</id>
	<title>Re:Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1266691680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is exceedingly prone to failure. Most of their products are - even the ones which make them money.</p><p>But, they've had a handful of products which are "good enough", and that's "good enough". So they're successful.</p><p>There are hundreds (thousands?) of companies making EMR software which is a complete failure on every level, but most of those companies post profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is exceedingly prone to failure .
Most of their products are - even the ones which make them money.But , they 've had a handful of products which are " good enough " , and that 's " good enough " .
So they 're successful.There are hundreds ( thousands ?
) of companies making EMR software which is a complete failure on every level , but most of those companies post profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is exceedingly prone to failure.
Most of their products are - even the ones which make them money.But, they've had a handful of products which are "good enough", and that's "good enough".
So they're successful.There are hundreds (thousands?
) of companies making EMR software which is a complete failure on every level, but most of those companies post profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209886</id>
	<title>As a failed entrepreneur</title>
	<author>OgreChow</author>
	<datestamp>1266679680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another real challenge is being able to continue to fund failure.  Always seek external funding before you think you need it!  When you are forced to put your rent on your charge card your tolerance for failure decreases significantly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another real challenge is being able to continue to fund failure .
Always seek external funding before you think you need it !
When you are forced to put your rent on your charge card your tolerance for failure decreases significantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another real challenge is being able to continue to fund failure.
Always seek external funding before you think you need it!
When you are forced to put your rent on your charge card your tolerance for failure decreases significantly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212904</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>turbotroll</author>
	<datestamp>1266659400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wouldn't exactly call Wikipedia a "success." Just because something is popular doesn't mean the world is better off for it to have been made. I submit as proof of concept: 4chan.</p></div><p>I couldn't agree more.  Wikipedia is just one of the landfills of the contemporary Internet, along with 4chan, Failbook and other overhyped sites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't exactly call Wikipedia a " success .
" Just because something is popular does n't mean the world is better off for it to have been made .
I submit as proof of concept : 4chan.I could n't agree more .
Wikipedia is just one of the landfills of the contemporary Internet , along with 4chan , Failbook and other overhyped sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't exactly call Wikipedia a "success.
" Just because something is popular doesn't mean the world is better off for it to have been made.
I submit as proof of concept: 4chan.I couldn't agree more.
Wikipedia is just one of the landfills of the contemporary Internet, along with 4chan, Failbook and other overhyped sites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210232</id>
	<title>release early release often!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266684120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fail early and fail often! erh wait ??? release early release often!!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail early and fail often !
erh wait ? ? ?
release early release often ! ! !
... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail early and fail often!
erh wait ???
release early release often!!!
....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210144</id>
	<title>Disaster...</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1266683040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...didn't stymie Louie Pasteur!<br>(No, sir!)<br>Edison took years to see the light!<br>(Right!)<br>Alexander Graham knew failure well<br>'E took a lot o' knocks to ring that Bell!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...did n't stymie Louie Pasteur !
( No , sir !
) Edison took years to see the light ! ( Right !
) Alexander Graham knew failure well'E took a lot o ' knocks to ring that Bell !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...didn't stymie Louie Pasteur!
(No, sir!
)Edison took years to see the light!(Right!
)Alexander Graham knew failure well'E took a lot o' knocks to ring that Bell!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210552</id>
	<title>Re:best way to succeed? redefine "success"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266686880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to consider who Google considers their customer.  The user is the product and they sell you to the advertisers who are actually the customer.  In that respect I would say Google has been fairly successful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to consider who Google considers their customer .
The user is the product and they sell you to the advertisers who are actually the customer .
In that respect I would say Google has been fairly successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to consider who Google considers their customer.
The user is the product and they sell you to the advertisers who are actually the customer.
In that respect I would say Google has been fairly successful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209992</id>
	<title>Three failures???</title>
	<author>eclectro</author>
	<datestamp>1266681180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't three failures break a Wikipedia rule somehow??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't three failures break a Wikipedia rule somehow ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't three failures break a Wikipedia rule somehow?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210110</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1266682620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the majority of people are idiots, then probability dictates that you are likely an idiot, and we should ignore your opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the majority of people are idiots , then probability dictates that you are likely an idiot , and we should ignore your opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the majority of people are idiots, then probability dictates that you are likely an idiot, and we should ignore your opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209982</id>
	<title>Re:'Fail Often, Fail Early' Is Not Just Wales' Man</title>
	<author>JaredOfEuropa</author>
	<datestamp>1266681060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are right, it is too often used as a mantra, the silver bullet response.  Just like ESSA, 'pick low-hanging fruit', 'buy, not build' and crap like that.  And these bits of wisdom <i>are</i> crap, if you merely turn them into guiding dogmas.
<br> <br>
One thing I've learned while working on innovative stuff is that the real trick isn't knowing to fail early, it's knowing <i>how</i> and <i>when</i> to do so.  To fail early effectively you have to be able to recognise failure, or you'll end up keeping failure alive for too long, or perhaps prematurely kill a fledgling success.  And when you do fail, don't just kill the project and bury it out back, <i>learn</i> from your failure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right , it is too often used as a mantra , the silver bullet response .
Just like ESSA , 'pick low-hanging fruit ' , 'buy , not build ' and crap like that .
And these bits of wisdom are crap , if you merely turn them into guiding dogmas .
One thing I 've learned while working on innovative stuff is that the real trick is n't knowing to fail early , it 's knowing how and when to do so .
To fail early effectively you have to be able to recognise failure , or you 'll end up keeping failure alive for too long , or perhaps prematurely kill a fledgling success .
And when you do fail , do n't just kill the project and bury it out back , learn from your failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right, it is too often used as a mantra, the silver bullet response.
Just like ESSA, 'pick low-hanging fruit', 'buy, not build' and crap like that.
And these bits of wisdom are crap, if you merely turn them into guiding dogmas.
One thing I've learned while working on innovative stuff is that the real trick isn't knowing to fail early, it's knowing how and when to do so.
To fail early effectively you have to be able to recognise failure, or you'll end up keeping failure alive for too long, or perhaps prematurely kill a fledgling success.
And when you do fail, don't just kill the project and bury it out back, learn from your failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211130</id>
	<title>And fail cheap.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1266691800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>Fail cheap. This might be derived from 'fail early' as time is money. But this is the third optional part you'll hear from investors and businessmen.</i>
</p><p>
Right.  This is something the better venture capitalists used to keep in mind.  As a group, venture capitalists have lost money since 2000, because there's too much venture capital available and companies are running too long on VC money.
(Much VC money is dumb money now.  Too much money is desperately looking for decent yields in a period when no investment is doing well.)
</p><p>
Venture capital in Silicon Valley used to be about technology.  Someone would propose building a thing, and would get VC funding to build a prototype.  Either it worked, or it didn't.  If it failed, the VCs were out the cost of building a prototype.  If it worked, there was a potential business.  The failure rate was about 9 out of 10, and a win meant a 10 to 100x profit.
</p><p>
As semiconductor, electronics, and software technology matured, startups tended to be business concepts rather than technology concepts.  So they had to be brought to the point of having a sizable user base before it was clear whether they'd succeed or fail.  This led to the first dot-com boom.  In that boom, it was possible to take companies public early, and the VCs could often cash out before the business failed.  (I used to track this; see <a href="http://www.downside.com/deathwatch.html" title="downside.com">Downside's Deathwatch,</a> [downside.com] where "chart is not available for this symbol" isn't a bug; it means the company is gone and forgotten.)
</p><p>
In the second dot-com boom ("Web 2.0"), investors weren't willing to pay for untried companies.  So Twitter, Facebook, and even Myspace are still running on VC money. Myspace could have gone public a few years ago, but it's too late now. Adult Friendfinder <a href="http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/friendfinder-networks-pulls-its-ipo/" title="nytimes.com">tried to go public last week</a> [nytimes.com], but just gave up.
</p><p>
Wales' business, Wikia, is in that category - VC-funded, losing money, and lacking an exit strategy.  The problem is that VCs looked at Wales' success with Wikipedia, which is a nonprofit, and thought that would translate into business success. It didn't.  They should have looked at his unbroken string of business failures.
</p><p>
VC-funded companies don't always succeed or fail.  There's a third option, and it's the most common - the "zombie" company. The company makes enough money to cover its expenses, but not enough to pay back its investors.  This is, in fact, the most common outcome.  VCs usually have a stable of zombies they're trying to sell to somebody, anybody, just to get them off the books.  They usually end up being sold to some big player in the same field at a huge discount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail cheap .
This might be derived from 'fail early ' as time is money .
But this is the third optional part you 'll hear from investors and businessmen .
Right. This is something the better venture capitalists used to keep in mind .
As a group , venture capitalists have lost money since 2000 , because there 's too much venture capital available and companies are running too long on VC money .
( Much VC money is dumb money now .
Too much money is desperately looking for decent yields in a period when no investment is doing well .
) Venture capital in Silicon Valley used to be about technology .
Someone would propose building a thing , and would get VC funding to build a prototype .
Either it worked , or it did n't .
If it failed , the VCs were out the cost of building a prototype .
If it worked , there was a potential business .
The failure rate was about 9 out of 10 , and a win meant a 10 to 100x profit .
As semiconductor , electronics , and software technology matured , startups tended to be business concepts rather than technology concepts .
So they had to be brought to the point of having a sizable user base before it was clear whether they 'd succeed or fail .
This led to the first dot-com boom .
In that boom , it was possible to take companies public early , and the VCs could often cash out before the business failed .
( I used to track this ; see Downside 's Deathwatch , [ downside.com ] where " chart is not available for this symbol " is n't a bug ; it means the company is gone and forgotten .
) In the second dot-com boom ( " Web 2.0 " ) , investors were n't willing to pay for untried companies .
So Twitter , Facebook , and even Myspace are still running on VC money .
Myspace could have gone public a few years ago , but it 's too late now .
Adult Friendfinder tried to go public last week [ nytimes.com ] , but just gave up .
Wales ' business , Wikia , is in that category - VC-funded , losing money , and lacking an exit strategy .
The problem is that VCs looked at Wales ' success with Wikipedia , which is a nonprofit , and thought that would translate into business success .
It did n't .
They should have looked at his unbroken string of business failures .
VC-funded companies do n't always succeed or fail .
There 's a third option , and it 's the most common - the " zombie " company .
The company makes enough money to cover its expenses , but not enough to pay back its investors .
This is , in fact , the most common outcome .
VCs usually have a stable of zombies they 're trying to sell to somebody , anybody , just to get them off the books .
They usually end up being sold to some big player in the same field at a huge discount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Fail cheap.
This might be derived from 'fail early' as time is money.
But this is the third optional part you'll hear from investors and businessmen.
Right.  This is something the better venture capitalists used to keep in mind.
As a group, venture capitalists have lost money since 2000, because there's too much venture capital available and companies are running too long on VC money.
(Much VC money is dumb money now.
Too much money is desperately looking for decent yields in a period when no investment is doing well.
)

Venture capital in Silicon Valley used to be about technology.
Someone would propose building a thing, and would get VC funding to build a prototype.
Either it worked, or it didn't.
If it failed, the VCs were out the cost of building a prototype.
If it worked, there was a potential business.
The failure rate was about 9 out of 10, and a win meant a 10 to 100x profit.
As semiconductor, electronics, and software technology matured, startups tended to be business concepts rather than technology concepts.
So they had to be brought to the point of having a sizable user base before it was clear whether they'd succeed or fail.
This led to the first dot-com boom.
In that boom, it was possible to take companies public early, and the VCs could often cash out before the business failed.
(I used to track this; see Downside's Deathwatch, [downside.com] where "chart is not available for this symbol" isn't a bug; it means the company is gone and forgotten.
)

In the second dot-com boom ("Web 2.0"), investors weren't willing to pay for untried companies.
So Twitter, Facebook, and even Myspace are still running on VC money.
Myspace could have gone public a few years ago, but it's too late now.
Adult Friendfinder tried to go public last week [nytimes.com], but just gave up.
Wales' business, Wikia, is in that category - VC-funded, losing money, and lacking an exit strategy.
The problem is that VCs looked at Wales' success with Wikipedia, which is a nonprofit, and thought that would translate into business success.
It didn't.
They should have looked at his unbroken string of business failures.
VC-funded companies don't always succeed or fail.
There's a third option, and it's the most common - the "zombie" company.
The company makes enough money to cover its expenses, but not enough to pay back its investors.
This is, in fact, the most common outcome.
VCs usually have a stable of zombies they're trying to sell to somebody, anybody, just to get them off the books.
They usually end up being sold to some big player in the same field at a huge discount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31214216</id>
	<title>Re:His fourth and biggest failure yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266669840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His biggest failure was a basic architectural assumption of Wikipedia. The assumption of &ldquo;the one global truth(iness)&rdquo;.<br>This caused him to make Wikipedia a centralized and centrally controlled site, instead of a P2P system.</p></div><p>Which already existed. It's called WWW.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His biggest failure was a basic architectural assumption of Wikipedia .
The assumption of    the one global truth ( iness )    .This caused him to make Wikipedia a centralized and centrally controlled site , instead of a P2P system.Which already existed .
It 's called WWW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His biggest failure was a basic architectural assumption of Wikipedia.
The assumption of “the one global truth(iness)”.This caused him to make Wikipedia a centralized and centrally controlled site, instead of a P2P system.Which already existed.
It's called WWW.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211990</id>
	<title>Re:His fourth and biggest failure yet.</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1266696960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately there are people, that are unable to discuss things reasonably. (E.g. aforementioned religious fundamentalists.)</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>The people who control Wikipedia started to just accuse everybody who disagreed, of being unable to discuss things reasonably</p></div><p>I dunno, this just struck me as funny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately there are people , that are unable to discuss things reasonably .
( E.g. aforementioned religious fundamentalists .
) The people who control Wikipedia started to just accuse everybody who disagreed , of being unable to discuss things reasonablyI dunno , this just struck me as funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately there are people, that are unable to discuss things reasonably.
(E.g. aforementioned religious fundamentalists.
)The people who control Wikipedia started to just accuse everybody who disagreed, of being unable to discuss things reasonablyI dunno, this just struck me as funny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209880</id>
	<title>Re:Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266679680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everybody tries to explain success and put into simple words, but there is no "formula", the game is constantly changing and the players also, every success story is unique.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody tries to explain success and put into simple words , but there is no " formula " , the game is constantly changing and the players also , every success story is unique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody tries to explain success and put into simple words, but there is no "formula", the game is constantly changing and the players also, every success story is unique.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31217482</id>
	<title>Re:And drink a pint of whiskey every day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266754980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favour to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. -- Ecclesiastes 9:11</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have seen something else under the sun : The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong , nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favour to the learned ; but time and chance happen to them all .
-- Ecclesiastes 9 : 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favour to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.
-- Ecclesiastes 9:11</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213024</id>
	<title>Re:'Fail Often, Fail Early' Is Not Just Wales' Man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266660120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So the ultimate incarnation I've heard of this is "Fail often, fail fast, fail cheap." </i></p><p>Pick two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the ultimate incarnation I 've heard of this is " Fail often , fail fast , fail cheap .
" Pick two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the ultimate incarnation I've heard of this is "Fail often, fail fast, fail cheap.
" Pick two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31216458</id>
	<title>Re:Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1266691920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's not "chance" which allowed them to succeed or caused them to fail. It was market position and maturity - timing, essentially.</p><p>If your timing is off, it doesn't matter what you've got: you're going to fail. That was the point.</p><p>(The Nupedia idea was too little too late; the resturaunt idea was way too soon. No telling on the others.)</p><p>If your timing is right, the rest is marketing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's not " chance " which allowed them to succeed or caused them to fail .
It was market position and maturity - timing , essentially.If your timing is off , it does n't matter what you 've got : you 're going to fail .
That was the point .
( The Nupedia idea was too little too late ; the resturaunt idea was way too soon .
No telling on the others .
) If your timing is right , the rest is marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's not "chance" which allowed them to succeed or caused them to fail.
It was market position and maturity - timing, essentially.If your timing is off, it doesn't matter what you've got: you're going to fail.
That was the point.
(The Nupedia idea was too little too late; the resturaunt idea was way too soon.
No telling on the others.
)If your timing is right, the rest is marketing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212604</id>
	<title>Re:And drink a pint of whiskey every day</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1266657540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For every anecdote there is an equal and opposite anecdote. It's like a law or something.</p></div><p>This post would be so much more useful if you actually posted one of those equal and opposite anecdotes.  As it is, your post isn't even as useful as an anecdote, it is half-assed opinion based in your imagination, not your observation.<br> <br>
I'll see your half-assed opinion and raise it an anecdote: I've never met anyone who kept trying after failure (in business) and didn't eventually succeed.  They don't all become Larry Page, but they all become quite comfortable.  There is so much opportunity compared to the number of people willing to chase it, that anyone who doesn't give up will have no problem succeeding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For every anecdote there is an equal and opposite anecdote .
It 's like a law or something.This post would be so much more useful if you actually posted one of those equal and opposite anecdotes .
As it is , your post is n't even as useful as an anecdote , it is half-assed opinion based in your imagination , not your observation .
I 'll see your half-assed opinion and raise it an anecdote : I 've never met anyone who kept trying after failure ( in business ) and did n't eventually succeed .
They do n't all become Larry Page , but they all become quite comfortable .
There is so much opportunity compared to the number of people willing to chase it , that anyone who does n't give up will have no problem succeeding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every anecdote there is an equal and opposite anecdote.
It's like a law or something.This post would be so much more useful if you actually posted one of those equal and opposite anecdotes.
As it is, your post isn't even as useful as an anecdote, it is half-assed opinion based in your imagination, not your observation.
I'll see your half-assed opinion and raise it an anecdote: I've never met anyone who kept trying after failure (in business) and didn't eventually succeed.
They don't all become Larry Page, but they all become quite comfortable.
There is so much opportunity compared to the number of people willing to chase it, that anyone who doesn't give up will have no problem succeeding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210514</id>
	<title>Re:As a failed entrepreneur</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1266686640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess a lot of this depends on what you're trying to do.  If you want to start up a consulting business for data mining with neural networks then your startup costs are pretty low.  it is mostly going to be you working the phones, working on algos, follow-up, etc.
<br> <br>
If, on the other hand, you want to make a new kind of electric car then you are going to need to line up a consortium of VCs and banks and others.
<br> <br>
I suppose the "middle ground" could be quicksand.  Something like opening a new pizza shop could be something you can fund yourself but it may drain most of your personal savings.  In those situations it is certainly hard to see how you can fail often without going hopelessly into debt.  In fact I have the feeling that the # of people that happens to is far larger than the people who get to spout bromides like Wales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess a lot of this depends on what you 're trying to do .
If you want to start up a consulting business for data mining with neural networks then your startup costs are pretty low .
it is mostly going to be you working the phones , working on algos , follow-up , etc .
If , on the other hand , you want to make a new kind of electric car then you are going to need to line up a consortium of VCs and banks and others .
I suppose the " middle ground " could be quicksand .
Something like opening a new pizza shop could be something you can fund yourself but it may drain most of your personal savings .
In those situations it is certainly hard to see how you can fail often without going hopelessly into debt .
In fact I have the feeling that the # of people that happens to is far larger than the people who get to spout bromides like Wales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess a lot of this depends on what you're trying to do.
If you want to start up a consulting business for data mining with neural networks then your startup costs are pretty low.
it is mostly going to be you working the phones, working on algos, follow-up, etc.
If, on the other hand, you want to make a new kind of electric car then you are going to need to line up a consortium of VCs and banks and others.
I suppose the "middle ground" could be quicksand.
Something like opening a new pizza shop could be something you can fund yourself but it may drain most of your personal savings.
In those situations it is certainly hard to see how you can fail often without going hopelessly into debt.
In fact I have the feeling that the # of people that happens to is far larger than the people who get to spout bromides like Wales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210142</id>
	<title>Well put, my own list of failures</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1266682980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have started and ran a few biz with various success and a few total wrecks over the years. I totally agree with being able to put a bad idea down fast, in a don't throw 'good money after bad' sense.</p><p>I recall reading some stat or quote years ago about how only 1 in 7 new biz make it. So, I needed to start a new biz fast, but could not afford to fail at it for lack of money to anything else. So, I started 7 different ones all at once. 3 of them where complete dogs, and I shut them down in the first couple of month. 1 made money and showed promise, but was just no fun. So I killed that. I was left with 3 working and making money two years later. I killed one that took too much of my time, relative to the money. One took off and has made real money, and the other one is still alive and kicking but takes almost no resources.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have started and ran a few biz with various success and a few total wrecks over the years .
I totally agree with being able to put a bad idea down fast , in a do n't throw 'good money after bad ' sense.I recall reading some stat or quote years ago about how only 1 in 7 new biz make it .
So , I needed to start a new biz fast , but could not afford to fail at it for lack of money to anything else .
So , I started 7 different ones all at once .
3 of them where complete dogs , and I shut them down in the first couple of month .
1 made money and showed promise , but was just no fun .
So I killed that .
I was left with 3 working and making money two years later .
I killed one that took too much of my time , relative to the money .
One took off and has made real money , and the other one is still alive and kicking but takes almost no resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have started and ran a few biz with various success and a few total wrecks over the years.
I totally agree with being able to put a bad idea down fast, in a don't throw 'good money after bad' sense.I recall reading some stat or quote years ago about how only 1 in 7 new biz make it.
So, I needed to start a new biz fast, but could not afford to fail at it for lack of money to anything else.
So, I started 7 different ones all at once.
3 of them where complete dogs, and I shut them down in the first couple of month.
1 made money and showed promise, but was just no fun.
So I killed that.
I was left with 3 working and making money two years later.
I killed one that took too much of my time, relative to the money.
One took off and has made real money, and the other one is still alive and kicking but takes almost no resources.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31215566</id>
	<title>Re:Douchebag</title>
	<author>crepe-boy</author>
	<datestamp>1266681900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another thing that's missing is mention of Jimmy's other project, Bomis, the porn-related search site.  He keeps trying to sweep that one under the rug.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or maybe it's just that he doesn't consider it a failure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another thing that 's missing is mention of Jimmy 's other project , Bomis , the porn-related search site .
He keeps trying to sweep that one under the rug .
...or maybe it 's just that he does n't consider it a failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another thing that's missing is mention of Jimmy's other project, Bomis, the porn-related search site.
He keeps trying to sweep that one under the rug.
...or maybe it's just that he doesn't consider it a failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212540</id>
	<title>Jimmy Wales the secret behind Fox programming?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1266657180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sounds like Jimmy Wales is the secret genius behind Fox TV's programming, because they use his failure logic to cancel the awesome-but-undiscovered stuff all the time.</p><p>Thanks, Jimmy, for cancelling Firefly, Space: Above and Beyond, and Keen Eddie!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sounds like Jimmy Wales is the secret genius behind Fox TV 's programming , because they use his failure logic to cancel the awesome-but-undiscovered stuff all the time.Thanks , Jimmy , for cancelling Firefly , Space : Above and Beyond , and Keen Eddie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sounds like Jimmy Wales is the secret genius behind Fox TV's programming, because they use his failure logic to cancel the awesome-but-undiscovered stuff all the time.Thanks, Jimmy, for cancelling Firefly, Space: Above and Beyond, and Keen Eddie!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210366</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1266685380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh come on.  If you want a basic understanding of a subject, Wikipedia is fine.  I've used it to get a basic summary of the breakup of Yugoslavia, find out where certain countries are, found out about different blood type systems...  Were I a UN official, planning on invading a country or a doctor I'd use a more credible source for each of these, but I'm not.  Even then, I'd possibly use it as a starting point.  The references are pretty useful.<br> <br>
<i>Common knowledge is usually WRONG. </i> <br> <br>
It's common knowledge that you will starve to death if you don't eat, tat you should sleep when tired, that cars are a popular means of transportation, that windows are transparent, that stained glass windows are common in European churches, fruit contains sugar...  Is all this wrong?  It's all common knowledge.<br> <br>
More to the point, where is Wikipedia wrong?  People often criticise it but the worst that can be said is that it doesn't go into deep analysis of its topics.  Nor should it - it's an encyclopedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on .
If you want a basic understanding of a subject , Wikipedia is fine .
I 've used it to get a basic summary of the breakup of Yugoslavia , find out where certain countries are , found out about different blood type systems... Were I a UN official , planning on invading a country or a doctor I 'd use a more credible source for each of these , but I 'm not .
Even then , I 'd possibly use it as a starting point .
The references are pretty useful .
Common knowledge is usually WRONG .
It 's common knowledge that you will starve to death if you do n't eat , tat you should sleep when tired , that cars are a popular means of transportation , that windows are transparent , that stained glass windows are common in European churches , fruit contains sugar... Is all this wrong ?
It 's all common knowledge .
More to the point , where is Wikipedia wrong ?
People often criticise it but the worst that can be said is that it does n't go into deep analysis of its topics .
Nor should it - it 's an encyclopedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on.
If you want a basic understanding of a subject, Wikipedia is fine.
I've used it to get a basic summary of the breakup of Yugoslavia, find out where certain countries are, found out about different blood type systems...  Were I a UN official, planning on invading a country or a doctor I'd use a more credible source for each of these, but I'm not.
Even then, I'd possibly use it as a starting point.
The references are pretty useful.
Common knowledge is usually WRONG.
It's common knowledge that you will starve to death if you don't eat, tat you should sleep when tired, that cars are a popular means of transportation, that windows are transparent, that stained glass windows are common in European churches, fruit contains sugar...  Is all this wrong?
It's all common knowledge.
More to the point, where is Wikipedia wrong?
People often criticise it but the worst that can be said is that it doesn't go into deep analysis of its topics.
Nor should it - it's an encyclopedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210650</id>
	<title>The event link</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1266687840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://tedxtampabay.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/the-positives-of-failure/" title="wordpress.com">http://tedxtampabay.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/the-positives-of-failure/</a> [wordpress.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //tedxtampabay.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/the-positives-of-failure/ [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://tedxtampabay.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/the-positives-of-failure/ [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209968</id>
	<title>On the other hand...</title>
	<author>slashmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266680820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's fairly easy to pick holes in these postcard-sized theories when looking at more than one case study. You don't have to look too hard to find counter examples; companies that struggle for years, overcoming unsurmountable odds until they hit the big time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fairly easy to pick holes in these postcard-sized theories when looking at more than one case study .
You do n't have to look too hard to find counter examples ; companies that struggle for years , overcoming unsurmountable odds until they hit the big time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fairly easy to pick holes in these postcard-sized theories when looking at more than one case study.
You don't have to look too hard to find counter examples; companies that struggle for years, overcoming unsurmountable odds until they hit the big time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31218476</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>junglee\_iitk</author>
	<datestamp>1266768000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the factual statement would be "a majority of people are idiots <b>about most of the topics</b>". See, a majority of people used to think that Earth was flat - and they fought the opposing idea until most people learned about stuff and "majority" became "minority".</p><p>Of course, "being idiot" is a tongue in cheek expression for "being wrong and not accepting it", and not a measure of anybody's mental capacity. Also, "most of the topics" is meant for individuals.</p><p>And that is why Wikipedia is game changing - it is the quickest way for wrong people to become minority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the factual statement would be " a majority of people are idiots about most of the topics " .
See , a majority of people used to think that Earth was flat - and they fought the opposing idea until most people learned about stuff and " majority " became " minority " .Of course , " being idiot " is a tongue in cheek expression for " being wrong and not accepting it " , and not a measure of anybody 's mental capacity .
Also , " most of the topics " is meant for individuals.And that is why Wikipedia is game changing - it is the quickest way for wrong people to become minority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the factual statement would be "a majority of people are idiots about most of the topics".
See, a majority of people used to think that Earth was flat - and they fought the opposing idea until most people learned about stuff and "majority" became "minority".Of course, "being idiot" is a tongue in cheek expression for "being wrong and not accepting it", and not a measure of anybody's mental capacity.
Also, "most of the topics" is meant for individuals.And that is why Wikipedia is game changing - it is the quickest way for wrong people to become minority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210272</id>
	<title>Nupedia has teach us to avoid experts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266684480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia has learn nothing from nupedia, all these citation needed trollism is asking agin for the experts opinion, hence, nupedia all again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia has learn nothing from nupedia , all these citation needed trollism is asking agin for the experts opinion , hence , nupedia all again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia has learn nothing from nupedia, all these citation needed trollism is asking agin for the experts opinion, hence, nupedia all again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210916</id>
	<title>Re:Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1266690060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...failure or success is more or less a choice, an activity you do.</i> <br> <br>
This is true. It is also (contrary to popular assumptions) independent of wealth. For instance, I (no false modesty here) consider myself a success, even though by most standards I am actually a pauper. My activities, in conjunction with a certain amount of jiggery-pokery with the banks, just happen to more or less support the way I live and allow me to pursue my various interests.<br> <br>
On the other hand, I have a couple of good friends who are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams ($10^7+) who actually <i>have</i> no intellectual interests, and spend a predominant amount of their time channel-hopping on the TV. This always makes me a bit sad...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...failure or success is more or less a choice , an activity you do .
This is true .
It is also ( contrary to popular assumptions ) independent of wealth .
For instance , I ( no false modesty here ) consider myself a success , even though by most standards I am actually a pauper .
My activities , in conjunction with a certain amount of jiggery-pokery with the banks , just happen to more or less support the way I live and allow me to pursue my various interests .
On the other hand , I have a couple of good friends who are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams ( $ 10 ^ 7 + ) who actually have no intellectual interests , and spend a predominant amount of their time channel-hopping on the TV .
This always makes me a bit sad.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...failure or success is more or less a choice, an activity you do.
This is true.
It is also (contrary to popular assumptions) independent of wealth.
For instance, I (no false modesty here) consider myself a success, even though by most standards I am actually a pauper.
My activities, in conjunction with a certain amount of jiggery-pokery with the banks, just happen to more or less support the way I live and allow me to pursue my various interests.
On the other hand, I have a couple of good friends who are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams ($10^7+) who actually have no intellectual interests, and spend a predominant amount of their time channel-hopping on the TV.
This always makes me a bit sad...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31217544</id>
	<title>Re:Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266756480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jimmy Wales threw one against the wall and it turned into something good. I'm happy for Wikipedia, but Jimmy Wales gets too much credit for its success. When will the puffery and hagiography about Wales stop? Seriously, look at the blunders that Wales has committed with Wikipedia. Wikipedia could have been so much more; Wales failed to accomplish that. He still hasn't succeeded in optimizing Wikipedia, but it will continue in spite of his crappy management and motivational skills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jimmy Wales threw one against the wall and it turned into something good .
I 'm happy for Wikipedia , but Jimmy Wales gets too much credit for its success .
When will the puffery and hagiography about Wales stop ?
Seriously , look at the blunders that Wales has committed with Wikipedia .
Wikipedia could have been so much more ; Wales failed to accomplish that .
He still has n't succeeded in optimizing Wikipedia , but it will continue in spite of his crappy management and motivational skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jimmy Wales threw one against the wall and it turned into something good.
I'm happy for Wikipedia, but Jimmy Wales gets too much credit for its success.
When will the puffery and hagiography about Wales stop?
Seriously, look at the blunders that Wales has committed with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia could have been so much more; Wales failed to accomplish that.
He still hasn't succeeded in optimizing Wikipedia, but it will continue in spite of his crappy management and motivational skills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210084</id>
	<title>Re:Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266682200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>N3tRunner, I'll bet you believe in evolution. How do you suppose that process works? I believe it's through infinite trial and "error" that results in the emergence of complex systems that achieve success in their particular niche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>N3tRunner , I 'll bet you believe in evolution .
How do you suppose that process works ?
I believe it 's through infinite trial and " error " that results in the emergence of complex systems that achieve success in their particular niche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>N3tRunner, I'll bet you believe in evolution.
How do you suppose that process works?
I believe it's through infinite trial and "error" that results in the emergence of complex systems that achieve success in their particular niche.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209942</id>
	<title>Just don't fear it.</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1266680520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is not to fear failure and to view a single failure as the end of the world forever.</p><p>The ideas of failure that have been ingrained into you by school and your corporate overlords is bogus.</p><p>The point is not to give up after your first attempt ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is not to fear failure and to view a single failure as the end of the world forever.The ideas of failure that have been ingrained into you by school and your corporate overlords is bogus.The point is not to give up after your first attempt ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is not to fear failure and to view a single failure as the end of the world forever.The ideas of failure that have been ingrained into you by school and your corporate overlords is bogus.The point is not to give up after your first attempt ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210906</id>
	<title>Re:best way to succeed? redefine "success"</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266689880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google doesn't belong in that list.  You miss the point that Google's customers are actually the individual and organizations that advertise in their system.  The search engine and GMail users are just the mechanism in which to exercise that system in order to increase the value of the advertising service they provide.</p><p>Making money hand over fist from their advertising network, and extracting cash directly from their real paying customers, makes Google a huge success.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't belong in that list .
You miss the point that Google 's customers are actually the individual and organizations that advertise in their system .
The search engine and GMail users are just the mechanism in which to exercise that system in order to increase the value of the advertising service they provide.Making money hand over fist from their advertising network , and extracting cash directly from their real paying customers , makes Google a huge success .
          -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't belong in that list.
You miss the point that Google's customers are actually the individual and organizations that advertise in their system.
The search engine and GMail users are just the mechanism in which to exercise that system in order to increase the value of the advertising service they provide.Making money hand over fist from their advertising network, and extracting cash directly from their real paying customers, makes Google a huge success.
          -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210682</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266688200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not all bad. The spinoff of other topic-specific and independent wikis is cool though. So it's effectiveness as a tool for crowdsourced information isn't too terrible. The problem with wikipedia itself is that sometimes information gets deadlocked by over-moderation (usually arguements over relevancy) or too many edits based on conflicting sources. But at least most of the spin-offs don't have those problems.</p><p>There is one good thing about 4-chan though. Think about what the internet would be like if those people didn't spend a lot of their time congregating in that one area. As long as you let people have their own particular playground, more often then not they're fairly content to not be bothering everyone else. (Which means you've got to do something to seriously piss them off or threaten them to incur their wrath or unwanted attention. ie: COS, RIAA, etc.)</p><p>As for the wiki-like search engine in the article? Isn't it redundant when compared to the DMOZ Open Directory Project? Besides, wikipedia and its kin also serve as a search engine of sorts because all the relevant article and source information links. Still those take heaps of user input before becoming useful, as where the automation in amassing and organizing huge amounts of data is what still makes Google a better search engine for most purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not all bad .
The spinoff of other topic-specific and independent wikis is cool though .
So it 's effectiveness as a tool for crowdsourced information is n't too terrible .
The problem with wikipedia itself is that sometimes information gets deadlocked by over-moderation ( usually arguements over relevancy ) or too many edits based on conflicting sources .
But at least most of the spin-offs do n't have those problems.There is one good thing about 4-chan though .
Think about what the internet would be like if those people did n't spend a lot of their time congregating in that one area .
As long as you let people have their own particular playground , more often then not they 're fairly content to not be bothering everyone else .
( Which means you 've got to do something to seriously piss them off or threaten them to incur their wrath or unwanted attention .
ie : COS , RIAA , etc .
) As for the wiki-like search engine in the article ?
Is n't it redundant when compared to the DMOZ Open Directory Project ?
Besides , wikipedia and its kin also serve as a search engine of sorts because all the relevant article and source information links .
Still those take heaps of user input before becoming useful , as where the automation in amassing and organizing huge amounts of data is what still makes Google a better search engine for most purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not all bad.
The spinoff of other topic-specific and independent wikis is cool though.
So it's effectiveness as a tool for crowdsourced information isn't too terrible.
The problem with wikipedia itself is that sometimes information gets deadlocked by over-moderation (usually arguements over relevancy) or too many edits based on conflicting sources.
But at least most of the spin-offs don't have those problems.There is one good thing about 4-chan though.
Think about what the internet would be like if those people didn't spend a lot of their time congregating in that one area.
As long as you let people have their own particular playground, more often then not they're fairly content to not be bothering everyone else.
(Which means you've got to do something to seriously piss them off or threaten them to incur their wrath or unwanted attention.
ie: COS, RIAA, etc.
)As for the wiki-like search engine in the article?
Isn't it redundant when compared to the DMOZ Open Directory Project?
Besides, wikipedia and its kin also serve as a search engine of sorts because all the relevant article and source information links.
Still those take heaps of user input before becoming useful, as where the automation in amassing and organizing huge amounts of data is what still makes Google a better search engine for most purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209846</id>
	<title>FP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266679380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget to pay your $699 fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget to pay your $ 699 fee you cock-smoking teabaggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget to pay your $699 fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212264</id>
	<title>Re:Nupedia has teach us to avoid experts</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1266698580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, there's a big difference.  Nupedia, as I understand it, was asking <b>experts themselves</b> to write the articles.  Wikipedia asks the article authors to <b>cite</b> the experts.  In this, it's very close to standard academic writing practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there 's a big difference .
Nupedia , as I understand it , was asking experts themselves to write the articles .
Wikipedia asks the article authors to cite the experts .
In this , it 's very close to standard academic writing practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there's a big difference.
Nupedia, as I understand it, was asking experts themselves to write the articles.
Wikipedia asks the article authors to cite the experts.
In this, it's very close to standard academic writing practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210672</id>
	<title>The last thing I tried succeeded</title>
	<author>CanadianRealist</author>
	<datestamp>1266688020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Failure is pretty normal. So is quitting after failure. But if you're able to move on and keep trying, then you may succeed. Once you succeed usually you continue with that success. Of course you may go on to try other things which may either fail of succeed.</p><p>Have you heard people mention finding what they were looking for in the "last place that they looked"?<br>Does it ever happen otherwise? Do you often find yourself finding what you're looking for then continuing to search yet more locations to see if it's there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Failure is pretty normal .
So is quitting after failure .
But if you 're able to move on and keep trying , then you may succeed .
Once you succeed usually you continue with that success .
Of course you may go on to try other things which may either fail of succeed.Have you heard people mention finding what they were looking for in the " last place that they looked " ? Does it ever happen otherwise ?
Do you often find yourself finding what you 're looking for then continuing to search yet more locations to see if it 's there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Failure is pretty normal.
So is quitting after failure.
But if you're able to move on and keep trying, then you may succeed.
Once you succeed usually you continue with that success.
Of course you may go on to try other things which may either fail of succeed.Have you heard people mention finding what they were looking for in the "last place that they looked"?Does it ever happen otherwise?
Do you often find yourself finding what you're looking for then continuing to search yet more locations to see if it's there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160</id>
	<title>His fourth and biggest failure yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266691980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>[Disclaimer for US Americans: If you confuse my argumentation with that of creationist retards, you definitely misunderstood me. I understand why. Because they misuse arguments such as these for their base motives. As you see below, I go very much against them. So don&rsquo;t let them pull everything in the dirt that they touch, and don&rsquo;t fall for a knee-jerk reaction.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)]</em></p><p>His biggest failure was a basic architectural assumption of Wikipedia. The assumption of &ldquo;the one global truth(iness)&rdquo;.<br>This caused him to make Wikipedia a centralized and centrally controlled site, instead of a P2P system.</p><p>Of course this was based on very good intentions, and originally not a problem, since everyone could edit everything. Because with those assumptions, how could there ever be two people disagreeing with each other? Ever?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;))</p><p>Naturally there were people who disagreed. And naturally they found the one main reason why one can only theoretically but not realistically assume a global truth: Because sometimes it is simply impossible to find out which view is really true. E.g. because no one of them got a time machine handy, to fly back into the past, and see for himself. Or because resolving it with quantum physics is not yet possible without calculations taking anything less than billions of years. And because of course in physics, everything is defined relative to other things.</p><p>But even this could have been resolved by educated people with a knowledge of physics and logic, trough simply stating what it proven to what level (e.g. an experiment, a video clip, just a theory, just speculation), and leaving the side-taking with the cavemen.<br>Unfortunately there are people, that are unable to discuss things reasonably. (E.g. aforementioned religious fundamentalists.)</p><p>So the idea of one global truth had to die. But what replaced it, was even worse: The people who control Wikipedia started to just accuse everybody who disagreed, of being unable to discuss things reasonably, and the deletion and flame wars started.<br>This is the sad state that Wikipedia is in now. Everything is controlled, approved, and doubly approved. By a group of people who sometimes just don&rsquo;t know what they are even talking about.</p><p>See, the point of a P2P Wikipedia would not have been, to make every crazy bullshit out there equal. But to give them there own sandbox, way away from us, where they could play, and not disturb us. Like Conservapedia: It does no harm, even though it is out there, because everybody knows how silly it is, and just laughs at it.</p><p>Wales hat very good intentions and a great idea. But he was waay deep in treehugger happy happy imaginationland with some of those descisions. And I also was there with him for some time. Until I took a harder look at reality. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Disclaimer for US Americans : If you confuse my argumentation with that of creationist retards , you definitely misunderstood me .
I understand why .
Because they misuse arguments such as these for their base motives .
As you see below , I go very much against them .
So don    t let them pull everything in the dirt that they touch , and don    t fall for a knee-jerk reaction .
: ) ] His biggest failure was a basic architectural assumption of Wikipedia .
The assumption of    the one global truth ( iness )    .This caused him to make Wikipedia a centralized and centrally controlled site , instead of a P2P system.Of course this was based on very good intentions , and originally not a problem , since everyone could edit everything .
Because with those assumptions , how could there ever be two people disagreeing with each other ?
Ever ? ; ) ) Naturally there were people who disagreed .
And naturally they found the one main reason why one can only theoretically but not realistically assume a global truth : Because sometimes it is simply impossible to find out which view is really true .
E.g. because no one of them got a time machine handy , to fly back into the past , and see for himself .
Or because resolving it with quantum physics is not yet possible without calculations taking anything less than billions of years .
And because of course in physics , everything is defined relative to other things.But even this could have been resolved by educated people with a knowledge of physics and logic , trough simply stating what it proven to what level ( e.g .
an experiment , a video clip , just a theory , just speculation ) , and leaving the side-taking with the cavemen.Unfortunately there are people , that are unable to discuss things reasonably .
( E.g. aforementioned religious fundamentalists .
) So the idea of one global truth had to die .
But what replaced it , was even worse : The people who control Wikipedia started to just accuse everybody who disagreed , of being unable to discuss things reasonably , and the deletion and flame wars started.This is the sad state that Wikipedia is in now .
Everything is controlled , approved , and doubly approved .
By a group of people who sometimes just don    t know what they are even talking about.See , the point of a P2P Wikipedia would not have been , to make every crazy bullshit out there equal .
But to give them there own sandbox , way away from us , where they could play , and not disturb us .
Like Conservapedia : It does no harm , even though it is out there , because everybody knows how silly it is , and just laughs at it.Wales hat very good intentions and a great idea .
But he was waay deep in treehugger happy happy imaginationland with some of those descisions .
And I also was there with him for some time .
Until I took a harder look at reality .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Disclaimer for US Americans: If you confuse my argumentation with that of creationist retards, you definitely misunderstood me.
I understand why.
Because they misuse arguments such as these for their base motives.
As you see below, I go very much against them.
So don’t let them pull everything in the dirt that they touch, and don’t fall for a knee-jerk reaction.
:)]His biggest failure was a basic architectural assumption of Wikipedia.
The assumption of “the one global truth(iness)”.This caused him to make Wikipedia a centralized and centrally controlled site, instead of a P2P system.Of course this was based on very good intentions, and originally not a problem, since everyone could edit everything.
Because with those assumptions, how could there ever be two people disagreeing with each other?
Ever? ;))Naturally there were people who disagreed.
And naturally they found the one main reason why one can only theoretically but not realistically assume a global truth: Because sometimes it is simply impossible to find out which view is really true.
E.g. because no one of them got a time machine handy, to fly back into the past, and see for himself.
Or because resolving it with quantum physics is not yet possible without calculations taking anything less than billions of years.
And because of course in physics, everything is defined relative to other things.But even this could have been resolved by educated people with a knowledge of physics and logic, trough simply stating what it proven to what level (e.g.
an experiment, a video clip, just a theory, just speculation), and leaving the side-taking with the cavemen.Unfortunately there are people, that are unable to discuss things reasonably.
(E.g. aforementioned religious fundamentalists.
)So the idea of one global truth had to die.
But what replaced it, was even worse: The people who control Wikipedia started to just accuse everybody who disagreed, of being unable to discuss things reasonably, and the deletion and flame wars started.This is the sad state that Wikipedia is in now.
Everything is controlled, approved, and doubly approved.
By a group of people who sometimes just don’t know what they are even talking about.See, the point of a P2P Wikipedia would not have been, to make every crazy bullshit out there equal.
But to give them there own sandbox, way away from us, where they could play, and not disturb us.
Like Conservapedia: It does no harm, even though it is out there, because everybody knows how silly it is, and just laughs at it.Wales hat very good intentions and a great idea.
But he was waay deep in treehugger happy happy imaginationland with some of those descisions.
And I also was there with him for some time.
Until I took a harder look at reality.
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210770</id>
	<title>Life lessons</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1266688920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I think what these 'successful' people are saying is, "Look, I didn't do anything different in the times when I failed or succeeded. It looked like a good idea, I worked very hard, and nothing came of it.</i> <br> <br>
Well, that's the way things actually work out in life. It also works the other way. My father, who left Reading University in 1959 with a degree in horticulture made a tremendous success of his career just (as he says) by "happening to be in the right place at the right time". Now I'm in my late 40s, I sometimes wish I could say the same, but then (a) I would have missed out on a load of cool things going down and (b) to be truthful, I lack his capacity for sheer dogged application.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what these 'successful ' people are saying is , " Look , I did n't do anything different in the times when I failed or succeeded .
It looked like a good idea , I worked very hard , and nothing came of it .
Well , that 's the way things actually work out in life .
It also works the other way .
My father , who left Reading University in 1959 with a degree in horticulture made a tremendous success of his career just ( as he says ) by " happening to be in the right place at the right time " .
Now I 'm in my late 40s , I sometimes wish I could say the same , but then ( a ) I would have missed out on a load of cool things going down and ( b ) to be truthful , I lack his capacity for sheer dogged application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what these 'successful' people are saying is, "Look, I didn't do anything different in the times when I failed or succeeded.
It looked like a good idea, I worked very hard, and nothing came of it.
Well, that's the way things actually work out in life.
It also works the other way.
My father, who left Reading University in 1959 with a degree in horticulture made a tremendous success of his career just (as he says) by "happening to be in the right place at the right time".
Now I'm in my late 40s, I sometimes wish I could say the same, but then (a) I would have missed out on a load of cool things going down and (b) to be truthful, I lack his capacity for sheer dogged application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210362</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1266685260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is a credible source and it has been shown to be, at worst, slightly less accurate than Britannica and Encarta. The reward for taking the extra inaccuracy is a massive increase in detail. As for common knowledge, you're massively underrating it. There are certain common knowledge facts that are incorrect, but if you pick a random fact the chance that there's a misconception around it is almost zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is a credible source and it has been shown to be , at worst , slightly less accurate than Britannica and Encarta .
The reward for taking the extra inaccuracy is a massive increase in detail .
As for common knowledge , you 're massively underrating it .
There are certain common knowledge facts that are incorrect , but if you pick a random fact the chance that there 's a misconception around it is almost zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is a credible source and it has been shown to be, at worst, slightly less accurate than Britannica and Encarta.
The reward for taking the extra inaccuracy is a massive increase in detail.
As for common knowledge, you're massively underrating it.
There are certain common knowledge facts that are incorrect, but if you pick a random fact the chance that there's a misconception around it is almost zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31216744</id>
	<title>Re:Douchebag</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1266782760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And he avoids mentioning that he had the money to fund the early years of Wikipedia because he operated a website largely known for being a pornography portal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And he avoids mentioning that he had the money to fund the early years of Wikipedia because he operated a website largely known for being a pornography portal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And he avoids mentioning that he had the money to fund the early years of Wikipedia because he operated a website largely known for being a pornography portal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31214382</id>
	<title>Re:'Fail Often, Fail Early' Is Not Just Wales' Man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266670980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compare to Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that the most successful people in business do not take big risks and in fact are very good at minimizing the downside of any venture:</p><p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa\_fact\_gladwell" title="newyorker.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa\_fact\_gladwell</a> [newyorker.com] (subscription required)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare to Malcolm Gladwell 's assertion that the most successful people in business do not take big risks and in fact are very good at minimizing the downside of any venture : http : //www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa \ _fact \ _gladwell [ newyorker.com ] ( subscription required )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare to Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that the most successful people in business do not take big risks and in fact are very good at minimizing the downside of any venture:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa\_fact\_gladwell [newyorker.com] (subscription required)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213078</id>
	<title>Re:His fourth and biggest failure yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266660540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just summarized the reasoning for a core Wikipedia principle: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,\_not\_truth" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">verifiability, not truth</a> [wikipedia.org]. If there is a disagreement about what the truth is, Wikipedia is supposed to cover all the ideas without giving <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral\_point\_of\_view#Undue\_weight" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">undue weight</a> [wikipedia.org] to minority ideas.</p><p>Of course, Wikipedia having those polices and Wikipedia following those policies are different things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just summarized the reasoning for a core Wikipedia principle : verifiability , not truth [ wikipedia.org ] .
If there is a disagreement about what the truth is , Wikipedia is supposed to cover all the ideas without giving undue weight [ wikipedia.org ] to minority ideas.Of course , Wikipedia having those polices and Wikipedia following those policies are different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just summarized the reasoning for a core Wikipedia principle: verifiability, not truth [wikipedia.org].
If there is a disagreement about what the truth is, Wikipedia is supposed to cover all the ideas without giving undue weight [wikipedia.org] to minority ideas.Of course, Wikipedia having those polices and Wikipedia following those policies are different things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210760</id>
	<title>Re:'Fail Often, Fail Early' Is Not Just Wales' Man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266688920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fail Early, Fail Often</p></div></blockquote><p>So slashdot's CSS is entrepreneurial, eh?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail Early , Fail OftenSo slashdot 's CSS is entrepreneurial , eh ?
; - )    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail Early, Fail OftenSo slashdot's CSS is entrepreneurial, eh?
;-)
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211150</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1266691920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wouldn't exactly call Wikipedia a "success." Just because something is popular doesn't mean the world is better off for it to have been made. I submit as proof of concept: 4chan.</p></div><p>Since when is the question "Is the world better off for this?" a criterion for success? Using that metric, it's hard to see how Coca Cola was ever a success. I mean really, is the world better off with sugared drinks?</p><p>The only measure for success is, does the enterprise meet the goals set by the founders? Using that metric, both Wikipedia (make information freely available to the world) and 4chan (bring together socially-inept misfits and give them a common forum) are runaway successes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't exactly call Wikipedia a " success .
" Just because something is popular does n't mean the world is better off for it to have been made .
I submit as proof of concept : 4chan.Since when is the question " Is the world better off for this ?
" a criterion for success ?
Using that metric , it 's hard to see how Coca Cola was ever a success .
I mean really , is the world better off with sugared drinks ? The only measure for success is , does the enterprise meet the goals set by the founders ?
Using that metric , both Wikipedia ( make information freely available to the world ) and 4chan ( bring together socially-inept misfits and give them a common forum ) are runaway successes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't exactly call Wikipedia a "success.
" Just because something is popular doesn't mean the world is better off for it to have been made.
I submit as proof of concept: 4chan.Since when is the question "Is the world better off for this?
" a criterion for success?
Using that metric, it's hard to see how Coca Cola was ever a success.
I mean really, is the world better off with sugared drinks?The only measure for success is, does the enterprise meet the goals set by the founders?
Using that metric, both Wikipedia (make information freely available to the world) and 4chan (bring together socially-inept misfits and give them a common forum) are runaway successes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211096</id>
	<title>Re:Just don't fear it.</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1266691560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a friend who has been operating what he calls a "startup" for the last 7 years. He has an MBA from a reputable university, and the business has had multiple injections of serious amounts of capital.<br> <br>
But it seems a lot of what I've come to regard as the "MBA Culture" is that the process is supposed to confer some sort of Midas touch: everything is supposed to "just work". From my (cynical) viewpoint, I see no stellar future for his business: if it was ever going to work, it should have taken off within a year or so of the product being developed, but for whatever reason, my friend can't or won't let go.<br> <br>
It's hard to tell a friend that he's being sucked into a Loss Of Perspective Vortex, especially since in this case he doesn't read enough to pick up on the allusion.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-{</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a friend who has been operating what he calls a " startup " for the last 7 years .
He has an MBA from a reputable university , and the business has had multiple injections of serious amounts of capital .
But it seems a lot of what I 've come to regard as the " MBA Culture " is that the process is supposed to confer some sort of Midas touch : everything is supposed to " just work " .
From my ( cynical ) viewpoint , I see no stellar future for his business : if it was ever going to work , it should have taken off within a year or so of the product being developed , but for whatever reason , my friend ca n't or wo n't let go .
It 's hard to tell a friend that he 's being sucked into a Loss Of Perspective Vortex , especially since in this case he does n't read enough to pick up on the allusion .
: - {</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a friend who has been operating what he calls a "startup" for the last 7 years.
He has an MBA from a reputable university, and the business has had multiple injections of serious amounts of capital.
But it seems a lot of what I've come to regard as the "MBA Culture" is that the process is supposed to confer some sort of Midas touch: everything is supposed to "just work".
From my (cynical) viewpoint, I see no stellar future for his business: if it was ever going to work, it should have taken off within a year or so of the product being developed, but for whatever reason, my friend can't or won't let go.
It's hard to tell a friend that he's being sucked into a Loss Of Perspective Vortex, especially since in this case he doesn't read enough to pick up on the allusion.
:-{</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211678</id>
	<title>Re:And drink a pint of whiskey every day</title>
	<author>No. 24601</author>
	<datestamp>1266695280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The answer is never, "Well, I just happened to be a couple of sigma away from the mean in the normal distribution of human longevity".</i></p><p>Nor should it be.  It's not like the universe must obey some mathematical formula (or in this case, probability distribution) that we applied to model the longevity of human life.  So, an answer like that from him would be as good as no answer at all, or simply having him dodge the question altogether<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Going a bit further and slightly off-topic, I (and much more importantly philosophers of science) would say that there's no "proof" that our mathematical and scientific models of the world are true.  They rise and fall as the empires that have come and gone through the ages, though immeasurably influencing their inevitable successors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is never , " Well , I just happened to be a couple of sigma away from the mean in the normal distribution of human longevity " .Nor should it be .
It 's not like the universe must obey some mathematical formula ( or in this case , probability distribution ) that we applied to model the longevity of human life .
So , an answer like that from him would be as good as no answer at all , or simply having him dodge the question altogether : ) Going a bit further and slightly off-topic , I ( and much more importantly philosophers of science ) would say that there 's no " proof " that our mathematical and scientific models of the world are true .
They rise and fall as the empires that have come and gone through the ages , though immeasurably influencing their inevitable successors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is never, "Well, I just happened to be a couple of sigma away from the mean in the normal distribution of human longevity".Nor should it be.
It's not like the universe must obey some mathematical formula (or in this case, probability distribution) that we applied to model the longevity of human life.
So, an answer like that from him would be as good as no answer at all, or simply having him dodge the question altogether :)Going a bit further and slightly off-topic, I (and much more importantly philosophers of science) would say that there's no "proof" that our mathematical and scientific models of the world are true.
They rise and fall as the empires that have come and gone through the ages, though immeasurably influencing their inevitable successors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211004</id>
	<title>Re:As a failed entrepreneur</title>
	<author>Danny Rathjens</author>
	<datestamp>1266690780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or you could fund your failures with your successful porn-advertising-ring business like Wales did.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis<br>But if you have a higher moral code then at least there are bankruptcy laws to help you survive failure a little easier.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could fund your failures with your successful porn-advertising-ring business like Wales did .
: ) http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BomisBut if you have a higher moral code then at least there are bankruptcy laws to help you survive failure a little easier .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could fund your failures with your successful porn-advertising-ring business like Wales did.
:)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BomisBut if you have a higher moral code then at least there are bankruptcy laws to help you survive failure a little easier.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210722</id>
	<title>So I'm due</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1266688560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've tried 4 web ventures also without success. Does this mean I'm due? Sites that depend on "the network effect" seem especially difficult. The network effect means that you need a sufficient number of both consumers and contributors (such as buyers and sellers) before it holds it's own. My earliest ventures were like this.</p><p>Later I focused on specialized niches and found more promising results (although not promising enough to be self-sustaining). People looking for something specific are more likely to use your service or product even if it's not popular (yet).</p><p>Sites that rely on the network effect, such as FaceBook and WikiPedia, have become the most popular of web places. But they also are more likely to fail, and thus are a bigger gamble. I'm not saying don't try those, only that your risk/reward profile is much steeper.</p><p>For a (silly) fishing analogy, you have to decide whether to use bait targeted for a typical 12-inch fish and have a reasonable shot at getting something, or go for the glory of the Big Cahoona but with a marginal chance.</p><p>Now I'm tinkering around with open-source projects instead of web-sites. I don't know about its fishing seas yet. I don't expect money, but maybe some geek bragging rights/fame if all goes well. Live and learn...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tried 4 web ventures also without success .
Does this mean I 'm due ?
Sites that depend on " the network effect " seem especially difficult .
The network effect means that you need a sufficient number of both consumers and contributors ( such as buyers and sellers ) before it holds it 's own .
My earliest ventures were like this.Later I focused on specialized niches and found more promising results ( although not promising enough to be self-sustaining ) .
People looking for something specific are more likely to use your service or product even if it 's not popular ( yet ) .Sites that rely on the network effect , such as FaceBook and WikiPedia , have become the most popular of web places .
But they also are more likely to fail , and thus are a bigger gamble .
I 'm not saying do n't try those , only that your risk/reward profile is much steeper.For a ( silly ) fishing analogy , you have to decide whether to use bait targeted for a typical 12-inch fish and have a reasonable shot at getting something , or go for the glory of the Big Cahoona but with a marginal chance.Now I 'm tinkering around with open-source projects instead of web-sites .
I do n't know about its fishing seas yet .
I do n't expect money , but maybe some geek bragging rights/fame if all goes well .
Live and learn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tried 4 web ventures also without success.
Does this mean I'm due?
Sites that depend on "the network effect" seem especially difficult.
The network effect means that you need a sufficient number of both consumers and contributors (such as buyers and sellers) before it holds it's own.
My earliest ventures were like this.Later I focused on specialized niches and found more promising results (although not promising enough to be self-sustaining).
People looking for something specific are more likely to use your service or product even if it's not popular (yet).Sites that rely on the network effect, such as FaceBook and WikiPedia, have become the most popular of web places.
But they also are more likely to fail, and thus are a bigger gamble.
I'm not saying don't try those, only that your risk/reward profile is much steeper.For a (silly) fishing analogy, you have to decide whether to use bait targeted for a typical 12-inch fish and have a reasonable shot at getting something, or go for the glory of the Big Cahoona but with a marginal chance.Now I'm tinkering around with open-source projects instead of web-sites.
I don't know about its fishing seas yet.
I don't expect money, but maybe some geek bragging rights/fame if all goes well.
Live and learn...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210858</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266689520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4chan is the breeding ground for pretty much all memes and internet humour.  Thanks to 4chan we have phenomenons such as rickrolling, caturday, motivational posters, EFG, pedobear, fuuu, over 9000, cool story bro, and countless others.</p><p>You may believe that, with all your righteous attitude, the world would be better off without it but frankly you are dead wrong.  The world is in fact a whole lot better due to 4chan.  But people like you, who are out of touch with the world and aren't aware that the real world isn't what you get through yahoo or tv are simply fail to understand that, let alone appreciate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4chan is the breeding ground for pretty much all memes and internet humour .
Thanks to 4chan we have phenomenons such as rickrolling , caturday , motivational posters , EFG , pedobear , fuuu , over 9000 , cool story bro , and countless others.You may believe that , with all your righteous attitude , the world would be better off without it but frankly you are dead wrong .
The world is in fact a whole lot better due to 4chan .
But people like you , who are out of touch with the world and are n't aware that the real world is n't what you get through yahoo or tv are simply fail to understand that , let alone appreciate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4chan is the breeding ground for pretty much all memes and internet humour.
Thanks to 4chan we have phenomenons such as rickrolling, caturday, motivational posters, EFG, pedobear, fuuu, over 9000, cool story bro, and countless others.You may believe that, with all your righteous attitude, the world would be better off without it but frankly you are dead wrong.
The world is in fact a whole lot better due to 4chan.
But people like you, who are out of touch with the world and aren't aware that the real world isn't what you get through yahoo or tv are simply fail to understand that, let alone appreciate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209890</id>
	<title>Agile</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1266679740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Early failure is one of the advantages of agile software development as well. The earlier you fail, the less it costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Early failure is one of the advantages of agile software development as well .
The earlier you fail , the less it costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Early failure is one of the advantages of agile software development as well.
The earlier you fail, the less it costs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210680</id>
	<title>Wikipedia</title>
	<author>NocturnHimtatagon</author>
	<datestamp>1266688140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This comment is entirely truthful. Since it can't be backupped by something posted on the internet. It must be a lie.</p><p>Heh, How am I doing summarizing wikipedia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This comment is entirely truthful .
Since it ca n't be backupped by something posted on the internet .
It must be a lie.Heh , How am I doing summarizing wikipedia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comment is entirely truthful.
Since it can't be backupped by something posted on the internet.
It must be a lie.Heh, How am I doing summarizing wikipedia?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820</id>
	<title>'Fail Often, Fail Early' Is Not Just Wales' Mantra</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1266678960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>

This is a <i>really</i> old mantra in the business world that I was indoctrinated with when I partook in R&amp;D for a Fortune 500 company.  <br> <br>

Oh, and everyone's got their own <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07\_26/b4040436.htm" title="businessweek.com">version of it</a> [businessweek.com].  I've heard people correct me when I said "Fail Early, Fail Often" and they say that the order matters.  But you'll hear three concepts in these phrases:

<ul> <li>Fail frequently.  This can also be said "fail often" and simply means "accept a lot of failures."</li><li>Fail early.  Don't invest a lot of time into what you're failing at and just accept the failure and move on.  Just as long as you don't get hung up failing all the time (like Wales said).  Also have heard it said as "fail fast."  </li><li>Fail cheap.  This might be derived from 'fail early' as time is money.  But this is the third optional part you'll hear from investors and businessmen. </li></ul><p>

So the ultimate incarnation I've heard of this is "Fail often, fail fast, fail cheap."  <br> <br>

Now for the warning: if you take this too much to heart, you see people axing everything.  And from the technical point of view, it sucks.  And is demoralizing.  Another thing is you get really really sick of hearing it and just being the silver bullet response to "why can't I do X?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a really old mantra in the business world that I was indoctrinated with when I partook in R&amp;D for a Fortune 500 company .
Oh , and everyone 's got their own version of it [ businessweek.com ] .
I 've heard people correct me when I said " Fail Early , Fail Often " and they say that the order matters .
But you 'll hear three concepts in these phrases : Fail frequently .
This can also be said " fail often " and simply means " accept a lot of failures .
" Fail early .
Do n't invest a lot of time into what you 're failing at and just accept the failure and move on .
Just as long as you do n't get hung up failing all the time ( like Wales said ) .
Also have heard it said as " fail fast .
" Fail cheap .
This might be derived from 'fail early ' as time is money .
But this is the third optional part you 'll hear from investors and businessmen .
So the ultimate incarnation I 've heard of this is " Fail often , fail fast , fail cheap .
" Now for the warning : if you take this too much to heart , you see people axing everything .
And from the technical point of view , it sucks .
And is demoralizing .
Another thing is you get really really sick of hearing it and just being the silver bullet response to " why ca n't I do X ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

This is a really old mantra in the business world that I was indoctrinated with when I partook in R&amp;D for a Fortune 500 company.
Oh, and everyone's got their own version of it [businessweek.com].
I've heard people correct me when I said "Fail Early, Fail Often" and they say that the order matters.
But you'll hear three concepts in these phrases:

 Fail frequently.
This can also be said "fail often" and simply means "accept a lot of failures.
"Fail early.
Don't invest a lot of time into what you're failing at and just accept the failure and move on.
Just as long as you don't get hung up failing all the time (like Wales said).
Also have heard it said as "fail fast.
"  Fail cheap.
This might be derived from 'fail early' as time is money.
But this is the third optional part you'll hear from investors and businessmen.
So the ultimate incarnation I've heard of this is "Fail often, fail fast, fail cheap.
"   

Now for the warning: if you take this too much to heart, you see people axing everything.
And from the technical point of view, it sucks.
And is demoralizing.
Another thing is you get really really sick of hearing it and just being the silver bullet response to "why can't I do X?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210646</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1266687780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recurse!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recurse !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recurse!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210242</id>
	<title>Re:Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1266684180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say it better - say it in song.  Here's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GND10sWq0n0&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">the great (and recently late) Lionel Jeffries</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>They don't make 'em like that anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say it better - say it in song .
Here 's the great ( and recently late ) Lionel Jeffries [ youtube.com ] .They do n't make 'em like that anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say it better - say it in song.
Here's the great (and recently late) Lionel Jeffries [youtube.com].They don't make 'em like that anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212088</id>
	<title>Re:His fourth and biggest failure yet.</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1266697620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His biggest failure was a basic architectural assumption of Wikipedia. The assumption of "the one global truth(iness)".
This caused him to make Wikipedia a centralized and centrally controlled site, instead of a P2P system.</p></div><p>
Yes, that's the main architectural flaw, but I would also argue that is the primary reason Jimmy Wales got famous.</p><p> In 2001, Jimmy Wales wasn't the only one with a community-based wiki that was opened to everybody, nor was he the only one with an open source wiki engine. The reason he got famous and the rest didn't (myself included, because I was also hosting thousands of wikis by 2001), is precisely because his "encyclopedia" attracted that controversy and attracted repeated headlines. </p><p>Not that wikis weren't slightly controversial to begin with. Outside of the programmer community, the idea that one could have a web site that anyone could edit was still being viewed with skepticism by many, but in the case of Wikipedia, it's really the wiki that garnered the most compelling narrative (and the most compelling controversy) for most reporters, and by default, in the eyes of the mainstream non-programmers, it's the one wiki that became the poster-child for all wikis.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His biggest failure was a basic architectural assumption of Wikipedia .
The assumption of " the one global truth ( iness ) " .
This caused him to make Wikipedia a centralized and centrally controlled site , instead of a P2P system .
Yes , that 's the main architectural flaw , but I would also argue that is the primary reason Jimmy Wales got famous .
In 2001 , Jimmy Wales was n't the only one with a community-based wiki that was opened to everybody , nor was he the only one with an open source wiki engine .
The reason he got famous and the rest did n't ( myself included , because I was also hosting thousands of wikis by 2001 ) , is precisely because his " encyclopedia " attracted that controversy and attracted repeated headlines .
Not that wikis were n't slightly controversial to begin with .
Outside of the programmer community , the idea that one could have a web site that anyone could edit was still being viewed with skepticism by many , but in the case of Wikipedia , it 's really the wiki that garnered the most compelling narrative ( and the most compelling controversy ) for most reporters , and by default , in the eyes of the mainstream non-programmers , it 's the one wiki that became the poster-child for all wikis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His biggest failure was a basic architectural assumption of Wikipedia.
The assumption of "the one global truth(iness)".
This caused him to make Wikipedia a centralized and centrally controlled site, instead of a P2P system.
Yes, that's the main architectural flaw, but I would also argue that is the primary reason Jimmy Wales got famous.
In 2001, Jimmy Wales wasn't the only one with a community-based wiki that was opened to everybody, nor was he the only one with an open source wiki engine.
The reason he got famous and the rest didn't (myself included, because I was also hosting thousands of wikis by 2001), is precisely because his "encyclopedia" attracted that controversy and attracted repeated headlines.
Not that wikis weren't slightly controversial to begin with.
Outside of the programmer community, the idea that one could have a web site that anyone could edit was still being viewed with skepticism by many, but in the case of Wikipedia, it's really the wiki that garnered the most compelling narrative (and the most compelling controversy) for most reporters, and by default, in the eyes of the mainstream non-programmers, it's the one wiki that became the poster-child for all wikis.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212200</id>
	<title>Failure</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1266698220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the most plausible theory illustrated by this story is one that slave drivers came up with a long time ago. That is, if you want to succeed, free labor is a lot better than paid employees. I think he succeeded because he had a lot of people doing hard work for him, with nothing in return except maybe their name in some viewable log. I also think it helps if you can afford to spend money on a bunch of failures (one of which cost $250,000) and still afford to do another project. So if you're rich in the first place and you have free labor, then this article is certainly worth reading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the most plausible theory illustrated by this story is one that slave drivers came up with a long time ago .
That is , if you want to succeed , free labor is a lot better than paid employees .
I think he succeeded because he had a lot of people doing hard work for him , with nothing in return except maybe their name in some viewable log .
I also think it helps if you can afford to spend money on a bunch of failures ( one of which cost $ 250,000 ) and still afford to do another project .
So if you 're rich in the first place and you have free labor , then this article is certainly worth reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the most plausible theory illustrated by this story is one that slave drivers came up with a long time ago.
That is, if you want to succeed, free labor is a lot better than paid employees.
I think he succeeded because he had a lot of people doing hard work for him, with nothing in return except maybe their name in some viewable log.
I also think it helps if you can afford to spend money on a bunch of failures (one of which cost $250,000) and still afford to do another project.
So if you're rich in the first place and you have free labor, then this article is certainly worth reading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212988</id>
	<title>Re:His fourth and biggest failure yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266659880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Son, I sense alot of sadness, and failure emmanating from your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Son , I sense alot of sadness , and failure emmanating from your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Son, I sense alot of sadness, and failure emmanating from your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210582</id>
	<title>Nupedia</title>
	<author>kylben</author>
	<datestamp>1266687180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My girlfriend designed the logo for Nupedia.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia</a> [wikipedia.org]

She got an official t-shirt out of it.  It's probably worth a fortune, maybe even $20.00, on eBay now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My girlfriend designed the logo for Nupedia .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia [ wikipedia.org ] She got an official t-shirt out of it .
It 's probably worth a fortune , maybe even $ 20.00 , on eBay now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My girlfriend designed the logo for Nupedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia [wikipedia.org]

She got an official t-shirt out of it.
It's probably worth a fortune, maybe even $20.00, on eBay now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</id>
	<title>You know...</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1266680820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't exactly call Wikipedia a "success." Just because something is popular doesn't mean the world is better off for it to have been made. I submit as proof of concept: 4chan.</p><p>Wikipedia is a great source for winning internet debates. And that's about it. But people treat it like it's actually a credible source, under the delusion that any incorrect information will be crowd-source corrected.</p><p>I got news for you, the majority of people are *idiots.* Common knowledge is usually WRONG. I think the world would have been better off if wikipedia had failed too, rather than so many dumbasses taking it as gospel fact. The only saving grace it possess is it's an aggregator of source material - usually. Those "external references" can be useful sometimes. But by the same token, you still need to analyse THOSE sources yourself, too. It's not like Wikipedia cares if the source used in the article is only a half-step better than the National Enquirer. They just want A source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't exactly call Wikipedia a " success .
" Just because something is popular does n't mean the world is better off for it to have been made .
I submit as proof of concept : 4chan.Wikipedia is a great source for winning internet debates .
And that 's about it .
But people treat it like it 's actually a credible source , under the delusion that any incorrect information will be crowd-source corrected.I got news for you , the majority of people are * idiots .
* Common knowledge is usually WRONG .
I think the world would have been better off if wikipedia had failed too , rather than so many dumbasses taking it as gospel fact .
The only saving grace it possess is it 's an aggregator of source material - usually .
Those " external references " can be useful sometimes .
But by the same token , you still need to analyse THOSE sources yourself , too .
It 's not like Wikipedia cares if the source used in the article is only a half-step better than the National Enquirer .
They just want A source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't exactly call Wikipedia a "success.
" Just because something is popular doesn't mean the world is better off for it to have been made.
I submit as proof of concept: 4chan.Wikipedia is a great source for winning internet debates.
And that's about it.
But people treat it like it's actually a credible source, under the delusion that any incorrect information will be crowd-source corrected.I got news for you, the majority of people are *idiots.
* Common knowledge is usually WRONG.
I think the world would have been better off if wikipedia had failed too, rather than so many dumbasses taking it as gospel fact.
The only saving grace it possess is it's an aggregator of source material - usually.
Those "external references" can be useful sometimes.
But by the same token, you still need to analyse THOSE sources yourself, too.
It's not like Wikipedia cares if the source used in the article is only a half-step better than the National Enquirer.
They just want A source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212768</id>
	<title>If everyone tossed a coin in the air</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266658560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If everyone tossed a coin in the air half of the population would have heads and the other half would have tails.</p><p>After around thirty tosses, there would be one or two (a small number anyway) who had tossed thirty straight heads in a row.</p><p>That does not indicate that the person who did that is more intelligent or talented.</p><p>Start the whole thing over again and someone else will hit the jackpot, and the previous winner will likely go out at the first or second round.</p><p>Success in business is often like that. One big idea, and then, no matter how much they try, nothing else they come up with does as well again. Some appear to have serial success when in fact all that is happening is that the first huge success is simply subsidising what would otherwise have been serial failures. Rich businessmen sometimes get that subsidy from the banks (out of your savings).</p><p>It's not chance you say; it's talent and hard work. But that is chance. Being born to the right family, in the right place at the right time all come in to play.</p><p>Every self made millionaire is convinced that what they achieved is purely down to their ability... until it all goes pear shaped.</p><p>If you have had an idea, and your hard work has paid off, then thank your lucky stars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If everyone tossed a coin in the air half of the population would have heads and the other half would have tails.After around thirty tosses , there would be one or two ( a small number anyway ) who had tossed thirty straight heads in a row.That does not indicate that the person who did that is more intelligent or talented.Start the whole thing over again and someone else will hit the jackpot , and the previous winner will likely go out at the first or second round.Success in business is often like that .
One big idea , and then , no matter how much they try , nothing else they come up with does as well again .
Some appear to have serial success when in fact all that is happening is that the first huge success is simply subsidising what would otherwise have been serial failures .
Rich businessmen sometimes get that subsidy from the banks ( out of your savings ) .It 's not chance you say ; it 's talent and hard work .
But that is chance .
Being born to the right family , in the right place at the right time all come in to play.Every self made millionaire is convinced that what they achieved is purely down to their ability... until it all goes pear shaped.If you have had an idea , and your hard work has paid off , then thank your lucky stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everyone tossed a coin in the air half of the population would have heads and the other half would have tails.After around thirty tosses, there would be one or two (a small number anyway) who had tossed thirty straight heads in a row.That does not indicate that the person who did that is more intelligent or talented.Start the whole thing over again and someone else will hit the jackpot, and the previous winner will likely go out at the first or second round.Success in business is often like that.
One big idea, and then, no matter how much they try, nothing else they come up with does as well again.
Some appear to have serial success when in fact all that is happening is that the first huge success is simply subsidising what would otherwise have been serial failures.
Rich businessmen sometimes get that subsidy from the banks (out of your savings).It's not chance you say; it's talent and hard work.
But that is chance.
Being born to the right family, in the right place at the right time all come in to play.Every self made millionaire is convinced that what they achieved is purely down to their ability... until it all goes pear shaped.If you have had an idea, and your hard work has paid off, then thank your lucky stars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31215692</id>
	<title>4th failure coming up?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1266683340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering than Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia alternate between begging for money, and slapping around those same people with idiotic rules and many layers of bureaucracy that make improving WP impossible, I have to wonder if he isn't just setting himself up for his 4th failure.  The largest and longest by-far.</p><p>I would be quite ironic if WP failed, while citizendium.org prospers.*</p><p>*CZ, for those who don't know, is the WP-like project of Larry Sanger, the WP co-founder you dare not talk about, because if you got paid any money, your employer gets to take not just the proceeds of your work, but 100\% credit and mind-share for everything you accomplished... right Jimmy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering than Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia alternate between begging for money , and slapping around those same people with idiotic rules and many layers of bureaucracy that make improving WP impossible , I have to wonder if he is n't just setting himself up for his 4th failure .
The largest and longest by-far.I would be quite ironic if WP failed , while citizendium.org prospers .
* * CZ , for those who do n't know , is the WP-like project of Larry Sanger , the WP co-founder you dare not talk about , because if you got paid any money , your employer gets to take not just the proceeds of your work , but 100 \ % credit and mind-share for everything you accomplished... right Jimmy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering than Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia alternate between begging for money, and slapping around those same people with idiotic rules and many layers of bureaucracy that make improving WP impossible, I have to wonder if he isn't just setting himself up for his 4th failure.
The largest and longest by-far.I would be quite ironic if WP failed, while citizendium.org prospers.
**CZ, for those who don't know, is the WP-like project of Larry Sanger, the WP co-founder you dare not talk about, because if you got paid any money, your employer gets to take not just the proceeds of your work, but 100\% credit and mind-share for everything you accomplished... right Jimmy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210340</id>
	<title>Falling Off Bicycles</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1266685080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've run my own business and for too long a period of time I brokered businesses. From my brokering experience I took away a number of lessons, but the outstanding rule of thumb I took away was that, on average, a business that fails and goes into a fire sale mode will realize ~10\% on the costs undertaken in setting the business up. Failure is expensive. The costs are at best a tax write off.</p><p>Failure is one of the most underrated means to success. Because failure is expensive two key attendant details should be kept in mind. You have to be able to pull the plug and, as time is money, timing is crucial. Good planning in the initial stages of the business should include an exit strategy and the better the ground work done in laying out a business plan the better positioned one would be to pull the plug in a timely fashion. The second aspect seems to be culturally blighted. Failure, whether in school, on the playground, in social affairs or business is stupidly branded as a social stain. We necessarily succeed by learning from our failures and getting it right the next time, but, in order to progress, we need to be able to learn as much as possible from our failures. Going back to the earlier point, the better the business plan going into the venture, the better the lessons that can be taken from failure. Also there are relative gains from a business failure. You can salvage and even enhance resources including things like financing sources and heighten your exposure in a wider community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've run my own business and for too long a period of time I brokered businesses .
From my brokering experience I took away a number of lessons , but the outstanding rule of thumb I took away was that , on average , a business that fails and goes into a fire sale mode will realize ~ 10 \ % on the costs undertaken in setting the business up .
Failure is expensive .
The costs are at best a tax write off.Failure is one of the most underrated means to success .
Because failure is expensive two key attendant details should be kept in mind .
You have to be able to pull the plug and , as time is money , timing is crucial .
Good planning in the initial stages of the business should include an exit strategy and the better the ground work done in laying out a business plan the better positioned one would be to pull the plug in a timely fashion .
The second aspect seems to be culturally blighted .
Failure , whether in school , on the playground , in social affairs or business is stupidly branded as a social stain .
We necessarily succeed by learning from our failures and getting it right the next time , but , in order to progress , we need to be able to learn as much as possible from our failures .
Going back to the earlier point , the better the business plan going into the venture , the better the lessons that can be taken from failure .
Also there are relative gains from a business failure .
You can salvage and even enhance resources including things like financing sources and heighten your exposure in a wider community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've run my own business and for too long a period of time I brokered businesses.
From my brokering experience I took away a number of lessons, but the outstanding rule of thumb I took away was that, on average, a business that fails and goes into a fire sale mode will realize ~10\% on the costs undertaken in setting the business up.
Failure is expensive.
The costs are at best a tax write off.Failure is one of the most underrated means to success.
Because failure is expensive two key attendant details should be kept in mind.
You have to be able to pull the plug and, as time is money, timing is crucial.
Good planning in the initial stages of the business should include an exit strategy and the better the ground work done in laying out a business plan the better positioned one would be to pull the plug in a timely fashion.
The second aspect seems to be culturally blighted.
Failure, whether in school, on the playground, in social affairs or business is stupidly branded as a social stain.
We necessarily succeed by learning from our failures and getting it right the next time, but, in order to progress, we need to be able to learn as much as possible from our failures.
Going back to the earlier point, the better the business plan going into the venture, the better the lessons that can be taken from failure.
Also there are relative gains from a business failure.
You can salvage and even enhance resources including things like financing sources and heighten your exposure in a wider community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211852</id>
	<title>wildly inaccurate article</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1266696240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is wildly inaccurate on the subject of Nupedia. They say, "Then he tried an online encyclopedia called Newpedia, a free encyclopedia created by paid experts. He spent $250,000 for writers to make 12 articles. It failed."</p><p> They have the name wrong.
</p><p> They portray it as Wales' project, when in fact it was more closely associated with Larry Sanger.
</p><p> It wasn't written by paid experts. I believe Larry Sanger had a paid position as editor. I worked on an article for Nupedia, and I can assure you that they didn't offer me any money.
</p><p> They make it sound like Nupedia commissioned 12 articles (at some price). Wow, I would have liked to be offered $20,000 to write an article! Actually 12 is just the number that got done (by people working for free) before they gave up and admitted Nupedia was a failure.

</p><p>
My own experience trying to write an article for them suggests two reasons why it failed: (1) The software to run it was mostly vaporware. Nothing worked. (2) It was no fun. I had a panel of people who were not experts in my field, and whom I had to satisfy in order to get the article accepted. That got old really fast. This is of course the exact opposite of WP's instant gratification philosophy. (Well, WP isn't so much like that today, because a newbie who comes in and tries to edit an article is likely to get his edit reverted without explanation. But that's how WP was in the initial barn-raising stage.)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is wildly inaccurate on the subject of Nupedia .
They say , " Then he tried an online encyclopedia called Newpedia , a free encyclopedia created by paid experts .
He spent $ 250,000 for writers to make 12 articles .
It failed .
" They have the name wrong .
They portray it as Wales ' project , when in fact it was more closely associated with Larry Sanger .
It was n't written by paid experts .
I believe Larry Sanger had a paid position as editor .
I worked on an article for Nupedia , and I can assure you that they did n't offer me any money .
They make it sound like Nupedia commissioned 12 articles ( at some price ) .
Wow , I would have liked to be offered $ 20,000 to write an article !
Actually 12 is just the number that got done ( by people working for free ) before they gave up and admitted Nupedia was a failure .
My own experience trying to write an article for them suggests two reasons why it failed : ( 1 ) The software to run it was mostly vaporware .
Nothing worked .
( 2 ) It was no fun .
I had a panel of people who were not experts in my field , and whom I had to satisfy in order to get the article accepted .
That got old really fast .
This is of course the exact opposite of WP 's instant gratification philosophy .
( Well , WP is n't so much like that today , because a newbie who comes in and tries to edit an article is likely to get his edit reverted without explanation .
But that 's how WP was in the initial barn-raising stage .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is wildly inaccurate on the subject of Nupedia.
They say, "Then he tried an online encyclopedia called Newpedia, a free encyclopedia created by paid experts.
He spent $250,000 for writers to make 12 articles.
It failed.
" They have the name wrong.
They portray it as Wales' project, when in fact it was more closely associated with Larry Sanger.
It wasn't written by paid experts.
I believe Larry Sanger had a paid position as editor.
I worked on an article for Nupedia, and I can assure you that they didn't offer me any money.
They make it sound like Nupedia commissioned 12 articles (at some price).
Wow, I would have liked to be offered $20,000 to write an article!
Actually 12 is just the number that got done (by people working for free) before they gave up and admitted Nupedia was a failure.
My own experience trying to write an article for them suggests two reasons why it failed: (1) The software to run it was mostly vaporware.
Nothing worked.
(2) It was no fun.
I had a panel of people who were not experts in my field, and whom I had to satisfy in order to get the article accepted.
That got old really fast.
This is of course the exact opposite of WP's instant gratification philosophy.
(Well, WP isn't so much like that today, because a newbie who comes in and tries to edit an article is likely to get his edit reverted without explanation.
But that's how WP was in the initial barn-raising stage.
)
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210112</id>
	<title>Re:Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266682620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that failure is good for you (although of course you can learn from it), but rather that it's pretty much inevitable, so you better learn how to plan for and deal with it.</p><p>For example, the success rate for start-up companies is quite small (10\% - I forget), so if you're going to try a start-up it's best not to commit yourself to such a degree that it hurts your ability to shake off the failure and try again.. and again..</p><p>There's an interesting book about the start-up experience of AutoDesk (the company that created AutoCAD) called "The AutoDesk File" by John Walker, that says the same thing. AutoDesk's founders never expected to start a CAD software company... but in the end that was the product idea that became successful. The general conclusion was keep trying and let marketplace success not preconceived ideas dictate your level of financial/etc commitment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that failure is good for you ( although of course you can learn from it ) , but rather that it 's pretty much inevitable , so you better learn how to plan for and deal with it.For example , the success rate for start-up companies is quite small ( 10 \ % - I forget ) , so if you 're going to try a start-up it 's best not to commit yourself to such a degree that it hurts your ability to shake off the failure and try again.. and again..There 's an interesting book about the start-up experience of AutoDesk ( the company that created AutoCAD ) called " The AutoDesk File " by John Walker , that says the same thing .
AutoDesk 's founders never expected to start a CAD software company... but in the end that was the product idea that became successful .
The general conclusion was keep trying and let marketplace success not preconceived ideas dictate your level of financial/etc commitment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that failure is good for you (although of course you can learn from it), but rather that it's pretty much inevitable, so you better learn how to plan for and deal with it.For example, the success rate for start-up companies is quite small (10\% - I forget), so if you're going to try a start-up it's best not to commit yourself to such a degree that it hurts your ability to shake off the failure and try again.. and again..There's an interesting book about the start-up experience of AutoDesk (the company that created AutoCAD) called "The AutoDesk File" by John Walker, that says the same thing.
AutoDesk's founders never expected to start a CAD software company... but in the end that was the product idea that became successful.
The general conclusion was keep trying and let marketplace success not preconceived ideas dictate your level of financial/etc commitment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210842</id>
	<title>Re:...a free encyclopedia written by anyone...</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1266689460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I revert edits all the time, especially from anonymous editors. Typically the reason is that the editor did not follow Wikipedia policies or made a very poor edit such as adding information that is wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I revert edits all the time , especially from anonymous editors .
Typically the reason is that the editor did not follow Wikipedia policies or made a very poor edit such as adding information that is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I revert edits all the time, especially from anonymous editors.
Typically the reason is that the editor did not follow Wikipedia policies or made a very poor edit such as adding information that is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</id>
	<title>Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>N3tRunner</author>
	<datestamp>1266678900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen other articles about failure being good for the creative process, namely the cover story of Wired a couple months ago. The thing is, if these people had continued failing and never had a success, we would never have heard of them. Of course successful people think that failure is good for you: they stopped doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen other articles about failure being good for the creative process , namely the cover story of Wired a couple months ago .
The thing is , if these people had continued failing and never had a success , we would never have heard of them .
Of course successful people think that failure is good for you : they stopped doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen other articles about failure being good for the creative process, namely the cover story of Wired a couple months ago.
The thing is, if these people had continued failing and never had a success, we would never have heard of them.
Of course successful people think that failure is good for you: they stopped doing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210224</id>
	<title>The TED video</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1266683940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy\_wales\_on\_the\_birth\_of\_wikipedia.html" title="ted.com">TED: Jimmy Wales on the birth of Wikipedia</a> [ted.com] (20m).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TED : Jimmy Wales on the birth of Wikipedia [ ted.com ] ( 20m ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> TED: Jimmy Wales on the birth of Wikipedia [ted.com] (20m).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210102</id>
	<title>And, finally, his success arrived...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266682500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad, he is finally making money hand over fist from Wikipedia &mdash; a business success like no other.

</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad , he is finally making money hand over fist from Wikipedia    a business success like no other .
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad, he is finally making money hand over fist from Wikipedia — a business success like no other.
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210046</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Richy\_T</author>
	<datestamp>1266681900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonsense. You appear to be talking from a very narrow perspective where Wikipedia is only used for academic research or settling debates. For the purposes I and others use it for, it's perfectly adequate most times.</p><p>But then, the true measure of success is whether it can generate enough revenue to continue existing anyway. From the begging I've been seeing on the pages recently, I'm not sure if that's the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
You appear to be talking from a very narrow perspective where Wikipedia is only used for academic research or settling debates .
For the purposes I and others use it for , it 's perfectly adequate most times.But then , the true measure of success is whether it can generate enough revenue to continue existing anyway .
From the begging I 've been seeing on the pages recently , I 'm not sure if that 's the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
You appear to be talking from a very narrow perspective where Wikipedia is only used for academic research or settling debates.
For the purposes I and others use it for, it's perfectly adequate most times.But then, the true measure of success is whether it can generate enough revenue to continue existing anyway.
From the begging I've been seeing on the pages recently, I'm not sure if that's the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212372</id>
	<title>Re:And drink a pint of whiskey every day</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1266699300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This type of anecdotal philosophy is useless. It is the equivalent of asking a 100 year old man what the secret to his long life was. The answer is never, "Well, I just happened to be a couple of sigma away from the mean in the normal distribution of human longevity". It is always like "get up early every morning, smoke a cigar every night, drink a pint of whiskey every day, etc."</p></div></blockquote><p>Exactly.  For every Jimmy Wales, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, how many *hundreds* or *thousands* of people are there who worked just as hard, if not harder, who have failed?  It's pretty much random chance to start a successful business (1 in 10 last I heard).  Working hard and trying repeatedly is just a *pre-requisite* to being *dealt* a hand.  If you've got enough money to pay the bills while you fail nine times, then sure, yeah, you can try for number ten and have a good chance of succeeding.  People with no money, or people who have bad health and no health insurance don't have that option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This type of anecdotal philosophy is useless .
It is the equivalent of asking a 100 year old man what the secret to his long life was .
The answer is never , " Well , I just happened to be a couple of sigma away from the mean in the normal distribution of human longevity " .
It is always like " get up early every morning , smoke a cigar every night , drink a pint of whiskey every day , etc. " Exactly .
For every Jimmy Wales , Bill Gates or Steve Jobs , how many * hundreds * or * thousands * of people are there who worked just as hard , if not harder , who have failed ?
It 's pretty much random chance to start a successful business ( 1 in 10 last I heard ) .
Working hard and trying repeatedly is just a * pre-requisite * to being * dealt * a hand .
If you 've got enough money to pay the bills while you fail nine times , then sure , yeah , you can try for number ten and have a good chance of succeeding .
People with no money , or people who have bad health and no health insurance do n't have that option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This type of anecdotal philosophy is useless.
It is the equivalent of asking a 100 year old man what the secret to his long life was.
The answer is never, "Well, I just happened to be a couple of sigma away from the mean in the normal distribution of human longevity".
It is always like "get up early every morning, smoke a cigar every night, drink a pint of whiskey every day, etc."Exactly.
For every Jimmy Wales, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, how many *hundreds* or *thousands* of people are there who worked just as hard, if not harder, who have failed?
It's pretty much random chance to start a successful business (1 in 10 last I heard).
Working hard and trying repeatedly is just a *pre-requisite* to being *dealt* a hand.
If you've got enough money to pay the bills while you fail nine times, then sure, yeah, you can try for number ten and have a good chance of succeeding.
People with no money, or people who have bad health and no health insurance don't have that option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182</id>
	<title>best way to succeed? redefine "success"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266683460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Close your eye and shoot. Whatever you hit, call that the target.
<p>
If success simply means getting lots of hits, then yes - I suppose Wikipedia is a success. However if success means earning a living and being rewarded for your efforts, then I guess wikipedia does provide some of that, but is it in proportion to it's internet popularity? No. Now, I appreciate that it's a non-profit organisation and all, but it's hard to turn something that's free into a failure. A better example of success would be to look at something where the users have to pay for the service they get. In that case, almost every internet project is a failure: Wiki, Facebook, Google, Twitter. None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users. They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who doesn't mind losing a few $Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that.
</p><p>
None of them succeed in getting money from users. Just about the only internet (financial) success stories are the gaming sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close your eye and shoot .
Whatever you hit , call that the target .
If success simply means getting lots of hits , then yes - I suppose Wikipedia is a success .
However if success means earning a living and being rewarded for your efforts , then I guess wikipedia does provide some of that , but is it in proportion to it 's internet popularity ?
No. Now , I appreciate that it 's a non-profit organisation and all , but it 's hard to turn something that 's free into a failure .
A better example of success would be to look at something where the users have to pay for the service they get .
In that case , almost every internet project is a failure : Wiki , Facebook , Google , Twitter .
None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users .
They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who does n't mind losing a few $ Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that .
None of them succeed in getting money from users .
Just about the only internet ( financial ) success stories are the gaming sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close your eye and shoot.
Whatever you hit, call that the target.
If success simply means getting lots of hits, then yes - I suppose Wikipedia is a success.
However if success means earning a living and being rewarded for your efforts, then I guess wikipedia does provide some of that, but is it in proportion to it's internet popularity?
No. Now, I appreciate that it's a non-profit organisation and all, but it's hard to turn something that's free into a failure.
A better example of success would be to look at something where the users have to pay for the service they get.
In that case, almost every internet project is a failure: Wiki, Facebook, Google, Twitter.
None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users.
They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who doesn't mind losing a few $Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that.
None of them succeed in getting money from users.
Just about the only internet (financial) success stories are the gaming sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209986</id>
	<title>Re:'Fail Often, Fail Early' Is Not Just Wales' Man</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1266681120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if none of those work you can always give succeeding a shot</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if none of those work you can always give succeeding a shot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if none of those work you can always give succeeding a shot</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210036</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>joshier</author>
	<datestamp>1266681840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's better than anything out there right now for easily searching factual topics, and where there is demand there will be competition. If you think any product or service can be made perfect right out of a hat then you're misinformed. It takes time, practise and lots of real world experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's better than anything out there right now for easily searching factual topics , and where there is demand there will be competition .
If you think any product or service can be made perfect right out of a hat then you 're misinformed .
It takes time , practise and lots of real world experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's better than anything out there right now for easily searching factual topics, and where there is demand there will be competition.
If you think any product or service can be made perfect right out of a hat then you're misinformed.
It takes time, practise and lots of real world experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210888</id>
	<title>come up with an idea, try it, repeat on failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266689700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prediction: 20 percent of all the mass market business books written in the next three years will mention Jimmy Wales and his three prior failures, with varying amounts of journalistic detail.</p><p>"Fail fast" is an old idea.  But it works best the smaller the company is, otherwise big company politics and shareholder pressure come into play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prediction : 20 percent of all the mass market business books written in the next three years will mention Jimmy Wales and his three prior failures , with varying amounts of journalistic detail .
" Fail fast " is an old idea .
But it works best the smaller the company is , otherwise big company politics and shareholder pressure come into play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prediction: 20 percent of all the mass market business books written in the next three years will mention Jimmy Wales and his three prior failures, with varying amounts of journalistic detail.
"Fail fast" is an old idea.
But it works best the smaller the company is, otherwise big company politics and shareholder pressure come into play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212464</id>
	<title>Re:His fourth and biggest failure yet.</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1266656580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wales hat very good intentions and a great idea. But he was waay deep in treehugger happy happy imaginationland with some of those descisions. And I also was there with him for some time. Until I took a harder look at reality.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Yes. Basically, wikipedia started out too, open and is now too closed, and by the wrong people.<br> <br>

Since its popularity has declined slightly in the past year or so, and its credibility has most certainly declined significantly in the past couple of years, one might question whether this is Wales' fourth failure -- it's just taking longer to fail that the previous ones. (actually, his fifth failure, he ran a pron site he likes everyone to forget about)<br> <br>

I do disagree though, that Wales is as naive as you may think. I don't think the way wikipedia is locked down is entirely accidental, and he does has surprising authority over its operations. There also have been significant questions over his expenses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wales hat very good intentions and a great idea .
But he was waay deep in treehugger happy happy imaginationland with some of those descisions .
And I also was there with him for some time .
Until I took a harder look at reality .
Yes. Basically , wikipedia started out too , open and is now too closed , and by the wrong people .
Since its popularity has declined slightly in the past year or so , and its credibility has most certainly declined significantly in the past couple of years , one might question whether this is Wales ' fourth failure -- it 's just taking longer to fail that the previous ones .
( actually , his fifth failure , he ran a pron site he likes everyone to forget about ) I do disagree though , that Wales is as naive as you may think .
I do n't think the way wikipedia is locked down is entirely accidental , and he does has surprising authority over its operations .
There also have been significant questions over his expenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wales hat very good intentions and a great idea.
But he was waay deep in treehugger happy happy imaginationland with some of those descisions.
And I also was there with him for some time.
Until I took a harder look at reality.
Yes. Basically, wikipedia started out too, open and is now too closed, and by the wrong people.
Since its popularity has declined slightly in the past year or so, and its credibility has most certainly declined significantly in the past couple of years, one might question whether this is Wales' fourth failure -- it's just taking longer to fail that the previous ones.
(actually, his fifth failure, he ran a pron site he likes everyone to forget about) 

I do disagree though, that Wales is as naive as you may think.
I don't think the way wikipedia is locked down is entirely accidental, and he does has surprising authority over its operations.
There also have been significant questions over his expenses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210828</id>
	<title>Re:best way to succeed? redefine "success"</title>
	<author>spisska</author>
	<datestamp>1266689400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, I appreciate that it's a non-profit organisation and all, but it's hard to turn something that's free into a failure.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ask Jeeves? AltaVista? MSN? Geocities? The clock's ticking on MySpace. It's awfully easy to fail when you're free, and you don't even need a company to do so. Just have a look at all the abandoned projects at Sourceforge.</p><blockquote><div><p>A better example of success would be to look at something where the users have to pay for the service they get. In that case, almost every internet project is a failure: Wiki [sic], Facebook, Google, Twitter.</p></div> </blockquote><p>You've got it backwards. The customers are the advertisers, and they're paying Google handsomely. Whether or not Facebook and Twitter can accomplish long-term profitability is another question. I suspect not, but I've been very wrong before. Wikipedia has achieved sustainability, and for a non-profit that equals success.</p><blockquote><div><p>None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users. They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who doesn't mind losing a few $Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that.</p></div></blockquote><p>By this measure, every non-premium television station is a failure, as is every terrestrial radio station. Yet there are more TV and radio stations now than there have ever been. Red Hat has somehow grown both its profits and its margins this year even though I've never paid them a dime for Fedora.</p><p> Methinks there is a flaw in your logic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I appreciate that it 's a non-profit organisation and all , but it 's hard to turn something that 's free into a failure.Ask Jeeves ?
AltaVista ? MSN ?
Geocities ? The clock 's ticking on MySpace .
It 's awfully easy to fail when you 're free , and you do n't even need a company to do so .
Just have a look at all the abandoned projects at Sourceforge.A better example of success would be to look at something where the users have to pay for the service they get .
In that case , almost every internet project is a failure : Wiki [ sic ] , Facebook , Google , Twitter .
You 've got it backwards .
The customers are the advertisers , and they 're paying Google handsomely .
Whether or not Facebook and Twitter can accomplish long-term profitability is another question .
I suspect not , but I 've been very wrong before .
Wikipedia has achieved sustainability , and for a non-profit that equals success.None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users .
They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who does n't mind losing a few $ Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that.By this measure , every non-premium television station is a failure , as is every terrestrial radio station .
Yet there are more TV and radio stations now than there have ever been .
Red Hat has somehow grown both its profits and its margins this year even though I 've never paid them a dime for Fedora .
Methinks there is a flaw in your logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I appreciate that it's a non-profit organisation and all, but it's hard to turn something that's free into a failure.Ask Jeeves?
AltaVista? MSN?
Geocities? The clock's ticking on MySpace.
It's awfully easy to fail when you're free, and you don't even need a company to do so.
Just have a look at all the abandoned projects at Sourceforge.A better example of success would be to look at something where the users have to pay for the service they get.
In that case, almost every internet project is a failure: Wiki [sic], Facebook, Google, Twitter.
You've got it backwards.
The customers are the advertisers, and they're paying Google handsomely.
Whether or not Facebook and Twitter can accomplish long-term profitability is another question.
I suspect not, but I've been very wrong before.
Wikipedia has achieved sustainability, and for a non-profit that equals success.None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users.
They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who doesn't mind losing a few $Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that.By this measure, every non-premium television station is a failure, as is every terrestrial radio station.
Yet there are more TV and radio stations now than there have ever been.
Red Hat has somehow grown both its profits and its margins this year even though I've never paid them a dime for Fedora.
Methinks there is a flaw in your logic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31227542</id>
	<title>Re:best way to succeed? redefine "success"</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1266839040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wiki, Facebook, Google, Twitter. None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users. They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who doesn't mind losing a few $Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Why do you not consider making money from advertising as success?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wiki , Facebook , Google , Twitter .
None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users .
They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who does n't mind losing a few $ Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that .
Why do you not consider making money from advertising as success ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wiki, Facebook, Google, Twitter.
None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users.
They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who doesn't mind losing a few $Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that.
Why do you not consider making money from advertising as success?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213186</id>
	<title>Very true</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1266661380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you please edit Wales' speech and add these important points?  Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please edit Wales ' speech and add these important points ?
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please edit Wales' speech and add these important points?
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788</id>
	<title>And drink a pint of whiskey every day</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1266689160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This type of anecdotal philosophy is useless. It is the equivalent of asking a 100 year old man what the secret to his long life was. The answer is never, "Well, I just happened to be a couple of sigma away from the mean in the normal distribution of human longevity". It is always like "get up early every morning, smoke a cigar every night, drink a pint of whiskey every day, etc."</p><p>For every anecdote there is an equal and opposite anecdote. It's like a law or something. What about the tale of Bruce and the Spider, where the King of Scotland is inspired by a spider after losing to the Brits six times to go out and try again? According to Jimmy Wales, the King should have packed it in after one or two.</p><p>If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.<br>Don't throw good money after bad.<br>etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This type of anecdotal philosophy is useless .
It is the equivalent of asking a 100 year old man what the secret to his long life was .
The answer is never , " Well , I just happened to be a couple of sigma away from the mean in the normal distribution of human longevity " .
It is always like " get up early every morning , smoke a cigar every night , drink a pint of whiskey every day , etc .
" For every anecdote there is an equal and opposite anecdote .
It 's like a law or something .
What about the tale of Bruce and the Spider , where the King of Scotland is inspired by a spider after losing to the Brits six times to go out and try again ?
According to Jimmy Wales , the King should have packed it in after one or two.If at first you do n't succeed , try , try again.Do n't throw good money after bad.etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This type of anecdotal philosophy is useless.
It is the equivalent of asking a 100 year old man what the secret to his long life was.
The answer is never, "Well, I just happened to be a couple of sigma away from the mean in the normal distribution of human longevity".
It is always like "get up early every morning, smoke a cigar every night, drink a pint of whiskey every day, etc.
"For every anecdote there is an equal and opposite anecdote.
It's like a law or something.
What about the tale of Bruce and the Spider, where the King of Scotland is inspired by a spider after losing to the Brits six times to go out and try again?
According to Jimmy Wales, the King should have packed it in after one or two.If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.Don't throw good money after bad.etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209888</id>
	<title>A rarity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266679740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trouble with the media is that they love the one try-one hit wonders - the folks who started and hit big. Basically, the folks who won the entrepreneur lottery: Google, Yahoo!, Apple, Amazon, companies like that and the people behind them. It's real easy to get the impression that you just have an idea, VCs knock on your door, and you get rich quick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trouble with the media is that they love the one try-one hit wonders - the folks who started and hit big .
Basically , the folks who won the entrepreneur lottery : Google , Yahoo ! , Apple , Amazon , companies like that and the people behind them .
It 's real easy to get the impression that you just have an idea , VCs knock on your door , and you get rich quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trouble with the media is that they love the one try-one hit wonders - the folks who started and hit big.
Basically, the folks who won the entrepreneur lottery: Google, Yahoo!, Apple, Amazon, companies like that and the people behind them.
It's real easy to get the impression that you just have an idea, VCs knock on your door, and you get rich quick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211180</id>
	<title>Douchebag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266692160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wales didn't found <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry\_Sanger" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">found Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] alone, though he does his damnedest convince the world that he did. He's just a typical douchbag marketing businessman who wants to take all the credit for the work of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wales did n't found found Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] alone , though he does his damnedest convince the world that he did .
He 's just a typical douchbag marketing businessman who wants to take all the credit for the work of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wales didn't found found Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] alone, though he does his damnedest convince the world that he did.
He's just a typical douchbag marketing businessman who wants to take all the credit for the work of others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210032</id>
	<title>You have to LEARN from failure</title>
	<author>voss</author>
	<datestamp>1266681840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just fail over and over again. Its now whether you fail but how you deal with failure. Learning from your failures means you wont make<br>the same mistakes, youll make brand new ones, but youll learn from those too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just fail over and over again .
Its now whether you fail but how you deal with failure .
Learning from your failures means you wont makethe same mistakes , youll make brand new ones , but youll learn from those too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just fail over and over again.
Its now whether you fail but how you deal with failure.
Learning from your failures means you wont makethe same mistakes, youll make brand new ones, but youll learn from those too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878</id>
	<title>Re:Articles about failure being good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266679680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course successful people think that failure is good for you: they stopped doing it.</p></div><p>What you are saying here is that failure or success is more or less a choice, an activity you do. You could actually go out and succeed or fail, by sheer choice. <br> <br>I think what these 'successful' people are saying is, "Look, I didn't do anything different in the times when I failed or succeeded. It looked like a good idea, I worked very hard, and nothing came of it. Then, on another project that had similar looking prospects to the failure, by chance it succeeded. So if you don't persist through failures, you will likely never see the success, which is more the case of 'fortune favors the prepared'."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course successful people think that failure is good for you : they stopped doing it.What you are saying here is that failure or success is more or less a choice , an activity you do .
You could actually go out and succeed or fail , by sheer choice .
I think what these 'successful ' people are saying is , " Look , I did n't do anything different in the times when I failed or succeeded .
It looked like a good idea , I worked very hard , and nothing came of it .
Then , on another project that had similar looking prospects to the failure , by chance it succeeded .
So if you do n't persist through failures , you will likely never see the success , which is more the case of 'fortune favors the prepared' .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course successful people think that failure is good for you: they stopped doing it.What you are saying here is that failure or success is more or less a choice, an activity you do.
You could actually go out and succeed or fail, by sheer choice.
I think what these 'successful' people are saying is, "Look, I didn't do anything different in the times when I failed or succeeded.
It looked like a good idea, I worked very hard, and nothing came of it.
Then, on another project that had similar looking prospects to the failure, by chance it succeeded.
So if you don't persist through failures, you will likely never see the success, which is more the case of 'fortune favors the prepared'.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213092</id>
	<title>Re:His fourth and biggest failure yet.</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1266660540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there's many things wrong with wikipedia, being centralized is not one of them. How would you for example link in this P2P jungle, to what version of anything? Just let people end up at completely different articles depending on which path they took to get there? Yes, people battle for the "one truth" over the same wikipedia page, but they will always battle for the one truth. They'd fight over which page should come up first or redirecting links to the "right" page as long as there is anything to edit. And if there isn't, you're basically back to the World Wide Web where every page is run by their own webmaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's many things wrong with wikipedia , being centralized is not one of them .
How would you for example link in this P2P jungle , to what version of anything ?
Just let people end up at completely different articles depending on which path they took to get there ?
Yes , people battle for the " one truth " over the same wikipedia page , but they will always battle for the one truth .
They 'd fight over which page should come up first or redirecting links to the " right " page as long as there is anything to edit .
And if there is n't , you 're basically back to the World Wide Web where every page is run by their own webmaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's many things wrong with wikipedia, being centralized is not one of them.
How would you for example link in this P2P jungle, to what version of anything?
Just let people end up at completely different articles depending on which path they took to get there?
Yes, people battle for the "one truth" over the same wikipedia page, but they will always battle for the one truth.
They'd fight over which page should come up first or redirecting links to the "right" page as long as there is anything to edit.
And if there isn't, you're basically back to the World Wide Web where every page is run by their own webmaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210212</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>chiui</author>
	<datestamp>1266683760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you treat *any* source as absolute proof, you are wrong. No warning label can fix this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you treat * any * source as absolute proof , you are wrong .
No warning label can fix this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you treat *any* source as absolute proof, you are wrong.
No warning label can fix this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210994</id>
	<title>Here is the link to the video</title>
	<author>toxygen01</author>
	<datestamp>1266690720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KoPYFxu-8w" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KoPYFxu-8w</a> [youtube.com]
<br> <br>
TEDxTampaBay-JimmyWales-021210</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 4KoPYFxu-8w [ youtube.com ] TEDxTampaBay-JimmyWales-021210</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KoPYFxu-8w [youtube.com]
 
TEDxTampaBay-JimmyWales-021210</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210398</id>
	<title>...a free encyclopedia written by anyone...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266685680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...except in this case "anyone" means "a small cabal of editors with all the time to spend guarding their pet pages against edits submitted by the likes of filthy scoundrels such as you".</p><p>I like the concept of wikipedia and all but let's stop kidding ourselves. The site stopped being editable by all a few years back. Good luck trying to edit any existing pages because your edits will be rolled back faster than you can hit refresh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...except in this case " anyone " means " a small cabal of editors with all the time to spend guarding their pet pages against edits submitted by the likes of filthy scoundrels such as you " .I like the concept of wikipedia and all but let 's stop kidding ourselves .
The site stopped being editable by all a few years back .
Good luck trying to edit any existing pages because your edits will be rolled back faster than you can hit refresh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...except in this case "anyone" means "a small cabal of editors with all the time to spend guarding their pet pages against edits submitted by the likes of filthy scoundrels such as you".I like the concept of wikipedia and all but let's stop kidding ourselves.
The site stopped being editable by all a few years back.
Good luck trying to edit any existing pages because your edits will be rolled back faster than you can hit refresh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210948</id>
	<title>Re:...a free encyclopedia written by anyone...</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266690360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true.  Nobody is stopping you (or anybody) from publishing your own articles or editing any existing one in Wikipedia.  That your changes may get reverted later is another matter.</p><p>After all, it's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which indeed they can, not "the free encyclopedia which publishes anything that anyone who is not a member of the editor cabal edits."</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true .
Nobody is stopping you ( or anybody ) from publishing your own articles or editing any existing one in Wikipedia .
That your changes may get reverted later is another matter.After all , it 's " the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit " , which indeed they can , not " the free encyclopedia which publishes anything that anyone who is not a member of the editor cabal edits .
"         -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true.
Nobody is stopping you (or anybody) from publishing your own articles or editing any existing one in Wikipedia.
That your changes may get reverted later is another matter.After all, it's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which indeed they can, not "the free encyclopedia which publishes anything that anyone who is not a member of the editor cabal edits.
"
        -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209960</id>
	<title>Failure is not always certain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266680760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company I work for is the leader of their industry.  If they had come to me with the initial idea, I would have laughed at them and said 'forget it.'  2 years in, they were still losing money daily.  They were the very image of failure.</p><p>And now, over 4 years later, the industry they created has some competition, but despite their competition throwing millions of dollars (each!) at the market, we are still far and above them.  Some have even given up.</p><p>So don't be so sure that you've failed just because you've not made a profit in 3 months.</p><p>Yes, there are times to cut and run, but don't assume everything that looks bad will fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company I work for is the leader of their industry .
If they had come to me with the initial idea , I would have laughed at them and said 'forget it .
' 2 years in , they were still losing money daily .
They were the very image of failure.And now , over 4 years later , the industry they created has some competition , but despite their competition throwing millions of dollars ( each !
) at the market , we are still far and above them .
Some have even given up.So do n't be so sure that you 've failed just because you 've not made a profit in 3 months.Yes , there are times to cut and run , but do n't assume everything that looks bad will fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company I work for is the leader of their industry.
If they had come to me with the initial idea, I would have laughed at them and said 'forget it.
'  2 years in, they were still losing money daily.
They were the very image of failure.And now, over 4 years later, the industry they created has some competition, but despite their competition throwing millions of dollars (each!
) at the market, we are still far and above them.
Some have even given up.So don't be so sure that you've failed just because you've not made a profit in 3 months.Yes, there are times to cut and run, but don't assume everything that looks bad will fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212718</id>
	<title>Re:His fourth and biggest failure yet.</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1266658260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if you've read Wikipedia much, but a lot of the articles actually do cover a few different viewpoints.  Check out the article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gringo" title="wikipedia.org">Gringo</a> [wikipedia.org] for a clear example of how they handle different viewpoints, they list nearly every theory of the creation of the word, and indicate which is favored by most scholars.<br> <br>
I think your complaint was about how Wikipedia handles differing viewpoints.  If it was really an argument of http VS p2p, then http is the clear winner because no one would have used p2p, it would have taken too much effort.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you 've read Wikipedia much , but a lot of the articles actually do cover a few different viewpoints .
Check out the article on Gringo [ wikipedia.org ] for a clear example of how they handle different viewpoints , they list nearly every theory of the creation of the word , and indicate which is favored by most scholars .
I think your complaint was about how Wikipedia handles differing viewpoints .
If it was really an argument of http VS p2p , then http is the clear winner because no one would have used p2p , it would have taken too much effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you've read Wikipedia much, but a lot of the articles actually do cover a few different viewpoints.
Check out the article on Gringo [wikipedia.org] for a clear example of how they handle different viewpoints, they list nearly every theory of the creation of the word, and indicate which is favored by most scholars.
I think your complaint was about how Wikipedia handles differing viewpoints.
If it was really an argument of http VS p2p, then http is the clear winner because no one would have used p2p, it would have taken too much effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212640</id>
	<title>Let me be the first, then</title>
	<author>coolgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1266657720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to dub him "Jimmy Fails"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to dub him " Jimmy Fails "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to dub him "Jimmy Fails"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211090</id>
	<title>Go Proverb</title>
	<author>Asicath</author>
	<datestamp>1266691500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Players of the game of Go have a proverb "<a href="http://senseis.xmp.net/?LoseYourFirst50GamesAsQuicklyAsPossible" title="xmp.net" rel="nofollow">Lose your first fifty games as quickly as possible</a> [xmp.net]".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Players of the game of Go have a proverb " Lose your first fifty games as quickly as possible [ xmp.net ] " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Players of the game of Go have a proverb "Lose your first fifty games as quickly as possible [xmp.net]".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210278</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266684540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.</p><p>Yes, if you use it in the wrong way, it isn't as useful as you would expect. What else is new?</p><p>Wikipedia doesn't need to spread the 'universal truth' to everyone out there who might be interested. It is not meant as a source for citation, even if people tend to because it's so informative.<br>It fulfills the role it is meant to play, namely to provide a portal to information for people interested in a subject. When I seek information about a subject I didn't know about, Wikipedia is often the most accessible and useful source for an introduction into the subject. Using Wikipedia a person can gain a general understanding of what the subject is about and learn from it, and move on to source links for more information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree.Yes , if you use it in the wrong way , it is n't as useful as you would expect .
What else is new ? Wikipedia does n't need to spread the 'universal truth ' to everyone out there who might be interested .
It is not meant as a source for citation , even if people tend to because it 's so informative.It fulfills the role it is meant to play , namely to provide a portal to information for people interested in a subject .
When I seek information about a subject I did n't know about , Wikipedia is often the most accessible and useful source for an introduction into the subject .
Using Wikipedia a person can gain a general understanding of what the subject is about and learn from it , and move on to source links for more information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.Yes, if you use it in the wrong way, it isn't as useful as you would expect.
What else is new?Wikipedia doesn't need to spread the 'universal truth' to everyone out there who might be interested.
It is not meant as a source for citation, even if people tend to because it's so informative.It fulfills the role it is meant to play, namely to provide a portal to information for people interested in a subject.
When I seek information about a subject I didn't know about, Wikipedia is often the most accessible and useful source for an introduction into the subject.
Using Wikipedia a person can gain a general understanding of what the subject is about and learn from it, and move on to source links for more information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31227542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31216458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31216744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31218476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31215566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31214382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31217482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31216446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31214216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31217544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1331221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31214382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31217544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31216458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31216446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31213078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31214216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31216744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31215566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31215692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31227542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31218476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31209890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1331221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31210788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31211678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31212604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1331221.31217482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
