<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_25_160236</id>
	<title>Contributors Leaving Wikipedia In Record Numbers</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1259167740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reservoirhill" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"CNET reports that the volunteers who create Wikipedia's pages, check facts and adapt the site are <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023\_3-10403467-93.html">abandoning Wikipedia in unprecedented numbers, with tens of thousands of editors going 'dead'</a> &mdash; no longer actively contributing and updating the site &mdash; a trend many experts believe could threaten Wikipedia's future. In the first three months of 2009, the English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000 contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same period in 2008.  'If you don't have enough people to take care of the project it could vanish quickly,' says Felipe Ortega at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, who created a computer system to analyze the editing history of more than three million active Wikipedia contributors in ten different languages.  'We're not in that situation yet. But eventually, if the negative trends follow, we could be in that situation.' <a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech\_and\_web/the\_web/article6930546.ece">Contributors are becoming disenchanted with the process of adding to the site</a>, which is becoming increasingly difficult says Andrew Dalby, author of The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality and a regular editor of the site. 'There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules. Wikipedia grew because of the lack of rules. That has been forgotten. The rules are regarded as irritating and useless by many contributors.' Arguments over various articles have also taken their toll. 'Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again,' adds Ortega."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " CNET reports that the volunteers who create Wikipedia 's pages , check facts and adapt the site are abandoning Wikipedia in unprecedented numbers , with tens of thousands of editors going 'dead '    no longer actively contributing and updating the site    a trend many experts believe could threaten Wikipedia 's future .
In the first three months of 2009 , the English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000 contributors , compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same period in 2008 .
'If you do n't have enough people to take care of the project it could vanish quickly, ' says Felipe Ortega at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid , who created a computer system to analyze the editing history of more than three million active Wikipedia contributors in ten different languages .
'We 're not in that situation yet .
But eventually , if the negative trends follow , we could be in that situation .
' Contributors are becoming disenchanted with the process of adding to the site , which is becoming increasingly difficult says Andrew Dalby , author of The World and Wikipedia : How We are Editing Reality and a regular editor of the site .
'There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules .
Wikipedia grew because of the lack of rules .
That has been forgotten .
The rules are regarded as irritating and useless by many contributors .
' Arguments over various articles have also taken their toll .
'Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again, ' adds Ortega .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "CNET reports that the volunteers who create Wikipedia's pages, check facts and adapt the site are abandoning Wikipedia in unprecedented numbers, with tens of thousands of editors going 'dead' — no longer actively contributing and updating the site — a trend many experts believe could threaten Wikipedia's future.
In the first three months of 2009, the English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000 contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same period in 2008.
'If you don't have enough people to take care of the project it could vanish quickly,' says Felipe Ortega at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, who created a computer system to analyze the editing history of more than three million active Wikipedia contributors in ten different languages.
'We're not in that situation yet.
But eventually, if the negative trends follow, we could be in that situation.
' Contributors are becoming disenchanted with the process of adding to the site, which is becoming increasingly difficult says Andrew Dalby, author of The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality and a regular editor of the site.
'There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.
Wikipedia grew because of the lack of rules.
That has been forgotten.
The rules are regarded as irritating and useless by many contributors.
' Arguments over various articles have also taken their toll.
'Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again,' adds Ortega.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230238</id>
	<title>Re:Uncontrolled administrators</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1257154560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Link, please. My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it, and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.</p></div><p>Do you even realize what your comment sounds like? Let me ask one question: in cases where user deletion/banning/whatever was <i>not</i> deserved, what typically happens to the admin who does it?</p><p>I mean, I'm sure there are cases of admins who have even apologized for wrongdoing, and probably cases where people have lost their admin privileges. But I'm asking, what happens to the admin in <i>typical</i> case of wrongful deleting/banning of a contributing normal user?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Link , please .
My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it , and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.Do you even realize what your comment sounds like ?
Let me ask one question : in cases where user deletion/banning/whatever was not deserved , what typically happens to the admin who does it ? I mean , I 'm sure there are cases of admins who have even apologized for wrongdoing , and probably cases where people have lost their admin privileges .
But I 'm asking , what happens to the admin in typical case of wrongful deleting/banning of a contributing normal user ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link, please.
My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it, and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.Do you even realize what your comment sounds like?
Let me ask one question: in cases where user deletion/banning/whatever was not deserved, what typically happens to the admin who does it?I mean, I'm sure there are cases of admins who have even apologized for wrongdoing, and probably cases where people have lost their admin privileges.
But I'm asking, what happens to the admin in typical case of wrongful deleting/banning of a contributing normal user?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</id>
	<title>As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257184740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there are three big issues. First, there is a lack of low-hanging fruit. That is, the easy articles have all been written and many have been expanded to decent lengths. That makes people less inclined to help out or to join in (and moreover to stick around). Second, the project has also become much more deletionist. Much of the material on pop-culture subjects has been either cut down or deleted outright. This has pushed many editors to other smaller wikis where they can have the level of detail they want. Moreover, many editors who previously first got hooked by writing and tweaking fun stuff are no longer getting hooked that way. Third, the deletionism has combined with a general attitude that is very bad unwelcoming to newcomers. The overall result is a serious decline. Some of these effects (such as inclusionist and pop culture editors leaving) also reinforce other aspects since when they leave it leaves the overall community more deletionist. I think the project is still healthy but it might very well not be so if these trends continue for another year or two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there are three big issues .
First , there is a lack of low-hanging fruit .
That is , the easy articles have all been written and many have been expanded to decent lengths .
That makes people less inclined to help out or to join in ( and moreover to stick around ) .
Second , the project has also become much more deletionist .
Much of the material on pop-culture subjects has been either cut down or deleted outright .
This has pushed many editors to other smaller wikis where they can have the level of detail they want .
Moreover , many editors who previously first got hooked by writing and tweaking fun stuff are no longer getting hooked that way .
Third , the deletionism has combined with a general attitude that is very bad unwelcoming to newcomers .
The overall result is a serious decline .
Some of these effects ( such as inclusionist and pop culture editors leaving ) also reinforce other aspects since when they leave it leaves the overall community more deletionist .
I think the project is still healthy but it might very well not be so if these trends continue for another year or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there are three big issues.
First, there is a lack of low-hanging fruit.
That is, the easy articles have all been written and many have been expanded to decent lengths.
That makes people less inclined to help out or to join in (and moreover to stick around).
Second, the project has also become much more deletionist.
Much of the material on pop-culture subjects has been either cut down or deleted outright.
This has pushed many editors to other smaller wikis where they can have the level of detail they want.
Moreover, many editors who previously first got hooked by writing and tweaking fun stuff are no longer getting hooked that way.
Third, the deletionism has combined with a general attitude that is very bad unwelcoming to newcomers.
The overall result is a serious decline.
Some of these effects (such as inclusionist and pop culture editors leaving) also reinforce other aspects since when they leave it leaves the overall community more deletionist.
I think the project is still healthy but it might very well not be so if these trends continue for another year or two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228204</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wikipedia as it stood not too long ago was a remarkable testament to the power of collaborative editing, and represented an incredible resource.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It still is.  But the experiment of information anarchy on the Internet has run its course, because it turned out not be very useful or interesting.  Not, for the most part, because of big eviiil government, but simply because the signal to noise ratio is so low that it isn't worthwhile.  Moderated web forums have pushed Usenet aside.  Email blacklists have limited which IPs allowed to originate outgoing email.  Facebook has replaced homebrew home pages.  The existence of Wikipedia in the first place is a testament to the need for organization and filtering; otherwise we'd all just post our wisdom to our own little web sites and let users combine it all with search engines.  It is possible that Wikipedia will take this too far and become too heavy-handed, but the simple fact that it's changing is not evidence of that in itself.  Rather, it is maturing, and the fact is, a random user editing a random Wikipedia page is now more likely to make it worse than to make it better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia as it stood not too long ago was a remarkable testament to the power of collaborative editing , and represented an incredible resource .
It still is .
But the experiment of information anarchy on the Internet has run its course , because it turned out not be very useful or interesting .
Not , for the most part , because of big eviiil government , but simply because the signal to noise ratio is so low that it is n't worthwhile .
Moderated web forums have pushed Usenet aside .
Email blacklists have limited which IPs allowed to originate outgoing email .
Facebook has replaced homebrew home pages .
The existence of Wikipedia in the first place is a testament to the need for organization and filtering ; otherwise we 'd all just post our wisdom to our own little web sites and let users combine it all with search engines .
It is possible that Wikipedia will take this too far and become too heavy-handed , but the simple fact that it 's changing is not evidence of that in itself .
Rather , it is maturing , and the fact is , a random user editing a random Wikipedia page is now more likely to make it worse than to make it better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia as it stood not too long ago was a remarkable testament to the power of collaborative editing, and represented an incredible resource.
It still is.
But the experiment of information anarchy on the Internet has run its course, because it turned out not be very useful or interesting.
Not, for the most part, because of big eviiil government, but simply because the signal to noise ratio is so low that it isn't worthwhile.
Moderated web forums have pushed Usenet aside.
Email blacklists have limited which IPs allowed to originate outgoing email.
Facebook has replaced homebrew home pages.
The existence of Wikipedia in the first place is a testament to the need for organization and filtering; otherwise we'd all just post our wisdom to our own little web sites and let users combine it all with search engines.
It is possible that Wikipedia will take this too far and become too heavy-handed, but the simple fact that it's changing is not evidence of that in itself.
Rather, it is maturing, and the fact is, a random user editing a random Wikipedia page is now more likely to make it worse than to make it better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227972</id>
	<title>Wikipedia desperately needs a Flash-based editor.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The theory is that anyone should be able to edit Wikipedia.</p><p>This theory is easily shredded to pieces. Let's copy some of the raw code from the article about Obama (and we should expect this to be the pinnacle of Wikipedianess):</p><p>Obama intervened in the [[Automobile Industry Bailout|troubled automotive industry]]{{cite news|title=White House questions viability of GM, Chrysler|date=March 30, 2009|work=The Huffington Post|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-fund\_n\_180563.html}} in March, renewing loans for [[General Motors]] and [[Chrysler Corporation]] to continue operations while reorganizing. Over the following months the White House set terms for both firms' bankruptcies, including the [[Chrysler bankruptcy|sale of Chrysler]] to Italian automaker [[Fiat]]{{cite news|title=Chrysler and Union Agree to Deal Before Federal Deadline|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27chrysler.html?\_r=2&amp;bl&amp;ex=1240977600&amp;en=670e4df8295b2843&amp;ei=5087\%0A}} and a [[General Motors bankruptcy|reorganization of GM]] giving the U.S. government a temporary 60\% equity stake in the company, with the Canadian government shouldering a 12\% stake.{{cite news|title=GM Begins Bankruptcy Process With Filing for Affiliate|author=John Hughes, Caroline Salas, Jeff Green, and Bob Van Voris|url=http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aw4F\_L7E4xYg|work=Bloomberg.com|date=June 1, 2009}}  He also signed into law the [[Car Allowance Rebate System]], known colloquially as "Cash for Clunkers" bill, on August 7, 2009.{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html?\_r=1&amp;scp=3&amp;sq=cash\%20for\%20clunkers&amp;st=cse|title=Government Will End Clunker Program Early |author= Nick Bunkley|publisher=''[[New York Times]]''|date=2009-08-20|accessdate=2009-08-21}}</p><p>This should be supplemented with a Flash-based editor, where you could simply click on words and type in details in a drop-down menu to mark it as a reference.</p><p>And that is just one of the momentous amount of problems Wikipedia has. I remember in the old days, there were actually some people saying that "if you contribute to Wikipedia, you could even mention it in a job interview" - at the moment, if someone told me that they're a Wikipedia editor, I would assume they were a zealous sociopath. Do you think that <b>none of them noticed that Wikipedia was getting inaccessible to ordinary users</b>? No, power and status is like water, if 999 paths are blocked it will take number 1000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory is that anyone should be able to edit Wikipedia.This theory is easily shredded to pieces .
Let 's copy some of the raw code from the article about Obama ( and we should expect this to be the pinnacle of Wikipedianess ) : Obama intervened in the [ [ Automobile Industry Bailout | troubled automotive industry ] ] { { cite news | title = White House questions viability of GM , Chrysler | date = March 30 , 2009 | work = The Huffington Post | url = http : //www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-fund \ _n \ _180563.html } } in March , renewing loans for [ [ General Motors ] ] and [ [ Chrysler Corporation ] ] to continue operations while reorganizing .
Over the following months the White House set terms for both firms ' bankruptcies , including the [ [ Chrysler bankruptcy | sale of Chrysler ] ] to Italian automaker [ [ Fiat ] ] { { cite news | title = Chrysler and Union Agree to Deal Before Federal Deadline | url = http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27chrysler.html ? \ _r = 2&amp;bl&amp;ex = 1240977600&amp;en = 670e4df8295b2843&amp;ei = 5087 \ % 0A } } and a [ [ General Motors bankruptcy | reorganization of GM ] ] giving the U.S. government a temporary 60 \ % equity stake in the company , with the Canadian government shouldering a 12 \ % stake .
{ { cite news | title = GM Begins Bankruptcy Process With Filing for Affiliate | author = John Hughes , Caroline Salas , Jeff Green , and Bob Van Voris | url = http : //bloomberg.com/apps/news ? pid = 20601087&amp;sid = aw4F \ _L7E4xYg | work = Bloomberg.com | date = June 1 , 2009 } } He also signed into law the [ [ Car Allowance Rebate System ] ] , known colloquially as " Cash for Clunkers " bill , on August 7 , 2009 .
{ { cite news | url = http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html ? \ _r = 1&amp;scp = 3&amp;sq = cash \ % 20for \ % 20clunkers&amp;st = cse | title = Government Will End Clunker Program Early | author = Nick Bunkley | publisher = ' ' [ [ New York Times ] ] ' ' | date = 2009-08-20 | accessdate = 2009-08-21 } } This should be supplemented with a Flash-based editor , where you could simply click on words and type in details in a drop-down menu to mark it as a reference.And that is just one of the momentous amount of problems Wikipedia has .
I remember in the old days , there were actually some people saying that " if you contribute to Wikipedia , you could even mention it in a job interview " - at the moment , if someone told me that they 're a Wikipedia editor , I would assume they were a zealous sociopath .
Do you think that none of them noticed that Wikipedia was getting inaccessible to ordinary users ?
No , power and status is like water , if 999 paths are blocked it will take number 1000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory is that anyone should be able to edit Wikipedia.This theory is easily shredded to pieces.
Let's copy some of the raw code from the article about Obama (and we should expect this to be the pinnacle of Wikipedianess):Obama intervened in the [[Automobile Industry Bailout|troubled automotive industry]]{{cite news|title=White House questions viability of GM, Chrysler|date=March 30, 2009|work=The Huffington Post|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-fund\_n\_180563.html}} in March, renewing loans for [[General Motors]] and [[Chrysler Corporation]] to continue operations while reorganizing.
Over the following months the White House set terms for both firms' bankruptcies, including the [[Chrysler bankruptcy|sale of Chrysler]] to Italian automaker [[Fiat]]{{cite news|title=Chrysler and Union Agree to Deal Before Federal Deadline|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27chrysler.html?\_r=2&amp;bl&amp;ex=1240977600&amp;en=670e4df8295b2843&amp;ei=5087\%0A}} and a [[General Motors bankruptcy|reorganization of GM]] giving the U.S. government a temporary 60\% equity stake in the company, with the Canadian government shouldering a 12\% stake.
{{cite news|title=GM Begins Bankruptcy Process With Filing for Affiliate|author=John Hughes, Caroline Salas, Jeff Green, and Bob Van Voris|url=http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aw4F\_L7E4xYg|work=Bloomberg.com|date=June 1, 2009}}  He also signed into law the [[Car Allowance Rebate System]], known colloquially as "Cash for Clunkers" bill, on August 7, 2009.
{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html?\_r=1&amp;scp=3&amp;sq=cash\%20for\%20clunkers&amp;st=cse|title=Government Will End Clunker Program Early |author= Nick Bunkley|publisher=''[[New York Times]]''|date=2009-08-20|accessdate=2009-08-21}}This should be supplemented with a Flash-based editor, where you could simply click on words and type in details in a drop-down menu to mark it as a reference.And that is just one of the momentous amount of problems Wikipedia has.
I remember in the old days, there were actually some people saying that "if you contribute to Wikipedia, you could even mention it in a job interview" - at the moment, if someone told me that they're a Wikipedia editor, I would assume they were a zealous sociopath.
Do you think that none of them noticed that Wikipedia was getting inaccessible to ordinary users?
No, power and status is like water, if 999 paths are blocked it will take number 1000.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228058</id>
	<title>Here's why</title>
	<author>joeszilagyi</author>
	<datestamp>1257187560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The principle problem is simple. The site has rules, but Jimmy Wales long, long, long ago screwed up the entire structure with:
<p>
1. Blind adherence to demonstrably useless and vile ideals like those of Ayn Rand, one of the greatest ideological jokes in the history of modern thought. She was a waste of meat and ideals. Wikipedia in any capacity embracing those ideals was like giving birth to a newborn child with multiple cancers already in place.
</p><p>
2. The rather stupid "Ignore All Rules" rule that too many take as gold. It leads to all decisions and policies being overseen on a case by case basis. This leads to absurd political gamesmanship to ensure that "preferred" text remains in the public's view.
</p><p>
3. Elevation of personality over content. Entrenched users can get away with relative murder. This needs no explanation of why it's a "bad thing". You need to basically create something on the level of a United States Supreme Court case to actually get some "senior" members restricted, let alone tossed, from the website.
</p><p>
4. The fact that people are allowed to remain as editors on the site that are useless bags of mostly water, who contribute nothing but politics, rather than those who focus on content.
</p><p>
There are other reasons beyond this, but those to me are the core four. The stupidity of how the site is ran is what is going to inexorably tilt it ever further into the abyss. Remember how we just mourned the passing of Geocities? 10-15 years from now, that will be the English Wikipedia project. I think the other projects may thrive in different ways, but the main donation cash cow--English Wikipedia--is fuxxored. Like the Titanic, it's been doomed since it was first hit. In this case, it was Jimmy Wales foolishly applying his apparent Randian worldview onto the project (he used to either frequent or admin some Randroid newsgroup).
</p><p>
I like a lot of the contributors and actually consider some small number friends from when I used to edit, but I'm absolutely glad I gave it up cold turkey (I was once an admin on several projects there) and utterly don't miss it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The principle problem is simple .
The site has rules , but Jimmy Wales long , long , long ago screwed up the entire structure with : 1 .
Blind adherence to demonstrably useless and vile ideals like those of Ayn Rand , one of the greatest ideological jokes in the history of modern thought .
She was a waste of meat and ideals .
Wikipedia in any capacity embracing those ideals was like giving birth to a newborn child with multiple cancers already in place .
2. The rather stupid " Ignore All Rules " rule that too many take as gold .
It leads to all decisions and policies being overseen on a case by case basis .
This leads to absurd political gamesmanship to ensure that " preferred " text remains in the public 's view .
3. Elevation of personality over content .
Entrenched users can get away with relative murder .
This needs no explanation of why it 's a " bad thing " .
You need to basically create something on the level of a United States Supreme Court case to actually get some " senior " members restricted , let alone tossed , from the website .
4. The fact that people are allowed to remain as editors on the site that are useless bags of mostly water , who contribute nothing but politics , rather than those who focus on content .
There are other reasons beyond this , but those to me are the core four .
The stupidity of how the site is ran is what is going to inexorably tilt it ever further into the abyss .
Remember how we just mourned the passing of Geocities ?
10-15 years from now , that will be the English Wikipedia project .
I think the other projects may thrive in different ways , but the main donation cash cow--English Wikipedia--is fuxxored .
Like the Titanic , it 's been doomed since it was first hit .
In this case , it was Jimmy Wales foolishly applying his apparent Randian worldview onto the project ( he used to either frequent or admin some Randroid newsgroup ) .
I like a lot of the contributors and actually consider some small number friends from when I used to edit , but I 'm absolutely glad I gave it up cold turkey ( I was once an admin on several projects there ) and utterly do n't miss it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The principle problem is simple.
The site has rules, but Jimmy Wales long, long, long ago screwed up the entire structure with:

1.
Blind adherence to demonstrably useless and vile ideals like those of Ayn Rand, one of the greatest ideological jokes in the history of modern thought.
She was a waste of meat and ideals.
Wikipedia in any capacity embracing those ideals was like giving birth to a newborn child with multiple cancers already in place.
2. The rather stupid "Ignore All Rules" rule that too many take as gold.
It leads to all decisions and policies being overseen on a case by case basis.
This leads to absurd political gamesmanship to ensure that "preferred" text remains in the public's view.
3. Elevation of personality over content.
Entrenched users can get away with relative murder.
This needs no explanation of why it's a "bad thing".
You need to basically create something on the level of a United States Supreme Court case to actually get some "senior" members restricted, let alone tossed, from the website.
4. The fact that people are allowed to remain as editors on the site that are useless bags of mostly water, who contribute nothing but politics, rather than those who focus on content.
There are other reasons beyond this, but those to me are the core four.
The stupidity of how the site is ran is what is going to inexorably tilt it ever further into the abyss.
Remember how we just mourned the passing of Geocities?
10-15 years from now, that will be the English Wikipedia project.
I think the other projects may thrive in different ways, but the main donation cash cow--English Wikipedia--is fuxxored.
Like the Titanic, it's been doomed since it was first hit.
In this case, it was Jimmy Wales foolishly applying his apparent Randian worldview onto the project (he used to either frequent or admin some Randroid newsgroup).
I like a lot of the contributors and actually consider some small number friends from when I used to edit, but I'm absolutely glad I gave it up cold turkey (I was once an admin on several projects there) and utterly don't miss it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229944</id>
	<title>Re:College Reasearch using Wikipedia not allowed</title>
	<author>agnosticnixie</author>
	<datestamp>1257153060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you cite any encyclopedia in college, you should probably reconsider your choice of field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you cite any encyclopedia in college , you should probably reconsider your choice of field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you cite any encyclopedia in college, you should probably reconsider your choice of field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390</id>
	<title>too much political bias</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasion. Finding out a few days later that the CIA was editing all kinds of articles on "terrorism" and other methods of opposing the agenda of the US government was just icing on the cake. The "neutral-viewpoint" promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as "biased" or "controversial."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasion .
Finding out a few days later that the CIA was editing all kinds of articles on " terrorism " and other methods of opposing the agenda of the US government was just icing on the cake .
The " neutral-viewpoint " promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as " biased " or " controversial .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasion.
Finding out a few days later that the CIA was editing all kinds of articles on "terrorism" and other methods of opposing the agenda of the US government was just icing on the cake.
The "neutral-viewpoint" promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as "biased" or "controversial.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227410</id>
	<title>Make it harder to be an editor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are too many destructive people who revel in destroying content. It should be harder to become an editor. Perhaps a quota should be assigned: you can only delete 1 article for every 5 that you create.</p><p>One thing that is politically incorrect but a real dynamic: the majority of those who create are male, the majority of those who delete are female.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are too many destructive people who revel in destroying content .
It should be harder to become an editor .
Perhaps a quota should be assigned : you can only delete 1 article for every 5 that you create.One thing that is politically incorrect but a real dynamic : the majority of those who create are male , the majority of those who delete are female .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are too many destructive people who revel in destroying content.
It should be harder to become an editor.
Perhaps a quota should be assigned: you can only delete 1 article for every 5 that you create.One thing that is politically incorrect but a real dynamic: the majority of those who create are male, the majority of those who delete are female.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229686</id>
	<title>From Encyclopedia Galactica to Pocket Guide</title>
	<author>SirWinston</author>
	<datestamp>1257194940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed wholeheartedly.  Wikipedia really should have been an Encyclopedia Galactica collecting the sum of human knowledge about anything and everything--that's what I thought of when I first heard about Wikipedia.  Noteworthiness could have been addressed by flagging topic pages with a noteworthiness rating, and maybe a policy discouraging links between articles with a high noteworthiness rating and a low one, rather than just deleting whole subjects based on someone's opinion of a subject's noteworthiness.</p><p>The reliable sources policy is also, while well-intentioned, a cause of much loss of information and articles on Wikipedia--a rule should exist to mitigate it, such as a rule discouraging editors from removing poorly sourced information they nonetheless know or suspect to be correct.  While no one wants inaccurate information to stand, the reliable sources policy sometimes goes too far since even first-hand sources are discouraged.</p><p>I'm also fairly disgusted at Jimmy Wales' authoritarian control, used to censor articles as he sees fit.  If an item is factual, it should be fair game for inclusion and the biases and personal opinions of a project founder should not enter into the picture.</p><p>At any rate, while I certainly use Wikipedia a lot, I do so by default and would gladly switch to any viable alternative which took a more inclusive and less tyrannical approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed wholeheartedly .
Wikipedia really should have been an Encyclopedia Galactica collecting the sum of human knowledge about anything and everything--that 's what I thought of when I first heard about Wikipedia .
Noteworthiness could have been addressed by flagging topic pages with a noteworthiness rating , and maybe a policy discouraging links between articles with a high noteworthiness rating and a low one , rather than just deleting whole subjects based on someone 's opinion of a subject 's noteworthiness.The reliable sources policy is also , while well-intentioned , a cause of much loss of information and articles on Wikipedia--a rule should exist to mitigate it , such as a rule discouraging editors from removing poorly sourced information they nonetheless know or suspect to be correct .
While no one wants inaccurate information to stand , the reliable sources policy sometimes goes too far since even first-hand sources are discouraged.I 'm also fairly disgusted at Jimmy Wales ' authoritarian control , used to censor articles as he sees fit .
If an item is factual , it should be fair game for inclusion and the biases and personal opinions of a project founder should not enter into the picture.At any rate , while I certainly use Wikipedia a lot , I do so by default and would gladly switch to any viable alternative which took a more inclusive and less tyrannical approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed wholeheartedly.
Wikipedia really should have been an Encyclopedia Galactica collecting the sum of human knowledge about anything and everything--that's what I thought of when I first heard about Wikipedia.
Noteworthiness could have been addressed by flagging topic pages with a noteworthiness rating, and maybe a policy discouraging links between articles with a high noteworthiness rating and a low one, rather than just deleting whole subjects based on someone's opinion of a subject's noteworthiness.The reliable sources policy is also, while well-intentioned, a cause of much loss of information and articles on Wikipedia--a rule should exist to mitigate it, such as a rule discouraging editors from removing poorly sourced information they nonetheless know or suspect to be correct.
While no one wants inaccurate information to stand, the reliable sources policy sometimes goes too far since even first-hand sources are discouraged.I'm also fairly disgusted at Jimmy Wales' authoritarian control, used to censor articles as he sees fit.
If an item is factual, it should be fair game for inclusion and the biases and personal opinions of a project founder should not enter into the picture.At any rate, while I certainly use Wikipedia a lot, I do so by default and would gladly switch to any viable alternative which took a more inclusive and less tyrannical approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227438</id>
	<title>This isn't surprising</title>
	<author>rehtonAesoohC</author>
	<datestamp>1257184800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The system is set up in such a way that when people put massive amounts of effort into adding contributions or what not, they aren't rewarded with anything for doing it other than more rules and regulations and difficulty in posting more edits and content.<br> <br>Couple that with the natural tendency of people to burn themselves out of things after a while and the natural idea that as the wiki grows, it shouldn't need edits on old content and people have less and less to contribute, and you end up with a declining contribution pool... It's bound to happen inevitably, it's just a matter of when and how they deal with it when it starts to happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The system is set up in such a way that when people put massive amounts of effort into adding contributions or what not , they are n't rewarded with anything for doing it other than more rules and regulations and difficulty in posting more edits and content .
Couple that with the natural tendency of people to burn themselves out of things after a while and the natural idea that as the wiki grows , it should n't need edits on old content and people have less and less to contribute , and you end up with a declining contribution pool... It 's bound to happen inevitably , it 's just a matter of when and how they deal with it when it starts to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system is set up in such a way that when people put massive amounts of effort into adding contributions or what not, they aren't rewarded with anything for doing it other than more rules and regulations and difficulty in posting more edits and content.
Couple that with the natural tendency of people to burn themselves out of things after a while and the natural idea that as the wiki grows, it shouldn't need edits on old content and people have less and less to contribute, and you end up with a declining contribution pool... It's bound to happen inevitably, it's just a matter of when and how they deal with it when it starts to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228298</id>
	<title>Re:Uncontrolled administrators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Link, please. My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it, and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Link , please .
My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it , and the facts of the case are typically not as they present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link, please.
My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it, and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228304</id>
	<title>The bane of Wikipedia</title>
	<author>slasho81</author>
	<datestamp>1257188820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bane of Wikipedia is people with deletionist mentality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bane of Wikipedia is people with deletionist mentality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bane of Wikipedia is people with deletionist mentality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232454</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257170040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Heilongjiang:</b> Mostly harmless</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heilongjiang : Mostly harmless</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heilongjiang: Mostly harmless</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227664</id>
	<title>Re:Rules are to be broken, but not on Wikipedia.</title>
	<author>bit trollent</author>
	<datestamp>1257185700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but this rule has resulted in a ton of information being deleted from Wikipedia. It actually seems to get less useful every day.</p><p>Wikipedia is dead. Where is the next Wikipedia? Where does the spirit of the original Wikipedia live?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but this rule has resulted in a ton of information being deleted from Wikipedia .
It actually seems to get less useful every day.Wikipedia is dead .
Where is the next Wikipedia ?
Where does the spirit of the original Wikipedia live ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but this rule has resulted in a ton of information being deleted from Wikipedia.
It actually seems to get less useful every day.Wikipedia is dead.
Where is the next Wikipedia?
Where does the spirit of the original Wikipedia live?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229548</id>
	<title>So where are these people going?</title>
	<author>No. 24601</author>
	<datestamp>1257194220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are leaving, just to sit on their ass and say "oh hey I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but now I don't because X, Y and Z.", then who the hell cares about them.  Wikipedia will keep growing anyway, and their contributions will remain.  If they actually are going to contribute to a competing solution, what is it and why.  Or maybe, they are getting together to create a new solution to their woes.  Now you've got me interested.</p><p>But as far as I see it, Wikipedia is by far the best at what it is and does.  Do something constructive if you're going to leave.  Otherwise, continue contributing and remember that your contributions are still there in the history of the article, which in my opinion is by far the most underutilized feature of the site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are leaving , just to sit on their ass and say " oh hey I used to contribute to Wikipedia , but now I do n't because X , Y and Z .
" , then who the hell cares about them .
Wikipedia will keep growing anyway , and their contributions will remain .
If they actually are going to contribute to a competing solution , what is it and why .
Or maybe , they are getting together to create a new solution to their woes .
Now you 've got me interested.But as far as I see it , Wikipedia is by far the best at what it is and does .
Do something constructive if you 're going to leave .
Otherwise , continue contributing and remember that your contributions are still there in the history of the article , which in my opinion is by far the most underutilized feature of the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are leaving, just to sit on their ass and say "oh hey I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but now I don't because X, Y and Z.
", then who the hell cares about them.
Wikipedia will keep growing anyway, and their contributions will remain.
If they actually are going to contribute to a competing solution, what is it and why.
Or maybe, they are getting together to create a new solution to their woes.
Now you've got me interested.But as far as I see it, Wikipedia is by far the best at what it is and does.
Do something constructive if you're going to leave.
Otherwise, continue contributing and remember that your contributions are still there in the history of the article, which in my opinion is by far the most underutilized feature of the site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231460</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257162360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first this sounded somewhat alarming, but then i  realized there is so much of a general user reliance on this open source encyclopedia that if it were to collapse, dissappear or whatever, some sort of morphologically similar entity would appear in no time in order to satisfy the need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first this sounded somewhat alarming , but then i realized there is so much of a general user reliance on this open source encyclopedia that if it were to collapse , dissappear or whatever , some sort of morphologically similar entity would appear in no time in order to satisfy the need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first this sounded somewhat alarming, but then i  realized there is so much of a general user reliance on this open source encyclopedia that if it were to collapse, dissappear or whatever, some sort of morphologically similar entity would appear in no time in order to satisfy the need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227820</id>
	<title>Re:Rules are to be broken, but not on Wikipedia.</title>
	<author>SlashDotDotDot</author>
	<datestamp>1257186480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They also have a stupid rule regarding "how important stuff has to be".</p></div><p>On the other hand, they have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore\_all\_rules" title="wikipedia.org">this rule</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They also have a stupid rule regarding " how important stuff has to be " .On the other hand , they have this rule [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also have a stupid rule regarding "how important stuff has to be".On the other hand, they have this rule [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227922</id>
	<title>why I left Wikipedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia seems to be infested by an army of self-serving propagandists. It was because of this kind of nonsence. It's weasle words like the following that's the worst.<br> <br>

"<i> <strong>Consumer versions of Windows were</strong> originally <strong>designed</strong> for ease-of-use on a single-user PC <strong>without a network connection</strong>, and did not have security features built in from the outset.<br> <br>

However, <strong>Windows NT and its successors</strong> are designed for security (including on a network) and multi-user PCs, but <strong>were not</strong> initially <strong>designed with Internet security</strong> in mind as much, since, when it was first developed in the early 1990s, Internet use was less prevalent</i>"<br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_windows#Security" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Microsoft Windows</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia seems to be infested by an army of self-serving propagandists .
It was because of this kind of nonsence .
It 's weasle words like the following that 's the worst .
" Consumer versions of Windows were originally designed for ease-of-use on a single-user PC without a network connection , and did not have security features built in from the outset .
However , Windows NT and its successors are designed for security ( including on a network ) and multi-user PCs , but were not initially designed with Internet security in mind as much , since , when it was first developed in the early 1990s , Internet use was less prevalent " Microsoft Windows [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia seems to be infested by an army of self-serving propagandists.
It was because of this kind of nonsence.
It's weasle words like the following that's the worst.
" Consumer versions of Windows were originally designed for ease-of-use on a single-user PC without a network connection, and did not have security features built in from the outset.
However, Windows NT and its successors are designed for security (including on a network) and multi-user PCs, but were not initially designed with Internet security in mind as much, since, when it was first developed in the early 1990s, Internet use was less prevalent" 

Microsoft Windows [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229190</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257192660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh, the guy who lives above my flat is from Heilongjiang (Harbin). Whereas I don't think I know anyone from Texas. Do they even have passports there?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh , the guy who lives above my flat is from Heilongjiang ( Harbin ) .
Whereas I do n't think I know anyone from Texas .
Do they even have passports there ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh, the guy who lives above my flat is from Heilongjiang (Harbin).
Whereas I don't think I know anyone from Texas.
Do they even have passports there?
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228836</id>
	<title>The future of Wikipedia is uncertain</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1257191100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But in the past:</p><p><a href="http://www.wikitruth.info/" title="wikitruth.info">Wikitruth</a> [wikitruth.info] documented the corruption and scams and scandals that happened in Wikipedia. But it happened so much, and hardly anyone cared about it that Wikitruth had to quit. There was no point in continuing as people didn't care that Editors and Admins who claimed to have PHDs didn't actually have them, or that oversight abuse happened to remove evidence of corruption, etc.</p><p>Conservapedia, no I won't link to them, but they claimed Wikipedia was not a neutral POV but a liberal one, and created their own Conservative Wiki Encyclopedia.</p><p><a href="http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/" title="wikia.com">Uncyclopedia</a> [wikia.com] was started after Wikipedia refused to host deleted facts and other nonsense section of their Wiki site, so many of us went to Uncyclopedia, and others went to Illogicpedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica or both or all three, etc. Even the humor sites seemed to be more accurate than Wikipedia and not as prone to politics, corruption, etc.</p><p>Wikipedia is good for WWE/TNA Wrestling facts, and Comic book and Sci Fi and Movie facts. That they do right, there is no bias, and a neutral point of view mostly. I find myself checking Wikipedia for comic books, movies, sci fi shows and movies, wrestling, and other things a real Encyclopedia won't cover but Wikipedia will.</p><p>I am not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, nor are most people. I don't want a Wikipedia entry on me as I want to be a private citizen. I do a lot of open source writing on Uncyclopedia, Wikibooks, Wikipedia, Wikia sub-Wikis, etc. I might later on publish a few books when I get good enough to write them without community help, or I may release them to creative commons license on LegalTorrents instead and give them away for free. That might make me notable, but I don't think it would be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. I am just one in 9 billion people trying to survive. I also do open source programming and help people fix their computers via home tech support for friends and relatives, like most Slashdot readers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But in the past : Wikitruth [ wikitruth.info ] documented the corruption and scams and scandals that happened in Wikipedia .
But it happened so much , and hardly anyone cared about it that Wikitruth had to quit .
There was no point in continuing as people did n't care that Editors and Admins who claimed to have PHDs did n't actually have them , or that oversight abuse happened to remove evidence of corruption , etc.Conservapedia , no I wo n't link to them , but they claimed Wikipedia was not a neutral POV but a liberal one , and created their own Conservative Wiki Encyclopedia.Uncyclopedia [ wikia.com ] was started after Wikipedia refused to host deleted facts and other nonsense section of their Wiki site , so many of us went to Uncyclopedia , and others went to Illogicpedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica or both or all three , etc .
Even the humor sites seemed to be more accurate than Wikipedia and not as prone to politics , corruption , etc.Wikipedia is good for WWE/TNA Wrestling facts , and Comic book and Sci Fi and Movie facts .
That they do right , there is no bias , and a neutral point of view mostly .
I find myself checking Wikipedia for comic books , movies , sci fi shows and movies , wrestling , and other things a real Encyclopedia wo n't cover but Wikipedia will.I am not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry , nor are most people .
I do n't want a Wikipedia entry on me as I want to be a private citizen .
I do a lot of open source writing on Uncyclopedia , Wikibooks , Wikipedia , Wikia sub-Wikis , etc .
I might later on publish a few books when I get good enough to write them without community help , or I may release them to creative commons license on LegalTorrents instead and give them away for free .
That might make me notable , but I do n't think it would be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry .
I am just one in 9 billion people trying to survive .
I also do open source programming and help people fix their computers via home tech support for friends and relatives , like most Slashdot readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in the past:Wikitruth [wikitruth.info] documented the corruption and scams and scandals that happened in Wikipedia.
But it happened so much, and hardly anyone cared about it that Wikitruth had to quit.
There was no point in continuing as people didn't care that Editors and Admins who claimed to have PHDs didn't actually have them, or that oversight abuse happened to remove evidence of corruption, etc.Conservapedia, no I won't link to them, but they claimed Wikipedia was not a neutral POV but a liberal one, and created their own Conservative Wiki Encyclopedia.Uncyclopedia [wikia.com] was started after Wikipedia refused to host deleted facts and other nonsense section of their Wiki site, so many of us went to Uncyclopedia, and others went to Illogicpedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica or both or all three, etc.
Even the humor sites seemed to be more accurate than Wikipedia and not as prone to politics, corruption, etc.Wikipedia is good for WWE/TNA Wrestling facts, and Comic book and Sci Fi and Movie facts.
That they do right, there is no bias, and a neutral point of view mostly.
I find myself checking Wikipedia for comic books, movies, sci fi shows and movies, wrestling, and other things a real Encyclopedia won't cover but Wikipedia will.I am not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, nor are most people.
I don't want a Wikipedia entry on me as I want to be a private citizen.
I do a lot of open source writing on Uncyclopedia, Wikibooks, Wikipedia, Wikia sub-Wikis, etc.
I might later on publish a few books when I get good enough to write them without community help, or I may release them to creative commons license on LegalTorrents instead and give them away for free.
That might make me notable, but I don't think it would be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.
I am just one in 9 billion people trying to survive.
I also do open source programming and help people fix their computers via home tech support for friends and relatives, like most Slashdot readers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227844</id>
	<title>Re:The solution:</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1257186600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh. And of course, make it subscription based. (I kid...)</p></div><p>I was on Google the other day and right there was Wikipedia! Google is stealing Wikipedia!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh .
And of course , make it subscription based .
( I kid... ) I was on Google the other day and right there was Wikipedia !
Google is stealing Wikipedia !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh.
And of course, make it subscription based.
(I kid...)I was on Google the other day and right there was Wikipedia!
Google is stealing Wikipedia!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230862</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257158220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is THE lifecycle of businesses that grow to a certain level in the USA: the "managers" move in after the leaders create, then the leaders move out or on to something else because they can't stand the ethics, morals and values of the so-called "managers". The "managers" then gets as much as they can from the labors of the leaders and the laborers. Need anyone ask why no one likes americans?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is THE lifecycle of businesses that grow to a certain level in the USA : the " managers " move in after the leaders create , then the leaders move out or on to something else because they ca n't stand the ethics , morals and values of the so-called " managers " .
The " managers " then gets as much as they can from the labors of the leaders and the laborers .
Need anyone ask why no one likes americans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is THE lifecycle of businesses that grow to a certain level in the USA: the "managers" move in after the leaders create, then the leaders move out or on to something else because they can't stand the ethics, morals and values of the so-called "managers".
The "managers" then gets as much as they can from the labors of the leaders and the laborers.
Need anyone ask why no one likes americans?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228810</id>
	<title>Sadly predictable, and predestined.</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1257190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is going to suffer the same fate as Usenet and IRC.</p><p>In the beginning, it was a magnificent user community, and great value was derived from it.</p><p>Then it was exploited.  Users started editing articles to suit their own views, opinions, biases.  Usenet got full of groups with very narrow focuses.  IRC of course got overwhelmed by bots and wars.</p><p>Now, anyone with integrity is suffering under the rules that keep the idiots, griefers, and those who prefer to make Wikipedia into their propaganda instrument from succeeding.</p><p>I tried once to create an article, and it got both rejected and re-edited.  Among the things I did/did not do to annoy the editors:</p><p>- Not enough links on terms and subjects to other articles.  This was an article on a game-playing experience.  I didn't think linking to 'video games', 'role-paying games', etc was useful, but then Im not a very good Wikipedia article writer, so I'm not into it.</p><p>- No attribution.  Ok, this was an expression of my experience. Attribution? check the author.  Ok, it wasn't very suitable for Wikipedia, despite being written by me in direct response to a request for some more details on the game...</p><p>Overall this is sadly predictable.  Wikipedia is becoming important, which makes it important to get things right, and so long as that community had to deal with contributors editing articles for their own purposes, it was a matter of time before the process drove away even the dedicated contributors.</p><p>Wikipedia will die out slowly, or will attract new contributors and fix the process so they don't walk away in disgust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is going to suffer the same fate as Usenet and IRC.In the beginning , it was a magnificent user community , and great value was derived from it.Then it was exploited .
Users started editing articles to suit their own views , opinions , biases .
Usenet got full of groups with very narrow focuses .
IRC of course got overwhelmed by bots and wars.Now , anyone with integrity is suffering under the rules that keep the idiots , griefers , and those who prefer to make Wikipedia into their propaganda instrument from succeeding.I tried once to create an article , and it got both rejected and re-edited .
Among the things I did/did not do to annoy the editors : - Not enough links on terms and subjects to other articles .
This was an article on a game-playing experience .
I did n't think linking to 'video games ' , 'role-paying games ' , etc was useful , but then Im not a very good Wikipedia article writer , so I 'm not into it.- No attribution .
Ok , this was an expression of my experience .
Attribution ? check the author .
Ok , it was n't very suitable for Wikipedia , despite being written by me in direct response to a request for some more details on the game...Overall this is sadly predictable .
Wikipedia is becoming important , which makes it important to get things right , and so long as that community had to deal with contributors editing articles for their own purposes , it was a matter of time before the process drove away even the dedicated contributors.Wikipedia will die out slowly , or will attract new contributors and fix the process so they do n't walk away in disgust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is going to suffer the same fate as Usenet and IRC.In the beginning, it was a magnificent user community, and great value was derived from it.Then it was exploited.
Users started editing articles to suit their own views, opinions, biases.
Usenet got full of groups with very narrow focuses.
IRC of course got overwhelmed by bots and wars.Now, anyone with integrity is suffering under the rules that keep the idiots, griefers, and those who prefer to make Wikipedia into their propaganda instrument from succeeding.I tried once to create an article, and it got both rejected and re-edited.
Among the things I did/did not do to annoy the editors:- Not enough links on terms and subjects to other articles.
This was an article on a game-playing experience.
I didn't think linking to 'video games', 'role-paying games', etc was useful, but then Im not a very good Wikipedia article writer, so I'm not into it.- No attribution.
Ok, this was an expression of my experience.
Attribution? check the author.
Ok, it wasn't very suitable for Wikipedia, despite being written by me in direct response to a request for some more details on the game...Overall this is sadly predictable.
Wikipedia is becoming important, which makes it important to get things right, and so long as that community had to deal with contributors editing articles for their own purposes, it was a matter of time before the process drove away even the dedicated contributors.Wikipedia will die out slowly, or will attract new contributors and fix the process so they don't walk away in disgust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227830</id>
	<title>best encyclopedia</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1257186540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.</p></div><p> <tt>citation needed</tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet .
citation needed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.
citation needed
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232668</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1257171900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their "noteworthy" filter on everything, and so they've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of "relevant" human knowledge.</p><p>A perfect example of that is the bullshit "no trivia" policy<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trivia\_sections" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trivia\_sections</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I actually like learning about various trivia.  They are facts damit! If you aren't interested in those facts, then ignore them.  I just don't like someone else deciding that certain facts are "not important"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The problem is , the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their " noteworthy " filter on everything , and so they 've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of " relevant " human knowledge.A perfect example of that is the bullshit " no trivia " policyhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia : Trivia \ _sections [ wikipedia.org ] I actually like learning about various trivia .
They are facts damit !
If you are n't interested in those facts , then ignore them .
I just do n't like someone else deciding that certain facts are " not important "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their "noteworthy" filter on everything, and so they've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of "relevant" human knowledge.A perfect example of that is the bullshit "no trivia" policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trivia\_sections [wikipedia.org]I actually like learning about various trivia.
They are facts damit!
If you aren't interested in those facts, then ignore them.
I just don't like someone else deciding that certain facts are "not important"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227798</id>
	<title>Not merely rules, *administration*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally speaking editing rules aren't so hard to follow - at the very least any useful and well-intentioned contribution can be adapted by another editor to follow the rules, allowing not-so-involved editors to contribute without having to read through volumes of style guides etc.</p><p>The real kicker is the <i>administration</i> going on in the site. The sheer volume of beureaucratic bullshit that goes which has no direct bearing on the usefulness of a specific edit/editor. Quite simply, from my own experience it is impossible for a user to be banned from the site (even in name alone). Every final warning will be followed by a final-final warning, any actual repercussion will be lessened on appeal, any restriction will be lifted on the basis of promises of change already made and broken numerous times before. Threats of violence against specific editors on and off WP, racist abuse, personal abuse, and general trolling will all be responded with a threat of a ban that becomes a two week edit-restriction if the offender chooses to speak against the "unfairness" of being punished for his/her actions.</p><p>And the worst thing is there are vast people on WP who love this. Not just the trolls and the POV-pushers themselves but people who love the debate, the rationalisation and apologeticism of waging these constant battles. Some bizarre subculture of wannabe-lawyers and bleeding heart liberals who have taken the argument-baiting and pedantry of a decade of internet forums to a whole new level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally speaking editing rules are n't so hard to follow - at the very least any useful and well-intentioned contribution can be adapted by another editor to follow the rules , allowing not-so-involved editors to contribute without having to read through volumes of style guides etc.The real kicker is the administration going on in the site .
The sheer volume of beureaucratic bullshit that goes which has no direct bearing on the usefulness of a specific edit/editor .
Quite simply , from my own experience it is impossible for a user to be banned from the site ( even in name alone ) .
Every final warning will be followed by a final-final warning , any actual repercussion will be lessened on appeal , any restriction will be lifted on the basis of promises of change already made and broken numerous times before .
Threats of violence against specific editors on and off WP , racist abuse , personal abuse , and general trolling will all be responded with a threat of a ban that becomes a two week edit-restriction if the offender chooses to speak against the " unfairness " of being punished for his/her actions.And the worst thing is there are vast people on WP who love this .
Not just the trolls and the POV-pushers themselves but people who love the debate , the rationalisation and apologeticism of waging these constant battles .
Some bizarre subculture of wannabe-lawyers and bleeding heart liberals who have taken the argument-baiting and pedantry of a decade of internet forums to a whole new level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally speaking editing rules aren't so hard to follow - at the very least any useful and well-intentioned contribution can be adapted by another editor to follow the rules, allowing not-so-involved editors to contribute without having to read through volumes of style guides etc.The real kicker is the administration going on in the site.
The sheer volume of beureaucratic bullshit that goes which has no direct bearing on the usefulness of a specific edit/editor.
Quite simply, from my own experience it is impossible for a user to be banned from the site (even in name alone).
Every final warning will be followed by a final-final warning, any actual repercussion will be lessened on appeal, any restriction will be lifted on the basis of promises of change already made and broken numerous times before.
Threats of violence against specific editors on and off WP, racist abuse, personal abuse, and general trolling will all be responded with a threat of a ban that becomes a two week edit-restriction if the offender chooses to speak against the "unfairness" of being punished for his/her actions.And the worst thing is there are vast people on WP who love this.
Not just the trolls and the POV-pushers themselves but people who love the debate, the rationalisation and apologeticism of waging these constant battles.
Some bizarre subculture of wannabe-lawyers and bleeding heart liberals who have taken the argument-baiting and pedantry of a decade of internet forums to a whole new level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374</id>
	<title>Rules are to be broken, but not on Wikipedia.</title>
	<author>otravi</author>
	<datestamp>1257184500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They also have a stupid rule regarding "how important stuff has to be" before it can be added as a new article on Wikipedia. That one alone is the main reason I never again will try to contribute anything to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also have a stupid rule regarding " how important stuff has to be " before it can be added as a new article on Wikipedia .
That one alone is the main reason I never again will try to contribute anything to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also have a stupid rule regarding "how important stuff has to be" before it can be added as a new article on Wikipedia.
That one alone is the main reason I never again will try to contribute anything to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227452</id>
	<title>The commons suffer when people are poor</title>
	<author>Teunis</author>
	<datestamp>1257184860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of people (including me) hasn't worked since the beginning of the crash.   For those of us who want to work in the commons - be it open source or open documents such as this - there are insufficient personal resources to handle these in addition to trying to find work and ensure food and shelter.<br><br>At this point, barring some strange legal international gambit on information control (ACTA? *heh* *ducking*) the commons will survive and some will be heavily involved regardless.<br><br>Me - I'll be continuing to try to find a future and the commons can wait, as it won't put food on my table and - that problem takes my excesses of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people ( including me ) has n't worked since the beginning of the crash .
For those of us who want to work in the commons - be it open source or open documents such as this - there are insufficient personal resources to handle these in addition to trying to find work and ensure food and shelter.At this point , barring some strange legal international gambit on information control ( ACTA ?
* heh * * ducking * ) the commons will survive and some will be heavily involved regardless.Me - I 'll be continuing to try to find a future and the commons can wait , as it wo n't put food on my table and - that problem takes my excesses of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people (including me) hasn't worked since the beginning of the crash.
For those of us who want to work in the commons - be it open source or open documents such as this - there are insufficient personal resources to handle these in addition to trying to find work and ensure food and shelter.At this point, barring some strange legal international gambit on information control (ACTA?
*heh* *ducking*) the commons will survive and some will be heavily involved regardless.Me - I'll be continuing to try to find a future and the commons can wait, as it won't put food on my table and - that problem takes my excesses of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360</id>
	<title>It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang?  Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and doesn't really need new contributors.  Not surprising they're trying to drive contributors off.  One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang ?
Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and does n't really need new contributors .
Not surprising they 're trying to drive contributors off .
One thing I 've learned in life , when people are being dicks they 're doing it for a reason that benefits them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much more can we write about Louis Pasteur or the Treaty of Worms or Heilongjiang?
Wikipedia has had a ton of stuff poured into it and doesn't really need new contributors.
Not surprising they're trying to drive contributors off.
One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229724</id>
	<title>Where "free" can fail.</title>
	<author>derfla8</author>
	<datestamp>1257195120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a thriving economy with enormous growth, there are plenty of people who have time to contribute because they have the luxury of a well paying job and the best of intentions.  Place these restrictions on the contributors, plus the failing economy and you have the perfect storm for a grand exodus.  To answer the question, "Where are people going?"  They are spending time looking for a job, working more hours, or working more than one job to make ends meet.  They are donating their time to activities that reward them for their contributions rather then getting stuck in the bureaucracy.</p><p>Then again, if you look at the number of iPhone apps that are published each day.  Maybe people are building apps instead.  Same painful approval process; but, at least you might get paid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a thriving economy with enormous growth , there are plenty of people who have time to contribute because they have the luxury of a well paying job and the best of intentions .
Place these restrictions on the contributors , plus the failing economy and you have the perfect storm for a grand exodus .
To answer the question , " Where are people going ?
" They are spending time looking for a job , working more hours , or working more than one job to make ends meet .
They are donating their time to activities that reward them for their contributions rather then getting stuck in the bureaucracy.Then again , if you look at the number of iPhone apps that are published each day .
Maybe people are building apps instead .
Same painful approval process ; but , at least you might get paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a thriving economy with enormous growth, there are plenty of people who have time to contribute because they have the luxury of a well paying job and the best of intentions.
Place these restrictions on the contributors, plus the failing economy and you have the perfect storm for a grand exodus.
To answer the question, "Where are people going?
"  They are spending time looking for a job, working more hours, or working more than one job to make ends meet.
They are donating their time to activities that reward them for their contributions rather then getting stuck in the bureaucracy.Then again, if you look at the number of iPhone apps that are published each day.
Maybe people are building apps instead.
Same painful approval process; but, at least you might get paid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230330</id>
	<title>Re:Like Knight Rider - One Man Can Make a Differen</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1257155040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with your general point, I have to call you out on one thing in your post: What does being flamboyantly gay have to do with decisions to delete stuff related to <i>The Price is Right</i> from Wikipedia? I wouldn't mind if your point had been related to an article about, say, gay activism, but it wasn't.</p><p>Your complaint is valid. Your treatment of the user in question isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with your general point , I have to call you out on one thing in your post : What does being flamboyantly gay have to do with decisions to delete stuff related to The Price is Right from Wikipedia ?
I would n't mind if your point had been related to an article about , say , gay activism , but it was n't.Your complaint is valid .
Your treatment of the user in question is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with your general point, I have to call you out on one thing in your post: What does being flamboyantly gay have to do with decisions to delete stuff related to The Price is Right from Wikipedia?
I wouldn't mind if your point had been related to an article about, say, gay activism, but it wasn't.Your complaint is valid.
Your treatment of the user in question isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227954</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia:Statistics</title>
	<author>Liambp</author>
	<datestamp>1257187080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for posting those links Klaymen. Don't they appear to confirm that there is a fall in the number of active Wikipedians from 89410 in Oct 2007 to 86951 in Oct 2008? That confirms the original article surely. It is a 3\% fall in the number of active editors after six years of continuous growth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for posting those links Klaymen .
Do n't they appear to confirm that there is a fall in the number of active Wikipedians from 89410 in Oct 2007 to 86951 in Oct 2008 ?
That confirms the original article surely .
It is a 3 \ % fall in the number of active editors after six years of continuous growth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for posting those links Klaymen.
Don't they appear to confirm that there is a fall in the number of active Wikipedians from 89410 in Oct 2007 to 86951 in Oct 2008?
That confirms the original article surely.
It is a 3\% fall in the number of active editors after six years of continuous growth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228538</id>
	<title>Re:Make it harder to be an editor</title>
	<author>FunkSoulBrother</author>
	<datestamp>1257189960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One thing that is politically incorrect but a real dynamic: the majority of those who create are male, the majority of those who delete are female</p></div><p>Do you have statistics to back this up with regards to Wikipedia? I'm genuinely curious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that is politically incorrect but a real dynamic : the majority of those who create are male , the majority of those who delete are femaleDo you have statistics to back this up with regards to Wikipedia ?
I 'm genuinely curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that is politically incorrect but a real dynamic: the majority of those who create are male, the majority of those who delete are femaleDo you have statistics to back this up with regards to Wikipedia?
I'm genuinely curious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229552</id>
	<title>Wikipedia reaches 3 million, stalls and dies</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1257194280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The online encyclopedia, knowledge base, social networking site, essay repository, blog, search engine, news aggregator, dessert wax and floor topping Wikipedia has reached its three millionth article and <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/08/18/wikipedia-reaches-3-million-articles-stalls-and-dies/" title="today.com">ceased all editing</a> [today.com].</p><p>Palo Alto Research Center reported that only 1\% of edits by random users were kept. "They were all unspeakable shit," said burnt-out administrator WikiFiddler451. "All of them. No, I'm not exaggerating. Go to Special:Newpages and read a day's entries some time. You'll <i>start</i> by deleting the whole database, before you get onto plotting the doom of humanity. Christ, why go on?"</p><p>Recent media coverage has highlighted the "inclusionist/deletionist" wars of 2005, including enquiries from Endemol looking for a "passionate deletionist" to join <i>Big Brother 11</i>, "preferably one with big tits." It is thought that Wikipedia could have had ten million articles by now had they not viciously abused their editorial powers by deleting your valuable contributions about you, your teacher at school, your garage band or your dog or the many cameraphone pictures you uploaded of your penis.</p><p>"Everything's already been written," said WikiFiddler451, burning the last of his <i>Star Wars</i> figurines before leaving for his rehabilitation course in social interaction skills and basics of hygiene. "Do you have <i>any idea</i> how big THREE MILLION articles is? A BILLION GODDAMN WORDS! Are you going to read more than a <i>droplet</i> of that in your <i>life</i>? No you <i>aren't.</i> You're following your goddamn <i>Twitter.</i> </p><p>"But hey, only two million articles are <i>The Simpsons</i> in popular culture or <i>Doctor Who</i> in popular culture. No-one actually reads this stuff, they just <i>write</i> it. We have LiveJournal for stuff people write that no-one wants to read. <i>'Oh, I wandered lonely as a cheeseburger/ My passionate angst filling my Coke with darkness.'</i> Or Knol. KNOL! I'll just Bing <i>that</i> one."</p><p>Shell-shocked veterans of Wikipedia are at a loss now that it's all over &mdash; wandering the alleyways of the Internet, mumbling to themselves about "ANI" and "we had to delete the village in order to save it," threatening the policemen moving them on with "arbitration" and bursting into tears when the policeman answers "citation needed." Mere children, sent into the culture wars to save knowledge from horrors they barely understood, and coming home as crippled wrecks. No victory parades for these brave men and women. There is only so much Citizendium, Uncyclopedia and 4chan can do for these child heroes. With your help, we can build Potemkin wikis for these honorable veterans, where they can safely ban and unban, revert and edit-war, and correct the naming of Danzig Gdansk Danzig Gdansk without the possibility of damage to actual human readers. Please donate so that they may never bug you again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The online encyclopedia , knowledge base , social networking site , essay repository , blog , search engine , news aggregator , dessert wax and floor topping Wikipedia has reached its three millionth article and ceased all editing [ today.com ] .Palo Alto Research Center reported that only 1 \ % of edits by random users were kept .
" They were all unspeakable shit , " said burnt-out administrator WikiFiddler451 .
" All of them .
No , I 'm not exaggerating .
Go to Special : Newpages and read a day 's entries some time .
You 'll start by deleting the whole database , before you get onto plotting the doom of humanity .
Christ , why go on ?
" Recent media coverage has highlighted the " inclusionist/deletionist " wars of 2005 , including enquiries from Endemol looking for a " passionate deletionist " to join Big Brother 11 , " preferably one with big tits .
" It is thought that Wikipedia could have had ten million articles by now had they not viciously abused their editorial powers by deleting your valuable contributions about you , your teacher at school , your garage band or your dog or the many cameraphone pictures you uploaded of your penis .
" Everything 's already been written , " said WikiFiddler451 , burning the last of his Star Wars figurines before leaving for his rehabilitation course in social interaction skills and basics of hygiene .
" Do you have any idea how big THREE MILLION articles is ?
A BILLION GODDAMN WORDS !
Are you going to read more than a droplet of that in your life ?
No you are n't .
You 're following your goddamn Twitter .
" But hey , only two million articles are The Simpsons in popular culture or Doctor Who in popular culture .
No-one actually reads this stuff , they just write it .
We have LiveJournal for stuff people write that no-one wants to read .
'Oh , I wandered lonely as a cheeseburger/ My passionate angst filling my Coke with darkness .
' Or Knol .
KNOL ! I 'll just Bing that one .
" Shell-shocked veterans of Wikipedia are at a loss now that it 's all over    wandering the alleyways of the Internet , mumbling to themselves about " ANI " and " we had to delete the village in order to save it , " threatening the policemen moving them on with " arbitration " and bursting into tears when the policeman answers " citation needed .
" Mere children , sent into the culture wars to save knowledge from horrors they barely understood , and coming home as crippled wrecks .
No victory parades for these brave men and women .
There is only so much Citizendium , Uncyclopedia and 4chan can do for these child heroes .
With your help , we can build Potemkin wikis for these honorable veterans , where they can safely ban and unban , revert and edit-war , and correct the naming of Danzig Gdansk Danzig Gdansk without the possibility of damage to actual human readers .
Please donate so that they may never bug you again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The online encyclopedia, knowledge base, social networking site, essay repository, blog, search engine, news aggregator, dessert wax and floor topping Wikipedia has reached its three millionth article and ceased all editing [today.com].Palo Alto Research Center reported that only 1\% of edits by random users were kept.
"They were all unspeakable shit," said burnt-out administrator WikiFiddler451.
"All of them.
No, I'm not exaggerating.
Go to Special:Newpages and read a day's entries some time.
You'll start by deleting the whole database, before you get onto plotting the doom of humanity.
Christ, why go on?
"Recent media coverage has highlighted the "inclusionist/deletionist" wars of 2005, including enquiries from Endemol looking for a "passionate deletionist" to join Big Brother 11, "preferably one with big tits.
" It is thought that Wikipedia could have had ten million articles by now had they not viciously abused their editorial powers by deleting your valuable contributions about you, your teacher at school, your garage band or your dog or the many cameraphone pictures you uploaded of your penis.
"Everything's already been written," said WikiFiddler451, burning the last of his Star Wars figurines before leaving for his rehabilitation course in social interaction skills and basics of hygiene.
"Do you have any idea how big THREE MILLION articles is?
A BILLION GODDAMN WORDS!
Are you going to read more than a droplet of that in your life?
No you aren't.
You're following your goddamn Twitter.
"But hey, only two million articles are The Simpsons in popular culture or Doctor Who in popular culture.
No-one actually reads this stuff, they just write it.
We have LiveJournal for stuff people write that no-one wants to read.
'Oh, I wandered lonely as a cheeseburger/ My passionate angst filling my Coke with darkness.
' Or Knol.
KNOL! I'll just Bing that one.
"Shell-shocked veterans of Wikipedia are at a loss now that it's all over — wandering the alleyways of the Internet, mumbling to themselves about "ANI" and "we had to delete the village in order to save it," threatening the policemen moving them on with "arbitration" and bursting into tears when the policeman answers "citation needed.
" Mere children, sent into the culture wars to save knowledge from horrors they barely understood, and coming home as crippled wrecks.
No victory parades for these brave men and women.
There is only so much Citizendium, Uncyclopedia and 4chan can do for these child heroes.
With your help, we can build Potemkin wikis for these honorable veterans, where they can safely ban and unban, revert and edit-war, and correct the naming of Danzig Gdansk Danzig Gdansk without the possibility of damage to actual human readers.
Please donate so that they may never bug you again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227384</id>
	<title>Always happens - bloat</title>
	<author>djdbass</author>
	<datestamp>1257184560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This happens to any system of sufficient size and age.<br>Europe has been there for a while.<br>The US is getting there now.<br> <br>People are never content to leave well enough alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This happens to any system of sufficient size and age.Europe has been there for a while.The US is getting there now .
People are never content to leave well enough alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happens to any system of sufficient size and age.Europe has been there for a while.The US is getting there now.
People are never content to leave well enough alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30254700</id>
	<title>Re:Copy editors leaving WSJ in droves</title>
	<author>rp</author>
	<datestamp>1259425740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't find the WSJ story dumb at all.  Perhaps you should try reading it with your prejudice filter disabled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't find the WSJ story dumb at all .
Perhaps you should try reading it with your prejudice filter disabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't find the WSJ story dumb at all.
Perhaps you should try reading it with your prejudice filter disabled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229790</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257195420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their &ldquo;noteworthy&rdquo; filter on everything, and so they&rsquo;ve collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of &ldquo;relevant&rdquo; human knowledge. Of course, they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn&rsquo;t relevant, and wield the delete hammer often. Under these circumstances, yes you&rsquo;ll eventually come to the end of what is &ldquo;appropriate&rdquo; for Wikipedia.</p></div><p>There&rsquo;s another word for that. Starts with &ldquo;c&rdquo;, and ends with &ldquo;ensorship&rdquo;. I think they can ask China for it. ^^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their    noteworthy    filter on everything , and so they    ve collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of    relevant    human knowledge .
Of course , they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn    t relevant , and wield the delete hammer often .
Under these circumstances , yes you    ll eventually come to the end of what is    appropriate    for Wikipedia.There    s another word for that .
Starts with    c    , and ends with    ensorship    .
I think they can ask China for it .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their “noteworthy” filter on everything, and so they’ve collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of “relevant” human knowledge.
Of course, they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn’t relevant, and wield the delete hammer often.
Under these circumstances, yes you’ll eventually come to the end of what is “appropriate” for Wikipedia.There’s another word for that.
Starts with “c”, and ends with “ensorship”.
I think they can ask China for it.
^^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234750</id>
	<title>The simple reason Wikipedia is dying because...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259226480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...it's no longer edited by true consensus, but the consensus of a very few who strong-arm wherever and whenever they can. Every Wikipedia project is controlled by a tight clique, every tight clique has at least one admin in their back pocket, and every pocketed admin knows full well of the rampant sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that goes on (ironic, considering that sock/meat accusations are the easiest tool to use to squelch new editors who don't toe the line). In some cases, the admin(s) are doing all three.</p><p>The recent debacle on the Linux Mint article displays much of the abuse (and many of the dirty tricks) that anyone not toeing the line (in this case, an editor who dared to remove the horribly-written section on Clement Lefebvre's comments on Israel) may be subjected to. Only when *Clement Lefebvre himself* showed up to shut up the phony "consensus" down was there a remedy. Unfortunately, that happens very rarely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it 's no longer edited by true consensus , but the consensus of a very few who strong-arm wherever and whenever they can .
Every Wikipedia project is controlled by a tight clique , every tight clique has at least one admin in their back pocket , and every pocketed admin knows full well of the rampant sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that goes on ( ironic , considering that sock/meat accusations are the easiest tool to use to squelch new editors who do n't toe the line ) .
In some cases , the admin ( s ) are doing all three.The recent debacle on the Linux Mint article displays much of the abuse ( and many of the dirty tricks ) that anyone not toeing the line ( in this case , an editor who dared to remove the horribly-written section on Clement Lefebvre 's comments on Israel ) may be subjected to .
Only when * Clement Lefebvre himself * showed up to shut up the phony " consensus " down was there a remedy .
Unfortunately , that happens very rarely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it's no longer edited by true consensus, but the consensus of a very few who strong-arm wherever and whenever they can.
Every Wikipedia project is controlled by a tight clique, every tight clique has at least one admin in their back pocket, and every pocketed admin knows full well of the rampant sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that goes on (ironic, considering that sock/meat accusations are the easiest tool to use to squelch new editors who don't toe the line).
In some cases, the admin(s) are doing all three.The recent debacle on the Linux Mint article displays much of the abuse (and many of the dirty tricks) that anyone not toeing the line (in this case, an editor who dared to remove the horribly-written section on Clement Lefebvre's comments on Israel) may be subjected to.
Only when *Clement Lefebvre himself* showed up to shut up the phony "consensus" down was there a remedy.
Unfortunately, that happens very rarely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>VJ42</author>
	<datestamp>1257190260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Having said that, I don't think even with their draconian and arbitrary relevancy policies that they're anywhere near the end of everything that would fit on the site.</p> </div><p>Wikipedia is home to this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_fictional\_ducks" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_fictional\_ducks</a> [wikipedia.org] the rules can't be that draconian</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having said that , I do n't think even with their draconian and arbitrary relevancy policies that they 're anywhere near the end of everything that would fit on the site .
Wikipedia is home to this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _fictional \ _ducks [ wikipedia.org ] the rules ca n't be that draconian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having said that, I don't think even with their draconian and arbitrary relevancy policies that they're anywhere near the end of everything that would fit on the site.
Wikipedia is home to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_fictional\_ducks [wikipedia.org] the rules can't be that draconian
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231036</id>
	<title>Re:It just isn't worth the fight anymore.</title>
	<author>moonbender</author>
	<datestamp>1257159420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you please give an example article name and a past revision that is more balanced than the current? Not asking for citations here, I just want to judge the situation myself and also have an example I could give to others when the topic comes up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please give an example article name and a past revision that is more balanced than the current ?
Not asking for citations here , I just want to judge the situation myself and also have an example I could give to others when the topic comes up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please give an example article name and a past revision that is more balanced than the current?
Not asking for citations here, I just want to judge the situation myself and also have an example I could give to others when the topic comes up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227988</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>Eevee</author>
	<datestamp>1257187200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(my kid's teachers won't allow citing it, for example)</p></div></blockquote><p>
Good. It's real simple. Encyclopedias are not sources. They are where you go to get an introduction on a topic and leads to sources.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( my kid 's teachers wo n't allow citing it , for example ) Good .
It 's real simple .
Encyclopedias are not sources .
They are where you go to get an introduction on a topic and leads to sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(my kid's teachers won't allow citing it, for example)
Good.
It's real simple.
Encyclopedias are not sources.
They are where you go to get an introduction on a topic and leads to sources.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227918</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is a joke, it should die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was researching the NES Zapper (working on an emulator) and came across Wikipedia's page on it.</p><p>It mentioned that the zapper wouldn't work on projection or plasma screen TV's, and actually said "the reasons why are unknown"</p><p>Are you kidding me?  Yeah, it's a magic wand imbued with the powers of the ancient elders to kill ducks, and is beyond the capacity for mortal science to understand.  OR, it's just a light sensor with a 15khz low pass filter.</p><p>Just one of a million examples of Wikipedia's complete inadequacy for any kind of actual research.</p><p>I imgagine if I was researching non-canonical Mario erotic fan fiction, Wikipedia would be a treasure trove of information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was researching the NES Zapper ( working on an emulator ) and came across Wikipedia 's page on it.It mentioned that the zapper would n't work on projection or plasma screen TV 's , and actually said " the reasons why are unknown " Are you kidding me ?
Yeah , it 's a magic wand imbued with the powers of the ancient elders to kill ducks , and is beyond the capacity for mortal science to understand .
OR , it 's just a light sensor with a 15khz low pass filter.Just one of a million examples of Wikipedia 's complete inadequacy for any kind of actual research.I imgagine if I was researching non-canonical Mario erotic fan fiction , Wikipedia would be a treasure trove of information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was researching the NES Zapper (working on an emulator) and came across Wikipedia's page on it.It mentioned that the zapper wouldn't work on projection or plasma screen TV's, and actually said "the reasons why are unknown"Are you kidding me?
Yeah, it's a magic wand imbued with the powers of the ancient elders to kill ducks, and is beyond the capacity for mortal science to understand.
OR, it's just a light sensor with a 15khz low pass filter.Just one of a million examples of Wikipedia's complete inadequacy for any kind of actual research.I imgagine if I was researching non-canonical Mario erotic fan fiction, Wikipedia would be a treasure trove of information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30238124</id>
	<title>Sex, lies and vandalism</title>
	<author>jamyskis</author>
	<datestamp>1259259660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rules were never the problem - their enforcement was.</p><p>You could easily argue that vandalism makes these rules necessary, but vandalism has been a plague of Wikipedia ever since it started. Its anarchic nature was a necessary evil in the face of the highly open nature of the contribution system. Groups such as the vandalism watchers were a natural development over the course and, by and large, it worked fine. You could compare Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Where we have laws of the state that govern precisely how we may and may not act in public, the EB has strict submission regulations. Where we have customs, traditions and common decency, Wikipedia has its own set of rules. People by and large followed them with the exception of an active minority, and this minority was often dealt with by a dedicated team.</p><p>Now where creative spirit once reigned, we now have a set of cast-iron rules which, although nothing particularly bad in itself, leaves a dreadful amount to be desired. It is very rare that one of your contributions will remain there for more than an hour these days without some editor almost robotically adhering to the rules, sometimes with dreadfully hilarious results, including [citation needed] being placed after some of the most blatantly obvious statements these days, it being removed with accusations of vandalism or bias (by someone who is themselves biased). Another frequent problem is bots, innocuously going about their monitoring tasks and indifferently erasing hours of creative work just because an entry didn't meet the bots' strict criteria. Some decent articles are deleted because Articles for Deletion is filled with obsessive deletionists who have very strange ideas of notability. All this makes people feel that there is no point in contributing if their work is in danger of being irrevocably deleted.</p><p>Rules are there to be applied with common sense, not religiously in the sense of a bible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rules were never the problem - their enforcement was.You could easily argue that vandalism makes these rules necessary , but vandalism has been a plague of Wikipedia ever since it started .
Its anarchic nature was a necessary evil in the face of the highly open nature of the contribution system .
Groups such as the vandalism watchers were a natural development over the course and , by and large , it worked fine .
You could compare Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica .
Where we have laws of the state that govern precisely how we may and may not act in public , the EB has strict submission regulations .
Where we have customs , traditions and common decency , Wikipedia has its own set of rules .
People by and large followed them with the exception of an active minority , and this minority was often dealt with by a dedicated team.Now where creative spirit once reigned , we now have a set of cast-iron rules which , although nothing particularly bad in itself , leaves a dreadful amount to be desired .
It is very rare that one of your contributions will remain there for more than an hour these days without some editor almost robotically adhering to the rules , sometimes with dreadfully hilarious results , including [ citation needed ] being placed after some of the most blatantly obvious statements these days , it being removed with accusations of vandalism or bias ( by someone who is themselves biased ) .
Another frequent problem is bots , innocuously going about their monitoring tasks and indifferently erasing hours of creative work just because an entry did n't meet the bots ' strict criteria .
Some decent articles are deleted because Articles for Deletion is filled with obsessive deletionists who have very strange ideas of notability .
All this makes people feel that there is no point in contributing if their work is in danger of being irrevocably deleted.Rules are there to be applied with common sense , not religiously in the sense of a bible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rules were never the problem - their enforcement was.You could easily argue that vandalism makes these rules necessary, but vandalism has been a plague of Wikipedia ever since it started.
Its anarchic nature was a necessary evil in the face of the highly open nature of the contribution system.
Groups such as the vandalism watchers were a natural development over the course and, by and large, it worked fine.
You could compare Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Where we have laws of the state that govern precisely how we may and may not act in public, the EB has strict submission regulations.
Where we have customs, traditions and common decency, Wikipedia has its own set of rules.
People by and large followed them with the exception of an active minority, and this minority was often dealt with by a dedicated team.Now where creative spirit once reigned, we now have a set of cast-iron rules which, although nothing particularly bad in itself, leaves a dreadful amount to be desired.
It is very rare that one of your contributions will remain there for more than an hour these days without some editor almost robotically adhering to the rules, sometimes with dreadfully hilarious results, including [citation needed] being placed after some of the most blatantly obvious statements these days, it being removed with accusations of vandalism or bias (by someone who is themselves biased).
Another frequent problem is bots, innocuously going about their monitoring tasks and indifferently erasing hours of creative work just because an entry didn't meet the bots' strict criteria.
Some decent articles are deleted because Articles for Deletion is filled with obsessive deletionists who have very strange ideas of notability.
All this makes people feel that there is no point in contributing if their work is in danger of being irrevocably deleted.Rules are there to be applied with common sense, not religiously in the sense of a bible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229162</id>
	<title>It's because of the editors, imo</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1257192540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to run it as little power tripping club then don't be surprised when everyone gets fed up with your shit and leave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to run it as little power tripping club then do n't be surprised when everyone gets fed up with your shit and leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to run it as little power tripping club then don't be surprised when everyone gets fed up with your shit and leave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230960</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>juancnuno</author>
	<datestamp>1257158940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Whoops, delete request accepted by a narrow margin, all the work of everyone goes *poof*.</p></div></blockquote><p>An aside, but I thought Wikipedia stored every version of every page. When a page gets "deleted," it doesn't disappear forever, does it? It just stops showing up in head. Like a source code revision control system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoops , delete request accepted by a narrow margin , all the work of everyone goes * poof * .An aside , but I thought Wikipedia stored every version of every page .
When a page gets " deleted , " it does n't disappear forever , does it ?
It just stops showing up in head .
Like a source code revision control system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoops, delete request accepted by a narrow margin, all the work of everyone goes *poof*.An aside, but I thought Wikipedia stored every version of every page.
When a page gets "deleted," it doesn't disappear forever, does it?
It just stops showing up in head.
Like a source code revision control system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227564</id>
	<title>Mark Cuban's Plan to Save Wikipedia</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1257185460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mr. Wales, I think that if you approached <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/16/1631232/Mark-Cubans-Plan-To-Kill-Google" title="slashdot.org">Mark Cuban</a> [slashdot.org] and asked him to give Wikipedia editors a cool million dollars each not to leave, you could save Wikipedia.  <br> <br> Boy, dreaming up solutions when you perceive financiers to be bottomless pits of money with no brains sure is easy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Wales , I think that if you approached Mark Cuban [ slashdot.org ] and asked him to give Wikipedia editors a cool million dollars each not to leave , you could save Wikipedia .
Boy , dreaming up solutions when you perceive financiers to be bottomless pits of money with no brains sure is easy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Wales, I think that if you approached Mark Cuban [slashdot.org] and asked him to give Wikipedia editors a cool million dollars each not to leave, you could save Wikipedia.
Boy, dreaming up solutions when you perceive financiers to be bottomless pits of money with no brains sure is easy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228114</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1257187860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like Wikipedia simply needs to be forked, just like many open-source projects which had bad leadership (XFree86 is a good example).  Then the new leadership can institute better rules and policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like Wikipedia simply needs to be forked , just like many open-source projects which had bad leadership ( XFree86 is a good example ) .
Then the new leadership can institute better rules and policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like Wikipedia simply needs to be forked, just like many open-source projects which had bad leadership (XFree86 is a good example).
Then the new leadership can institute better rules and policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30235854</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1259239740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm calling your bluff - please link to your old account or the article in question.</p></div><p>You know, the funny thing about the article is - it's gone. That's what I was talking about the whole time.</p><p>But you don't have to believe me. Or the dozens of other people who post similar experiences in their blogs and increasingly even print magazines. You don't have to believe the official Wikipedia people, either, and their conferences, where deletionism and other criticism was the main topic just recently in Berlin for the german Wikipedia, for example.</p><p>We're all probably just sock puppets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm calling your bluff - please link to your old account or the article in question.You know , the funny thing about the article is - it 's gone .
That 's what I was talking about the whole time.But you do n't have to believe me .
Or the dozens of other people who post similar experiences in their blogs and increasingly even print magazines .
You do n't have to believe the official Wikipedia people , either , and their conferences , where deletionism and other criticism was the main topic just recently in Berlin for the german Wikipedia , for example.We 're all probably just sock puppets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm calling your bluff - please link to your old account or the article in question.You know, the funny thing about the article is - it's gone.
That's what I was talking about the whole time.But you don't have to believe me.
Or the dozens of other people who post similar experiences in their blogs and increasingly even print magazines.
You don't have to believe the official Wikipedia people, either, and their conferences, where deletionism and other criticism was the main topic just recently in Berlin for the german Wikipedia, for example.We're all probably just sock puppets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227720</id>
	<title>In other news....</title>
	<author>hitnrunrambler</author>
	<datestamp>1257186000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the first 3 months of 2009 49,000 people who did nothing but patrol wikipedia all day were downsized because of the economy; raising questions of how the Internet will survive without the uselessly employed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the first 3 months of 2009 49,000 people who did nothing but patrol wikipedia all day were downsized because of the economy ; raising questions of how the Internet will survive without the uselessly employed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the first 3 months of 2009 49,000 people who did nothing but patrol wikipedia all day were downsized because of the economy; raising questions of how the Internet will survive without the uselessly employed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230830</id>
	<title>No [explitive deleted] kidding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257158100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Contributors are becoming disenchanted with the process of adding to the site which is becoming increasingly difficult "</p><p>Yes.  Worse, I'd say 10\% of the time I get to a page on something I <i>am</i> interested in or I find a useful picture, and: A) it's marked for deletion, or B) sizable parts of it (usually the interesting parts) are marked for deletion.  If I project that observation, I can see that wikipedia will become less useful to me in the future.  And why should I contribute my own effort if stuff is going to be arbitrarily deleted for trivial reasons?</p><p>I liked the fact that things weren't always consistent, and weren't always forced into a strict format.  Yes, consistency is nice, and something to work towards over time, but the deletionists are way out of hand.  I'd rather have something rough than a stub or nothing at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Contributors are becoming disenchanted with the process of adding to the site which is becoming increasingly difficult " Yes .
Worse , I 'd say 10 \ % of the time I get to a page on something I am interested in or I find a useful picture , and : A ) it 's marked for deletion , or B ) sizable parts of it ( usually the interesting parts ) are marked for deletion .
If I project that observation , I can see that wikipedia will become less useful to me in the future .
And why should I contribute my own effort if stuff is going to be arbitrarily deleted for trivial reasons ? I liked the fact that things were n't always consistent , and were n't always forced into a strict format .
Yes , consistency is nice , and something to work towards over time , but the deletionists are way out of hand .
I 'd rather have something rough than a stub or nothing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Contributors are becoming disenchanted with the process of adding to the site which is becoming increasingly difficult "Yes.
Worse, I'd say 10\% of the time I get to a page on something I am interested in or I find a useful picture, and: A) it's marked for deletion, or B) sizable parts of it (usually the interesting parts) are marked for deletion.
If I project that observation, I can see that wikipedia will become less useful to me in the future.
And why should I contribute my own effort if stuff is going to be arbitrarily deleted for trivial reasons?I liked the fact that things weren't always consistent, and weren't always forced into a strict format.
Yes, consistency is nice, and something to work towards over time, but the deletionists are way out of hand.
I'd rather have something rough than a stub or nothing at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232014</id>
	<title>sterility and street culture</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1257167100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you that much of the math content on Wikipedia is unevenly developed and sometimes almost impenetrable.</p><p>Not sure I would get hot and bothered about presentation order.  If I went to the page wondering "what the heck is a haversine?" I'd be happy to find it near the top.  That's a common use case.  I gave up on pedagogy long ago.  How does one implement outcome-based-pedagogy on a site such as Wikipedia?</p><p>My personal Wikipedia survival guide: at the first sign of opposition, edit somewhere more obscure.  These days I rarely edit anything except to trim the most egregious bloopers.</p><p>Wikipedia failed to deal with some serious issues during its adolescent phase, and now it's discovering the consequence.</p><p>One of these failures is the Wikipedia has no concept of a regression test.  Instead, the strong nuclear force is implemented as an edit war, with a winner and loser.  It almost works like one of those sleazy dollar auctions: eventually the better man steps aside.</p><p>Wikipedia also failed the deletion test: you don't solve the problem of someone contributing an article you don't want by returning the system to the state which elicited the unwanted contribution in the first place.  That's just a good way to piss people off.</p><p>Wikipedia needed to come up with a quarantined content tier which is not included in normal use (does not appear on Google, is not linked from primary content), but which *does* appear in searches performed by people wishing to create a new article.</p><p>I thought Wikipedia was truest to its nature as a squatter city with a lot of ramshackle cruft.  The whole process breaks down when it puts on the pretence of being encyclopedic.</p><p>I don't think Wales learned much from the failure of Nupedia.  His brilliant accident was redefining the venture.  The harder they pull toward the old concept of Nupedia, the more it resembles the old Nupedia: tedious, gridlocked, and uninviting.</p><p>Whatever happens, Wikipedia will remain a great resource for studies in the sociology of collaboration, automatic spam recognition, machine learning, and perhaps even machine translation.</p><p>I wish they had worked harder on being maximally inclusive, with a fairly narrow criteria for what Google indexes and presents to casual visitors, with the rest of the shantytown available to anyone who wants it.</p><p>Google is part of the problem here.  You need to be able to mark shantytown content as indexed, but with demerits.  If your google search hits some content in a Wikipedia article in a section titled "Bokononism in Popular Culture" it shouldn't come up until everything else of value is exhausted.  But it should come up if you dig hard enough.  If you're determined enough to go there, Red Light districts can be a useful resource.</p><p>For me, Wikipedia would work best with a safe well-scrubbed downtown core and a vibrant street culture for anyone who wishes to wander down a side alley.  I've never entirely bought into its agenda to become a sober encyclopedia, all glass and steel, with no life.  Radiant City Beautiful, as Jane Jacobs used to put it.  And very sterile.</p><p>It will be interesting to see what happens as the human maintainers fall away.  We could end up seeing a lot more maintenance bots.  That would be interesting in its own right.  We're about to enter the golden era of knowledge bots, within a decade or so.  Some people call this the semantic web.  I think it will crufty with many cockroach heuristics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you that much of the math content on Wikipedia is unevenly developed and sometimes almost impenetrable.Not sure I would get hot and bothered about presentation order .
If I went to the page wondering " what the heck is a haversine ?
" I 'd be happy to find it near the top .
That 's a common use case .
I gave up on pedagogy long ago .
How does one implement outcome-based-pedagogy on a site such as Wikipedia ? My personal Wikipedia survival guide : at the first sign of opposition , edit somewhere more obscure .
These days I rarely edit anything except to trim the most egregious bloopers.Wikipedia failed to deal with some serious issues during its adolescent phase , and now it 's discovering the consequence.One of these failures is the Wikipedia has no concept of a regression test .
Instead , the strong nuclear force is implemented as an edit war , with a winner and loser .
It almost works like one of those sleazy dollar auctions : eventually the better man steps aside.Wikipedia also failed the deletion test : you do n't solve the problem of someone contributing an article you do n't want by returning the system to the state which elicited the unwanted contribution in the first place .
That 's just a good way to piss people off.Wikipedia needed to come up with a quarantined content tier which is not included in normal use ( does not appear on Google , is not linked from primary content ) , but which * does * appear in searches performed by people wishing to create a new article.I thought Wikipedia was truest to its nature as a squatter city with a lot of ramshackle cruft .
The whole process breaks down when it puts on the pretence of being encyclopedic.I do n't think Wales learned much from the failure of Nupedia .
His brilliant accident was redefining the venture .
The harder they pull toward the old concept of Nupedia , the more it resembles the old Nupedia : tedious , gridlocked , and uninviting.Whatever happens , Wikipedia will remain a great resource for studies in the sociology of collaboration , automatic spam recognition , machine learning , and perhaps even machine translation.I wish they had worked harder on being maximally inclusive , with a fairly narrow criteria for what Google indexes and presents to casual visitors , with the rest of the shantytown available to anyone who wants it.Google is part of the problem here .
You need to be able to mark shantytown content as indexed , but with demerits .
If your google search hits some content in a Wikipedia article in a section titled " Bokononism in Popular Culture " it should n't come up until everything else of value is exhausted .
But it should come up if you dig hard enough .
If you 're determined enough to go there , Red Light districts can be a useful resource.For me , Wikipedia would work best with a safe well-scrubbed downtown core and a vibrant street culture for anyone who wishes to wander down a side alley .
I 've never entirely bought into its agenda to become a sober encyclopedia , all glass and steel , with no life .
Radiant City Beautiful , as Jane Jacobs used to put it .
And very sterile.It will be interesting to see what happens as the human maintainers fall away .
We could end up seeing a lot more maintenance bots .
That would be interesting in its own right .
We 're about to enter the golden era of knowledge bots , within a decade or so .
Some people call this the semantic web .
I think it will crufty with many cockroach heuristics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you that much of the math content on Wikipedia is unevenly developed and sometimes almost impenetrable.Not sure I would get hot and bothered about presentation order.
If I went to the page wondering "what the heck is a haversine?
" I'd be happy to find it near the top.
That's a common use case.
I gave up on pedagogy long ago.
How does one implement outcome-based-pedagogy on a site such as Wikipedia?My personal Wikipedia survival guide: at the first sign of opposition, edit somewhere more obscure.
These days I rarely edit anything except to trim the most egregious bloopers.Wikipedia failed to deal with some serious issues during its adolescent phase, and now it's discovering the consequence.One of these failures is the Wikipedia has no concept of a regression test.
Instead, the strong nuclear force is implemented as an edit war, with a winner and loser.
It almost works like one of those sleazy dollar auctions: eventually the better man steps aside.Wikipedia also failed the deletion test: you don't solve the problem of someone contributing an article you don't want by returning the system to the state which elicited the unwanted contribution in the first place.
That's just a good way to piss people off.Wikipedia needed to come up with a quarantined content tier which is not included in normal use (does not appear on Google, is not linked from primary content), but which *does* appear in searches performed by people wishing to create a new article.I thought Wikipedia was truest to its nature as a squatter city with a lot of ramshackle cruft.
The whole process breaks down when it puts on the pretence of being encyclopedic.I don't think Wales learned much from the failure of Nupedia.
His brilliant accident was redefining the venture.
The harder they pull toward the old concept of Nupedia, the more it resembles the old Nupedia: tedious, gridlocked, and uninviting.Whatever happens, Wikipedia will remain a great resource for studies in the sociology of collaboration, automatic spam recognition, machine learning, and perhaps even machine translation.I wish they had worked harder on being maximally inclusive, with a fairly narrow criteria for what Google indexes and presents to casual visitors, with the rest of the shantytown available to anyone who wants it.Google is part of the problem here.
You need to be able to mark shantytown content as indexed, but with demerits.
If your google search hits some content in a Wikipedia article in a section titled "Bokononism in Popular Culture" it shouldn't come up until everything else of value is exhausted.
But it should come up if you dig hard enough.
If you're determined enough to go there, Red Light districts can be a useful resource.For me, Wikipedia would work best with a safe well-scrubbed downtown core and a vibrant street culture for anyone who wishes to wander down a side alley.
I've never entirely bought into its agenda to become a sober encyclopedia, all glass and steel, with no life.
Radiant City Beautiful, as Jane Jacobs used to put it.
And very sterile.It will be interesting to see what happens as the human maintainers fall away.
We could end up seeing a lot more maintenance bots.
That would be interesting in its own right.
We're about to enter the golden era of knowledge bots, within a decade or so.
Some people call this the semantic web.
I think it will crufty with many cockroach heuristics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230280</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>BryanL</author>
	<datestamp>1257154800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you are confusing draconian policies with "drake-onian" policies.<p>

<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drake" title="reference.com">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drake</a> [reference.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are confusing draconian policies with " drake-onian " policies .
http : //dictionary.reference.com/browse/drake [ reference.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are confusing draconian policies with "drake-onian" policies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drake [reference.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228030</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1257187380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Related to the "deletionism" are of course the bots which auto-revert all edits to certain articles, or remove all "dirty" words even when relevant to the article (which is against WP rules).</p><p>The bots definitely helped drive me away from contributing to WP, what fun is it to help edit an article when some bozo has a bot that auto-checks the article and wipes all edits until the bot's owner approves of them?</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Related to the " deletionism " are of course the bots which auto-revert all edits to certain articles , or remove all " dirty " words even when relevant to the article ( which is against WP rules ) .The bots definitely helped drive me away from contributing to WP , what fun is it to help edit an article when some bozo has a bot that auto-checks the article and wipes all edits until the bot 's owner approves of them ? /Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Related to the "deletionism" are of course the bots which auto-revert all edits to certain articles, or remove all "dirty" words even when relevant to the article (which is against WP rules).The bots definitely helped drive me away from contributing to WP, what fun is it to help edit an article when some bozo has a bot that auto-checks the article and wipes all edits until the bot's owner approves of them?/Mikael</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1257185220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or Heilongjiang</p></div><p>I think a lot more could be written about the Northeastern Chinese province of Heilongjiang.  It's got a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilongjiang" title="wikipedia.org">ridiculously small Wikipedia page</a> [wikipedia.org] (even in <a href="http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/\%E9\%BB\%91\%E9\%BE\%99\%E6\%B1\%9F\%E7\%9C\%81" title="wikipedia.org">simplified Chinese</a> [wikipedia.org]) yet is home to 38 million people and is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas" title="wikipedia.org">about the area of Texas</a> [wikipedia.org].  And after all that this province has a vastly smaller page than Texas (especially if you look at Texas as a portal page).  That's a higher population and area than most US states.  If those people spoke English and had more access to internet, I'm sure this page could harbor a lot more encyclopedic information.  <br> <br>

What I'm trying to say is: your articles are finished.  If the world revolved around you, Wikipedia would be complete.  But not to the billions of other people in the world.  So keep your claims of "it's finished, dummies" to yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or HeilongjiangI think a lot more could be written about the Northeastern Chinese province of Heilongjiang .
It 's got a ridiculously small Wikipedia page [ wikipedia.org ] ( even in simplified Chinese [ wikipedia.org ] ) yet is home to 38 million people and is about the area of Texas [ wikipedia.org ] .
And after all that this province has a vastly smaller page than Texas ( especially if you look at Texas as a portal page ) .
That 's a higher population and area than most US states .
If those people spoke English and had more access to internet , I 'm sure this page could harbor a lot more encyclopedic information .
What I 'm trying to say is : your articles are finished .
If the world revolved around you , Wikipedia would be complete .
But not to the billions of other people in the world .
So keep your claims of " it 's finished , dummies " to yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or HeilongjiangI think a lot more could be written about the Northeastern Chinese province of Heilongjiang.
It's got a ridiculously small Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] (even in simplified Chinese [wikipedia.org]) yet is home to 38 million people and is about the area of Texas [wikipedia.org].
And after all that this province has a vastly smaller page than Texas (especially if you look at Texas as a portal page).
That's a higher population and area than most US states.
If those people spoke English and had more access to internet, I'm sure this page could harbor a lot more encyclopedic information.
What I'm trying to say is: your articles are finished.
If the world revolved around you, Wikipedia would be complete.
But not to the billions of other people in the world.
So keep your claims of "it's finished, dummies" to yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227582</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>hemp</author>
	<datestamp>1257185520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Third, the deletionism has combined with a general attitude that is very bad unwelcoming to newcomers.</i></p><p>You totally correct.  I believe the number of people leaving is actually the result that most wiki editors wanted.  It seems that every entry has at least one editors who does not want anyone messing with "his" entry.</p><p>I long ago gave up any attempt to correct misspelled words or inconsistencies within the same entry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Third , the deletionism has combined with a general attitude that is very bad unwelcoming to newcomers.You totally correct .
I believe the number of people leaving is actually the result that most wiki editors wanted .
It seems that every entry has at least one editors who does not want anyone messing with " his " entry.I long ago gave up any attempt to correct misspelled words or inconsistencies within the same entry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Third, the deletionism has combined with a general attitude that is very bad unwelcoming to newcomers.You totally correct.
I believe the number of people leaving is actually the result that most wiki editors wanted.
It seems that every entry has at least one editors who does not want anyone messing with "his" entry.I long ago gave up any attempt to correct misspelled words or inconsistencies within the same entry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228972</id>
	<title>Whats wrong with wikispeedia.org</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1257191580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried to get our speed limit site called <a href="http://www.wikispeedia.org/" title="wikispeedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikispeedia</a> [wikispeedia.org]  under the wikimedia umbrella, sort of a way to introduce our open-government stuff. <br>
They said I need to join OSM which is a possibility.<br>

Out of spike, I put our speed limits in the Firefox side-wiki since they wouldn't let me put any edits on their speed limit page..<br> <br>

What I really detest is their SF stance on porn. Thats what will kill them, once the high schools wise up to this hole in their knowledge dyke!<br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum\_shot" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Cum shot</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to get our speed limit site called Wikispeedia [ wikispeedia.org ] under the wikimedia umbrella , sort of a way to introduce our open-government stuff .
They said I need to join OSM which is a possibility .
Out of spike , I put our speed limits in the Firefox side-wiki since they would n't let me put any edits on their speed limit page. . What I really detest is their SF stance on porn .
Thats what will kill them , once the high schools wise up to this hole in their knowledge dyke !
Cum shot [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to get our speed limit site called Wikispeedia [wikispeedia.org]  under the wikimedia umbrella, sort of a way to introduce our open-government stuff.
They said I need to join OSM which is a possibility.
Out of spike, I put our speed limits in the Firefox side-wiki since they wouldn't let me put any edits on their speed limit page.. 

What I really detest is their SF stance on porn.
Thats what will kill them, once the high schools wise up to this hole in their knowledge dyke!
Cum shot [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227458</id>
	<title>Not surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but I stopped when it became a chore to do so. These days it's impossible to add anything without someone (usually admins) throwing a childish fit and reverting it all. This occurs with information that is added with properly cited sources.</p><p>I don't even use Wikipedia to look up information any more. I use my own local version of it on a USB flash drive that I've personally streamlined and updated. It is not only faster and cleaner, but more factual than wikipedia.org as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to contribute to Wikipedia , but I stopped when it became a chore to do so .
These days it 's impossible to add anything without someone ( usually admins ) throwing a childish fit and reverting it all .
This occurs with information that is added with properly cited sources.I do n't even use Wikipedia to look up information any more .
I use my own local version of it on a USB flash drive that I 've personally streamlined and updated .
It is not only faster and cleaner , but more factual than wikipedia.org as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but I stopped when it became a chore to do so.
These days it's impossible to add anything without someone (usually admins) throwing a childish fit and reverting it all.
This occurs with information that is added with properly cited sources.I don't even use Wikipedia to look up information any more.
I use my own local version of it on a USB flash drive that I've personally streamlined and updated.
It is not only faster and cleaner, but more factual than wikipedia.org as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234022</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the case of bicycles, some of the pages that weren't permitted to exist were (to some subculture or style) vitally important; maybe, say, one of the only downhill bike manufacturers.</p></div><p>Jimbo Wales also created Wikia, which serves as an overflow area for subjects that don't meet Wikipedia's requirement of coverage in scholarly or mainstream media sources.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of bicycles , some of the pages that were n't permitted to exist were ( to some subculture or style ) vitally important ; maybe , say , one of the only downhill bike manufacturers.Jimbo Wales also created Wikia , which serves as an overflow area for subjects that do n't meet Wikipedia 's requirement of coverage in scholarly or mainstream media sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of bicycles, some of the pages that weren't permitted to exist were (to some subculture or style) vitally important; maybe, say, one of the only downhill bike manufacturers.Jimbo Wales also created Wikia, which serves as an overflow area for subjects that don't meet Wikipedia's requirement of coverage in scholarly or mainstream media sources.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229270</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bear in mind Wikipedia may not be the site of choice for users in these countries: searches on Chinese google or Baidu don't always return wikipedia at the top.  The most popular search engine, Baidu, often returns results from Baidu Encyclopedia (a clone of Wikipedia, in functionality).  The Baidu Baike entry for Heilongjiang<a href="http://baike.baidu.com/view/2647.htm?fr=ala0" title="baidu.com" rel="nofollow">http://baike.baidu.com/view/2647.htm?fr=ala0</a> [baidu.com] is much longer and more complete, and seems to have more activity than the Chinese version.  Also, Wikipedia was censored for a period of time, which might have affected usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bear in mind Wikipedia may not be the site of choice for users in these countries : searches on Chinese google or Baidu do n't always return wikipedia at the top .
The most popular search engine , Baidu , often returns results from Baidu Encyclopedia ( a clone of Wikipedia , in functionality ) .
The Baidu Baike entry for Heilongjianghttp : //baike.baidu.com/view/2647.htm ? fr = ala0 [ baidu.com ] is much longer and more complete , and seems to have more activity than the Chinese version .
Also , Wikipedia was censored for a period of time , which might have affected usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bear in mind Wikipedia may not be the site of choice for users in these countries: searches on Chinese google or Baidu don't always return wikipedia at the top.
The most popular search engine, Baidu, often returns results from Baidu Encyclopedia (a clone of Wikipedia, in functionality).
The Baidu Baike entry for Heilongjianghttp://baike.baidu.com/view/2647.htm?fr=ala0 [baidu.com] is much longer and more complete, and seems to have more activity than the Chinese version.
Also, Wikipedia was censored for a period of time, which might have affected usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230520</id>
	<title>Re:best encyclopedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257156000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if your idea of an encyclopedia doesn't cover physics past a pretty good high school level.  I search for real knowledge there in vain.  Sorry, not as funny as parent.  But it's way not done as some have suggested.  Can you design an accelerator or electron microscope from info there?  High school students have done both, but not from Wiki.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if your idea of an encyclopedia does n't cover physics past a pretty good high school level .
I search for real knowledge there in vain .
Sorry , not as funny as parent .
But it 's way not done as some have suggested .
Can you design an accelerator or electron microscope from info there ?
High school students have done both , but not from Wiki .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if your idea of an encyclopedia doesn't cover physics past a pretty good high school level.
I search for real knowledge there in vain.
Sorry, not as funny as parent.
But it's way not done as some have suggested.
Can you design an accelerator or electron microscope from info there?
High school students have done both, but not from Wiki.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232450</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1257170040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia "is rotten from top to the bottom", because you think some things on a list of trigonometry identies are in the wrong order? For heaven's sake, get some perspective - even though there are plenty of issues to work on, that doesn't make the whole thing flawed.</p><p>The irony is that, someone, somewhere, will also be criticising Wikipedia as being full of annoying editors, based on their experience with you!</p><p>If you argue by throwing ad hominems and insults rather than reasoning, perhaps that is your problem. I'm not sure what the best way to introduce e^x is - but there is no right answer, and it's reasonable that different people will have different opinions.</p><p>I'm a mathematician too. Yes, there's plenty to be done, but that doesn't mean there is some kind of conspiracy against getting things done; it doesn't mean you alone are right and everyone else is wrong. It's not immediately obvious to me why the order of identities in an article should matter - and can you point me where you tried to change it, or brought the issue up for discussion? I can't find anything in the history.</p><p>In response to the original point about Wikipedia being finished or not, I think it's at the stage of "doing the last 10\% takes 90\% of the time". Wikipedia is mostly done in some sense, in that every mainstream topic you can think of has an article that is fairly extensive. But adding the polish - getting those articles up to Featured Article status, or filling in articles on less mainstream areas, takes a lot of time.</p><p><i>Wikipedia was always going to primarily attract the type of person who is not interesting in providing knowledge for all, but only those for whom its articles are personal prestige projects, intended to impress only themselves and their imagined audience.</i></p><p>Well, it attracted you, so yes that does seem to be the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia " is rotten from top to the bottom " , because you think some things on a list of trigonometry identies are in the wrong order ?
For heaven 's sake , get some perspective - even though there are plenty of issues to work on , that does n't make the whole thing flawed.The irony is that , someone , somewhere , will also be criticising Wikipedia as being full of annoying editors , based on their experience with you ! If you argue by throwing ad hominems and insults rather than reasoning , perhaps that is your problem .
I 'm not sure what the best way to introduce e ^ x is - but there is no right answer , and it 's reasonable that different people will have different opinions.I 'm a mathematician too .
Yes , there 's plenty to be done , but that does n't mean there is some kind of conspiracy against getting things done ; it does n't mean you alone are right and everyone else is wrong .
It 's not immediately obvious to me why the order of identities in an article should matter - and can you point me where you tried to change it , or brought the issue up for discussion ?
I ca n't find anything in the history.In response to the original point about Wikipedia being finished or not , I think it 's at the stage of " doing the last 10 \ % takes 90 \ % of the time " .
Wikipedia is mostly done in some sense , in that every mainstream topic you can think of has an article that is fairly extensive .
But adding the polish - getting those articles up to Featured Article status , or filling in articles on less mainstream areas , takes a lot of time.Wikipedia was always going to primarily attract the type of person who is not interesting in providing knowledge for all , but only those for whom its articles are personal prestige projects , intended to impress only themselves and their imagined audience.Well , it attracted you , so yes that does seem to be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia "is rotten from top to the bottom", because you think some things on a list of trigonometry identies are in the wrong order?
For heaven's sake, get some perspective - even though there are plenty of issues to work on, that doesn't make the whole thing flawed.The irony is that, someone, somewhere, will also be criticising Wikipedia as being full of annoying editors, based on their experience with you!If you argue by throwing ad hominems and insults rather than reasoning, perhaps that is your problem.
I'm not sure what the best way to introduce e^x is - but there is no right answer, and it's reasonable that different people will have different opinions.I'm a mathematician too.
Yes, there's plenty to be done, but that doesn't mean there is some kind of conspiracy against getting things done; it doesn't mean you alone are right and everyone else is wrong.
It's not immediately obvious to me why the order of identities in an article should matter - and can you point me where you tried to change it, or brought the issue up for discussion?
I can't find anything in the history.In response to the original point about Wikipedia being finished or not, I think it's at the stage of "doing the last 10\% takes 90\% of the time".
Wikipedia is mostly done in some sense, in that every mainstream topic you can think of has an article that is fairly extensive.
But adding the polish - getting those articles up to Featured Article status, or filling in articles on less mainstream areas, takes a lot of time.Wikipedia was always going to primarily attract the type of person who is not interesting in providing knowledge for all, but only those for whom its articles are personal prestige projects, intended to impress only themselves and their imagined audience.Well, it attracted you, so yes that does seem to be the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227526</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Verdatum</author>
	<datestamp>1257185280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree that the project doesn't really need new contributors, I still haven't come across this "trying to drive contributors off" thing I keep hearing about.  I had no problems getting into Wikipedia, and I've had no problems helping others contribute to it.  Yes, like everywhere on the Internet, there are dicks and trolls (a couple of which are indeed admins), but they can be ignored or overruled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that the project does n't really need new contributors , I still have n't come across this " trying to drive contributors off " thing I keep hearing about .
I had no problems getting into Wikipedia , and I 've had no problems helping others contribute to it .
Yes , like everywhere on the Internet , there are dicks and trolls ( a couple of which are indeed admins ) , but they can be ignored or overruled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that the project doesn't really need new contributors, I still haven't come across this "trying to drive contributors off" thing I keep hearing about.
I had no problems getting into Wikipedia, and I've had no problems helping others contribute to it.
Yes, like everywhere on the Internet, there are dicks and trolls (a couple of which are indeed admins), but they can be ignored or overruled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231088</id>
	<title>Re:Hard disk is full, this is the problem.</title>
	<author>moonbender</author>
	<datestamp>1257159840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I often argue that Wikipedia articles should not need to pass the "test of time", topics don't need to still be notable in 5 or 10 years to warrant inclusion. (That might even sound absurd, but this is sort of the official position on the German Wikipedia.) However, maybe the flip side of that is that topics can be notable and worthy of inclusion at some point, and sort of non-notable in the future. The notability of a topic isn't fixed, it changes with the times. Of course, being a fairly hard core inclusionist, I'd argue that there is no harm in keeping articles of low notability around -- particularly not if notability was established in the past, but other seem to differ on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I often argue that Wikipedia articles should not need to pass the " test of time " , topics do n't need to still be notable in 5 or 10 years to warrant inclusion .
( That might even sound absurd , but this is sort of the official position on the German Wikipedia .
) However , maybe the flip side of that is that topics can be notable and worthy of inclusion at some point , and sort of non-notable in the future .
The notability of a topic is n't fixed , it changes with the times .
Of course , being a fairly hard core inclusionist , I 'd argue that there is no harm in keeping articles of low notability around -- particularly not if notability was established in the past , but other seem to differ on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often argue that Wikipedia articles should not need to pass the "test of time", topics don't need to still be notable in 5 or 10 years to warrant inclusion.
(That might even sound absurd, but this is sort of the official position on the German Wikipedia.
) However, maybe the flip side of that is that topics can be notable and worthy of inclusion at some point, and sort of non-notable in the future.
The notability of a topic isn't fixed, it changes with the times.
Of course, being a fairly hard core inclusionist, I'd argue that there is no harm in keeping articles of low notability around -- particularly not if notability was established in the past, but other seem to differ on that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229476</id>
	<title>With power comes responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a contributor leaves because they don't want to spend time using common journalist practices of fact checking, attribution, citation, etc then their contribution most likely isn't quality information.  If someone wants the privileges of defining the basic meaning of something to the entire internet then they have to accept the responsibilities that go along with it.  Wikipedia has become the de facto encyclopedia on the internet.  I would say most people trust wikipedia articles, which to an operation like it is vital to it's success.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a contributor leaves because they do n't want to spend time using common journalist practices of fact checking , attribution , citation , etc then their contribution most likely is n't quality information .
If someone wants the privileges of defining the basic meaning of something to the entire internet then they have to accept the responsibilities that go along with it .
Wikipedia has become the de facto encyclopedia on the internet .
I would say most people trust wikipedia articles , which to an operation like it is vital to it 's success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a contributor leaves because they don't want to spend time using common journalist practices of fact checking, attribution, citation, etc then their contribution most likely isn't quality information.
If someone wants the privileges of defining the basic meaning of something to the entire internet then they have to accept the responsibilities that go along with it.
Wikipedia has become the de facto encyclopedia on the internet.
I would say most people trust wikipedia articles, which to an operation like it is vital to it's success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230422</id>
	<title>I put in my comment and then forget it.</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1257155580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never create an account any more.</p><p>Pretty much 100\% of the content I created was removed (some of it arbitrarily-- and on obscure subjects where the options were my content or nothing).</p><p>I still update little pieces-- and still have things backed out-- even automatically.</p><p>There's an obscure 1930's movie that lacked information about where it was filmed.  I added the information and a link to the larger site where i got the information from in the link section.  The link was automatically removed.  I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of my post is gone by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never create an account any more.Pretty much 100 \ % of the content I created was removed ( some of it arbitrarily-- and on obscure subjects where the options were my content or nothing ) .I still update little pieces-- and still have things backed out-- even automatically.There 's an obscure 1930 's movie that lacked information about where it was filmed .
I added the information and a link to the larger site where i got the information from in the link section .
The link was automatically removed .
I would n't be surprised if the rest of my post is gone by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never create an account any more.Pretty much 100\% of the content I created was removed (some of it arbitrarily-- and on obscure subjects where the options were my content or nothing).I still update little pieces-- and still have things backed out-- even automatically.There's an obscure 1930's movie that lacked information about where it was filmed.
I added the information and a link to the larger site where i got the information from in the link section.
The link was automatically removed.
I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of my post is gone by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231438</id>
	<title>I quit not because of deletionists...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257162300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I quit because of the lunatics.  There were always people who would try to put their insane new-age gibberish into science articles, or who would remove innocuous information from geographic articles because they had some insane idea that it put their ethnic group in a bad light.</p><p>The eastern European and south Asian articles are pretty much all controlled by ethnic whackos.  The biology articles are full of people who think that herbs cure cancer.  And so it goes.  If any of my friends quotes Wikipedia nowadays, I laugh in their face and tell them to get a real source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I quit because of the lunatics .
There were always people who would try to put their insane new-age gibberish into science articles , or who would remove innocuous information from geographic articles because they had some insane idea that it put their ethnic group in a bad light.The eastern European and south Asian articles are pretty much all controlled by ethnic whackos .
The biology articles are full of people who think that herbs cure cancer .
And so it goes .
If any of my friends quotes Wikipedia nowadays , I laugh in their face and tell them to get a real source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quit because of the lunatics.
There were always people who would try to put their insane new-age gibberish into science articles, or who would remove innocuous information from geographic articles because they had some insane idea that it put their ethnic group in a bad light.The eastern European and south Asian articles are pretty much all controlled by ethnic whackos.
The biology articles are full of people who think that herbs cure cancer.
And so it goes.
If any of my friends quotes Wikipedia nowadays, I laugh in their face and tell them to get a real source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228688</id>
	<title>Maybe its close to being done?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1257190500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at its soul, so it needs a lot of volunteers for initial content, but after that, it doesn't have to change all that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at its soul , so it needs a lot of volunteers for initial content , but after that , it does n't have to change all that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at its soul, so it needs a lot of volunteers for initial content, but after that, it doesn't have to change all that much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228004</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1257187260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rules Lawyering and a (seemingly) huge bureaucracy of insiders and rules. [Citation Needed] can be dropped anywhere with no thought by, or consequence to, the person adding it. Wikipedia created the exact opposite of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be\_bold\_in\_editing\_articles" title="wikipedia.org">be bold</a> [wikipedia.org], which shows up everywhere in Wikipedia instructions, but not so much in practice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rules Lawyering and a ( seemingly ) huge bureaucracy of insiders and rules .
[ Citation Needed ] can be dropped anywhere with no thought by , or consequence to , the person adding it .
Wikipedia created the exact opposite of be bold [ wikipedia.org ] , which shows up everywhere in Wikipedia instructions , but not so much in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rules Lawyering and a (seemingly) huge bureaucracy of insiders and rules.
[Citation Needed] can be dropped anywhere with no thought by, or consequence to, the person adding it.
Wikipedia created the exact opposite of be bold [wikipedia.org], which shows up everywhere in Wikipedia instructions, but not so much in practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30252264</id>
	<title>Re:Completely backwards...</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1259340480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, we'd probably do even better if we could find a way to run even more such experiments, but in parallel rather than serially.  It's not difficult to think up interesting new policies for an encyclopedia-like site.  Wikipedia was one, and lived up to much of its promise, but also has a lot of the predicted problems.  (OTOH, it's interesting to look at a lot of the dire warnings that didn't come true.)</p><p>If we really want to develop a networked repository of all human knowledge, we could do better than just picking one or two policies at a time, and waiting years to see how they turn out.  Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom is a lot faster at finding the succesful approaches.</p><p>The big problem, really, is that such efforts take a lot of hardware and a good population of brains.  This isn't cheap in money or personal time.  I wonder if there are ways of making it more accessible to the masses.  I wouldn't mind contributing what I know about a few subject to several such 'pedias.  Lately, I've been contributing a lot more to wiktionary than to wikipedia, since it seems my contributions are more encouraged there (and have actually never been reverted or deleted, or even vandalized).</p><p>But more to the point, I suppose, is that I've drifted toward spending my spare time working on a number of much smaller-scale project with narrower focus.  None of them would qualify as "notable" to wikipedia.  But most of the world's knowledge isn't notable, except to a small minority interested in the topic.</p><p>Maybe what we need is a way to easily develop the more specialized sites that aren't appropriate for the encyclopedic sites or mass-market search sites.  I wonder if there are effective tools to get around all the repetetive "hacking" needed to get a new specialized site up and limping along?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , we 'd probably do even better if we could find a way to run even more such experiments , but in parallel rather than serially .
It 's not difficult to think up interesting new policies for an encyclopedia-like site .
Wikipedia was one , and lived up to much of its promise , but also has a lot of the predicted problems .
( OTOH , it 's interesting to look at a lot of the dire warnings that did n't come true .
) If we really want to develop a networked repository of all human knowledge , we could do better than just picking one or two policies at a time , and waiting years to see how they turn out .
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom is a lot faster at finding the succesful approaches.The big problem , really , is that such efforts take a lot of hardware and a good population of brains .
This is n't cheap in money or personal time .
I wonder if there are ways of making it more accessible to the masses .
I would n't mind contributing what I know about a few subject to several such 'pedias .
Lately , I 've been contributing a lot more to wiktionary than to wikipedia , since it seems my contributions are more encouraged there ( and have actually never been reverted or deleted , or even vandalized ) .But more to the point , I suppose , is that I 've drifted toward spending my spare time working on a number of much smaller-scale project with narrower focus .
None of them would qualify as " notable " to wikipedia .
But most of the world 's knowledge is n't notable , except to a small minority interested in the topic.Maybe what we need is a way to easily develop the more specialized sites that are n't appropriate for the encyclopedic sites or mass-market search sites .
I wonder if there are effective tools to get around all the repetetive " hacking " needed to get a new specialized site up and limping along ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, we'd probably do even better if we could find a way to run even more such experiments, but in parallel rather than serially.
It's not difficult to think up interesting new policies for an encyclopedia-like site.
Wikipedia was one, and lived up to much of its promise, but also has a lot of the predicted problems.
(OTOH, it's interesting to look at a lot of the dire warnings that didn't come true.
)If we really want to develop a networked repository of all human knowledge, we could do better than just picking one or two policies at a time, and waiting years to see how they turn out.
Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom is a lot faster at finding the succesful approaches.The big problem, really, is that such efforts take a lot of hardware and a good population of brains.
This isn't cheap in money or personal time.
I wonder if there are ways of making it more accessible to the masses.
I wouldn't mind contributing what I know about a few subject to several such 'pedias.
Lately, I've been contributing a lot more to wiktionary than to wikipedia, since it seems my contributions are more encouraged there (and have actually never been reverted or deleted, or even vandalized).But more to the point, I suppose, is that I've drifted toward spending my spare time working on a number of much smaller-scale project with narrower focus.
None of them would qualify as "notable" to wikipedia.
But most of the world's knowledge isn't notable, except to a small minority interested in the topic.Maybe what we need is a way to easily develop the more specialized sites that aren't appropriate for the encyclopedic sites or mass-market search sites.
I wonder if there are effective tools to get around all the repetetive "hacking" needed to get a new specialized site up and limping along?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233626</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257180780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"His citation was to a fanciful coffee table reference book published before the system in question was declassified, and which was widely cited elsewhere on the web. My citation was to a professional academic analysis written a decade after the system was declassified, but which existed only in a few thousand hard copies."</p><p>This is a problem caused by intellectual property, basically. You say a resource exists which verifies your edit - but if you can't share that with the class, then it might as well not exist. It really does become your word against someone else's, and sorry, but just you *saying* that you've worked on the system in question really isn't enough.</p><p>The sensible answer would be for you to scan the pages in question from the book in question (or preferably the whole book), and put it up in a stable, permanent place on the Web semantically linked to the ISBN of the book, and then reference that from Wikipedia.</p><p>But of course we can't do that because it's nasty and illegal and copyright-violating.</p><p>Don't blame Wikipedia. Blame copyright. That's what's stopping you from being able to verify your claimed knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" His citation was to a fanciful coffee table reference book published before the system in question was declassified , and which was widely cited elsewhere on the web .
My citation was to a professional academic analysis written a decade after the system was declassified , but which existed only in a few thousand hard copies .
" This is a problem caused by intellectual property , basically .
You say a resource exists which verifies your edit - but if you ca n't share that with the class , then it might as well not exist .
It really does become your word against someone else 's , and sorry , but just you * saying * that you 've worked on the system in question really is n't enough.The sensible answer would be for you to scan the pages in question from the book in question ( or preferably the whole book ) , and put it up in a stable , permanent place on the Web semantically linked to the ISBN of the book , and then reference that from Wikipedia.But of course we ca n't do that because it 's nasty and illegal and copyright-violating.Do n't blame Wikipedia .
Blame copyright .
That 's what 's stopping you from being able to verify your claimed knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"His citation was to a fanciful coffee table reference book published before the system in question was declassified, and which was widely cited elsewhere on the web.
My citation was to a professional academic analysis written a decade after the system was declassified, but which existed only in a few thousand hard copies.
"This is a problem caused by intellectual property, basically.
You say a resource exists which verifies your edit - but if you can't share that with the class, then it might as well not exist.
It really does become your word against someone else's, and sorry, but just you *saying* that you've worked on the system in question really isn't enough.The sensible answer would be for you to scan the pages in question from the book in question (or preferably the whole book), and put it up in a stable, permanent place on the Web semantically linked to the ISBN of the book, and then reference that from Wikipedia.But of course we can't do that because it's nasty and illegal and copyright-violating.Don't blame Wikipedia.
Blame copyright.
That's what's stopping you from being able to verify your claimed knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232838</id>
	<title>Just like DMOZ</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1257173100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone remember DMOZ?</p><p>It use to be the be all to end all directory to get in to for new sites on the web. I have not had a new site listed on DMOZ in at least 6 years, and have not bothered even trying in at least 4 years. Wikipedia has gone the same way. Even if I have an authoritative site on a subject (not many other sites), and I am myself an authority on a subject, getting things published is nearly impossible now because of all the little kingdoms that have popped up on wikipedia pages. I simply quit trying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone remember DMOZ ? It use to be the be all to end all directory to get in to for new sites on the web .
I have not had a new site listed on DMOZ in at least 6 years , and have not bothered even trying in at least 4 years .
Wikipedia has gone the same way .
Even if I have an authoritative site on a subject ( not many other sites ) , and I am myself an authority on a subject , getting things published is nearly impossible now because of all the little kingdoms that have popped up on wikipedia pages .
I simply quit trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone remember DMOZ?It use to be the be all to end all directory to get in to for new sites on the web.
I have not had a new site listed on DMOZ in at least 6 years, and have not bothered even trying in at least 4 years.
Wikipedia has gone the same way.
Even if I have an authoritative site on a subject (not many other sites), and I am myself an authority on a subject, getting things published is nearly impossible now because of all the little kingdoms that have popped up on wikipedia pages.
I simply quit trying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232988</id>
	<title>Scientific nomenclature policy</title>
	<author>kostmo</author>
	<datestamp>1257174300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's wrong with redirecting the scientific name to the article?  The point is being able to get to the article <i>somehow</i>.  If an article has settled under a common name title that's ambiguous, you can always use the "not to be confused with" templates or just clarify in the article text.
<br>
For those interested, there is a published <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject\_Tree\_of\_Life#Article\_titles" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">policy</a> [wikipedia.org] for article titles for organisms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with redirecting the scientific name to the article ?
The point is being able to get to the article somehow .
If an article has settled under a common name title that 's ambiguous , you can always use the " not to be confused with " templates or just clarify in the article text .
For those interested , there is a published policy [ wikipedia.org ] for article titles for organisms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with redirecting the scientific name to the article?
The point is being able to get to the article somehow.
If an article has settled under a common name title that's ambiguous, you can always use the "not to be confused with" templates or just clarify in the article text.
For those interested, there is a published policy [wikipedia.org] for article titles for organisms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227694</id>
	<title>A sign of possible improvement</title>
	<author>snarfies</author>
	<datestamp>1257185940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stopped participating on Wikipedia years ago due to deletionists slashing and burning any and alls article in the name of HURR HURR NOT NOTABLE.  I mean, why bother?  That said, I recently saw something interesting - about two months ago someone wrote an article about her negative Wikipedia experience - <a href="http://travel-industry.uptake.com/blog/2009/09/04/bullypedia-a-wikipedian-whos-tired-of-getting-beat-up/" title="uptake.com">Bullypedia, A Wikipedian Who's Tired of Getting Beat Up</a> [uptake.com].  As a result of this article, some folks got together to start <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newt" title="wikipedia.org">WP:NEWT</a> [wikipedia.org], where they wrote articles while posing as n00bs to see how they were treated.  In some cases, they were in fact treated poorly indeed.  Gems include <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbie\_treatment\_at\_CSD/Skomorokh" title="wikipedia.org">"The reason I deleted the article was that the wikilinks did not have the proper markup. In addition, "See also" should be used instead of "See articles" and "External links" should be substituted for "Sites". Willking1979 (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)"</a> [wikipedia.org] and User:Multixfer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbie\_treatment\_at\_CSD/NuclearWarfare" title="wikipedia.org">throwing a total shitfit when (fully appropriately) outed as being a total asshole</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped participating on Wikipedia years ago due to deletionists slashing and burning any and alls article in the name of HURR HURR NOT NOTABLE .
I mean , why bother ?
That said , I recently saw something interesting - about two months ago someone wrote an article about her negative Wikipedia experience - Bullypedia , A Wikipedian Who 's Tired of Getting Beat Up [ uptake.com ] .
As a result of this article , some folks got together to start WP : NEWT [ wikipedia.org ] , where they wrote articles while posing as n00bs to see how they were treated .
In some cases , they were in fact treated poorly indeed .
Gems include " The reason I deleted the article was that the wikilinks did not have the proper markup .
In addition , " See also " should be used instead of " See articles " and " External links " should be substituted for " Sites " .
Willking1979 ( talk ) 02 : 43 , 6 October 2009 ( UTC ) " [ wikipedia.org ] and User : Multixfer throwing a total shitfit when ( fully appropriately ) outed as being a total asshole [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped participating on Wikipedia years ago due to deletionists slashing and burning any and alls article in the name of HURR HURR NOT NOTABLE.
I mean, why bother?
That said, I recently saw something interesting - about two months ago someone wrote an article about her negative Wikipedia experience - Bullypedia, A Wikipedian Who's Tired of Getting Beat Up [uptake.com].
As a result of this article, some folks got together to start WP:NEWT [wikipedia.org], where they wrote articles while posing as n00bs to see how they were treated.
In some cases, they were in fact treated poorly indeed.
Gems include "The reason I deleted the article was that the wikilinks did not have the proper markup.
In addition, "See also" should be used instead of "See articles" and "External links" should be substituted for "Sites".
Willking1979 (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)" [wikipedia.org] and User:Multixfer throwing a total shitfit when (fully appropriately) outed as being a total asshole [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228028</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd add that the concept of "compendium of all human knowledge" included a whole lot of stuff that can't be cited. Unfortunately, Wikipedia decided that it was supposed to compete with Brittanica and other traditional encyclopedias and needed academic citations. All of a sudden humans who knew things outside the realms of academia were lesser again, and people who knew how to make a citation were greater, even if they didn't understand what they were citing.</p><p>I myself stopped participating after having an extended argument related to a minor edit I made, but the other guy had a citation. While I had real world experience on the issue and the other guy didn't, he had the citation. When I finally got the book he cited through inter-library loan, it turned out he had completely misunderstood the text.</p><p>I think Wikipedia or something like it will evolve to include different tags that let people determine if they want to read uncited or irrelevant information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd add that the concept of " compendium of all human knowledge " included a whole lot of stuff that ca n't be cited .
Unfortunately , Wikipedia decided that it was supposed to compete with Brittanica and other traditional encyclopedias and needed academic citations .
All of a sudden humans who knew things outside the realms of academia were lesser again , and people who knew how to make a citation were greater , even if they did n't understand what they were citing.I myself stopped participating after having an extended argument related to a minor edit I made , but the other guy had a citation .
While I had real world experience on the issue and the other guy did n't , he had the citation .
When I finally got the book he cited through inter-library loan , it turned out he had completely misunderstood the text.I think Wikipedia or something like it will evolve to include different tags that let people determine if they want to read uncited or irrelevant information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd add that the concept of "compendium of all human knowledge" included a whole lot of stuff that can't be cited.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia decided that it was supposed to compete with Brittanica and other traditional encyclopedias and needed academic citations.
All of a sudden humans who knew things outside the realms of academia were lesser again, and people who knew how to make a citation were greater, even if they didn't understand what they were citing.I myself stopped participating after having an extended argument related to a minor edit I made, but the other guy had a citation.
While I had real world experience on the issue and the other guy didn't, he had the citation.
When I finally got the book he cited through inter-library loan, it turned out he had completely misunderstood the text.I think Wikipedia or something like it will evolve to include different tags that let people determine if they want to read uncited or irrelevant information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232158</id>
	<title>Any details, on how they got such numbers?</title>
	<author>Xelgen</author>
	<datestamp>1257168240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, problems described here, do really exist. It's sad, but some of the problems are quite natural, for big communities.

The thing I would like to understand is how that number became 10 times bigger just in one year? Being wikipedian with few thousands of edits, in past 3 years, I can't see such a dramatic change in the past year.
Did researchers took into account, the "unified global account", introduces in mid-2008? Otherwise, they could conclude, that users who started using one global account instead of few accounts on different wikipedias, to be "inactive" while actually they were just using new, global account. Let's say one was editing on 3 different wikipedias with 3 different logins, one for each language. Then he have unified his logins, and get one global account. There are chances that if this was not taken in account, they will got 2 "new inactive users", which will not be true.

Any link to original research, and details on techniques they used to get such numbers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , problems described here , do really exist .
It 's sad , but some of the problems are quite natural , for big communities .
The thing I would like to understand is how that number became 10 times bigger just in one year ?
Being wikipedian with few thousands of edits , in past 3 years , I ca n't see such a dramatic change in the past year .
Did researchers took into account , the " unified global account " , introduces in mid-2008 ?
Otherwise , they could conclude , that users who started using one global account instead of few accounts on different wikipedias , to be " inactive " while actually they were just using new , global account .
Let 's say one was editing on 3 different wikipedias with 3 different logins , one for each language .
Then he have unified his logins , and get one global account .
There are chances that if this was not taken in account , they will got 2 " new inactive users " , which will not be true .
Any link to original research , and details on techniques they used to get such numbers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, problems described here, do really exist.
It's sad, but some of the problems are quite natural, for big communities.
The thing I would like to understand is how that number became 10 times bigger just in one year?
Being wikipedian with few thousands of edits, in past 3 years, I can't see such a dramatic change in the past year.
Did researchers took into account, the "unified global account", introduces in mid-2008?
Otherwise, they could conclude, that users who started using one global account instead of few accounts on different wikipedias, to be "inactive" while actually they were just using new, global account.
Let's say one was editing on 3 different wikipedias with 3 different logins, one for each language.
Then he have unified his logins, and get one global account.
There are chances that if this was not taken in account, they will got 2 "new inactive users", which will not be true.
Any link to original research, and details on techniques they used to get such numbers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30235280</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia:Statistics</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1259233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Oh, so Wikipedia is reaching the end of its logistics curve. It has been growing exponentially the last few years. Someday or another, there has to eventually be a time where the Wikipedian population explosion meets its consequences. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so Wikipedia is reaching the end of its logistics curve .
It has been growing exponentially the last few years .
Someday or another , there has to eventually be a time where the Wikipedian population explosion meets its consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Oh, so Wikipedia is reaching the end of its logistics curve.
It has been growing exponentially the last few years.
Someday or another, there has to eventually be a time where the Wikipedian population explosion meets its consequences. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227794</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1257186420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the deletionism is what causes the lack of low hanging fruit for a large part.</p><p>You can't get some practice by editing the article on Fidel Castro. That's almost guaranteed to cause huge arguments about politics, and discussion of wikipedia procedures related to the most minute details.</p><p>Various pop culture articles used to provide an excellent practice ground. And since TV shows and anime keep coming out there was always something to work on. If you wanted to try writing on something you could go write something about your favourite TV show, and get used to the interface, formatting, interact a bit with other people and so on. But with the strict limiting of these subjects now what remains is mostly serious subjects, which need to be approached with care. The most innocent mistakes will get you accused of being a troll.</p><p>My first attempt to contribute something not very important was initially ignored, until suddenly several weeks later it attracted lots of attention, arguments, lots of pointing to various 10 page longs WP: pages, accusations of me having an ulterior motive, and somebody adding it to some list of stupid arguments on wikipedia. It's not really welcoming. And based on things I've read on talk pages that doesn't seem to be very unusual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the deletionism is what causes the lack of low hanging fruit for a large part.You ca n't get some practice by editing the article on Fidel Castro .
That 's almost guaranteed to cause huge arguments about politics , and discussion of wikipedia procedures related to the most minute details.Various pop culture articles used to provide an excellent practice ground .
And since TV shows and anime keep coming out there was always something to work on .
If you wanted to try writing on something you could go write something about your favourite TV show , and get used to the interface , formatting , interact a bit with other people and so on .
But with the strict limiting of these subjects now what remains is mostly serious subjects , which need to be approached with care .
The most innocent mistakes will get you accused of being a troll.My first attempt to contribute something not very important was initially ignored , until suddenly several weeks later it attracted lots of attention , arguments , lots of pointing to various 10 page longs WP : pages , accusations of me having an ulterior motive , and somebody adding it to some list of stupid arguments on wikipedia .
It 's not really welcoming .
And based on things I 've read on talk pages that does n't seem to be very unusual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the deletionism is what causes the lack of low hanging fruit for a large part.You can't get some practice by editing the article on Fidel Castro.
That's almost guaranteed to cause huge arguments about politics, and discussion of wikipedia procedures related to the most minute details.Various pop culture articles used to provide an excellent practice ground.
And since TV shows and anime keep coming out there was always something to work on.
If you wanted to try writing on something you could go write something about your favourite TV show, and get used to the interface, formatting, interact a bit with other people and so on.
But with the strict limiting of these subjects now what remains is mostly serious subjects, which need to be approached with care.
The most innocent mistakes will get you accused of being a troll.My first attempt to contribute something not very important was initially ignored, until suddenly several weeks later it attracted lots of attention, arguments, lots of pointing to various 10 page longs WP: pages, accusations of me having an ulterior motive, and somebody adding it to some list of stupid arguments on wikipedia.
It's not really welcoming.
And based on things I've read on talk pages that doesn't seem to be very unusual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230032</id>
	<title>bueracracy and censorship</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1257153480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gave up on wikipedia when i learned they were actively perpetrating a lie with a media blackout on some reporter who had been captured by some extremist group. THe justification was that it keeps media attnetion off him, helping him to stay alive.Any time someone would edit his page informing the world that this person was missing, wikipedia would change it back, eventually locking it. Unacceptable. It should not a be a repository of knowledge's job to change for socio-political reasons. Please present the facts, nothing more, nothing less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave up on wikipedia when i learned they were actively perpetrating a lie with a media blackout on some reporter who had been captured by some extremist group .
THe justification was that it keeps media attnetion off him , helping him to stay alive.Any time someone would edit his page informing the world that this person was missing , wikipedia would change it back , eventually locking it .
Unacceptable. It should not a be a repository of knowledge 's job to change for socio-political reasons .
Please present the facts , nothing more , nothing less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave up on wikipedia when i learned they were actively perpetrating a lie with a media blackout on some reporter who had been captured by some extremist group.
THe justification was that it keeps media attnetion off him, helping him to stay alive.Any time someone would edit his page informing the world that this person was missing, wikipedia would change it back, eventually locking it.
Unacceptable. It should not a be a repository of knowledge's job to change for socio-political reasons.
Please present the facts, nothing more, nothing less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30254312</id>
	<title>No, it's not.</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1259421300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's meaningless to say that 50,000 wikipedia editors left, unless you know the base number that it's drawn from.</p></div><p>They didn't say merely that 50,000 had left, even the summary mentions that it is a net loss of 50,000, and further, that's a net loss 10x larger than the previous year: which is then evidence of a trend. It doesn't matter then so much what the base number is, so much as the trend is worrying enough as it is, especially if it's exponential.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's meaningless to say that 50,000 wikipedia editors left , unless you know the base number that it 's drawn from.They did n't say merely that 50,000 had left , even the summary mentions that it is a net loss of 50,000 , and further , that 's a net loss 10x larger than the previous year : which is then evidence of a trend .
It does n't matter then so much what the base number is , so much as the trend is worrying enough as it is , especially if it 's exponential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's meaningless to say that 50,000 wikipedia editors left, unless you know the base number that it's drawn from.They didn't say merely that 50,000 had left, even the summary mentions that it is a net loss of 50,000, and further, that's a net loss 10x larger than the previous year: which is then evidence of a trend.
It doesn't matter then so much what the base number is, so much as the trend is worrying enough as it is, especially if it's exponential.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227780</id>
	<title>wikipedia = Seo for newspapers</title>
	<author>sjwest</author>
	<datestamp>1257186360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very occasional editor here on just one article and i can say that unless my subject had a big newspaper link then most of the relevant edits went<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null.   That works well if your subject is msm worthy but i'm not promoting the times of india newspaper website usage/ad viewing.</p><p>Jimmy Wales must decide that if 'proof' is a single reuters/ap article interpreted 50 times is a fact is good.  And that non msm subjects dont always have millions of sources to back them up.</p><p>I am through with wiki editing, i don't want to be a professional editor (who know little about any subject but a language it was written in)</p><p>Balls in your court Mr Wales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very occasional editor here on just one article and i can say that unless my subject had a big newspaper link then most of the relevant edits went /dev/null .
That works well if your subject is msm worthy but i 'm not promoting the times of india newspaper website usage/ad viewing.Jimmy Wales must decide that if 'proof ' is a single reuters/ap article interpreted 50 times is a fact is good .
And that non msm subjects dont always have millions of sources to back them up.I am through with wiki editing , i do n't want to be a professional editor ( who know little about any subject but a language it was written in ) Balls in your court Mr Wales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very occasional editor here on just one article and i can say that unless my subject had a big newspaper link then most of the relevant edits went /dev/null.
That works well if your subject is msm worthy but i'm not promoting the times of india newspaper website usage/ad viewing.Jimmy Wales must decide that if 'proof' is a single reuters/ap article interpreted 50 times is a fact is good.
And that non msm subjects dont always have millions of sources to back them up.I am through with wiki editing, i don't want to be a professional editor (who know little about any subject but a language it was written in)Balls in your court Mr Wales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227726</id>
	<title>Maybe they really ARE dead!!</title>
	<author>The\_REAL\_DZA</author>
	<datestamp>1257186060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, did anyone bother to do an environmental impact study before launching something with such worldwide and long-term impact?<br>
<br>Did anyone do a double-blind study to make sure Wikipedia wasn't emitting harmful radiation/gasses/particles/etc?!?!<br>
<br>Was there even a government committee chartered to <em>keep watch</em> to make sure the millions of school children who access it every day weren't harmed?<br>
<br> <br>DIDN'T ANYONE <b>THINK OF THE <i>CHILDREN</i>?!?!?!</b> <br>
<br>Maybe Wikipedia should be shuttered until we can get a "still alive" from at least a majority of the "tens of thousands of editors" who have gone "dead" -- if even a sample of those who don't respond turn out to <i>actually</i> be dead then we should consider the very real possibility that Wikipedia might somehow be at fault.  Remember: just because we don't <i>see</i> a correlation doesn't necessarily mean there <i>isn't</i> one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , did anyone bother to do an environmental impact study before launching something with such worldwide and long-term impact ?
Did anyone do a double-blind study to make sure Wikipedia was n't emitting harmful radiation/gasses/particles/etc ? ! ? !
Was there even a government committee chartered to keep watch to make sure the millions of school children who access it every day were n't harmed ?
DID N'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN ? ! ? ! ? !
Maybe Wikipedia should be shuttered until we can get a " still alive " from at least a majority of the " tens of thousands of editors " who have gone " dead " -- if even a sample of those who do n't respond turn out to actually be dead then we should consider the very real possibility that Wikipedia might somehow be at fault .
Remember : just because we do n't see a correlation does n't necessarily mean there is n't one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, did anyone bother to do an environmental impact study before launching something with such worldwide and long-term impact?
Did anyone do a double-blind study to make sure Wikipedia wasn't emitting harmful radiation/gasses/particles/etc?!?!
Was there even a government committee chartered to keep watch to make sure the millions of school children who access it every day weren't harmed?
DIDN'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!
Maybe Wikipedia should be shuttered until we can get a "still alive" from at least a majority of the "tens of thousands of editors" who have gone "dead" -- if even a sample of those who don't respond turn out to actually be dead then we should consider the very real possibility that Wikipedia might somehow be at fault.
Remember: just because we don't see a correlation doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229654</id>
	<title>College Reasearch using Wikipedia not allowed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257194760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell you from experience that the college I go to does not allow Wikipedia as a research tool.  They feel the information is inaccurate and will not allow citations for APA papers that reference Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you from experience that the college I go to does not allow Wikipedia as a research tool .
They feel the information is inaccurate and will not allow citations for APA papers that reference Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you from experience that the college I go to does not allow Wikipedia as a research tool.
They feel the information is inaccurate and will not allow citations for APA papers that reference Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228090</id>
	<title>As an infrequent contributor</title>
	<author>PhrostyMcByte</author>
	<datestamp>1257187740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used to make maybe 5 edits per year since Wikipedia began.  Recently I've made a lot less, and it's not because I've run out of things to contribute.</p><p>Of the past 5 edits I've made, I think 4 of them have been tagged as a "good faith edit" and removed because they didn't live up to their new policies.  Really, I understand their motivation -- they want everything to be as verifiable as possible.  But I think this goes against what made Wikipedia big in the first place.</p><p>It used to be so quick and easy to add new information.  Anyone who spotted an error was compelled to correct it.  It brought the entire internet together as one big community.  Now you have to stay caught up with their ever-changing policies, be prepared to defend an edit in the discussion page, etc. -- it's no longer quick and easy.  It's no longer fun to contribute.  It's more like actual work now.  I'm glad that some people can still enjoy doing it because I find Wikipedia an invaluable resource, but as an 'infrequent' contributor, I have a lot of trouble finding the motivation to put up with it any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used to make maybe 5 edits per year since Wikipedia began .
Recently I 've made a lot less , and it 's not because I 've run out of things to contribute.Of the past 5 edits I 've made , I think 4 of them have been tagged as a " good faith edit " and removed because they did n't live up to their new policies .
Really , I understand their motivation -- they want everything to be as verifiable as possible .
But I think this goes against what made Wikipedia big in the first place.It used to be so quick and easy to add new information .
Anyone who spotted an error was compelled to correct it .
It brought the entire internet together as one big community .
Now you have to stay caught up with their ever-changing policies , be prepared to defend an edit in the discussion page , etc .
-- it 's no longer quick and easy .
It 's no longer fun to contribute .
It 's more like actual work now .
I 'm glad that some people can still enjoy doing it because I find Wikipedia an invaluable resource , but as an 'infrequent ' contributor , I have a lot of trouble finding the motivation to put up with it any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used to make maybe 5 edits per year since Wikipedia began.
Recently I've made a lot less, and it's not because I've run out of things to contribute.Of the past 5 edits I've made, I think 4 of them have been tagged as a "good faith edit" and removed because they didn't live up to their new policies.
Really, I understand their motivation -- they want everything to be as verifiable as possible.
But I think this goes against what made Wikipedia big in the first place.It used to be so quick and easy to add new information.
Anyone who spotted an error was compelled to correct it.
It brought the entire internet together as one big community.
Now you have to stay caught up with their ever-changing policies, be prepared to defend an edit in the discussion page, etc.
-- it's no longer quick and easy.
It's no longer fun to contribute.
It's more like actual work now.
I'm glad that some people can still enjoy doing it because I find Wikipedia an invaluable resource, but as an 'infrequent' contributor, I have a lot of trouble finding the motivation to put up with it any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227622</id>
	<title>It's WSJ not Cnet</title>
	<author>pileated</author>
	<datestamp>1257185640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why someone would say Cnet when all Cnet does is paraphrase the article that ran in WSJ yesterday. Why not just go to the source?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why someone would say Cnet when all Cnet does is paraphrase the article that ran in WSJ yesterday .
Why not just go to the source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why someone would say Cnet when all Cnet does is paraphrase the article that ran in WSJ yesterday.
Why not just go to the source?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227380</id>
	<title>The solution:</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1257184560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lock it down, allow no modifications, and leave it as is. Keep it hosted though.</p><p>Honestly, the repository is large enough. If I want to find something on there I can. Anything worth being added can be handled by a small team of admins.</p><p>Oh. And of course, make it subscription based. (I kid...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lock it down , allow no modifications , and leave it as is .
Keep it hosted though.Honestly , the repository is large enough .
If I want to find something on there I can .
Anything worth being added can be handled by a small team of admins.Oh .
And of course , make it subscription based .
( I kid... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lock it down, allow no modifications, and leave it as is.
Keep it hosted though.Honestly, the repository is large enough.
If I want to find something on there I can.
Anything worth being added can be handled by a small team of admins.Oh.
And of course, make it subscription based.
(I kid...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231366</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia:Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257161940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look down the English language column of this chart: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm, this http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseEdits.htm . Not much green there, is there? Now look at this: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesTotal.htm .</p><p>I'd call that "Wikipedia shows signs of slowing down as volunteers are less inclined to do the work it would take to make Wikipedia a genuinely authoritative research guide."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look down the English language column of this chart : http : //stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm , this http : //stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseEdits.htm .
Not much green there , is there ?
Now look at this : http : //stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesTotal.htm .I 'd call that " Wikipedia shows signs of slowing down as volunteers are less inclined to do the work it would take to make Wikipedia a genuinely authoritative research guide .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look down the English language column of this chart: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm, this http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseEdits.htm .
Not much green there, is there?
Now look at this: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesTotal.htm .I'd call that "Wikipedia shows signs of slowing down as volunteers are less inclined to do the work it would take to make Wikipedia a genuinely authoritative research guide.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229754</id>
	<title>Have you contributed to Wikipedia recently?</title>
	<author>spaceyhackerlady</author>
	<datestamp>1257195300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll answer that for you: No.

</p><p>I've tried a few times, but the bureaucracy was such that I gave up.

</p><p>A noble idea, but I wonder if it's really viable. I've seen other online knowledge systems degenerate
in to bad jokes, full of disinformation. Yahoo Answers is positively scary, with an oppressive "moderation"
system to boot. It would be a shame if Wikipedia went the same way.

</p><p>...laura</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll answer that for you : No .
I 've tried a few times , but the bureaucracy was such that I gave up .
A noble idea , but I wonder if it 's really viable .
I 've seen other online knowledge systems degenerate in to bad jokes , full of disinformation .
Yahoo Answers is positively scary , with an oppressive " moderation " system to boot .
It would be a shame if Wikipedia went the same way .
...laura</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll answer that for you: No.
I've tried a few times, but the bureaucracy was such that I gave up.
A noble idea, but I wonder if it's really viable.
I've seen other online knowledge systems degenerate
in to bad jokes, full of disinformation.
Yahoo Answers is positively scary, with an oppressive "moderation"
system to boot.
It would be a shame if Wikipedia went the same way.
...laura</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227646</id>
	<title>It's the instant-revert crowd</title>
	<author>p3d0</author>
	<datestamp>1257185700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I find it increasingly frustrating to contribute because whatever you add, there's always someone waiting to revert it immediately without any attempt at compromise or discussion.</p><p>I also have to say that I think people will find it humourous 50 years from now when they look back at comments from 2009 about how there's not much new stuff to add.  That's a bit like the fellow who wanted to <a href="http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/22779.html" title="quotationspage.com" rel="nofollow">close the patent office in 1899 because everything had already been invented</a> [quotationspage.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I find it increasingly frustrating to contribute because whatever you add , there 's always someone waiting to revert it immediately without any attempt at compromise or discussion.I also have to say that I think people will find it humourous 50 years from now when they look back at comments from 2009 about how there 's not much new stuff to add .
That 's a bit like the fellow who wanted to close the patent office in 1899 because everything had already been invented [ quotationspage.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I find it increasingly frustrating to contribute because whatever you add, there's always someone waiting to revert it immediately without any attempt at compromise or discussion.I also have to say that I think people will find it humourous 50 years from now when they look back at comments from 2009 about how there's not much new stuff to add.
That's a bit like the fellow who wanted to close the patent office in 1899 because everything had already been invented [quotationspage.com].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227974</id>
	<title>[cite would be helpful]</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1257187140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can put some more context in here, it would help us understand the history.
btw, are deletions final? Isn't the metadata kept around somewhere?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can put some more context in here , it would help us understand the history .
btw , are deletions final ?
Is n't the metadata kept around somewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can put some more context in here, it would help us understand the history.
btw, are deletions final?
Isn't the metadata kept around somewhere?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228940</id>
	<title>Pending doom?</title>
	<author>Carbaholic</author>
	<datestamp>1257191520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>50,000 / 3,000,000 = 1.7\%</p><p>Alarming</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>50,000 / 3,000,000 = 1.7 \ % Alarming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50,000 / 3,000,000 = 1.7\%Alarming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234714</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1259269140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the people who attack Wikipedia for being deletionist don't understand its purpose: Wikipedia seeks to be a reliable source of information before it seeks to be a complete source of information. Wikipedia has gotten better over the years; not because it has grown (which it has), but because it has increased in average quality. Just five years ago Wikipedia was considered somewhat a joke because it contained so much misinformation and unreliable information.</p><p>You have a pretty strong opinion on all this, as do a lot of other Slashdotters. I present this challenge to everyone: provide an example of an article that you think deserves to be on Wikipedia but was deleted despite having reliable sources. My guess is you will be hard-pressed to find examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the people who attack Wikipedia for being deletionist do n't understand its purpose : Wikipedia seeks to be a reliable source of information before it seeks to be a complete source of information .
Wikipedia has gotten better over the years ; not because it has grown ( which it has ) , but because it has increased in average quality .
Just five years ago Wikipedia was considered somewhat a joke because it contained so much misinformation and unreliable information.You have a pretty strong opinion on all this , as do a lot of other Slashdotters .
I present this challenge to everyone : provide an example of an article that you think deserves to be on Wikipedia but was deleted despite having reliable sources .
My guess is you will be hard-pressed to find examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the people who attack Wikipedia for being deletionist don't understand its purpose: Wikipedia seeks to be a reliable source of information before it seeks to be a complete source of information.
Wikipedia has gotten better over the years; not because it has grown (which it has), but because it has increased in average quality.
Just five years ago Wikipedia was considered somewhat a joke because it contained so much misinformation and unreliable information.You have a pretty strong opinion on all this, as do a lot of other Slashdotters.
I present this challenge to everyone: provide an example of an article that you think deserves to be on Wikipedia but was deleted despite having reliable sources.
My guess is you will be hard-pressed to find examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30257058</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1259407200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their "noteworthy" filter on everything, and so they've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of "relevant" human knowledge. Of course, they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn't relevant</p></div><p>It's true that their criteria for noteworthiness appears arbitrary and sometimes bitter (they resisted for years having an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica, for instance). But that's not really the problem; the problem is the very notion that information must be "noteworthy". I just can't get into the mind of a person who wants to remove information, to make Wikipedia less informative than it could be.</p><p>I like information. I want as much of it available as possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their " noteworthy " filter on everything , and so they 've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of " relevant " human knowledge .
Of course , they alone are the arbiters of what is and is n't relevantIt 's true that their criteria for noteworthiness appears arbitrary and sometimes bitter ( they resisted for years having an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica , for instance ) .
But that 's not really the problem ; the problem is the very notion that information must be " noteworthy " .
I just ca n't get into the mind of a person who wants to remove information , to make Wikipedia less informative than it could be.I like information .
I want as much of it available as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their "noteworthy" filter on everything, and so they've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of "relevant" human knowledge.
Of course, they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn't relevantIt's true that their criteria for noteworthiness appears arbitrary and sometimes bitter (they resisted for years having an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica, for instance).
But that's not really the problem; the problem is the very notion that information must be "noteworthy".
I just can't get into the mind of a person who wants to remove information, to make Wikipedia less informative than it could be.I like information.
I want as much of it available as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231526</id>
	<title>So long, sponsored dead-wood!</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1257162780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The herd's probably moving on because so many people have learned that Wikipedia can be forged in political situations. It's a herd, probably because the people that politically donate all leave at the same time.</p><p>This is consumption: you can only pull from this well so long before it's dry.</p><p>The latest incident where Wikipedia had something Limbaugh didn't say, and the 'dinosaur media', with their competence of rubber-stamping and never an investigation just ran with the story, never looking back. And, like all liberal/leftist/progressive media, the echo-chamber kicked in and it was world news.</p><p>So once again everyone trying to 'jimmy' the system left them with egg on their face.  And now that Wikipedia has been granted universal "not for publishing" title, we'll have a smaller, more honest team of contributors, now that the 'journalist' schlubs are gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The herd 's probably moving on because so many people have learned that Wikipedia can be forged in political situations .
It 's a herd , probably because the people that politically donate all leave at the same time.This is consumption : you can only pull from this well so long before it 's dry.The latest incident where Wikipedia had something Limbaugh did n't say , and the 'dinosaur media ' , with their competence of rubber-stamping and never an investigation just ran with the story , never looking back .
And , like all liberal/leftist/progressive media , the echo-chamber kicked in and it was world news.So once again everyone trying to 'jimmy ' the system left them with egg on their face .
And now that Wikipedia has been granted universal " not for publishing " title , we 'll have a smaller , more honest team of contributors , now that the 'journalist ' schlubs are gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The herd's probably moving on because so many people have learned that Wikipedia can be forged in political situations.
It's a herd, probably because the people that politically donate all leave at the same time.This is consumption: you can only pull from this well so long before it's dry.The latest incident where Wikipedia had something Limbaugh didn't say, and the 'dinosaur media', with their competence of rubber-stamping and never an investigation just ran with the story, never looking back.
And, like all liberal/leftist/progressive media, the echo-chamber kicked in and it was world news.So once again everyone trying to 'jimmy' the system left them with egg on their face.
And now that Wikipedia has been granted universal "not for publishing" title, we'll have a smaller, more honest team of contributors, now that the 'journalist' schlubs are gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230068</id>
	<title>Re:It just isn't worth the fight anymore.</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1257153660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isnt this EXACTLY what wikipedia should be preventing? No one person should have control over any one article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Isnt this EXACTLY what wikipedia should be preventing ?
No one person should have control over any one article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isnt this EXACTLY what wikipedia should be preventing?
No one person should have control over any one article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227656</id>
	<title>Can't imagine why....</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1257185700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't imagine why contributors are leaving. It's become a cesspool of those who do nothing but revert legitimate edits (to get their edit count up) because it isn't from anyone in power worth brown-nosing to.</p><p>Like juries, the people who have enough time to become a real political power in the wikipedia game are not the people we want in charge of the contributions or making decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't imagine why contributors are leaving .
It 's become a cesspool of those who do nothing but revert legitimate edits ( to get their edit count up ) because it is n't from anyone in power worth brown-nosing to.Like juries , the people who have enough time to become a real political power in the wikipedia game are not the people we want in charge of the contributions or making decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't imagine why contributors are leaving.
It's become a cesspool of those who do nothing but revert legitimate edits (to get their edit count up) because it isn't from anyone in power worth brown-nosing to.Like juries, the people who have enough time to become a real political power in the wikipedia game are not the people we want in charge of the contributions or making decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231032</id>
	<title>Re:too much political bias</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The "neutral-viewpoint" promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as "biased" or "controversial."</p></div><p>Sort of like you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " neutral-viewpoint " promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as " biased " or " controversial .
" Sort of like you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "neutral-viewpoint" promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as "biased" or "controversial.
"Sort of like you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227574</id>
	<title>Agendaism</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1257185460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wales states that there's a drive for more accuracy -- hence the rules. The problem is that wikiadmins are not interested in <b>precision</b>. Protected articles may well be accurate as perceived by their agenda and groupthink, but that does not mean they are precise, nor necessarily true.<br> <br>

The rise and power of the wikiadmins was always going to sound the death knell for truth. It just seems to be happening faster than many expected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wales states that there 's a drive for more accuracy -- hence the rules .
The problem is that wikiadmins are not interested in precision .
Protected articles may well be accurate as perceived by their agenda and groupthink , but that does not mean they are precise , nor necessarily true .
The rise and power of the wikiadmins was always going to sound the death knell for truth .
It just seems to be happening faster than many expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wales states that there's a drive for more accuracy -- hence the rules.
The problem is that wikiadmins are not interested in precision.
Protected articles may well be accurate as perceived by their agenda and groupthink, but that does not mean they are precise, nor necessarily true.
The rise and power of the wikiadmins was always going to sound the death knell for truth.
It just seems to be happening faster than many expected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229250</id>
	<title>Political bias sent me away.</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1257192900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to regularly edit articles, though I rarely, if ever, made any new ones.  But during the 2008 general elections I went to the Obama page to learn more about him.  I was blown away to see what was the cleanest, most beautifully designed and positive page I've ever seen in Wikipedia.  Not even Ghandi's page gave me the same feeling.  Then I took a look at the discussion page and saw a huge number of people angry that they could not edit the page and many had their accounts suspended.  Clearly anyone who did not add content that reflected Obama in a positive light would find themselves mired in Wikipedia litigation and essentially unable to really respond because they hadn't passed the Wikipedia bar exam.</p><p>After seeing this I stopped contributing content and money to Wikipedia and I only use it to look up things that are straight facts - like frog species and mountain heights.</p><p>BTW, I did not support either candidate in the election, so I really didn't care who won.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to regularly edit articles , though I rarely , if ever , made any new ones .
But during the 2008 general elections I went to the Obama page to learn more about him .
I was blown away to see what was the cleanest , most beautifully designed and positive page I 've ever seen in Wikipedia .
Not even Ghandi 's page gave me the same feeling .
Then I took a look at the discussion page and saw a huge number of people angry that they could not edit the page and many had their accounts suspended .
Clearly anyone who did not add content that reflected Obama in a positive light would find themselves mired in Wikipedia litigation and essentially unable to really respond because they had n't passed the Wikipedia bar exam.After seeing this I stopped contributing content and money to Wikipedia and I only use it to look up things that are straight facts - like frog species and mountain heights.BTW , I did not support either candidate in the election , so I really did n't care who won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to regularly edit articles, though I rarely, if ever, made any new ones.
But during the 2008 general elections I went to the Obama page to learn more about him.
I was blown away to see what was the cleanest, most beautifully designed and positive page I've ever seen in Wikipedia.
Not even Ghandi's page gave me the same feeling.
Then I took a look at the discussion page and saw a huge number of people angry that they could not edit the page and many had their accounts suspended.
Clearly anyone who did not add content that reflected Obama in a positive light would find themselves mired in Wikipedia litigation and essentially unable to really respond because they hadn't passed the Wikipedia bar exam.After seeing this I stopped contributing content and money to Wikipedia and I only use it to look up things that are straight facts - like frog species and mountain heights.BTW, I did not support either candidate in the election, so I really didn't care who won.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229842</id>
	<title>Re:Future schmuture</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1257152520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wikipedia is what it is. Even if all the contributors dropped dead right now, it'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.</p></div><p>I have never heard anyone use the phrase "it is what it is", without it being a euphemistic way to say "it sucks, and I hate it, but there isn't a thing either of us can do about it"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is what it is .
Even if all the contributors dropped dead right now , it 'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.I have never heard anyone use the phrase " it is what it is " , without it being a euphemistic way to say " it sucks , and I hate it , but there is n't a thing either of us can do about it "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is what it is.
Even if all the contributors dropped dead right now, it'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.I have never heard anyone use the phrase "it is what it is", without it being a euphemistic way to say "it sucks, and I hate it, but there isn't a thing either of us can do about it"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228110</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the bureaucracy. I don't mind rules about style and content insofar as they're reasonable (I like consistency) but Wikipedia has acquired a big body of laws about other things. And these and other decisions are not always reasonable and not always arrived at in a democratic fashion. I've been involved in many "rope pulling contests" before and even though Wikipedia says they rule based on consensus, in practice this is not the case. I got really frustrated at times with people who were obviously wrong (not just according to me) but who simply used the vast amounts of time they apparently have on their hands to push hardest and then use the result to tweak the rules to make it even easier to do. We've scored a few victories, yes. But not enough. And in any case, I want to write articles and I don't want to have to defend them all the time. It isn't the anonymous vandals that burn you out the most, it's unreasonable long standing contributors that make you go away. Even when you're thinking about an article that probably won't be bothered by them, you still think about adding it in the context of adding it to a bigger entity that has those problems and then you stop bothering. I haven't logged in in months now. I've still asked questions on talk pages though, but I simply can't bring myself to edit anymore. Although it was probably a certain autocratic decision from above that pushed me over the brim, but even if that hadn't happened, it was probably a question of time before I got fed up with it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the bureaucracy .
I do n't mind rules about style and content insofar as they 're reasonable ( I like consistency ) but Wikipedia has acquired a big body of laws about other things .
And these and other decisions are not always reasonable and not always arrived at in a democratic fashion .
I 've been involved in many " rope pulling contests " before and even though Wikipedia says they rule based on consensus , in practice this is not the case .
I got really frustrated at times with people who were obviously wrong ( not just according to me ) but who simply used the vast amounts of time they apparently have on their hands to push hardest and then use the result to tweak the rules to make it even easier to do .
We 've scored a few victories , yes .
But not enough .
And in any case , I want to write articles and I do n't want to have to defend them all the time .
It is n't the anonymous vandals that burn you out the most , it 's unreasonable long standing contributors that make you go away .
Even when you 're thinking about an article that probably wo n't be bothered by them , you still think about adding it in the context of adding it to a bigger entity that has those problems and then you stop bothering .
I have n't logged in in months now .
I 've still asked questions on talk pages though , but I simply ca n't bring myself to edit anymore .
Although it was probably a certain autocratic decision from above that pushed me over the brim , but even if that had n't happened , it was probably a question of time before I got fed up with it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the bureaucracy.
I don't mind rules about style and content insofar as they're reasonable (I like consistency) but Wikipedia has acquired a big body of laws about other things.
And these and other decisions are not always reasonable and not always arrived at in a democratic fashion.
I've been involved in many "rope pulling contests" before and even though Wikipedia says they rule based on consensus, in practice this is not the case.
I got really frustrated at times with people who were obviously wrong (not just according to me) but who simply used the vast amounts of time they apparently have on their hands to push hardest and then use the result to tweak the rules to make it even easier to do.
We've scored a few victories, yes.
But not enough.
And in any case, I want to write articles and I don't want to have to defend them all the time.
It isn't the anonymous vandals that burn you out the most, it's unreasonable long standing contributors that make you go away.
Even when you're thinking about an article that probably won't be bothered by them, you still think about adding it in the context of adding it to a bigger entity that has those problems and then you stop bothering.
I haven't logged in in months now.
I've still asked questions on talk pages though, but I simply can't bring myself to edit anymore.
Although it was probably a certain autocratic decision from above that pushed me over the brim, but even if that hadn't happened, it was probably a question of time before I got fed up with it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231476</id>
	<title>Re:too much political bias</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1257162420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that you're infamous on the internet for your less than unbiased view of middle east politics, I don't think your claims about bias in Wikipedia's Hezbollah article carry any wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that you 're infamous on the internet for your less than unbiased view of middle east politics , I do n't think your claims about bias in Wikipedia 's Hezbollah article carry any wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that you're infamous on the internet for your less than unbiased view of middle east politics, I don't think your claims about bias in Wikipedia's Hezbollah article carry any wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232862</id>
	<title>Re:It just isn't worth the fight anymore.</title>
	<author>snarfer</author>
	<datestamp>1257173280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I strongly suspect you ran up against what I ran up against.  Possibly even the same guy from the way you describe it.  Here is what I think is going on:  It's pretty clear that there are people employed to do this.</p><p>I ran up against someone who I confirmed was employed to put a corporate viewpoint into articles on tort reform, and to keep other viewpoints off of the site.  He was an admin, who worked on the site all day, every day, and who was employed as Director of a Tort reform center at a right-wing/corporate "think tank."  There was no question that was almost all he was doing with his time.  But he had a number of other admins he could call on to confrim his decisions.</p><p>So I started tracking the edits of this guy and his cohorts. I found that they were working full-time on articles involving trade issues, tax cuts, tort reform, and the who gamut of the Chamber of Commerce / Corporate agenda...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly suspect you ran up against what I ran up against .
Possibly even the same guy from the way you describe it .
Here is what I think is going on : It 's pretty clear that there are people employed to do this.I ran up against someone who I confirmed was employed to put a corporate viewpoint into articles on tort reform , and to keep other viewpoints off of the site .
He was an admin , who worked on the site all day , every day , and who was employed as Director of a Tort reform center at a right-wing/corporate " think tank .
" There was no question that was almost all he was doing with his time .
But he had a number of other admins he could call on to confrim his decisions.So I started tracking the edits of this guy and his cohorts .
I found that they were working full-time on articles involving trade issues , tax cuts , tort reform , and the who gamut of the Chamber of Commerce / Corporate agenda.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly suspect you ran up against what I ran up against.
Possibly even the same guy from the way you describe it.
Here is what I think is going on:  It's pretty clear that there are people employed to do this.I ran up against someone who I confirmed was employed to put a corporate viewpoint into articles on tort reform, and to keep other viewpoints off of the site.
He was an admin, who worked on the site all day, every day, and who was employed as Director of a Tort reform center at a right-wing/corporate "think tank.
"  There was no question that was almost all he was doing with his time.
But he had a number of other admins he could call on to confrim his decisions.So I started tracking the edits of this guy and his cohorts.
I found that they were working full-time on articles involving trade issues, tax cuts, tort reform, and the who gamut of the Chamber of Commerce / Corporate agenda...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229698</id>
	<title>You think it's bad now?</title>
	<author>PylonHead</author>
	<datestamp>1257195060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It used to just say "Harmless."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It used to just say " Harmless .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used to just say "Harmless.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233358</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wikipedia is not a Democracy, so a delete request would never be "accepted by a narrow margin".</p></div><p>Indeed. Time and again, articles are deleted even when most people voted "keep", as seen in the "wikipedia vs webcomics" debacle (google it, have fun).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is not a Democracy , so a delete request would never be " accepted by a narrow margin " .Indeed .
Time and again , articles are deleted even when most people voted " keep " , as seen in the " wikipedia vs webcomics " debacle ( google it , have fun ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is not a Democracy, so a delete request would never be "accepted by a narrow margin".Indeed.
Time and again, articles are deleted even when most people voted "keep", as seen in the "wikipedia vs webcomics" debacle (google it, have fun).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230910</id>
	<title>Re:How about anti-science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257158700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the best way to prevent vandalism to technical articles is [citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the best way to prevent vandalism to technical articles is [ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the best way to prevent vandalism to technical articles is [citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230840</id>
	<title>Are there ANY wikipedia admins who would</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1257158160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually post here to clear up any misunderstandings about their procedures, if there are ?</p><p>if any of them are reading this, they should take up posting and explain themselves. for what we are reading here is really really not good.</p><p>and they shouldnt at all snob this place either - for there are hordes of I.T. people here who can break or make frameworks, projects, leave aside websites, with their collective (and sometimes individual) action.</p><p>i, for one, am a web developer for example. i also maintain numerous websites. in addition, i am a participant in various high volume profession and interest forums. sufficient number of these rightful negative reviews, and i may decide not to use wikipedia in any aspect of my work or personal life, stop giving links to it, even may stop using and giving support to any infrastructure that runs wikipedia, if things go that far. and switch to an alternative as soon as it comes up.</p><p>im just one person. but, there are many of us. and, 'the people', which seem to be getting snobbed by wikpedia, as the article points out, rule the web. never forget that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually post here to clear up any misunderstandings about their procedures , if there are ? if any of them are reading this , they should take up posting and explain themselves .
for what we are reading here is really really not good.and they shouldnt at all snob this place either - for there are hordes of I.T .
people here who can break or make frameworks , projects , leave aside websites , with their collective ( and sometimes individual ) action.i , for one , am a web developer for example .
i also maintain numerous websites .
in addition , i am a participant in various high volume profession and interest forums .
sufficient number of these rightful negative reviews , and i may decide not to use wikipedia in any aspect of my work or personal life , stop giving links to it , even may stop using and giving support to any infrastructure that runs wikipedia , if things go that far .
and switch to an alternative as soon as it comes up.im just one person .
but , there are many of us .
and , 'the people ' , which seem to be getting snobbed by wikpedia , as the article points out , rule the web .
never forget that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually post here to clear up any misunderstandings about their procedures, if there are ?if any of them are reading this, they should take up posting and explain themselves.
for what we are reading here is really really not good.and they shouldnt at all snob this place either - for there are hordes of I.T.
people here who can break or make frameworks, projects, leave aside websites, with their collective (and sometimes individual) action.i, for one, am a web developer for example.
i also maintain numerous websites.
in addition, i am a participant in various high volume profession and interest forums.
sufficient number of these rightful negative reviews, and i may decide not to use wikipedia in any aspect of my work or personal life, stop giving links to it, even may stop using and giving support to any infrastructure that runs wikipedia, if things go that far.
and switch to an alternative as soon as it comes up.im just one person.
but, there are many of us.
and, 'the people', which seem to be getting snobbed by wikpedia, as the article points out, rule the web.
never forget that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228134</id>
	<title>Re:too much political bias</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1257187920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh.  It was bad enough reading your crap on Fark.  Here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. people can punish you for being a paranoid, ignorant twat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh .
It was bad enough reading your crap on Fark .
Here on / .
people can punish you for being a paranoid , ignorant twat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh.
It was bad enough reading your crap on Fark.
Here on /.
people can punish you for being a paranoid, ignorant twat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231636</id>
	<title>Re:Rules are to be broken, but not on Wikipedia.</title>
	<author>orangemike</author>
	<datestamp>1257163740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So every garage band looking for a drummer, every high school kid who ever scored a touchdown, every Cub Scout pack in the history of the BSA, every two-person startup which has submitted an app for iPhones, every candidate for City Council district 6 in Osceola, Arkansas, every National Merit Scholarship in Vermont, etc.: each should have an article in Wikipedia? Where does one draw the line?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So every garage band looking for a drummer , every high school kid who ever scored a touchdown , every Cub Scout pack in the history of the BSA , every two-person startup which has submitted an app for iPhones , every candidate for City Council district 6 in Osceola , Arkansas , every National Merit Scholarship in Vermont , etc .
: each should have an article in Wikipedia ?
Where does one draw the line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So every garage band looking for a drummer, every high school kid who ever scored a touchdown, every Cub Scout pack in the history of the BSA, every two-person startup which has submitted an app for iPhones, every candidate for City Council district 6 in Osceola, Arkansas, every National Merit Scholarship in Vermont, etc.
: each should have an article in Wikipedia?
Where does one draw the line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230760</id>
	<title>Re:Here's why</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1257157620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In this case, it was Jimmy Wales foolishly applying his apparent Randian worldview onto the project (he used to either frequent or admin some Randroid newsgroup). </i></p><p>The article on Kant  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant</a> [wikipedia.org] just doesn't have the disdain for Transcendental Idealism that I would expect from Rand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , it was Jimmy Wales foolishly applying his apparent Randian worldview onto the project ( he used to either frequent or admin some Randroid newsgroup ) .
The article on Kant http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant [ wikipedia.org ] just does n't have the disdain for Transcendental Idealism that I would expect from Rand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, it was Jimmy Wales foolishly applying his apparent Randian worldview onto the project (he used to either frequent or admin some Randroid newsgroup).
The article on Kant  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant [wikipedia.org] just doesn't have the disdain for Transcendental Idealism that I would expect from Rand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231158</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1257160680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This "Wikipedia is not democracy" is silliness, and root of all evil. First, it is misunderstood. Originally, the quote was "Wikipedia is not \_an experiment in\_ democracy", meaning, we don't care what the governance structure is, because the goal is not an experimental human society, but encyclopedic project. Originally, it has been thought that consensus is enough. But as it grows larger, democracy is only way out. Otherwise, it will change into games of cliques and intrigues, like most people there complain about. That's my biggest complaint with Wikipedia, that it is not very democratic (for example, there should be admin recall).</p><p>I would also like to see other remedies (in addition to more democracy) to help improve the situation:<br>1. Separation of privileges. For example, people who can ban shouldn't have power to delete articles and vice versa.<br>2. Stable article branches. Changes to unstable merges would be repeatedly merged into stable version, so the stable version would be vandalism free, but no information would be lost during reverts.<br>3. Page for facts without citations. You could add facts to this page, and someone else would hopefully find a citation to support it (then it could be integrated to the article). Or not. Still, it would be more useful (with a caveat, of course).<br>4. Importance rating. The pages could be rated by importance, so there would be a scale from say 1-7. Almost no need to delete content anymore (except what is now speedy deleted), because the less important topics would have lower rating, and thus could be filtered for example on search and category view.<br>5. Feedback from common users. There should be regular polls about various things, these polls should be about how normal visitors (not editors) see things regarding usability, notability, and so on. This should be respected by the editors, because Wikipedia is there for users, not editors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This " Wikipedia is not democracy " is silliness , and root of all evil .
First , it is misunderstood .
Originally , the quote was " Wikipedia is not \ _an experiment in \ _ democracy " , meaning , we do n't care what the governance structure is , because the goal is not an experimental human society , but encyclopedic project .
Originally , it has been thought that consensus is enough .
But as it grows larger , democracy is only way out .
Otherwise , it will change into games of cliques and intrigues , like most people there complain about .
That 's my biggest complaint with Wikipedia , that it is not very democratic ( for example , there should be admin recall ) .I would also like to see other remedies ( in addition to more democracy ) to help improve the situation : 1 .
Separation of privileges .
For example , people who can ban should n't have power to delete articles and vice versa.2 .
Stable article branches .
Changes to unstable merges would be repeatedly merged into stable version , so the stable version would be vandalism free , but no information would be lost during reverts.3 .
Page for facts without citations .
You could add facts to this page , and someone else would hopefully find a citation to support it ( then it could be integrated to the article ) .
Or not .
Still , it would be more useful ( with a caveat , of course ) .4 .
Importance rating .
The pages could be rated by importance , so there would be a scale from say 1-7 .
Almost no need to delete content anymore ( except what is now speedy deleted ) , because the less important topics would have lower rating , and thus could be filtered for example on search and category view.5 .
Feedback from common users .
There should be regular polls about various things , these polls should be about how normal visitors ( not editors ) see things regarding usability , notability , and so on .
This should be respected by the editors , because Wikipedia is there for users , not editors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This "Wikipedia is not democracy" is silliness, and root of all evil.
First, it is misunderstood.
Originally, the quote was "Wikipedia is not \_an experiment in\_ democracy", meaning, we don't care what the governance structure is, because the goal is not an experimental human society, but encyclopedic project.
Originally, it has been thought that consensus is enough.
But as it grows larger, democracy is only way out.
Otherwise, it will change into games of cliques and intrigues, like most people there complain about.
That's my biggest complaint with Wikipedia, that it is not very democratic (for example, there should be admin recall).I would also like to see other remedies (in addition to more democracy) to help improve the situation:1.
Separation of privileges.
For example, people who can ban shouldn't have power to delete articles and vice versa.2.
Stable article branches.
Changes to unstable merges would be repeatedly merged into stable version, so the stable version would be vandalism free, but no information would be lost during reverts.3.
Page for facts without citations.
You could add facts to this page, and someone else would hopefully find a citation to support it (then it could be integrated to the article).
Or not.
Still, it would be more useful (with a caveat, of course).4.
Importance rating.
The pages could be rated by importance, so there would be a scale from say 1-7.
Almost no need to delete content anymore (except what is now speedy deleted), because the less important topics would have lower rating, and thus could be filtered for example on search and category view.5.
Feedback from common users.
There should be regular polls about various things, these polls should be about how normal visitors (not editors) see things regarding usability, notability, and so on.
This should be respected by the editors, because Wikipedia is there for users, not editors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229520</id>
	<title>How the Wikipedia did Come to be Bad</title>
	<author>Stargoat</author>
	<datestamp>1257194100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stargoat" title="wikipedia.org"> <b>How the Wikipedia Did Come to be Bad.</b> </a> [wikipedia.org]  <i>An Essay by Stargoat</i></p><p>(1) Once upon a time, a man named Jimbo did create a website where the knowledge of the world might be stored.  This website was called the Wikipedia and it was good.</p><p>(2) Many were the people who did come and they added vibrant knowledge to the Wikipedia.  Most of the knowledge was useful.  Some was not.  The information was stored haphazardly and there was great inconsistency.  But the information was there and it was good.</p><p>(3) Those who call themselves journalists did gaze upon the Wikipedia and mocked it.  They stated that the Wikipedia could never work, for who would contribute?  All could alter it.  And information that was incorrect was placed upon it.</p><p>(4) And following the journalists and among the journalists were trolls, who did put incorrect information in the Wikipedia.</p><p>(5) But behold, for the many people who did come outnumbered the trolls who placed incorrect information on the Wikipedia.  The incorrect information was usually found and replaced.  And the Wikipedia did flourish and many more people did come to read and add vibrant information to the Wikipedia.  And it was good.</p><p>(6) Then, some journalists decided that Wikipedia was a creditable source for news and when they came across incorrect information, they did complain and moan and carry on.  But the people were learned enough to sift through the vibrant knowledge.  As such, the people did not care for credibility, for Wikipedia was good and much information was stored, though haphazardly.</p><p>(7) But alas, certain cliques of editors of the Wikipedia did claim the title of Administrator.  And certain cliques of Administrators did not trust the people's ability to distinguish between correct and incorrect information, though the people were learned.</p><p>(8) And the certain cliques of Administrators did remove the haphazard information.  They justified their initial restraints on information vibrancy by claiming copyright violations.  And with some gain of power, like all petty fool-tyrants, the Administrators lusted. By taking more power, they destroyed what was the Wikipedia.  The Old Wikipedia was dead and the New Wikipedia took its place.</p><p>(9) The New Wikipedia was more difficult to edit.  Many were the tags that were placed and these tags hung heavy on the articles and upon the people who did edit and create articles.  The New Wikipedia took the information from the old Wikipedia, which was good, and attached needless and counterproductive rules, which is bad.  And the people did look upon the information and indeed some could not tell a difference.</p><p>(10) But those who had added information saw it tagged for content violations and for notability and for references.  The people who added information sighed and did say, "This sucks."  Then they did stop adding vibrant knowledge and the Wikipedia did not grow as before.</p><p>(11) Thus endth the beginning of the story of the Wikipedia, which did start good, but became bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the Wikipedia Did Come to be Bad .
[ wikipedia.org ] An Essay by Stargoat ( 1 ) Once upon a time , a man named Jimbo did create a website where the knowledge of the world might be stored .
This website was called the Wikipedia and it was good .
( 2 ) Many were the people who did come and they added vibrant knowledge to the Wikipedia .
Most of the knowledge was useful .
Some was not .
The information was stored haphazardly and there was great inconsistency .
But the information was there and it was good .
( 3 ) Those who call themselves journalists did gaze upon the Wikipedia and mocked it .
They stated that the Wikipedia could never work , for who would contribute ?
All could alter it .
And information that was incorrect was placed upon it .
( 4 ) And following the journalists and among the journalists were trolls , who did put incorrect information in the Wikipedia .
( 5 ) But behold , for the many people who did come outnumbered the trolls who placed incorrect information on the Wikipedia .
The incorrect information was usually found and replaced .
And the Wikipedia did flourish and many more people did come to read and add vibrant information to the Wikipedia .
And it was good .
( 6 ) Then , some journalists decided that Wikipedia was a creditable source for news and when they came across incorrect information , they did complain and moan and carry on .
But the people were learned enough to sift through the vibrant knowledge .
As such , the people did not care for credibility , for Wikipedia was good and much information was stored , though haphazardly .
( 7 ) But alas , certain cliques of editors of the Wikipedia did claim the title of Administrator .
And certain cliques of Administrators did not trust the people 's ability to distinguish between correct and incorrect information , though the people were learned .
( 8 ) And the certain cliques of Administrators did remove the haphazard information .
They justified their initial restraints on information vibrancy by claiming copyright violations .
And with some gain of power , like all petty fool-tyrants , the Administrators lusted .
By taking more power , they destroyed what was the Wikipedia .
The Old Wikipedia was dead and the New Wikipedia took its place .
( 9 ) The New Wikipedia was more difficult to edit .
Many were the tags that were placed and these tags hung heavy on the articles and upon the people who did edit and create articles .
The New Wikipedia took the information from the old Wikipedia , which was good , and attached needless and counterproductive rules , which is bad .
And the people did look upon the information and indeed some could not tell a difference .
( 10 ) But those who had added information saw it tagged for content violations and for notability and for references .
The people who added information sighed and did say , " This sucks .
" Then they did stop adding vibrant knowledge and the Wikipedia did not grow as before .
( 11 ) Thus endth the beginning of the story of the Wikipedia , which did start good , but became bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How the Wikipedia Did Come to be Bad.
[wikipedia.org]  An Essay by Stargoat(1) Once upon a time, a man named Jimbo did create a website where the knowledge of the world might be stored.
This website was called the Wikipedia and it was good.
(2) Many were the people who did come and they added vibrant knowledge to the Wikipedia.
Most of the knowledge was useful.
Some was not.
The information was stored haphazardly and there was great inconsistency.
But the information was there and it was good.
(3) Those who call themselves journalists did gaze upon the Wikipedia and mocked it.
They stated that the Wikipedia could never work, for who would contribute?
All could alter it.
And information that was incorrect was placed upon it.
(4) And following the journalists and among the journalists were trolls, who did put incorrect information in the Wikipedia.
(5) But behold, for the many people who did come outnumbered the trolls who placed incorrect information on the Wikipedia.
The incorrect information was usually found and replaced.
And the Wikipedia did flourish and many more people did come to read and add vibrant information to the Wikipedia.
And it was good.
(6) Then, some journalists decided that Wikipedia was a creditable source for news and when they came across incorrect information, they did complain and moan and carry on.
But the people were learned enough to sift through the vibrant knowledge.
As such, the people did not care for credibility, for Wikipedia was good and much information was stored, though haphazardly.
(7) But alas, certain cliques of editors of the Wikipedia did claim the title of Administrator.
And certain cliques of Administrators did not trust the people's ability to distinguish between correct and incorrect information, though the people were learned.
(8) And the certain cliques of Administrators did remove the haphazard information.
They justified their initial restraints on information vibrancy by claiming copyright violations.
And with some gain of power, like all petty fool-tyrants, the Administrators lusted.
By taking more power, they destroyed what was the Wikipedia.
The Old Wikipedia was dead and the New Wikipedia took its place.
(9) The New Wikipedia was more difficult to edit.
Many were the tags that were placed and these tags hung heavy on the articles and upon the people who did edit and create articles.
The New Wikipedia took the information from the old Wikipedia, which was good, and attached needless and counterproductive rules, which is bad.
And the people did look upon the information and indeed some could not tell a difference.
(10) But those who had added information saw it tagged for content violations and for notability and for references.
The people who added information sighed and did say, "This sucks.
"  Then they did stop adding vibrant knowledge and the Wikipedia did not grow as before.
(11) Thus endth the beginning of the story of the Wikipedia, which did start good, but became bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227740</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>newtown1100</author>
	<datestamp>1257186180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As have I.</p><p>I've many times had something actually contributing to the page deleting simply because it doesn't follow some made up notability guideline, etc etc. It doesn't make editing or discussing interesting.</p><p>Not like it ever was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As have I.I 've many times had something actually contributing to the page deleting simply because it does n't follow some made up notability guideline , etc etc .
It does n't make editing or discussing interesting.Not like it ever was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As have I.I've many times had something actually contributing to the page deleting simply because it doesn't follow some made up notability guideline, etc etc.
It doesn't make editing or discussing interesting.Not like it ever was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230920</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1257158760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no problem with you deleting spam articles, but I do have a problem (as I've experienced myself) of helping to maintain articles on obscure pop-culture subjects over a long period of time that suddenly get nominated for speedy deletion because some deletionist decides that article is about a "neologism" (what is Wikipedia if it is not about documenting contemporary culture?), or that it contains too many links to "commercial" sites (it's hard to discuss a commercial concept without linking to commercial sites). Both of these have "rules" that they cite to support their case. And who wrote  or edited those rules? You guessed it!</p><p>So I would say there are two types of deletionist: ones like you, who police abuses of wikipedia like spam articles, and the kind of deletionist that has decided that Wikipedia should be more "encyclopedic", which for them basically means deleting everything that you would not have been taught about in school in pre-1950's USA. That sort is the bad sort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem with you deleting spam articles , but I do have a problem ( as I 've experienced myself ) of helping to maintain articles on obscure pop-culture subjects over a long period of time that suddenly get nominated for speedy deletion because some deletionist decides that article is about a " neologism " ( what is Wikipedia if it is not about documenting contemporary culture ?
) , or that it contains too many links to " commercial " sites ( it 's hard to discuss a commercial concept without linking to commercial sites ) .
Both of these have " rules " that they cite to support their case .
And who wrote or edited those rules ?
You guessed it ! So I would say there are two types of deletionist : ones like you , who police abuses of wikipedia like spam articles , and the kind of deletionist that has decided that Wikipedia should be more " encyclopedic " , which for them basically means deleting everything that you would not have been taught about in school in pre-1950 's USA .
That sort is the bad sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no problem with you deleting spam articles, but I do have a problem (as I've experienced myself) of helping to maintain articles on obscure pop-culture subjects over a long period of time that suddenly get nominated for speedy deletion because some deletionist decides that article is about a "neologism" (what is Wikipedia if it is not about documenting contemporary culture?
), or that it contains too many links to "commercial" sites (it's hard to discuss a commercial concept without linking to commercial sites).
Both of these have "rules" that they cite to support their case.
And who wrote  or edited those rules?
You guessed it!So I would say there are two types of deletionist: ones like you, who police abuses of wikipedia like spam articles, and the kind of deletionist that has decided that Wikipedia should be more "encyclopedic", which for them basically means deleting everything that you would not have been taught about in school in pre-1950's USA.
That sort is the bad sort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227750</id>
	<title>Im tired of</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all the special interests that constatly undermining the credebility of the wikipedia who have time and money to constantly spin information, in small increments, towards their goals of presenting things only in how they perceive things should be. They have money, time, and resources.<br>Large corporations, countries, special interest groups and political parties infiltrated and subverting the credibility of Wikipedia.</p><p>
&nbsp; Alas, Sisyphus 2.0 with changes rolling back every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all the special interests that constatly undermining the credebility of the wikipedia who have time and money to constantly spin information , in small increments , towards their goals of presenting things only in how they perceive things should be .
They have money , time , and resources.Large corporations , countries , special interest groups and political parties infiltrated and subverting the credibility of Wikipedia .
  Alas , Sisyphus 2.0 with changes rolling back every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all the special interests that constatly undermining the credebility of the wikipedia who have time and money to constantly spin information, in small increments, towards their goals of presenting things only in how they perceive things should be.
They have money, time, and resources.Large corporations, countries, special interest groups and political parties infiltrated and subverting the credibility of Wikipedia.
  Alas, Sisyphus 2.0 with changes rolling back every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229716</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257195120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because the rules of noteworthiness are not applied to subjects that are not noteworthy, only to subjects which the compete with the personal turf of the deletionist. This means articles about subjects which are involved in a bit of fan-infight especially if they have a more popular competitor are more likely to be deleted than something that no one has personal feelings attached to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because the rules of noteworthiness are not applied to subjects that are not noteworthy , only to subjects which the compete with the personal turf of the deletionist .
This means articles about subjects which are involved in a bit of fan-infight especially if they have a more popular competitor are more likely to be deleted than something that no one has personal feelings attached to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because the rules of noteworthiness are not applied to subjects that are not noteworthy, only to subjects which the compete with the personal turf of the deletionist.
This means articles about subjects which are involved in a bit of fan-infight especially if they have a more popular competitor are more likely to be deleted than something that no one has personal feelings attached to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230392</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257155340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And yeah, internal politics get boring after a while...</p></div><p>Funny thing is, every time I see an article about the Wikipedia admins, it reminds me of IRC.  I used to be the sysadmin for a server that connected to Undernet (this was ~15 years ago).  The infighting that went on amongst irc ops, along with the ass kissing of people who wanted favors from those ops, was unbelievable.  Wikipedia is the same thing, just a new venue.  Politics never change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yeah , internal politics get boring after a while...Funny thing is , every time I see an article about the Wikipedia admins , it reminds me of IRC .
I used to be the sysadmin for a server that connected to Undernet ( this was ~ 15 years ago ) .
The infighting that went on amongst irc ops , along with the ass kissing of people who wanted favors from those ops , was unbelievable .
Wikipedia is the same thing , just a new venue .
Politics never change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yeah, internal politics get boring after a while...Funny thing is, every time I see an article about the Wikipedia admins, it reminds me of IRC.
I used to be the sysadmin for a server that connected to Undernet (this was ~15 years ago).
The infighting that went on amongst irc ops, along with the ass kissing of people who wanted favors from those ops, was unbelievable.
Wikipedia is the same thing, just a new venue.
Politics never change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230268</id>
	<title>False choice</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1257154680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are presenting a choice that is often false, but continues to be hotly debated in all aspects of human society.</p><p>The choice is usually presented thus: "either I personally guide it, or it fails." It is often false because it fails to take into account the interests and enthusiasm and worldviews of other people. In economic terms the choice is usually presented as "either we centrally control our economy, or it will spin out of control." In moral terms the choice is usually presented as "either we restrict what people are allowed to say and do, or the society will fall into moral decay and sin." In management terms it's often thought of as "if I don't micromanage every aspect of my staff, they will produce subpar work, if they work at all."</p><p>I hope people can see that none of these are true. If a system is set up that privileges a small set of people to wield power indefinitely over others, it will not be stable long-term. The power-wielders will grow weary, and no one else will be able to step in and refresh the project. A system that empowers the greatest number of people to lead and drive change looks sketchier in the short term, but in the long term is the most flexible and adaptable.</p><p>By drawing the protections ever-tighter around Wikipedia's content, the current leadership of the project are jeopardizing its future. I know that I have stopped making edits because I had almost no freedom to do so without running into bureaucracy. Reduce the bureaucracy and you will engage ever more people, keeping the project going and adapting. Circle the wagons to keep everyone else out, and over time you'll find that there aren't enough people inside the circle anymore to drive the wagons anyplace else. People age, priorities change, life goes on. In the meantime an entire new generation risks learning that they are not welcome on Wikipedia--and so decide to spend their time online elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are presenting a choice that is often false , but continues to be hotly debated in all aspects of human society.The choice is usually presented thus : " either I personally guide it , or it fails .
" It is often false because it fails to take into account the interests and enthusiasm and worldviews of other people .
In economic terms the choice is usually presented as " either we centrally control our economy , or it will spin out of control .
" In moral terms the choice is usually presented as " either we restrict what people are allowed to say and do , or the society will fall into moral decay and sin .
" In management terms it 's often thought of as " if I do n't micromanage every aspect of my staff , they will produce subpar work , if they work at all .
" I hope people can see that none of these are true .
If a system is set up that privileges a small set of people to wield power indefinitely over others , it will not be stable long-term .
The power-wielders will grow weary , and no one else will be able to step in and refresh the project .
A system that empowers the greatest number of people to lead and drive change looks sketchier in the short term , but in the long term is the most flexible and adaptable.By drawing the protections ever-tighter around Wikipedia 's content , the current leadership of the project are jeopardizing its future .
I know that I have stopped making edits because I had almost no freedom to do so without running into bureaucracy .
Reduce the bureaucracy and you will engage ever more people , keeping the project going and adapting .
Circle the wagons to keep everyone else out , and over time you 'll find that there are n't enough people inside the circle anymore to drive the wagons anyplace else .
People age , priorities change , life goes on .
In the meantime an entire new generation risks learning that they are not welcome on Wikipedia--and so decide to spend their time online elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are presenting a choice that is often false, but continues to be hotly debated in all aspects of human society.The choice is usually presented thus: "either I personally guide it, or it fails.
" It is often false because it fails to take into account the interests and enthusiasm and worldviews of other people.
In economic terms the choice is usually presented as "either we centrally control our economy, or it will spin out of control.
" In moral terms the choice is usually presented as "either we restrict what people are allowed to say and do, or the society will fall into moral decay and sin.
" In management terms it's often thought of as "if I don't micromanage every aspect of my staff, they will produce subpar work, if they work at all.
"I hope people can see that none of these are true.
If a system is set up that privileges a small set of people to wield power indefinitely over others, it will not be stable long-term.
The power-wielders will grow weary, and no one else will be able to step in and refresh the project.
A system that empowers the greatest number of people to lead and drive change looks sketchier in the short term, but in the long term is the most flexible and adaptable.By drawing the protections ever-tighter around Wikipedia's content, the current leadership of the project are jeopardizing its future.
I know that I have stopped making edits because I had almost no freedom to do so without running into bureaucracy.
Reduce the bureaucracy and you will engage ever more people, keeping the project going and adapting.
Circle the wagons to keep everyone else out, and over time you'll find that there aren't enough people inside the circle anymore to drive the wagons anyplace else.
People age, priorities change, life goes on.
In the meantime an entire new generation risks learning that they are not welcome on Wikipedia--and so decide to spend their time online elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227856</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is overrun with Jews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why people are leaving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why people are leaving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why people are leaving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234316</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Protip: if you work hard on the article, keep a local copy of the source on your computer. If it gets deleted, recreate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Protip : if you work hard on the article , keep a local copy of the source on your computer .
If it gets deleted , recreate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protip: if you work hard on the article, keep a local copy of the source on your computer.
If it gets deleted, recreate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227628</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>WinterSolstice</author>
	<datestamp>1257185640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's sad, because it's not a decent authoritative source for non-pop culture stuff (my kid's teachers won't allow citing it, for example).</p><p>I love wikipedia (and contributed money) because it *was* a great source for pop culture stuff. Gobots? That one season of Buffy that had that character? Yeah, it's in there. All without having to suffer an epileptic seizure from reading some random fan page that looks like MySpace or GeoCities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's sad , because it 's not a decent authoritative source for non-pop culture stuff ( my kid 's teachers wo n't allow citing it , for example ) .I love wikipedia ( and contributed money ) because it * was * a great source for pop culture stuff .
Gobots ? That one season of Buffy that had that character ?
Yeah , it 's in there .
All without having to suffer an epileptic seizure from reading some random fan page that looks like MySpace or GeoCities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's sad, because it's not a decent authoritative source for non-pop culture stuff (my kid's teachers won't allow citing it, for example).I love wikipedia (and contributed money) because it *was* a great source for pop culture stuff.
Gobots? That one season of Buffy that had that character?
Yeah, it's in there.
All without having to suffer an epileptic seizure from reading some random fan page that looks like MySpace or GeoCities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227440</id>
	<title>Not a surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When 'deletionists' destroy the work people are putting in, it's not surprising when the people who have put that work into Wikipedia leave the site.  There's only a finite amount of things that can be written about and as Wikipedia progresses, the articles that are created must become more and more obscure.  But with those kinds of articles effectively banned from Wikipedia, the only editors it needs around are those that upkeep the existing articles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When 'deletionists ' destroy the work people are putting in , it 's not surprising when the people who have put that work into Wikipedia leave the site .
There 's only a finite amount of things that can be written about and as Wikipedia progresses , the articles that are created must become more and more obscure .
But with those kinds of articles effectively banned from Wikipedia , the only editors it needs around are those that upkeep the existing articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When 'deletionists' destroy the work people are putting in, it's not surprising when the people who have put that work into Wikipedia leave the site.
There's only a finite amount of things that can be written about and as Wikipedia progresses, the articles that are created must become more and more obscure.
But with those kinds of articles effectively banned from Wikipedia, the only editors it needs around are those that upkeep the existing articles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230712</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257157260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you seen this guy's UID?  He was on the internet while you were still wearing diapers, so everything he says is probably true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen this guy 's UID ?
He was on the internet while you were still wearing diapers , so everything he says is probably true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen this guy's UID?
He was on the internet while you were still wearing diapers, so everything he says is probably true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229130</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>fudoniten</author>
	<datestamp>1257192420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....But that doesn't mean the pages shouldn't exist.</p><p>A friend of mine is a biker (pedal variety), and he was reading up on different makes, models, etc, on Wikipedia.  He found a mess.  Lots of companies, major companies (in their niches) were missing, and any attempt to create a page resulted in instant deletion.  He chose one particular company, and, with another editor, defended it tooth and nail for a few weeks.</p><p>I'm not sure if it's still there or not.</p><p>He's not the CEO of this company, he's not a stakeholder...he doesn't even own one of their bikes.  But that information should be in Wikipedia, whether or not it drives business for the company.  People who visited company pages from Wikipedia stay longer?  That's probably because they <i>want</i> to end up where they are.</p><p>That's not to say that conflict of interest isn't a problem; but the problem (IMHO) isn't simple inclusion.  Any company with a reasonable number of employees and customers deserves at least a mention.  In the case of bicycles, some of the pages that weren't permitted to exist were (to some subculture or style) vitally important; maybe, say, one of the only downhill bike manufacturers.  The problem is when the pages are one-sided, or when people start tinkering with rankings or redirection.</p><p>Anyway, just my two cents.  I've more often been frustrated by the lack of existence of a page for some random company, than by...well, the existence of a page, no matter how biased (I can always tone down the bias myself, after all).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....But that does n't mean the pages should n't exist.A friend of mine is a biker ( pedal variety ) , and he was reading up on different makes , models , etc , on Wikipedia .
He found a mess .
Lots of companies , major companies ( in their niches ) were missing , and any attempt to create a page resulted in instant deletion .
He chose one particular company , and , with another editor , defended it tooth and nail for a few weeks.I 'm not sure if it 's still there or not.He 's not the CEO of this company , he 's not a stakeholder...he does n't even own one of their bikes .
But that information should be in Wikipedia , whether or not it drives business for the company .
People who visited company pages from Wikipedia stay longer ?
That 's probably because they want to end up where they are.That 's not to say that conflict of interest is n't a problem ; but the problem ( IMHO ) is n't simple inclusion .
Any company with a reasonable number of employees and customers deserves at least a mention .
In the case of bicycles , some of the pages that were n't permitted to exist were ( to some subculture or style ) vitally important ; maybe , say , one of the only downhill bike manufacturers .
The problem is when the pages are one-sided , or when people start tinkering with rankings or redirection.Anyway , just my two cents .
I 've more often been frustrated by the lack of existence of a page for some random company , than by...well , the existence of a page , no matter how biased ( I can always tone down the bias myself , after all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....But that doesn't mean the pages shouldn't exist.A friend of mine is a biker (pedal variety), and he was reading up on different makes, models, etc, on Wikipedia.
He found a mess.
Lots of companies, major companies (in their niches) were missing, and any attempt to create a page resulted in instant deletion.
He chose one particular company, and, with another editor, defended it tooth and nail for a few weeks.I'm not sure if it's still there or not.He's not the CEO of this company, he's not a stakeholder...he doesn't even own one of their bikes.
But that information should be in Wikipedia, whether or not it drives business for the company.
People who visited company pages from Wikipedia stay longer?
That's probably because they want to end up where they are.That's not to say that conflict of interest isn't a problem; but the problem (IMHO) isn't simple inclusion.
Any company with a reasonable number of employees and customers deserves at least a mention.
In the case of bicycles, some of the pages that weren't permitted to exist were (to some subculture or style) vitally important; maybe, say, one of the only downhill bike manufacturers.
The problem is when the pages are one-sided, or when people start tinkering with rankings or redirection.Anyway, just my two cents.
I've more often been frustrated by the lack of existence of a page for some random company, than by...well, the existence of a page, no matter how biased (I can always tone down the bias myself, after all).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227680</id>
	<title>Wikipedia will die for it's own greatness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wikipedia has great potential but same time there is lots of problems what really blows away the good contributors.</p><p>Example. You edit technical article based multiple other scientific sources. You explain things bretty deeply, create even graphics to site and then suddenly there jumps few new users who undo all the work you do because they say there was one mistake. What they should do, is to fix the problem and not undo all.</p><p>Or then there is no error, but the article does not anymore reflect their personal or public believes by persons who do not know the technical information or does not care. So they simply undo again or write back the things what you fixed. And they do not use sources or they add as sources the other wikipedia articles or even marketing infos what is simplified so much for avarage joe that the information is not accurate at all.</p><p>There comes lots of discussions about sources, what are valid but they do not even care to read them and understand because the other wikipedia articles are against them. Even that the other scientific articles what you show, proofs that other articles includes mistakes as well.</p><p>This just leads to situation where new users starts upkeeping false information because the other articles includes such. So only way to support their own information, is wikipedia itself. And no matter how much you throw a history data or scientific data, it is not accepted if it is against wikipedia itself. Problem is, people trust too much the wikipedia itself so it comes the fact to itself.</p><p>Example of technical and political correctness and support for biased articles. Ubuntu users goes trough the wikipedia adding screenshots of Ubuntu to articles where they do not belong, as there should be somekind neutral screenshot.</p><p>A week ago I checked the "GUI" article on wikipedia. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical\_user\_interface" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical\_user\_interface</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>There is added a screenshot of Ubuntu 9.10 what includes GNOME. If wanted article to be not so biased, there should be screenshots as examples of Windows 7, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, GNOME, KDE4. etc. But instead having pure GNOME screenshot as default, they use Ubuntu one. What has a Ubuntu's theme, wallpaper, iconset and even configurations applied. That does not present the modern GUI, but the Ubuntu's choise of themes and styles.</p><p>It is as biased thing as it would be adding a screenshot of Windows 7 running in classic mode, aero disabled and with ugly wallpaper.</p><p>And for one reasons to support this wallpaper place tehre, is that Ubuntu is different operating system than what the Kubuntu or any other Linux distribution is. The whol idea of that can be chased back to the situation where the OS is for Ubuntu people just the desktop environment with nice theme and wallpaper and not the technically correct, the Linux kernel. And do not even let me start about the Linux kernel and Linux articles where almost both are biased with GNU ideas. Again screenshots of Ubuntu and believes what are sometimes copied straight from canonical website.</p><p>When going to rare articles where there is no such amount of young people intrested to edit them. Like animals, history etc. The effect of the problem is much smaller. But on technical and daily things, the problem is presented very clearly. The articles what are about subjects what are typically fighted around web by opinions, are in same situation on wikipedia. No matter how much you give them a sources, they denied them by saying something "public does not care about it" or "normal user does not see it that way".</p><p>Thats why I stopped contribution to wikipedia few years ago. Because on many articles, it was just impossible to do anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wikipedia has great potential but same time there is lots of problems what really blows away the good contributors.Example .
You edit technical article based multiple other scientific sources .
You explain things bretty deeply , create even graphics to site and then suddenly there jumps few new users who undo all the work you do because they say there was one mistake .
What they should do , is to fix the problem and not undo all.Or then there is no error , but the article does not anymore reflect their personal or public believes by persons who do not know the technical information or does not care .
So they simply undo again or write back the things what you fixed .
And they do not use sources or they add as sources the other wikipedia articles or even marketing infos what is simplified so much for avarage joe that the information is not accurate at all.There comes lots of discussions about sources , what are valid but they do not even care to read them and understand because the other wikipedia articles are against them .
Even that the other scientific articles what you show , proofs that other articles includes mistakes as well.This just leads to situation where new users starts upkeeping false information because the other articles includes such .
So only way to support their own information , is wikipedia itself .
And no matter how much you throw a history data or scientific data , it is not accepted if it is against wikipedia itself .
Problem is , people trust too much the wikipedia itself so it comes the fact to itself.Example of technical and political correctness and support for biased articles .
Ubuntu users goes trough the wikipedia adding screenshots of Ubuntu to articles where they do not belong , as there should be somekind neutral screenshot.A week ago I checked the " GUI " article on wikipedia .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical \ _user \ _interface [ wikipedia.org ] There is added a screenshot of Ubuntu 9.10 what includes GNOME .
If wanted article to be not so biased , there should be screenshots as examples of Windows 7 , Mac OS X Snow Leopard , GNOME , KDE4 .
etc. But instead having pure GNOME screenshot as default , they use Ubuntu one .
What has a Ubuntu 's theme , wallpaper , iconset and even configurations applied .
That does not present the modern GUI , but the Ubuntu 's choise of themes and styles.It is as biased thing as it would be adding a screenshot of Windows 7 running in classic mode , aero disabled and with ugly wallpaper.And for one reasons to support this wallpaper place tehre , is that Ubuntu is different operating system than what the Kubuntu or any other Linux distribution is .
The whol idea of that can be chased back to the situation where the OS is for Ubuntu people just the desktop environment with nice theme and wallpaper and not the technically correct , the Linux kernel .
And do not even let me start about the Linux kernel and Linux articles where almost both are biased with GNU ideas .
Again screenshots of Ubuntu and believes what are sometimes copied straight from canonical website.When going to rare articles where there is no such amount of young people intrested to edit them .
Like animals , history etc .
The effect of the problem is much smaller .
But on technical and daily things , the problem is presented very clearly .
The articles what are about subjects what are typically fighted around web by opinions , are in same situation on wikipedia .
No matter how much you give them a sources , they denied them by saying something " public does not care about it " or " normal user does not see it that way " .Thats why I stopped contribution to wikipedia few years ago .
Because on many articles , it was just impossible to do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wikipedia has great potential but same time there is lots of problems what really blows away the good contributors.Example.
You edit technical article based multiple other scientific sources.
You explain things bretty deeply, create even graphics to site and then suddenly there jumps few new users who undo all the work you do because they say there was one mistake.
What they should do, is to fix the problem and not undo all.Or then there is no error, but the article does not anymore reflect their personal or public believes by persons who do not know the technical information or does not care.
So they simply undo again or write back the things what you fixed.
And they do not use sources or they add as sources the other wikipedia articles or even marketing infos what is simplified so much for avarage joe that the information is not accurate at all.There comes lots of discussions about sources, what are valid but they do not even care to read them and understand because the other wikipedia articles are against them.
Even that the other scientific articles what you show, proofs that other articles includes mistakes as well.This just leads to situation where new users starts upkeeping false information because the other articles includes such.
So only way to support their own information, is wikipedia itself.
And no matter how much you throw a history data or scientific data, it is not accepted if it is against wikipedia itself.
Problem is, people trust too much the wikipedia itself so it comes the fact to itself.Example of technical and political correctness and support for biased articles.
Ubuntu users goes trough the wikipedia adding screenshots of Ubuntu to articles where they do not belong, as there should be somekind neutral screenshot.A week ago I checked the "GUI" article on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical\_user\_interface [wikipedia.org]There is added a screenshot of Ubuntu 9.10 what includes GNOME.
If wanted article to be not so biased, there should be screenshots as examples of Windows 7, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, GNOME, KDE4.
etc. But instead having pure GNOME screenshot as default, they use Ubuntu one.
What has a Ubuntu's theme, wallpaper, iconset and even configurations applied.
That does not present the modern GUI, but the Ubuntu's choise of themes and styles.It is as biased thing as it would be adding a screenshot of Windows 7 running in classic mode, aero disabled and with ugly wallpaper.And for one reasons to support this wallpaper place tehre, is that Ubuntu is different operating system than what the Kubuntu or any other Linux distribution is.
The whol idea of that can be chased back to the situation where the OS is for Ubuntu people just the desktop environment with nice theme and wallpaper and not the technically correct, the Linux kernel.
And do not even let me start about the Linux kernel and Linux articles where almost both are biased with GNU ideas.
Again screenshots of Ubuntu and believes what are sometimes copied straight from canonical website.When going to rare articles where there is no such amount of young people intrested to edit them.
Like animals, history etc.
The effect of the problem is much smaller.
But on technical and daily things, the problem is presented very clearly.
The articles what are about subjects what are typically fighted around web by opinions, are in same situation on wikipedia.
No matter how much you give them a sources, they denied them by saying something "public does not care about it" or "normal user does not see it that way".Thats why I stopped contribution to wikipedia few years ago.
Because on many articles, it was just impossible to do anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228084</id>
	<title>Businesses Leaving America in Record Numbers</title>
	<author>Maltheus</author>
	<datestamp>1257187680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules. America grew because of the lack of rules. That has been forgotten. The rules are regarded as irritating and useless by many citizens."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules .
America grew because of the lack of rules .
That has been forgotten .
The rules are regarded as irritating and useless by many citizens .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.
America grew because of the lack of rules.
That has been forgotten.
The rules are regarded as irritating and useless by many citizens.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229828</id>
	<title>Re:Always happens - bloat</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1257152400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This happens to any system of sufficient size and age.<br>Europe has been there for a while.<br>The US is getting there now.</p><p>People are never content to leave well enough alone.</p></div><p>If we were, we'd have never invented agriculture, let alone the internet, or wikipedia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This happens to any system of sufficient size and age.Europe has been there for a while.The US is getting there now.People are never content to leave well enough alone.If we were , we 'd have never invented agriculture , let alone the internet , or wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happens to any system of sufficient size and age.Europe has been there for a while.The US is getting there now.People are never content to leave well enough alone.If we were, we'd have never invented agriculture, let alone the internet, or wikipedia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228698</id>
	<title>Re:Uncontrolled administrators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I left for the similar reasons. The administrators are abusive of their power and connections. An admin (I didn't know at the time, not that it should matter) was mass reverting large numbers of edits calling me a "sockpuppet" (a second account created by a user who wants to hide their identity). Some of my edits didn't support the admin's politics, others did, but he didn't read them; he just reverted them all. Some were just footnotes on otherwise unsupported statements.</p><p>I carefully followed procedures to notify the admin to stop reverting and posted about the problem in the appropriate forum. Another admin deleted my forum post (a unique occurrence, as far as I could see in the history) and banned me. Sure, I could spend many hours appealing, but who has time for that nonsense -- I have better things to do.</p><p>As in many organizations, the cultural problems start at the top. You can read about Jimmy Wales corruption, editing his own pages, excising comments he doesn't agree with from the history, editing his ex-girlfriend's page. If Jimmy Wales does it, why would people one level down from him hesitate to abuse their power, and then the people below them, etc. Remember when the Arb committee banned someone on 'secret evidence' (which turned out to be nothing more than the following: The new user was editing too well, so they must have been another 'sockpuppet', and were therefore banned) -- that was the highest authority in Wiki-land except for Wales.</p><p>Here are some links for you:<br><a href="http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo\_Wales" title="wikitruth.info" rel="nofollow">http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo\_Wales</a> [wikitruth.info]<br><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia\_and\_overstock/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia\_and\_overstock/</a> [theregister.co.uk]<br><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia\_secret\_mailing/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia\_secret\_mailing/</a> [theregister.co.uk]<br><a href="http://antisocialmedia.net/category/wikipedia/" title="antisocialmedia.net" rel="nofollow">http://antisocialmedia.net/category/wikipedia/</a> [antisocialmedia.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I left for the similar reasons .
The administrators are abusive of their power and connections .
An admin ( I did n't know at the time , not that it should matter ) was mass reverting large numbers of edits calling me a " sockpuppet " ( a second account created by a user who wants to hide their identity ) .
Some of my edits did n't support the admin 's politics , others did , but he did n't read them ; he just reverted them all .
Some were just footnotes on otherwise unsupported statements.I carefully followed procedures to notify the admin to stop reverting and posted about the problem in the appropriate forum .
Another admin deleted my forum post ( a unique occurrence , as far as I could see in the history ) and banned me .
Sure , I could spend many hours appealing , but who has time for that nonsense -- I have better things to do.As in many organizations , the cultural problems start at the top .
You can read about Jimmy Wales corruption , editing his own pages , excising comments he does n't agree with from the history , editing his ex-girlfriend 's page .
If Jimmy Wales does it , why would people one level down from him hesitate to abuse their power , and then the people below them , etc .
Remember when the Arb committee banned someone on 'secret evidence ' ( which turned out to be nothing more than the following : The new user was editing too well , so they must have been another 'sockpuppet ' , and were therefore banned ) -- that was the highest authority in Wiki-land except for Wales.Here are some links for you : http : //www.wikitruth.info/index.php ? title = Jimbo \ _Wales [ wikitruth.info ] http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia \ _and \ _overstock/ [ theregister.co.uk ] http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia \ _secret \ _mailing/ [ theregister.co.uk ] http : //antisocialmedia.net/category/wikipedia/ [ antisocialmedia.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I left for the similar reasons.
The administrators are abusive of their power and connections.
An admin (I didn't know at the time, not that it should matter) was mass reverting large numbers of edits calling me a "sockpuppet" (a second account created by a user who wants to hide their identity).
Some of my edits didn't support the admin's politics, others did, but he didn't read them; he just reverted them all.
Some were just footnotes on otherwise unsupported statements.I carefully followed procedures to notify the admin to stop reverting and posted about the problem in the appropriate forum.
Another admin deleted my forum post (a unique occurrence, as far as I could see in the history) and banned me.
Sure, I could spend many hours appealing, but who has time for that nonsense -- I have better things to do.As in many organizations, the cultural problems start at the top.
You can read about Jimmy Wales corruption, editing his own pages, excising comments he doesn't agree with from the history, editing his ex-girlfriend's page.
If Jimmy Wales does it, why would people one level down from him hesitate to abuse their power, and then the people below them, etc.
Remember when the Arb committee banned someone on 'secret evidence' (which turned out to be nothing more than the following: The new user was editing too well, so they must have been another 'sockpuppet', and were therefore banned) -- that was the highest authority in Wiki-land except for Wales.Here are some links for you:http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo\_Wales [wikitruth.info]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia\_and\_overstock/ [theregister.co.uk]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia\_secret\_mailing/ [theregister.co.uk]http://antisocialmedia.net/category/wikipedia/ [antisocialmedia.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228684</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All of a sudden humans who knew things outside the realms of academia were lesser again, and people who knew how to make a citation were greater, even if they didn't understand what they were citing.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>I myself stopped participating after having an extended argument related to a minor edit I made, but the other guy had a citation. While I had real world experience on the issue and the other guy didn't, he had the citation. When I finally got the book he cited through inter-library loan, it turned out he had completely misunderstood the text.</p></div></blockquote><p>I also quit after an extended argument over citations.<br>
&nbsp; <br>His citation was to a fanciful coffee table reference book published before the system in question was declassified, and which was widely cited elsewhere on the web.  My citation was to a professional academic analysis written a decade after the system was declassified, but which existed only in a few thousand hard copies.  (Damm thing cost me nearly $100.00, in comparison his was usually found in $10 bins around Christmas time.  At least that's where I got my copy of it.)  In addition I had actually worked on the system in question.<br>
&nbsp; <br>The powers that be decided than since he could point to places on the web that cited his citation - it was <i>obviously</i> more correct than mine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of a sudden humans who knew things outside the realms of academia were lesser again , and people who knew how to make a citation were greater , even if they did n't understand what they were citing.I myself stopped participating after having an extended argument related to a minor edit I made , but the other guy had a citation .
While I had real world experience on the issue and the other guy did n't , he had the citation .
When I finally got the book he cited through inter-library loan , it turned out he had completely misunderstood the text.I also quit after an extended argument over citations .
  His citation was to a fanciful coffee table reference book published before the system in question was declassified , and which was widely cited elsewhere on the web .
My citation was to a professional academic analysis written a decade after the system was declassified , but which existed only in a few thousand hard copies .
( Damm thing cost me nearly $ 100.00 , in comparison his was usually found in $ 10 bins around Christmas time .
At least that 's where I got my copy of it .
) In addition I had actually worked on the system in question .
  The powers that be decided than since he could point to places on the web that cited his citation - it was obviously more correct than mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of a sudden humans who knew things outside the realms of academia were lesser again, and people who knew how to make a citation were greater, even if they didn't understand what they were citing.I myself stopped participating after having an extended argument related to a minor edit I made, but the other guy had a citation.
While I had real world experience on the issue and the other guy didn't, he had the citation.
When I finally got the book he cited through inter-library loan, it turned out he had completely misunderstood the text.I also quit after an extended argument over citations.
  His citation was to a fanciful coffee table reference book published before the system in question was declassified, and which was widely cited elsewhere on the web.
My citation was to a professional academic analysis written a decade after the system was declassified, but which existed only in a few thousand hard copies.
(Damm thing cost me nearly $100.00, in comparison his was usually found in $10 bins around Christmas time.
At least that's where I got my copy of it.
)  In addition I had actually worked on the system in question.
  The powers that be decided than since he could point to places on the web that cited his citation - it was obviously more correct than mine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229814</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257195540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just the other day I saw an instance from a couple of years ago where a new(ish) user, who is an acknowledged expert in the field, had added to an article and promptly had it because the citation was his own book.  He could have argued the case further - I believe there are circumstances under which an expert is allowed to cite their own material - but why would he bother?  He was just trying to be helpful and has better things to do than bicker with an editor to reinstate his text so, as far as I can tell, he just left it at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the other day I saw an instance from a couple of years ago where a new ( ish ) user , who is an acknowledged expert in the field , had added to an article and promptly had it because the citation was his own book .
He could have argued the case further - I believe there are circumstances under which an expert is allowed to cite their own material - but why would he bother ?
He was just trying to be helpful and has better things to do than bicker with an editor to reinstate his text so , as far as I can tell , he just left it at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the other day I saw an instance from a couple of years ago where a new(ish) user, who is an acknowledged expert in the field, had added to an article and promptly had it because the citation was his own book.
He could have argued the case further - I believe there are circumstances under which an expert is allowed to cite their own material - but why would he bother?
He was just trying to be helpful and has better things to do than bicker with an editor to reinstate his text so, as far as I can tell, he just left it at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556</id>
	<title>Uncontrolled administrators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia also has a problem with site admins who do things like block people first and ask questions later. I myself was blocked for merely reporting (in the proper venue) that another user was editing in violation of his community ban.</p><p>There are admins who it appears can violate every community rule yet won't receive any sanctions. Of course people are leaving - the admins have driven them away.</p><p>Then there are the cases where people have been hounded off Wikipedia and later it has been shown that they were correct and their antagonist was the one who should have been banned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia also has a problem with site admins who do things like block people first and ask questions later .
I myself was blocked for merely reporting ( in the proper venue ) that another user was editing in violation of his community ban.There are admins who it appears can violate every community rule yet wo n't receive any sanctions .
Of course people are leaving - the admins have driven them away.Then there are the cases where people have been hounded off Wikipedia and later it has been shown that they were correct and their antagonist was the one who should have been banned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia also has a problem with site admins who do things like block people first and ask questions later.
I myself was blocked for merely reporting (in the proper venue) that another user was editing in violation of his community ban.There are admins who it appears can violate every community rule yet won't receive any sanctions.
Of course people are leaving - the admins have driven them away.Then there are the cases where people have been hounded off Wikipedia and later it has been shown that they were correct and their antagonist was the one who should have been banned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231420</id>
	<title>Re:It just isn't worth the fight anymore.</title>
	<author>7 digits</author>
	<datestamp>1257162240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I always love with those complains is that posters never give links to the article or name the "problem user".</p><p>Seriously, that removes a lot of credibility to the complaint...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I always love with those complains is that posters never give links to the article or name the " problem user " .Seriously , that removes a lot of credibility to the complaint.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I always love with those complains is that posters never give links to the article or name the "problem user".Seriously, that removes a lot of credibility to the complaint...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230102</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1257153900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory, yes. In practice, there's quite a huge mass of people that input good information, boring facts, nothing that there's any point of holding a moderator/admin war over. Those are the ones you'd struggle to keep up to date simply because WP is a top google entry and so lots of people will do that data entry there. The turf wars are somehow just on the turfs, not all over WP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , yes .
In practice , there 's quite a huge mass of people that input good information , boring facts , nothing that there 's any point of holding a moderator/admin war over .
Those are the ones you 'd struggle to keep up to date simply because WP is a top google entry and so lots of people will do that data entry there .
The turf wars are somehow just on the turfs , not all over WP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, yes.
In practice, there's quite a huge mass of people that input good information, boring facts, nothing that there's any point of holding a moderator/admin war over.
Those are the ones you'd struggle to keep up to date simply because WP is a top google entry and so lots of people will do that data entry there.
The turf wars are somehow just on the turfs, not all over WP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233056</id>
	<title>A balanced view.</title>
	<author>wintersdark</author>
	<datestamp>1257174900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia needs to have a section in it's articles to show other viewpoints/opinions, particularly for more controversial articles.  Well, when they can be properly supported, not just any random asshat's opinion mind you.  This would go a long ways to calming the ridiculous edit wars, and give people a more well rounded look at the subject matter.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia needs to have a section in it 's articles to show other viewpoints/opinions , particularly for more controversial articles .
Well , when they can be properly supported , not just any random asshat 's opinion mind you .
This would go a long ways to calming the ridiculous edit wars , and give people a more well rounded look at the subject matter .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia needs to have a section in it's articles to show other viewpoints/opinions, particularly for more controversial articles.
Well, when they can be properly supported, not just any random asshat's opinion mind you.
This would go a long ways to calming the ridiculous edit wars, and give people a more well rounded look at the subject matter.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228422</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257189360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite tag is "citation needed."</p><p>I generally read this as, "someone needs to look up a citation for this, and I'm too high and mighty to stoop to such a level! Do it for me, peons!"</p><p>Whatever happened to the encyclopedia *anybody* can edit? Either find and add the citation yourself, or delete the fact for having no citation. But shitting those little tags all over the pages doesn't accomplish anything except making the article hard to read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite tag is " citation needed .
" I generally read this as , " someone needs to look up a citation for this , and I 'm too high and mighty to stoop to such a level !
Do it for me , peons !
" Whatever happened to the encyclopedia * anybody * can edit ?
Either find and add the citation yourself , or delete the fact for having no citation .
But shitting those little tags all over the pages does n't accomplish anything except making the article hard to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite tag is "citation needed.
"I generally read this as, "someone needs to look up a citation for this, and I'm too high and mighty to stoop to such a level!
Do it for me, peons!
"Whatever happened to the encyclopedia *anybody* can edit?
Either find and add the citation yourself, or delete the fact for having no citation.
But shitting those little tags all over the pages doesn't accomplish anything except making the article hard to read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231458</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>sfcat</author>
	<datestamp>1257162360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, my company (a small software startup) posted a Wikipedia article about itself but only included details about the founders, dates of operation and the space in which we compete.  Our competitors of all sizes have similar Wikipedia pages.  None of these pages including ours had links to anything other than the front page of their websites.  Our page was deleted in under two weeks.  I understand that you don't want wiki spam, but this wasn't a marketing effort.  It was a good faith effort to add general information about our company to the wiki.  While you might think its of no use, hundreds (hopefully many more in the future) of people who will search for us might like to see a Wiki entry that provides this type of basic information.<p>

Either all of the companies' wiki entries are spam or they are not.  The absence of these types of policies and the seemly capricious nature of these decisions is a problem.  Its not that we don't agree that there is a lot of wiki spam.  Its that the human editors are acting as the world's worst spam filter.  Spam filters are judged not entirely by their accuracy rate.  False positives are dramatically more important than false negatives and so we tolerate only a reduced amount of spam in exchange for very few valid emails being flagged as spam.  More importantly, a software spam filter doesn't enforce a personal agenda.
</p><p>
The much bigger issue here for the Wiki org is that its alienating its most loyal users.  Most companies have contact information on their products to identify the most involved customers because they influence sales by an order of magnitude more than other people.  Wikipedia is in the interesting position of having those customers not only identify themselves, but contribute to their "product".  But instead of welcoming this, they actively are driving them away.  A curious behavior to say the lest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , my company ( a small software startup ) posted a Wikipedia article about itself but only included details about the founders , dates of operation and the space in which we compete .
Our competitors of all sizes have similar Wikipedia pages .
None of these pages including ours had links to anything other than the front page of their websites .
Our page was deleted in under two weeks .
I understand that you do n't want wiki spam , but this was n't a marketing effort .
It was a good faith effort to add general information about our company to the wiki .
While you might think its of no use , hundreds ( hopefully many more in the future ) of people who will search for us might like to see a Wiki entry that provides this type of basic information .
Either all of the companies ' wiki entries are spam or they are not .
The absence of these types of policies and the seemly capricious nature of these decisions is a problem .
Its not that we do n't agree that there is a lot of wiki spam .
Its that the human editors are acting as the world 's worst spam filter .
Spam filters are judged not entirely by their accuracy rate .
False positives are dramatically more important than false negatives and so we tolerate only a reduced amount of spam in exchange for very few valid emails being flagged as spam .
More importantly , a software spam filter does n't enforce a personal agenda .
The much bigger issue here for the Wiki org is that its alienating its most loyal users .
Most companies have contact information on their products to identify the most involved customers because they influence sales by an order of magnitude more than other people .
Wikipedia is in the interesting position of having those customers not only identify themselves , but contribute to their " product " .
But instead of welcoming this , they actively are driving them away .
A curious behavior to say the lest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, my company (a small software startup) posted a Wikipedia article about itself but only included details about the founders, dates of operation and the space in which we compete.
Our competitors of all sizes have similar Wikipedia pages.
None of these pages including ours had links to anything other than the front page of their websites.
Our page was deleted in under two weeks.
I understand that you don't want wiki spam, but this wasn't a marketing effort.
It was a good faith effort to add general information about our company to the wiki.
While you might think its of no use, hundreds (hopefully many more in the future) of people who will search for us might like to see a Wiki entry that provides this type of basic information.
Either all of the companies' wiki entries are spam or they are not.
The absence of these types of policies and the seemly capricious nature of these decisions is a problem.
Its not that we don't agree that there is a lot of wiki spam.
Its that the human editors are acting as the world's worst spam filter.
Spam filters are judged not entirely by their accuracy rate.
False positives are dramatically more important than false negatives and so we tolerate only a reduced amount of spam in exchange for very few valid emails being flagged as spam.
More importantly, a software spam filter doesn't enforce a personal agenda.
The much bigger issue here for the Wiki org is that its alienating its most loyal users.
Most companies have contact information on their products to identify the most involved customers because they influence sales by an order of magnitude more than other people.
Wikipedia is in the interesting position of having those customers not only identify themselves, but contribute to their "product".
But instead of welcoming this, they actively are driving them away.
A curious behavior to say the lest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231104</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257160020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The force is strong with this one<br> <br>(and I maybe will be modded down to agree with him...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The force is strong with this one ( and I maybe will be modded down to agree with him... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The force is strong with this one (and I maybe will be modded down to agree with him...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228704</id>
	<title>Unnecessary details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another problem is that some articles are, let's say... unnecessarily detailed. For example, an article on necrophilia that almost reads like that South Park episode: "This is necrophilia, here are pictures of necrophilia, here's another close-up, and here's a recording of what necrophilia sounds like on your grandma's eye sockets". *Starts fisting a mayonaise jar*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another problem is that some articles are , let 's say... unnecessarily detailed .
For example , an article on necrophilia that almost reads like that South Park episode : " This is necrophilia , here are pictures of necrophilia , here 's another close-up , and here 's a recording of what necrophilia sounds like on your grandma 's eye sockets " .
* Starts fisting a mayonaise jar *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another problem is that some articles are, let's say... unnecessarily detailed.
For example, an article on necrophilia that almost reads like that South Park episode: "This is necrophilia, here are pictures of necrophilia, here's another close-up, and here's a recording of what necrophilia sounds like on your grandma's eye sockets".
*Starts fisting a mayonaise jar*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232006</id>
	<title>Re:So keep your claims of "it's finished, dummies"</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1257167040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When the Chinese writer wants to contribute about Heilongjiang, I'll be right there supporting them.  But it's not going to be anyone who's been with Wikipedia all this time.  Those people have already written everything <i>they</i> know.  The original post is about the current editors leaving.  It's finished for them.</p><p>Now figure out a way to get Jing Gu to write about Heilongjiang.</p></div><p>Does anyone finish learning, though? No one can write down everything they know, sit back and say "I'm done." There's always more to learn -- not just in areas you haven't explored before, but because you will always be correcting old bad information and updating the areas you know with new information you've since become aware of. Even areas that you might think would be "settled" are rarely static, such as the fields of History, English Language, or the Theory of Gravity. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single discipline where you're "done" and that field doesn't change from that point forward.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Chinese writer wants to contribute about Heilongjiang , I 'll be right there supporting them .
But it 's not going to be anyone who 's been with Wikipedia all this time .
Those people have already written everything they know .
The original post is about the current editors leaving .
It 's finished for them.Now figure out a way to get Jing Gu to write about Heilongjiang.Does anyone finish learning , though ?
No one can write down everything they know , sit back and say " I 'm done .
" There 's always more to learn -- not just in areas you have n't explored before , but because you will always be correcting old bad information and updating the areas you know with new information you 've since become aware of .
Even areas that you might think would be " settled " are rarely static , such as the fields of History , English Language , or the Theory of Gravity .
I 'm hard-pressed to think of a single discipline where you 're " done " and that field does n't change from that point forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Chinese writer wants to contribute about Heilongjiang, I'll be right there supporting them.
But it's not going to be anyone who's been with Wikipedia all this time.
Those people have already written everything they know.
The original post is about the current editors leaving.
It's finished for them.Now figure out a way to get Jing Gu to write about Heilongjiang.Does anyone finish learning, though?
No one can write down everything they know, sit back and say "I'm done.
" There's always more to learn -- not just in areas you haven't explored before, but because you will always be correcting old bad information and updating the areas you know with new information you've since become aware of.
Even areas that you might think would be "settled" are rarely static, such as the fields of History, English Language, or the Theory of Gravity.
I'm hard-pressed to think of a single discipline where you're "done" and that field doesn't change from that point forward.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230650</id>
	<title>I thought about donating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257156780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but I bought a subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but I bought a subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I bought a subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288</id>
	<title>It just isn't worth the fight anymore.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was an old-timer on Wikipedia who began contributing in 2002.</p><p>I've witnessed layers and layers of bureaucracy be added to Wikipedia all under the benevolent dictatorship of Jimbo.  I've witnessed what used to be a culture where all editors were considered equal become one where there are definite castes and hierarchies (and cabals).</p><p>It just isn't worth the effort to edit anymore.</p><p>Case in point: from 2002 to 2006 I was one of the primary editors of a set of articles that had to do with a subject that definitely has politics surrounding it.  All the editors involved and I did our best to present both sides of the topic and to try to keep the articles fair and balanced.  The number of editors was sparse and it was relatively easy to keep the articles on track.</p><p>A couple of years ago a new user started editing these articles.  He was extremely contentious but a skilled at wikilawyering. Every edit he didn't agree with would be dragged by him down a rathole of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:POV, WP:PSTS, and so and and so on ad infinitum.  It doesn't matter how well *your* edits are sourced from quality peer-reviewed sources.  If he didn't agree with your edits he would find something to complain about; the journal you are citing isn't respected enough, the author you are quoting has an obvious bias, your summary of the published literature doesn't agree with how he would summarize the published literature, etc, etc, etc.  Similarly, any objection you had to his edits (or to the overall effect his edits in aggregate were having on the article) would also be dragged down a similar path of his gaming the system.</p><p>Editing the articles involved simply became too painful to continue.  If you wanted to make any change that this user would disagree with then you had to prepare yourself of days of arguing with him before he would leave you alone.  Similarly, one became hesitant to "correct" any of his articles because of the time-sink that you knew arguing with him was going to become.</p><p>The existing editors tried many times to work within the system to make this user stop.  There were multiple attempts at mediation and arbitration.  But over time all of the "old" editors simply gave up.  <b>It just wasn't worth the effort anymore.</b></p><p>When I visit these articles today I am ashamed at what they have become.  What was once a fair attempt to present all sides of an issue has become extremely one-sided and quite misleading to a reader not familiar with the subject.  The "problem user" has become in effect the only editor of these articles, tolerating only a handful of other editors who primarily make grammatical and punctuation changes.</p><p>The only hope for the articles in question is that this user eventually gets tired and quits.  He has won in his attempt to take over these articles, everyone with an established interest has been driven away, and I don't think any new user is going to be able to mount a challenge as he will simply tie them down in wikilawyering forever.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was an old-timer on Wikipedia who began contributing in 2002.I 've witnessed layers and layers of bureaucracy be added to Wikipedia all under the benevolent dictatorship of Jimbo .
I 've witnessed what used to be a culture where all editors were considered equal become one where there are definite castes and hierarchies ( and cabals ) .It just is n't worth the effort to edit anymore.Case in point : from 2002 to 2006 I was one of the primary editors of a set of articles that had to do with a subject that definitely has politics surrounding it .
All the editors involved and I did our best to present both sides of the topic and to try to keep the articles fair and balanced .
The number of editors was sparse and it was relatively easy to keep the articles on track.A couple of years ago a new user started editing these articles .
He was extremely contentious but a skilled at wikilawyering .
Every edit he did n't agree with would be dragged by him down a rathole of WP : V , WP : NOR , WP : POV , WP : PSTS , and so and and so on ad infinitum .
It does n't matter how well * your * edits are sourced from quality peer-reviewed sources .
If he did n't agree with your edits he would find something to complain about ; the journal you are citing is n't respected enough , the author you are quoting has an obvious bias , your summary of the published literature does n't agree with how he would summarize the published literature , etc , etc , etc .
Similarly , any objection you had to his edits ( or to the overall effect his edits in aggregate were having on the article ) would also be dragged down a similar path of his gaming the system.Editing the articles involved simply became too painful to continue .
If you wanted to make any change that this user would disagree with then you had to prepare yourself of days of arguing with him before he would leave you alone .
Similarly , one became hesitant to " correct " any of his articles because of the time-sink that you knew arguing with him was going to become.The existing editors tried many times to work within the system to make this user stop .
There were multiple attempts at mediation and arbitration .
But over time all of the " old " editors simply gave up .
It just was n't worth the effort anymore.When I visit these articles today I am ashamed at what they have become .
What was once a fair attempt to present all sides of an issue has become extremely one-sided and quite misleading to a reader not familiar with the subject .
The " problem user " has become in effect the only editor of these articles , tolerating only a handful of other editors who primarily make grammatical and punctuation changes.The only hope for the articles in question is that this user eventually gets tired and quits .
He has won in his attempt to take over these articles , everyone with an established interest has been driven away , and I do n't think any new user is going to be able to mount a challenge as he will simply tie them down in wikilawyering forever .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was an old-timer on Wikipedia who began contributing in 2002.I've witnessed layers and layers of bureaucracy be added to Wikipedia all under the benevolent dictatorship of Jimbo.
I've witnessed what used to be a culture where all editors were considered equal become one where there are definite castes and hierarchies (and cabals).It just isn't worth the effort to edit anymore.Case in point: from 2002 to 2006 I was one of the primary editors of a set of articles that had to do with a subject that definitely has politics surrounding it.
All the editors involved and I did our best to present both sides of the topic and to try to keep the articles fair and balanced.
The number of editors was sparse and it was relatively easy to keep the articles on track.A couple of years ago a new user started editing these articles.
He was extremely contentious but a skilled at wikilawyering.
Every edit he didn't agree with would be dragged by him down a rathole of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:POV, WP:PSTS, and so and and so on ad infinitum.
It doesn't matter how well *your* edits are sourced from quality peer-reviewed sources.
If he didn't agree with your edits he would find something to complain about; the journal you are citing isn't respected enough, the author you are quoting has an obvious bias, your summary of the published literature doesn't agree with how he would summarize the published literature, etc, etc, etc.
Similarly, any objection you had to his edits (or to the overall effect his edits in aggregate were having on the article) would also be dragged down a similar path of his gaming the system.Editing the articles involved simply became too painful to continue.
If you wanted to make any change that this user would disagree with then you had to prepare yourself of days of arguing with him before he would leave you alone.
Similarly, one became hesitant to "correct" any of his articles because of the time-sink that you knew arguing with him was going to become.The existing editors tried many times to work within the system to make this user stop.
There were multiple attempts at mediation and arbitration.
But over time all of the "old" editors simply gave up.
It just wasn't worth the effort anymore.When I visit these articles today I am ashamed at what they have become.
What was once a fair attempt to present all sides of an issue has become extremely one-sided and quite misleading to a reader not familiar with the subject.
The "problem user" has become in effect the only editor of these articles, tolerating only a handful of other editors who primarily make grammatical and punctuation changes.The only hope for the articles in question is that this user eventually gets tired and quits.
He has won in his attempt to take over these articles, everyone with an established interest has been driven away, and I don't think any new user is going to be able to mount a challenge as he will simply tie them down in wikilawyering forever.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227402</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's pretty close to reality. There's not much to do anymore, at least for me. I still keep up with my watchlist, and visit frequently to remain aware of what is going on, but my time is spent doing other useful things. And yeah, internal politics get boring after a while...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty close to reality .
There 's not much to do anymore , at least for me .
I still keep up with my watchlist , and visit frequently to remain aware of what is going on , but my time is spent doing other useful things .
And yeah , internal politics get boring after a while.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty close to reality.
There's not much to do anymore, at least for me.
I still keep up with my watchlist, and visit frequently to remain aware of what is going on, but my time is spent doing other useful things.
And yeah, internal politics get boring after a while...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232164</id>
	<title>Conveniently Skipped Numbers</title>
	<author>nick\_davison</author>
	<datestamp>1257168240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>49,000 lost contributors in three months sounds like a lot.</p><p>Out of 3,000,000 active contributors, that's a little less than 2\%.</p><p>Even that would assume 0 new contributors signed up during the three month period. Conveniently, that number was skipped. If 49,001 contributors signed up, while 49,000 left, the shocking figure of 49,000 leaving is actually a net gain.</p><p>Given the site's been around since 2001 (let's call it 25 three month periods), gaining 3m contributors implies an average of 120,000 have joined in each three month period. Even if it's slowed, my guess is it's still enough that the actual drop off, if even a drop off, is well below 1\%.</p><p>Not exactly the death of a system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>49,000 lost contributors in three months sounds like a lot.Out of 3,000,000 active contributors , that 's a little less than 2 \ % .Even that would assume 0 new contributors signed up during the three month period .
Conveniently , that number was skipped .
If 49,001 contributors signed up , while 49,000 left , the shocking figure of 49,000 leaving is actually a net gain.Given the site 's been around since 2001 ( let 's call it 25 three month periods ) , gaining 3m contributors implies an average of 120,000 have joined in each three month period .
Even if it 's slowed , my guess is it 's still enough that the actual drop off , if even a drop off , is well below 1 \ % .Not exactly the death of a system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>49,000 lost contributors in three months sounds like a lot.Out of 3,000,000 active contributors, that's a little less than 2\%.Even that would assume 0 new contributors signed up during the three month period.
Conveniently, that number was skipped.
If 49,001 contributors signed up, while 49,000 left, the shocking figure of 49,000 leaving is actually a net gain.Given the site's been around since 2001 (let's call it 25 three month periods), gaining 3m contributors implies an average of 120,000 have joined in each three month period.
Even if it's slowed, my guess is it's still enough that the actual drop off, if even a drop off, is well below 1\%.Not exactly the death of a system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228954</id>
	<title>Re:Uncontrolled administrators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Link, please. My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it, and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.</i></p><p>Note the condescending attitude toward "users", as if the admins are somehow a superior class. It's hard to believe anyone has been around Wikipedia for long without knowing about this kind of abuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Link , please .
My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it , and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.Note the condescending attitude toward " users " , as if the admins are somehow a superior class .
It 's hard to believe anyone has been around Wikipedia for long without knowing about this kind of abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link, please.
My experience has been that users who are griping about having been blocked usually deserved it, and the facts of the case are typically not as they present.Note the condescending attitude toward "users", as if the admins are somehow a superior class.
It's hard to believe anyone has been around Wikipedia for long without knowing about this kind of abuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228350</id>
	<title>Hard disk is full, this is the problem.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1257189060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did a quake engine, the article about it survived about 4 years, and got deleted. More important stuff than my engine got deleted.<br>The whole quake thing is "asking" for a deletionism run, since most of these stuff was online-only. Hell.. the "quake-hub" website is down for a few years already.  Probably you can get similar scenarios with old stuff like VRML, SGML, etc. Websites are not here forever, break and die.  I read the deletion logs, with intense facepalm sentiments, with text like "I have search at google, and theres not hits for X", say dude that know *nothing* about the topic of the article he is discussing to delete.</p><p>Somehow, the deletionism group win the war, and has Wikipedia ransom.  Live in some "HardDisk is full" scenario, where having more articles is bad, so theres the need to remove these that don't fit some limited vision of notability. Limited as in... how can people that have no idea of quake engines discuss about the notability of some quake thing?  Is like me discussing the notability of some greek poet... I know nothing of that. Lame and sad.</p><p>Is obvious that the wikipedia is roting, and part of it will suck because of that.</p><p>Hell.. have you guys see the talk pages? simplicity has died. I use to sign my coments as "--Tei" logged or unloged. Now this is not enough... argh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a quake engine , the article about it survived about 4 years , and got deleted .
More important stuff than my engine got deleted.The whole quake thing is " asking " for a deletionism run , since most of these stuff was online-only .
Hell.. the " quake-hub " website is down for a few years already .
Probably you can get similar scenarios with old stuff like VRML , SGML , etc .
Websites are not here forever , break and die .
I read the deletion logs , with intense facepalm sentiments , with text like " I have search at google , and theres not hits for X " , say dude that know * nothing * about the topic of the article he is discussing to delete.Somehow , the deletionism group win the war , and has Wikipedia ransom .
Live in some " HardDisk is full " scenario , where having more articles is bad , so theres the need to remove these that do n't fit some limited vision of notability .
Limited as in... how can people that have no idea of quake engines discuss about the notability of some quake thing ?
Is like me discussing the notability of some greek poet... I know nothing of that .
Lame and sad.Is obvious that the wikipedia is roting , and part of it will suck because of that.Hell.. have you guys see the talk pages ?
simplicity has died .
I use to sign my coments as " --Tei " logged or unloged .
Now this is not enough... argh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a quake engine, the article about it survived about 4 years, and got deleted.
More important stuff than my engine got deleted.The whole quake thing is "asking" for a deletionism run, since most of these stuff was online-only.
Hell.. the "quake-hub" website is down for a few years already.
Probably you can get similar scenarios with old stuff like VRML, SGML, etc.
Websites are not here forever, break and die.
I read the deletion logs, with intense facepalm sentiments, with text like "I have search at google, and theres not hits for X", say dude that know *nothing* about the topic of the article he is discussing to delete.Somehow, the deletionism group win the war, and has Wikipedia ransom.
Live in some "HardDisk is full" scenario, where having more articles is bad, so theres the need to remove these that don't fit some limited vision of notability.
Limited as in... how can people that have no idea of quake engines discuss about the notability of some quake thing?
Is like me discussing the notability of some greek poet... I know nothing of that.
Lame and sad.Is obvious that the wikipedia is roting, and part of it will suck because of that.Hell.. have you guys see the talk pages?
simplicity has died.
I use to sign my coments as "--Tei" logged or unloged.
Now this is not enough... argh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227970</id>
	<title>Totally understandable</title>
	<author>Voltar</author>
	<datestamp>1257187140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only thing they allow to be edited/created are sci-fi articles and ultra-left-wing screeds against those on the right, or society in general. Anyone try to change anything against the grain on Obama's or Pelosi's pages lately? You get hounded for a week from the "editors". Of course you can any anything you like on Palin's or Limbaugh's pages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing they allow to be edited/created are sci-fi articles and ultra-left-wing screeds against those on the right , or society in general .
Anyone try to change anything against the grain on Obama 's or Pelosi 's pages lately ?
You get hounded for a week from the " editors " .
Of course you can any anything you like on Palin 's or Limbaugh 's pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing they allow to be edited/created are sci-fi articles and ultra-left-wing screeds against those on the right, or society in general.
Anyone try to change anything against the grain on Obama's or Pelosi's pages lately?
You get hounded for a week from the "editors".
Of course you can any anything you like on Palin's or Limbaugh's pages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231704</id>
	<title>credit stealing bastards</title>
	<author>bpsheen</author>
	<datestamp>1257164280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Years ago, I edited the Kraftwerk entry on wikipedia to correct a mistake regarding the german and english names of their albums.  I qouted the correct sources only to find that weeks later the credit for the change had been removed from wikipedia.  Yet my changes to the respective entry were still intact.  If you run a site when everybody contributes, but only select members get credit, the "unselect" members will leave.  As far as I am concerned, I now have no time to waste on wikipedia's project as they show no respect for their contributors.  Wikipedia needs to wake up or get out of the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago , I edited the Kraftwerk entry on wikipedia to correct a mistake regarding the german and english names of their albums .
I qouted the correct sources only to find that weeks later the credit for the change had been removed from wikipedia .
Yet my changes to the respective entry were still intact .
If you run a site when everybody contributes , but only select members get credit , the " unselect " members will leave .
As far as I am concerned , I now have no time to waste on wikipedia 's project as they show no respect for their contributors .
Wikipedia needs to wake up or get out of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago, I edited the Kraftwerk entry on wikipedia to correct a mistake regarding the german and english names of their albums.
I qouted the correct sources only to find that weeks later the credit for the change had been removed from wikipedia.
Yet my changes to the respective entry were still intact.
If you run a site when everybody contributes, but only select members get credit, the "unselect" members will leave.
As far as I am concerned, I now have no time to waste on wikipedia's project as they show no respect for their contributors.
Wikipedia needs to wake up or get out of the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228056</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if they made "releases" of wikipedia every year or so. They could have a development/beta edition with a lot looser rules. The stuff that stays stable with few edits continually gets merged with the "official" version/release/whatever. Ofc the official version should have links to the beta version and vice versa. In this scenario the beta version would have a lot more content but perhaps less quality controll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if they made " releases " of wikipedia every year or so .
They could have a development/beta edition with a lot looser rules .
The stuff that stays stable with few edits continually gets merged with the " official " version/release/whatever .
Ofc the official version should have links to the beta version and vice versa .
In this scenario the beta version would have a lot more content but perhaps less quality controll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if they made "releases" of wikipedia every year or so.
They could have a development/beta edition with a lot looser rules.
The stuff that stays stable with few edits continually gets merged with the "official" version/release/whatever.
Ofc the official version should have links to the beta version and vice versa.
In this scenario the beta version would have a lot more content but perhaps less quality controll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229306</id>
	<title>rogue admins are a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I spent a great deal of time updating and correcting an article about a certain set of laws in a certain country.  I used -- and cited -- official government sources of that country.  The previous article was highly inaccurate (among other things, saying that a provision regarding the air force was repealed...in 1917!) and in several critical respects completely wrong.</p><p>Within a few hours, all my changes were reverted as being "vandalism", and my protest on the talk page was also removed.  Apparently, a certain individual considers that article to be his private property.</p><p>At that point, I said the hell with Wikipedia.  I have a page on my own site that details the actual facts, and cautions that Wikipedia's information is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I spent a great deal of time updating and correcting an article about a certain set of laws in a certain country .
I used -- and cited -- official government sources of that country .
The previous article was highly inaccurate ( among other things , saying that a provision regarding the air force was repealed...in 1917 !
) and in several critical respects completely wrong.Within a few hours , all my changes were reverted as being " vandalism " , and my protest on the talk page was also removed .
Apparently , a certain individual considers that article to be his private property.At that point , I said the hell with Wikipedia .
I have a page on my own site that details the actual facts , and cautions that Wikipedia 's information is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spent a great deal of time updating and correcting an article about a certain set of laws in a certain country.
I used -- and cited -- official government sources of that country.
The previous article was highly inaccurate (among other things, saying that a provision regarding the air force was repealed...in 1917!
) and in several critical respects completely wrong.Within a few hours, all my changes were reverted as being "vandalism", and my protest on the talk page was also removed.
Apparently, a certain individual considers that article to be his private property.At that point, I said the hell with Wikipedia.
I have a page on my own site that details the actual facts, and cautions that Wikipedia's information is wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230694</id>
	<title>Results of elitism.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257157140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is what happened to many other attempts and projects in human history before, when they took the elitist route.</p><p>wikipedia was no different. it wasnt going to be an exception to the rule.</p><p>those who screwed up wikipedia, now sit and enjoy the shit you have done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is what happened to many other attempts and projects in human history before , when they took the elitist route.wikipedia was no different .
it wasnt going to be an exception to the rule.those who screwed up wikipedia , now sit and enjoy the shit you have done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is what happened to many other attempts and projects in human history before, when they took the elitist route.wikipedia was no different.
it wasnt going to be an exception to the rule.those who screwed up wikipedia, now sit and enjoy the shit you have done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227662</id>
	<title>Sisyphus</title>
	<author>swm</author>
	<datestamp>1257185700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight.
They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
<strong>EITHER</strong>
</p><p>
you monitory your pages every day
</p><ul>
<li>reverting vandalism</li>
<li>patiently explaining to every newbie who wanders by why their edit is wrong, or inappropriate</li>
<li>enduring zombie edit wars (they won't stay dead...)</li>
</ul><p>
all the while remembering that they aren't "your" pages,
and that all you can do is make your best evidence-based case
and hope that other agree with it...
</p><p>
<strong>OR</strong>
</p><p>
you don't, and you watch as bitrot and entropy slowly but relentlessly degrade the pages to something you can't bear to look at any more.
</p><p>
I maintained some pages for about a year, and then after one particularly nasty edit war I gave up. Not in a petulant "they won't have <strong>me</strong> to kick around any more" way. I just stopped caring so much. Wikipedia dropped off my mental list of sites that I check every day.
</p><p>
I still use Wikipedia&mdash;it's near the top of every SERP. But I haven't tried to edit anything there in years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain , whence the stone would fall back of its own weight .
They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor .
EITHER you monitory your pages every day reverting vandalism patiently explaining to every newbie who wanders by why their edit is wrong , or inappropriate enduring zombie edit wars ( they wo n't stay dead... ) all the while remembering that they are n't " your " pages , and that all you can do is make your best evidence-based case and hope that other agree with it.. . OR you do n't , and you watch as bitrot and entropy slowly but relentlessly degrade the pages to something you ca n't bear to look at any more .
I maintained some pages for about a year , and then after one particularly nasty edit war I gave up .
Not in a petulant " they wo n't have me to kick around any more " way .
I just stopped caring so much .
Wikipedia dropped off my mental list of sites that I check every day .
I still use Wikipedia    it 's near the top of every SERP .
But I have n't tried to edit anything there in years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight.
They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.
EITHER

you monitory your pages every day

reverting vandalism
patiently explaining to every newbie who wanders by why their edit is wrong, or inappropriate
enduring zombie edit wars (they won't stay dead...)

all the while remembering that they aren't "your" pages,
and that all you can do is make your best evidence-based case
and hope that other agree with it...

OR

you don't, and you watch as bitrot and entropy slowly but relentlessly degrade the pages to something you can't bear to look at any more.
I maintained some pages for about a year, and then after one particularly nasty edit war I gave up.
Not in a petulant "they won't have me to kick around any more" way.
I just stopped caring so much.
Wikipedia dropped off my mental list of sites that I check every day.
I still use Wikipedia—it's near the top of every SERP.
But I haven't tried to edit anything there in years.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230414</id>
	<title>Re:It just isn't worth the fight anymore.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257155460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest you crowdsource this on 4chan.  Give them proper motivation (anything lulz worthy) and you can guarantee they'll run this user off.  These guys are like Sherlock Holmes, but malicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest you crowdsource this on 4chan .
Give them proper motivation ( anything lulz worthy ) and you can guarantee they 'll run this user off .
These guys are like Sherlock Holmes , but malicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest you crowdsource this on 4chan.
Give them proper motivation (anything lulz worthy) and you can guarantee they'll run this user off.
These guys are like Sherlock Holmes, but malicious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228144</id>
	<title>Why I am no longer supporting Wikipedia..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have started three (minor) articles and contributed to hundreds more.</p><p>I am no longer doing this. Wikipedia has become a slew of in-fighting political activists, and many articles have been severely distorted by single-issue fanatics insisting on deleting anything which does not accord with their point of view....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have started three ( minor ) articles and contributed to hundreds more.I am no longer doing this .
Wikipedia has become a slew of in-fighting political activists , and many articles have been severely distorted by single-issue fanatics insisting on deleting anything which does not accord with their point of view... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have started three (minor) articles and contributed to hundreds more.I am no longer doing this.
Wikipedia has become a slew of in-fighting political activists, and many articles have been severely distorted by single-issue fanatics insisting on deleting anything which does not accord with their point of view....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234652</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259268300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it ironic that StackOverflow, which <em>is</em> a democracy (every user has the same voting power, which directly affects reputation of other users) seems to be much less abuse-prone than the supposedly meritocratic (and in practice, bureaucratic) Wikipedia - while the people claim that WP <em>cannot</em> be more democratic and succeed, because of "mob rule" and "lemmings" etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it ironic that StackOverflow , which is a democracy ( every user has the same voting power , which directly affects reputation of other users ) seems to be much less abuse-prone than the supposedly meritocratic ( and in practice , bureaucratic ) Wikipedia - while the people claim that WP can not be more democratic and succeed , because of " mob rule " and " lemmings " etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it ironic that StackOverflow, which is a democracy (every user has the same voting power, which directly affects reputation of other users) seems to be much less abuse-prone than the supposedly meritocratic (and in practice, bureaucratic) Wikipedia - while the people claim that WP cannot be more democratic and succeed, because of "mob rule" and "lemmings" etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227672</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is for anal retentives</title>
	<author>mapuche</author>
	<datestamp>1257185760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to be obsesive to mantain as a Wikipedia contributor. All if not most of my contribution was deleted, including CC licensed images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to be obsesive to mantain as a Wikipedia contributor .
All if not most of my contribution was deleted , including CC licensed images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to be obsesive to mantain as a Wikipedia contributor.
All if not most of my contribution was deleted, including CC licensed images.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230410</id>
	<title>Re:Sisyphus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257155460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, I quit because I got tired of puting up with a couple people who didn't care to understand that some countries might work different to the US.  It also didn't help that they had a political axe to grind, but still.  Lots of misinformation and lies are subtly spreading through wikipedia, and those behind them are shielding themselves in the site's policies to get away with it.</p><p>A shame, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , I quit because I got tired of puting up with a couple people who did n't care to understand that some countries might work different to the US .
It also did n't help that they had a political axe to grind , but still .
Lots of misinformation and lies are subtly spreading through wikipedia , and those behind them are shielding themselves in the site 's policies to get away with it.A shame , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, I quit because I got tired of puting up with a couple people who didn't care to understand that some countries might work different to the US.
It also didn't help that they had a political axe to grind, but still.
Lots of misinformation and lies are subtly spreading through wikipedia, and those behind them are shielding themselves in the site's policies to get away with it.A shame, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>RPoet</author>
	<datestamp>1257189360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am one of these elusive deletionists. I am motivated by the huge amounts of spam articles being put into Wikipedia these days, articles almost unambiguously meant to drive customers to the company. Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world, and a Wikipedia article will shoot your company right to the top of Google. One CTO of a company posted such an article and told me that they found visitors who came to their website from Wikipedia stayed many times longer than people who found them through Google. These people are single-purpose, have enormous conflicts of interest, and have no interest in Wikipedia beyond what it can do for their companies' bottom lines.</p><p>This pisses me off because I have frustration issues in my life that I am unable to channel in other ways. I could start martial arts training or yoga, but Wikipedia is much more available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am one of these elusive deletionists .
I am motivated by the huge amounts of spam articles being put into Wikipedia these days , articles almost unambiguously meant to drive customers to the company .
Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world , and a Wikipedia article will shoot your company right to the top of Google .
One CTO of a company posted such an article and told me that they found visitors who came to their website from Wikipedia stayed many times longer than people who found them through Google .
These people are single-purpose , have enormous conflicts of interest , and have no interest in Wikipedia beyond what it can do for their companies ' bottom lines.This pisses me off because I have frustration issues in my life that I am unable to channel in other ways .
I could start martial arts training or yoga , but Wikipedia is much more available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am one of these elusive deletionists.
I am motivated by the huge amounts of spam articles being put into Wikipedia these days, articles almost unambiguously meant to drive customers to the company.
Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world, and a Wikipedia article will shoot your company right to the top of Google.
One CTO of a company posted such an article and told me that they found visitors who came to their website from Wikipedia stayed many times longer than people who found them through Google.
These people are single-purpose, have enormous conflicts of interest, and have no interest in Wikipedia beyond what it can do for their companies' bottom lines.This pisses me off because I have frustration issues in my life that I am unable to channel in other ways.
I could start martial arts training or yoga, but Wikipedia is much more available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227696</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1257185940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot one important factor - <i>Wikipedia the RPG</i> going into open beta.  When newbies are numbed by the maze of rules (many contradictory, many obscure) and are repeatedly ganked as they cross out of the starting zone...  They aren't likely to hang around.  The outright hostility of the upper level players to any not in their clique leads to a hostile environment for those that do stay.  And lastly, the willingness of the GM's to stand behind those that lie, cheat, and steal takes it's toll on the few that remain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot one important factor - Wikipedia the RPG going into open beta .
When newbies are numbed by the maze of rules ( many contradictory , many obscure ) and are repeatedly ganked as they cross out of the starting zone... They are n't likely to hang around .
The outright hostility of the upper level players to any not in their clique leads to a hostile environment for those that do stay .
And lastly , the willingness of the GM 's to stand behind those that lie , cheat , and steal takes it 's toll on the few that remain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot one important factor - Wikipedia the RPG going into open beta.
When newbies are numbed by the maze of rules (many contradictory, many obscure) and are repeatedly ganked as they cross out of the starting zone...  They aren't likely to hang around.
The outright hostility of the upper level players to any not in their clique leads to a hostile environment for those that do stay.
And lastly, the willingness of the GM's to stand behind those that lie, cheat, and steal takes it's toll on the few that remain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229000</id>
	<title>Mostly Harmless</title>
	<author>Kaziganthi</author>
	<datestamp>1257191700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I no longer contribute to wikipedia because they shot down my suggestion to update the article on earth to "Mostly Harmless".  I hate those moderators.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I no longer contribute to wikipedia because they shot down my suggestion to update the article on earth to " Mostly Harmless " .
I hate those moderators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I no longer contribute to wikipedia because they shot down my suggestion to update the article on earth to "Mostly Harmless".
I hate those moderators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233510</id>
	<title>Re:Sisyphus</title>
	<author>Oberiko</author>
	<datestamp>1257179340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow.  You just captured what I went through and why I left exactly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
You just captured what I went through and why I left exactly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
You just captured what I went through and why I left exactly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227704</id>
	<title>Re:too much political bias</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasion</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Exposed\_-\_Anti-Israeli\_Subversion\_on\_Wikipedia.asp" title="honestreporting.com" rel="nofollow">Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.</a> [honestreporting.com]</p><p>For the record, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization founded as the Iranian revolutionary movement's Lebanese branch with the goal of overthrowing that state's republic, exterminating all political opposition, expanding the reach of absolute Shari'a law, and waging proxy wars for Iran's benefit. That's as clear and unbiased as any reference to Hezbollah needs to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasionExcuse me while I laugh my ass off .
[ honestreporting.com ] For the record , Hezbollah is a terrorist organization founded as the Iranian revolutionary movement 's Lebanese branch with the goal of overthrowing that state 's republic , exterminating all political opposition , expanding the reach of absolute Shari'a law , and waging proxy wars for Iran 's benefit .
That 's as clear and unbiased as any reference to Hezbollah needs to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasionExcuse me while I laugh my ass off.
[honestreporting.com]For the record, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization founded as the Iranian revolutionary movement's Lebanese branch with the goal of overthrowing that state's republic, exterminating all political opposition, expanding the reach of absolute Shari'a law, and waging proxy wars for Iran's benefit.
That's as clear and unbiased as any reference to Hezbollah needs to be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234370</id>
	<title>Re:too much political bias</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257190740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasion. Finding out a few days later that the CIA was editing all kinds of articles on "terrorism" and other methods of opposing the agenda of the US government was just icing on the cake. The "neutral-viewpoint" promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as "biased" or "controversial."</p></div><p>Whenever someone says such a thing, they may be absolutely correct... or they may be a truther fuming over the article on 9/11, a Serb looking at the article on Kosovo, or a Muslim enraged by depictions of Muhammad in the article on him.</p><p>In your case, reading the thread under your comment makes it perfectly clear that you do not fall into the first category.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasion .
Finding out a few days later that the CIA was editing all kinds of articles on " terrorism " and other methods of opposing the agenda of the US government was just icing on the cake .
The " neutral-viewpoint " promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as " biased " or " controversial .
" Whenever someone says such a thing , they may be absolutely correct... or they may be a truther fuming over the article on 9/11 , a Serb looking at the article on Kosovo , or a Muslim enraged by depictions of Muhammad in the article on him.In your case , reading the thread under your comment makes it perfectly clear that you do not fall into the first category .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped even trying when I was editing the Hezbollah article for a little less bias and a little more clarity and then getting all my edits erased due to Wikipedia being run by editors of the Zionist persuasion.
Finding out a few days later that the CIA was editing all kinds of articles on "terrorism" and other methods of opposing the agenda of the US government was just icing on the cake.
The "neutral-viewpoint" promoted by Wikipedia almost always defines their own political agenda as neutrality and any other views as "biased" or "controversial.
"Whenever someone says such a thing, they may be absolutely correct... or they may be a truther fuming over the article on 9/11, a Serb looking at the article on Kosovo, or a Muslim enraged by depictions of Muhammad in the article on him.In your case, reading the thread under your comment makes it perfectly clear that you do not fall into the first category.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233548</id>
	<title>Completely backwards...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary is utterly wrong.  It wasn't lack of rules that made Wikipedia popular.  It was simply that the rules rarely had to be utilized when there were fewer people, and therefore, fewer conflicts.</p><p>The rules are a total and utter mess.  All the politicians in the world coming together in committee couldn't come up with something so wasteful, frustrating and time consuming.</p><p>Wikipedia's rules work against patent vandalism, but NOTHING ELSE.  One person steadfastly insisting that the Earth is flat can bend Wikipedia to his will, and it will take months of your time to get official refutation for ONE of those edits.  After a few dozen of those, he might get temporarily restricted for a few days before he can push his agenda once more.  Meanwhile, you've lost a year of your life.</p><p>No.  That's not an exaggeration.</p><p>Meanwhile, I, and many other Wikipedia refugees, have headed over to Citizendium for something better.  It's policies make sense, and were designed to overcome just about every problem we see with WP.  In fact, several of the foundation documents are really thinly veiled recitations of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia.</p><p>Specifically "We think humanity can do better":<br><a href="http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why\_Citizendium\%3F#We\_can\_do\_better" title="citizendium.org">http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why\_Citizendium\%3F#We\_can\_do\_better</a> [citizendium.org]</p><p>As well as:<br><a href="http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:We\_aren't\_Wikipedia" title="citizendium.org">http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:We\_aren't\_Wikipedia</a> [citizendium.org]</p><p>I'm hopeful mankind will get it right the second time around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is utterly wrong .
It was n't lack of rules that made Wikipedia popular .
It was simply that the rules rarely had to be utilized when there were fewer people , and therefore , fewer conflicts.The rules are a total and utter mess .
All the politicians in the world coming together in committee could n't come up with something so wasteful , frustrating and time consuming.Wikipedia 's rules work against patent vandalism , but NOTHING ELSE .
One person steadfastly insisting that the Earth is flat can bend Wikipedia to his will , and it will take months of your time to get official refutation for ONE of those edits .
After a few dozen of those , he might get temporarily restricted for a few days before he can push his agenda once more .
Meanwhile , you 've lost a year of your life.No .
That 's not an exaggeration.Meanwhile , I , and many other Wikipedia refugees , have headed over to Citizendium for something better .
It 's policies make sense , and were designed to overcome just about every problem we see with WP .
In fact , several of the foundation documents are really thinly veiled recitations of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia.Specifically " We think humanity can do better " : http : //en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ : Why \ _Citizendium \ % 3F # We \ _can \ _do \ _better [ citizendium.org ] As well as : http : //en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ : We \ _are n't \ _Wikipedia [ citizendium.org ] I 'm hopeful mankind will get it right the second time around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is utterly wrong.
It wasn't lack of rules that made Wikipedia popular.
It was simply that the rules rarely had to be utilized when there were fewer people, and therefore, fewer conflicts.The rules are a total and utter mess.
All the politicians in the world coming together in committee couldn't come up with something so wasteful, frustrating and time consuming.Wikipedia's rules work against patent vandalism, but NOTHING ELSE.
One person steadfastly insisting that the Earth is flat can bend Wikipedia to his will, and it will take months of your time to get official refutation for ONE of those edits.
After a few dozen of those, he might get temporarily restricted for a few days before he can push his agenda once more.
Meanwhile, you've lost a year of your life.No.
That's not an exaggeration.Meanwhile, I, and many other Wikipedia refugees, have headed over to Citizendium for something better.
It's policies make sense, and were designed to overcome just about every problem we see with WP.
In fact, several of the foundation documents are really thinly veiled recitations of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia.Specifically "We think humanity can do better":http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why\_Citizendium\%3F#We\_can\_do\_better [citizendium.org]As well as:http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:We\_aren't\_Wikipedia [citizendium.org]I'm hopeful mankind will get it right the second time around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231254</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257161280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the rules can't be that draconian</p></div><p>Of course, dragons are perfectly happy with delicious ducks being on there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the rules ca n't be that draconianOf course , dragons are perfectly happy with delicious ducks being on there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the rules can't be that draconianOf course, dragons are perfectly happy with delicious ducks being on there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230884</id>
	<title>No real loss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257158460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All those editors probably contribute to an even better website now: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main\_Page</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All those editors probably contribute to an even better website now : http : //uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main \ _Page</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All those editors probably contribute to an even better website now: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main\_Page</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232408</id>
	<title>Why not leave Wikipedia?</title>
	<author>zaivala</author>
	<datestamp>1257169800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I often find information on my favorite musical artists -- often those overlooked by the media and radio -- on Wikipedia.  However, when I find one they missed, and add a page for them, it is almost invariably deleted because the information I entered is too similar to the artist's own website.  Well, where else are you going to get the discography?  I have given up, although I have not officially informed Wikipedia of this fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I often find information on my favorite musical artists -- often those overlooked by the media and radio -- on Wikipedia .
However , when I find one they missed , and add a page for them , it is almost invariably deleted because the information I entered is too similar to the artist 's own website .
Well , where else are you going to get the discography ?
I have given up , although I have not officially informed Wikipedia of this fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often find information on my favorite musical artists -- often those overlooked by the media and radio -- on Wikipedia.
However, when I find one they missed, and add a page for them, it is almost invariably deleted because the information I entered is too similar to the artist's own website.
Well, where else are you going to get the discography?
I have given up, although I have not officially informed Wikipedia of this fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464</id>
	<title>add one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly the reasons I left a long time ago. Glad to see others are finally doing the same, maybe the Wikipedia leadership will wake up.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again," adds Ortega."</p></div><p>Been there, done that. You've contributed to improve an article, a dozen people have worked on it. Then a fucktard comes along and nominates it for deletion because of lack of "notability". Delete discussion goes on, clear consensus on "keep".</p><p>Two months pass. Article gets improved further. Next fucktard comes along, delete nomination. Discussion, with links to the first one, consensus arrives at "keep" again.</p><p>Winter holidays. The same fucktard from the 2nd time comes along and nominates the article a 3rd time. This time, vocal people are away or just tired of it all. Whoops, delete request accepted by a narrow margin, all the work of everyone goes *poof*.</p><p>So you treat people like shit, destroy the result of their volunteer work, and then you're surprised they're leaving? You've gotta be kidding me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly the reasons I left a long time ago .
Glad to see others are finally doing the same , maybe the Wikipedia leadership will wake up .
" Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again , " adds Ortega .
" Been there , done that .
You 've contributed to improve an article , a dozen people have worked on it .
Then a fucktard comes along and nominates it for deletion because of lack of " notability " .
Delete discussion goes on , clear consensus on " keep " .Two months pass .
Article gets improved further .
Next fucktard comes along , delete nomination .
Discussion , with links to the first one , consensus arrives at " keep " again.Winter holidays .
The same fucktard from the 2nd time comes along and nominates the article a 3rd time .
This time , vocal people are away or just tired of it all .
Whoops , delete request accepted by a narrow margin , all the work of everyone goes * poof * .So you treat people like shit , destroy the result of their volunteer work , and then you 're surprised they 're leaving ?
You 've got ta be kidding me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly the reasons I left a long time ago.
Glad to see others are finally doing the same, maybe the Wikipedia leadership will wake up.
"Many people are getting burnt out when they have to debate about the contents of certain articles again and again," adds Ortega.
"Been there, done that.
You've contributed to improve an article, a dozen people have worked on it.
Then a fucktard comes along and nominates it for deletion because of lack of "notability".
Delete discussion goes on, clear consensus on "keep".Two months pass.
Article gets improved further.
Next fucktard comes along, delete nomination.
Discussion, with links to the first one, consensus arrives at "keep" again.Winter holidays.
The same fucktard from the 2nd time comes along and nominates the article a 3rd time.
This time, vocal people are away or just tired of it all.
Whoops, delete request accepted by a narrow margin, all the work of everyone goes *poof*.So you treat people like shit, destroy the result of their volunteer work, and then you're surprised they're leaving?
You've gotta be kidding me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is not a Democracy, so a delete request would never be "accepted by a narrow margin". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What\_Wikipedia\_is\_not#Wikipedia\_is\_not\_a\_democracy)</p><p>Besides, if an article was up for deletion 3 times and ultimately was deleted, it had some serious issues. In all those months that passed, a single reliable source would have been enough to squash any deletion nominations right away. Why didn't you just add one?</p><p>I'm calling your bluff - please link to your old account or the article in question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is not a Democracy , so a delete request would never be " accepted by a narrow margin " .
( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia : What \ _Wikipedia \ _is \ _not # Wikipedia \ _is \ _not \ _a \ _democracy ) Besides , if an article was up for deletion 3 times and ultimately was deleted , it had some serious issues .
In all those months that passed , a single reliable source would have been enough to squash any deletion nominations right away .
Why did n't you just add one ? I 'm calling your bluff - please link to your old account or the article in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is not a Democracy, so a delete request would never be "accepted by a narrow margin".
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What\_Wikipedia\_is\_not#Wikipedia\_is\_not\_a\_democracy)Besides, if an article was up for deletion 3 times and ultimately was deleted, it had some serious issues.
In all those months that passed, a single reliable source would have been enough to squash any deletion nominations right away.
Why didn't you just add one?I'm calling your bluff - please link to your old account or the article in question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229656</id>
	<title>Keep moving forward</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1257194820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia has to keep growing. Any staid project will eventually succumb to demise. Maybe next for Wikipedia, implement a paid model based on micro-payments whereby contributors and editors have a fiscal incentive to stay contributing. There a many ways to provide incentives: special attribution/acknowledgements, free stuff, and many others. Keep up the momentum and the ideas. Don't move backward to a no rules model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia has to keep growing .
Any staid project will eventually succumb to demise .
Maybe next for Wikipedia , implement a paid model based on micro-payments whereby contributors and editors have a fiscal incentive to stay contributing .
There a many ways to provide incentives : special attribution/acknowledgements , free stuff , and many others .
Keep up the momentum and the ideas .
Do n't move backward to a no rules model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia has to keep growing.
Any staid project will eventually succumb to demise.
Maybe next for Wikipedia, implement a paid model based on micro-payments whereby contributors and editors have a fiscal incentive to stay contributing.
There a many ways to provide incentives: special attribution/acknowledgements, free stuff, and many others.
Keep up the momentum and the ideas.
Don't move backward to a no rules model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624</id>
	<title>Wikipedia:Statistics</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1257185640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Har har har. How very funny.</p><p>Actually, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia:Statistics</a> [wikipedia.org] page gets you all the stats there's to be had.</p><p>Also, <a href="http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm" title="wikimedia.org">Wiki<b>m</b>edia:Statistics</a> [wikimedia.org] is showing a steady influx of <a href="http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansNew.htm" title="wikimedia.org">New Wikipedians</a> [wikimedia.org] and <a href="http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm" title="wikimedia.org">Active Wikipedians</a> [wikimedia.org], albeit not quite as many as previously.</p><p>Hmm, I wonder if this is more a publicity stunt in relation with their current funds drive?</p><p>At least, "Wikipedia shows signs of stalling as number of volunteers falls sharply" should probably have been "Wikipedia shows signs of maturity as number of new volunteers falls slighly".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Har har har .
How very funny.Actually , the Wikipedia : Statistics [ wikipedia.org ] page gets you all the stats there 's to be had.Also , Wikimedia : Statistics [ wikimedia.org ] is showing a steady influx of New Wikipedians [ wikimedia.org ] and Active Wikipedians [ wikimedia.org ] , albeit not quite as many as previously.Hmm , I wonder if this is more a publicity stunt in relation with their current funds drive ? At least , " Wikipedia shows signs of stalling as number of volunteers falls sharply " should probably have been " Wikipedia shows signs of maturity as number of new volunteers falls slighly " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Har har har.
How very funny.Actually, the Wikipedia:Statistics [wikipedia.org] page gets you all the stats there's to be had.Also, Wikimedia:Statistics [wikimedia.org] is showing a steady influx of New Wikipedians [wikimedia.org] and Active Wikipedians [wikimedia.org], albeit not quite as many as previously.Hmm, I wonder if this is more a publicity stunt in relation with their current funds drive?At least, "Wikipedia shows signs of stalling as number of volunteers falls sharply" should probably have been "Wikipedia shows signs of maturity as number of new volunteers falls slighly".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229034</id>
	<title>How about anti-science?</title>
	<author>FridayBob</author>
	<datestamp>1257191880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the things I hated most when I was writing for Wikipedia was the anti-science attitude of many editors there. I wrote mostly articles on biological organisms and was a strong proponent of using scientific names for article titles. Common names are simply not unique, a fact that has resulted in many heated and pointless debates (i.e. Tiger vs. Puma). I figure WP should try to move beyond that and embrace the advantages of scientific nomenclature that biologists have known about for 250 years.
<br> <br>
Most of the folks who were actually busy writing the articles agreed, but every time an attempt was made to change the policies, our efforts would be met with great resistance from people who simply did not know what they were talking about, let alone make any contributions of the kind. You could see from their edit histories that these people were bureaucrats: they produced very little content and an amazing amount of hot air. Yet, they have enormous influence at WP due simply to their dogged persistence.
<br> <br>
In my view, the fact that more productive editors are now leaving as opposed to arriving is only partly explained by the low-hanging-fruit phenomenon. I, along with many others, was willing to take WP -- or at least my small corner of it -- to the next level, but the problem is that those bureaucrats simply don't share the same vision. When it comes to certain subjects that enter into their own realm of consciousness, it seems like they'd rather keep things looking like an expanded version of the old encyclopedia that their parents once bought when they were kids. It's completely at odds with Jimbo's original vision, but try telling them that.
<br> <br>
As a result, the easy work has already been done, but anyone with the knowledge to do the hard stuff is quickly discouraged. I suspect most professional biologists don't even bother; a few of the ones I spoke to outside of WP had a low opinion of the site precisely because scientific names were not being used for article titles.
<br> <br>
Finally, there's the problem of vandalism. Since I've left, no one has stepped in to keep an eye on the articles I wrote, let alone expand them in any meaningful way. The vandalism, however, is constant. Most of the obvious stuff gets reverted, but it's the subtle vandalism that is the most problematic. Unless you're a specialist, you just can't tell the difference. Either WP should start paying specialists to keep watch, or they should start try treating their own volunteer specialists with more respect. I've heard for years that WP v2 was supposed to solve a lot of vandalism problems, but so far it hasn't appeared.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things I hated most when I was writing for Wikipedia was the anti-science attitude of many editors there .
I wrote mostly articles on biological organisms and was a strong proponent of using scientific names for article titles .
Common names are simply not unique , a fact that has resulted in many heated and pointless debates ( i.e .
Tiger vs. Puma ) . I figure WP should try to move beyond that and embrace the advantages of scientific nomenclature that biologists have known about for 250 years .
Most of the folks who were actually busy writing the articles agreed , but every time an attempt was made to change the policies , our efforts would be met with great resistance from people who simply did not know what they were talking about , let alone make any contributions of the kind .
You could see from their edit histories that these people were bureaucrats : they produced very little content and an amazing amount of hot air .
Yet , they have enormous influence at WP due simply to their dogged persistence .
In my view , the fact that more productive editors are now leaving as opposed to arriving is only partly explained by the low-hanging-fruit phenomenon .
I , along with many others , was willing to take WP -- or at least my small corner of it -- to the next level , but the problem is that those bureaucrats simply do n't share the same vision .
When it comes to certain subjects that enter into their own realm of consciousness , it seems like they 'd rather keep things looking like an expanded version of the old encyclopedia that their parents once bought when they were kids .
It 's completely at odds with Jimbo 's original vision , but try telling them that .
As a result , the easy work has already been done , but anyone with the knowledge to do the hard stuff is quickly discouraged .
I suspect most professional biologists do n't even bother ; a few of the ones I spoke to outside of WP had a low opinion of the site precisely because scientific names were not being used for article titles .
Finally , there 's the problem of vandalism .
Since I 've left , no one has stepped in to keep an eye on the articles I wrote , let alone expand them in any meaningful way .
The vandalism , however , is constant .
Most of the obvious stuff gets reverted , but it 's the subtle vandalism that is the most problematic .
Unless you 're a specialist , you just ca n't tell the difference .
Either WP should start paying specialists to keep watch , or they should start try treating their own volunteer specialists with more respect .
I 've heard for years that WP v2 was supposed to solve a lot of vandalism problems , but so far it has n't appeared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things I hated most when I was writing for Wikipedia was the anti-science attitude of many editors there.
I wrote mostly articles on biological organisms and was a strong proponent of using scientific names for article titles.
Common names are simply not unique, a fact that has resulted in many heated and pointless debates (i.e.
Tiger vs. Puma). I figure WP should try to move beyond that and embrace the advantages of scientific nomenclature that biologists have known about for 250 years.
Most of the folks who were actually busy writing the articles agreed, but every time an attempt was made to change the policies, our efforts would be met with great resistance from people who simply did not know what they were talking about, let alone make any contributions of the kind.
You could see from their edit histories that these people were bureaucrats: they produced very little content and an amazing amount of hot air.
Yet, they have enormous influence at WP due simply to their dogged persistence.
In my view, the fact that more productive editors are now leaving as opposed to arriving is only partly explained by the low-hanging-fruit phenomenon.
I, along with many others, was willing to take WP -- or at least my small corner of it -- to the next level, but the problem is that those bureaucrats simply don't share the same vision.
When it comes to certain subjects that enter into their own realm of consciousness, it seems like they'd rather keep things looking like an expanded version of the old encyclopedia that their parents once bought when they were kids.
It's completely at odds with Jimbo's original vision, but try telling them that.
As a result, the easy work has already been done, but anyone with the knowledge to do the hard stuff is quickly discouraged.
I suspect most professional biologists don't even bother; a few of the ones I spoke to outside of WP had a low opinion of the site precisely because scientific names were not being used for article titles.
Finally, there's the problem of vandalism.
Since I've left, no one has stepped in to keep an eye on the articles I wrote, let alone expand them in any meaningful way.
The vandalism, however, is constant.
Most of the obvious stuff gets reverted, but it's the subtle vandalism that is the most problematic.
Unless you're a specialist, you just can't tell the difference.
Either WP should start paying specialists to keep watch, or they should start try treating their own volunteer specialists with more respect.
I've heard for years that WP v2 was supposed to solve a lot of vandalism problems, but so far it hasn't appeared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231504</id>
	<title>the day the editors leave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257162660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is the day the spam takes over</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is the day the spam takes over</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is the day the spam takes over</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227418</id>
	<title>Future schmuture</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1257184740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is what it is. Even if all the contributors dropped dead right now, it'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is what it is .
Even if all the contributors dropped dead right now , it 'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is what it is.
Even if all the contributors dropped dead right now, it'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233658</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This list is incomplete ; you can help by expanding it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229436</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Winter holidays. The same fucktard from the 2nd time comes along and nominates the article a 3rd time. This time, vocal people are away or just tired of it all. Whoops, delete request accepted by a narrow margin, all the work of everyone goes *poof*.</p></div><p>Could you fill me in ?  Are you saying that you can't bring deleted articles back from the dead ?  If so, what is the problem?  If not, that's a real problem with the software or policy.</p><p>Also, people have to start making better use of the history of an article to fight back against "editors" that are up to no good.  In fact, I think there's some pretty good software/tools out there that does this very thing.  Let's you see where an article came from, as opposed to just what it looks like right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Winter holidays .
The same fucktard from the 2nd time comes along and nominates the article a 3rd time .
This time , vocal people are away or just tired of it all .
Whoops , delete request accepted by a narrow margin , all the work of everyone goes * poof * .Could you fill me in ?
Are you saying that you ca n't bring deleted articles back from the dead ?
If so , what is the problem ?
If not , that 's a real problem with the software or policy.Also , people have to start making better use of the history of an article to fight back against " editors " that are up to no good .
In fact , I think there 's some pretty good software/tools out there that does this very thing .
Let 's you see where an article came from , as opposed to just what it looks like right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winter holidays.
The same fucktard from the 2nd time comes along and nominates the article a 3rd time.
This time, vocal people are away or just tired of it all.
Whoops, delete request accepted by a narrow margin, all the work of everyone goes *poof*.Could you fill me in ?
Are you saying that you can't bring deleted articles back from the dead ?
If so, what is the problem?
If not, that's a real problem with the software or policy.Also, people have to start making better use of the history of an article to fight back against "editors" that are up to no good.
In fact, I think there's some pretty good software/tools out there that does this very thing.
Let's you see where an article came from, as opposed to just what it looks like right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233724</id>
	<title>Re:Uncontrolled administrators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shut the fuck up. You are marked for deletion.</p><p>Why would anybody on slashdot give a rats ass about providing you with evidence of something so blatantly obvious? Oh yeah, you are one of the asshats we are complaining about here. Go back to wikishitia and lord over your domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut the fuck up .
You are marked for deletion.Why would anybody on slashdot give a rats ass about providing you with evidence of something so blatantly obvious ?
Oh yeah , you are one of the asshats we are complaining about here .
Go back to wikishitia and lord over your domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut the fuck up.
You are marked for deletion.Why would anybody on slashdot give a rats ass about providing you with evidence of something so blatantly obvious?
Oh yeah, you are one of the asshats we are complaining about here.
Go back to wikishitia and lord over your domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228102</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The page about "werkkzeug" was deleted because it was not a notable piece of software. WFT.
This is one of the most significant programs in the small demoscene community, it has changed the world several times.
It's started a move of a new kind of user interfaces in graphics programs, similar to what the first mod trackers did.

The person that deleted it was obviously not a part of this demoscene community. I tried contacting the person that
deleted the article, but I'm a nobody so no one cares.

Seeing this happening I have lost all interest in contributing to wikipedia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</htmltext>
<tokenext>The page about " werkkzeug " was deleted because it was not a notable piece of software .
WFT . This is one of the most significant programs in the small demoscene community , it has changed the world several times .
It 's started a move of a new kind of user interfaces in graphics programs , similar to what the first mod trackers did .
The person that deleted it was obviously not a part of this demoscene community .
I tried contacting the person that deleted the article , but I 'm a nobody so no one cares .
Seeing this happening I have lost all interest in contributing to wikipedia : -/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The page about "werkkzeug" was deleted because it was not a notable piece of software.
WFT.
This is one of the most significant programs in the small demoscene community, it has changed the world several times.
It's started a move of a new kind of user interfaces in graphics programs, similar to what the first mod trackers did.
The person that deleted it was obviously not a part of this demoscene community.
I tried contacting the person that
deleted the article, but I'm a nobody so no one cares.
Seeing this happening I have lost all interest in contributing to wikipedia :-/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228160</id>
	<title>Re:Uncontrolled administrators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was actually banned before I could even log in for the first time. Seriously, I kid you not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was actually banned before I could even log in for the first time .
Seriously , I kid you not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was actually banned before I could even log in for the first time.
Seriously, I kid you not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227916</id>
	<title>I hear</title>
	<author>DJCouchyCouch</author>
	<datestamp>1257186900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear they're meeting up with the leaving iPhone developers for a dance off!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear they 're meeting up with the leaving iPhone developers for a dance off ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear they're meeting up with the leaving iPhone developers for a dance off!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227654</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>supersloshy</author>
	<datestamp>1257185700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Much of the material on pop-culture subjects has been either cut down or deleted outright. This has pushed many editors to other smaller wikis where they can have the level of detail they want.</p></div><p>Exactly. If I want lots of detail on a particular Haruhi book/episode I'd go to the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya Wiki. Same for Pokemon or lyrics or homebrew DS software or anything. Wikipedia isn't supposed to have everything in one place; it's supposed to be a general source of information. Make it anything more than that and fanboys/fangirls insert a lot of unneeded information that might not even be necessary to people looking it up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much of the material on pop-culture subjects has been either cut down or deleted outright .
This has pushed many editors to other smaller wikis where they can have the level of detail they want.Exactly .
If I want lots of detail on a particular Haruhi book/episode I 'd go to the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya Wiki .
Same for Pokemon or lyrics or homebrew DS software or anything .
Wikipedia is n't supposed to have everything in one place ; it 's supposed to be a general source of information .
Make it anything more than that and fanboys/fangirls insert a lot of unneeded information that might not even be necessary to people looking it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much of the material on pop-culture subjects has been either cut down or deleted outright.
This has pushed many editors to other smaller wikis where they can have the level of detail they want.Exactly.
If I want lots of detail on a particular Haruhi book/episode I'd go to the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya Wiki.
Same for Pokemon or lyrics or homebrew DS software or anything.
Wikipedia isn't supposed to have everything in one place; it's supposed to be a general source of information.
Make it anything more than that and fanboys/fangirls insert a lot of unneeded information that might not even be necessary to people looking it up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30235866</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1259239860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So long as you don't come to the attention of a serious troll or deletionist and his clique, yes - reliable sources are adequate. But if you do, heaven help you - as you often find yourself wearing nothing but Speedo's in the middle of a thermonuclear blast.</p></div><p>Worse, yet. I've seen the same guy first edit the article, including the removal of references and citations, and then request its deletion.</p><p>I've seen citations removed because they referenced a book, with ISBN number, because "it can't be verified" since it's not available online.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as you do n't come to the attention of a serious troll or deletionist and his clique , yes - reliable sources are adequate .
But if you do , heaven help you - as you often find yourself wearing nothing but Speedo 's in the middle of a thermonuclear blast.Worse , yet .
I 've seen the same guy first edit the article , including the removal of references and citations , and then request its deletion.I 've seen citations removed because they referenced a book , with ISBN number , because " it ca n't be verified " since it 's not available online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as you don't come to the attention of a serious troll or deletionist and his clique, yes - reliable sources are adequate.
But if you do, heaven help you - as you often find yourself wearing nothing but Speedo's in the middle of a thermonuclear blast.Worse, yet.
I've seen the same guy first edit the article, including the removal of references and citations, and then request its deletion.I've seen citations removed because they referenced a book, with ISBN number, because "it can't be verified" since it's not available online.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30259064</id>
	<title>They came for pop-culture... and then for FOSS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As with pop-culture, software articles are increasingly being deleted, as being of limited interest and mentioned in few publications.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject\_Deletion\_sorting/Software" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject\_Deletion\_sorting/Software</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>For example, on the non-notability and impending deletion of recommended debian torrent client:  "100 million users is an obvious indication the torrent protocol, community, and etc are notable. However, if 2\% of that number is Linux users, and 2\% of Linux users use rTorrent, that is not a huge number."</p><p>WP was once a great place to look for software.  "List of software which does X".  "Comparison of software which does X".  That's been rotting away, or rather, being intentionally gutted as not encyclopedic.  Britanica is a useless place to look for information on software, and the deletionists are aspiring to the same.</p><p>There have been unsuccessful<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia\_talk:Notability/RFC:Notability\_of\_free\_open\_source\_software" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">[2]</a> [wikipedia.org] attempts<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability\_of\_free\_open\_source\_software" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">[1]</a> [wikipedia.org] to avert this, but it's really a divergence of vision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As with pop-culture , software articles are increasingly being deleted , as being of limited interest and mentioned in few publications.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia : WikiProject \ _Deletion \ _sorting/Software [ wikipedia.org ] For example , on the non-notability and impending deletion of recommended debian torrent client : " 100 million users is an obvious indication the torrent protocol , community , and etc are notable .
However , if 2 \ % of that number is Linux users , and 2 \ % of Linux users use rTorrent , that is not a huge number .
" WP was once a great place to look for software .
" List of software which does X " .
" Comparison of software which does X " .
That 's been rotting away , or rather , being intentionally gutted as not encyclopedic .
Britanica is a useless place to look for information on software , and the deletionists are aspiring to the same.There have been unsuccessful [ 2 ] [ wikipedia.org ] attempts [ 1 ] [ wikipedia.org ] to avert this , but it 's really a divergence of vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As with pop-culture, software articles are increasingly being deleted, as being of limited interest and mentioned in few publications.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject\_Deletion\_sorting/Software [wikipedia.org]For example, on the non-notability and impending deletion of recommended debian torrent client:  "100 million users is an obvious indication the torrent protocol, community, and etc are notable.
However, if 2\% of that number is Linux users, and 2\% of Linux users use rTorrent, that is not a huge number.
"WP was once a great place to look for software.
"List of software which does X".
"Comparison of software which does X".
That's been rotting away, or rather, being intentionally gutted as not encyclopedic.
Britanica is a useless place to look for information on software, and the deletionists are aspiring to the same.There have been unsuccessful[2] [wikipedia.org] attempts[1] [wikipedia.org] to avert this, but it's really a divergence of vision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231614</id>
	<title>Re:A sign of possible improvement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257163560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.  I've spent quite a bit of time reading there.  The butthurt is very strong among the NPP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I 've spent quite a bit of time reading there .
The butthurt is very strong among the NPP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I've spent quite a bit of time reading there.
The butthurt is very strong among the NPP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231548</id>
	<title>Re:It just isn't worth the fight anymore.</title>
	<author>pjfergus</author>
	<datestamp>1257162960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah I feel like, at some point it has to end.  I mean the amount of information is endless and it is going to get tougher and tougher to moderate.  In the end the idea was brilliant and I think everyone benefited from it in some way shape or form... www.pacificofficedesigns.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I feel like , at some point it has to end .
I mean the amount of information is endless and it is going to get tougher and tougher to moderate .
In the end the idea was brilliant and I think everyone benefited from it in some way shape or form... www.pacificofficedesigns.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I feel like, at some point it has to end.
I mean the amount of information is endless and it is going to get tougher and tougher to moderate.
In the end the idea was brilliant and I think everyone benefited from it in some way shape or form... www.pacificofficedesigns.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231806</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1257165180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why delete an article at all? You could just move the article to an "removed" or "suspect" area.Normal searches would miss it but advanced searches with the right options could search those. That way, if some "random fucktard" finally gets his/her way, the original author(s) can get it re-instated.</p><p>Version control and rollback features aren't exactly a new concept.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why delete an article at all ?
You could just move the article to an " removed " or " suspect " area.Normal searches would miss it but advanced searches with the right options could search those .
That way , if some " random fucktard " finally gets his/her way , the original author ( s ) can get it re-instated.Version control and rollback features are n't exactly a new concept. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why delete an article at all?
You could just move the article to an "removed" or "suspect" area.Normal searches would miss it but advanced searches with the right options could search those.
That way, if some "random fucktard" finally gets his/her way, the original author(s) can get it re-instated.Version control and rollback features aren't exactly a new concept.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228466</id>
	<title>They're leaving, it must be the rules.</title>
	<author>bareman</author>
	<datestamp>1257189540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or not.</p><p>I'm certain some of the contributers have gotten frustrated by the rules and quit but there are likely more who just didn't have anything else they felt like writing about.  I only felt that I had some worthwhile information to share regarding the DEU Doom WAD editor so that was the only article I wrote.  It's since been absorbed into the Doom WAD article, but still retains a fair amount of what I had to say on the topic.</p><p>In short, the rules may be frustrating for some, but I don't think that they're necessarily the sole reason people aren't posting as much as they used to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or not.I 'm certain some of the contributers have gotten frustrated by the rules and quit but there are likely more who just did n't have anything else they felt like writing about .
I only felt that I had some worthwhile information to share regarding the DEU Doom WAD editor so that was the only article I wrote .
It 's since been absorbed into the Doom WAD article , but still retains a fair amount of what I had to say on the topic.In short , the rules may be frustrating for some , but I do n't think that they 're necessarily the sole reason people are n't posting as much as they used to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or not.I'm certain some of the contributers have gotten frustrated by the rules and quit but there are likely more who just didn't have anything else they felt like writing about.
I only felt that I had some worthwhile information to share regarding the DEU Doom WAD editor so that was the only article I wrote.
It's since been absorbed into the Doom WAD article, but still retains a fair amount of what I had to say on the topic.In short, the rules may be frustrating for some, but I don't think that they're necessarily the sole reason people aren't posting as much as they used to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227330</id>
	<title>New wiki user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>No need to keep posting slashdot stories on Wikipedia's impending
demise. Just follow this
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NetcraftConfirmsIt" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">
new user page</a> [wikipedia.org] on wikipedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to keep posting slashdot stories on Wikipedia 's impending demise .
Just follow this new user page [ wikipedia.org ] on wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need to keep posting slashdot stories on Wikipedia's impending
demise.
Just follow this

new user page [wikipedia.org] on wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230594</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>autophile</author>
	<datestamp>1257156420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wikipedia is home to this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_fictional\_ducks" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_fictional\_ducks</a> [wikipedia.org] the rules can't be that draconian</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps, but this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_dragons\_in\_mythology\_and\_folklore" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_dragons\_in\_mythology\_and\_folklore</a> [wikipedia.org] is highly draconian.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is home to this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _fictional \ _ducks [ wikipedia.org ] the rules ca n't be that draconianPerhaps , but this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _dragons \ _in \ _mythology \ _and \ _folklore [ wikipedia.org ] is highly draconian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is home to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_fictional\_ducks [wikipedia.org] the rules can't be that draconianPerhaps, but this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_dragons\_in\_mythology\_and\_folklore [wikipedia.org] is highly draconian.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234288</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you were right in your first thought.  The rot set in with Wales.  He is the ultimate corrupter of what Sanger tried to create.  Almost every single bad decision in the history of Wikipedia was either initiated by Wales or rubberstamped by him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you were right in your first thought .
The rot set in with Wales .
He is the ultimate corrupter of what Sanger tried to create .
Almost every single bad decision in the history of Wikipedia was either initiated by Wales or rubberstamped by him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you were right in your first thought.
The rot set in with Wales.
He is the ultimate corrupter of what Sanger tried to create.
Almost every single bad decision in the history of Wikipedia was either initiated by Wales or rubberstamped by him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228814</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1257190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Besides, if an article was up for deletion 3 times and ultimately was deleted, it had some serious issues.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you define "random fucktards who keep pushing against the consensus until they wear out the article's defenders and supporters" as "serious issues", then yeah.  But personally, I don't generally count trolls with time on their hands to wear down supporters as <i>prima facie</i> evidence that the article had serious issues.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>In all those months that passed, a single reliable source would have been enough to squash any deletion nominations right away. Why didn't you just add one?</p></div></blockquote><p>So long as you don't come to the attention of a serious troll or deletionist and his clique, yes - reliable sources are adequate.  But if you do, heaven help you - as you often find yourself wearing nothing but Speedo's in the middle of a thermonuclear blast.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , if an article was up for deletion 3 times and ultimately was deleted , it had some serious issues.If you define " random fucktards who keep pushing against the consensus until they wear out the article 's defenders and supporters " as " serious issues " , then yeah .
But personally , I do n't generally count trolls with time on their hands to wear down supporters as prima facie evidence that the article had serious issues .
    In all those months that passed , a single reliable source would have been enough to squash any deletion nominations right away .
Why did n't you just add one ? So long as you do n't come to the attention of a serious troll or deletionist and his clique , yes - reliable sources are adequate .
But if you do , heaven help you - as you often find yourself wearing nothing but Speedo 's in the middle of a thermonuclear blast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, if an article was up for deletion 3 times and ultimately was deleted, it had some serious issues.If you define "random fucktards who keep pushing against the consensus until they wear out the article's defenders and supporters" as "serious issues", then yeah.
But personally, I don't generally count trolls with time on their hands to wear down supporters as prima facie evidence that the article had serious issues.
  
  In all those months that passed, a single reliable source would have been enough to squash any deletion nominations right away.
Why didn't you just add one?So long as you don't come to the attention of a serious troll or deletionist and his clique, yes - reliable sources are adequate.
But if you do, heaven help you - as you often find yourself wearing nothing but Speedo's in the middle of a thermonuclear blast.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227834</id>
	<title>Hostile embedded community</title>
	<author>stefanlasiewski</author>
	<datestamp>1257186600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Balderdash (pronounced<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/B*ryhed734as/)</p><p>Hello new user. Thanks for adding your contribution to Wikipedia, but you are not worthy. Here's a slap in your face. There is no point in re-adding your article, because I am watching you, my reputation is better then yours and I have much more free time on my hands then you do.</p><p>This new article doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP" title="wikipedia.org">Notability</a> [wikipedia.org]. I've never heard of this topic, and I've heard of everything on the planet. Therefore, I am recommending this article for deletion, and then you'll have to redo it from scratch.</p><p>If you don't respond quickly, we'll delete the article. You DO check the deletion logs every day, don't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Balderdash ( pronounced /B * ryhed734as/ ) Hello new user .
Thanks for adding your contribution to Wikipedia , but you are not worthy .
Here 's a slap in your face .
There is no point in re-adding your article , because I am watching you , my reputation is better then yours and I have much more free time on my hands then you do.This new article does n't meet Wikipedia 's requirements for Notability [ wikipedia.org ] .
I 've never heard of this topic , and I 've heard of everything on the planet .
Therefore , I am recommending this article for deletion , and then you 'll have to redo it from scratch.If you do n't respond quickly , we 'll delete the article .
You DO check the deletion logs every day , do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Balderdash (pronounced /B*ryhed734as/)Hello new user.
Thanks for adding your contribution to Wikipedia, but you are not worthy.
Here's a slap in your face.
There is no point in re-adding your article, because I am watching you, my reputation is better then yours and I have much more free time on my hands then you do.This new article doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for Notability [wikipedia.org].
I've never heard of this topic, and I've heard of everything on the planet.
Therefore, I am recommending this article for deletion, and then you'll have to redo it from scratch.If you don't respond quickly, we'll delete the article.
You DO check the deletion logs every day, don't you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228960</id>
	<title>The fair use bullshit</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1257191580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's killing it for me is how some editors go overzealous in making things good for "fair use"; that is, images are too often made so damn tiny that they're barely any bigger than the thumbnails in the articles' infoboxes. I mean, imagine a screenshot of an operating system... sloppily resized to 1/5th of the original size, without filtering. All you see is a tiny, ugly mess, a little square full of jaggies and moire. Because showing a full quality pic is going to hurt the developer somehow!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's killing it for me is how some editors go overzealous in making things good for " fair use " ; that is , images are too often made so damn tiny that they 're barely any bigger than the thumbnails in the articles ' infoboxes .
I mean , imagine a screenshot of an operating system... sloppily resized to 1/5th of the original size , without filtering .
All you see is a tiny , ugly mess , a little square full of jaggies and moire .
Because showing a full quality pic is going to hurt the developer somehow !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's killing it for me is how some editors go overzealous in making things good for "fair use"; that is, images are too often made so damn tiny that they're barely any bigger than the thumbnails in the articles' infoboxes.
I mean, imagine a screenshot of an operating system... sloppily resized to 1/5th of the original size, without filtering.
All you see is a tiny, ugly mess, a little square full of jaggies and moire.
Because showing a full quality pic is going to hurt the developer somehow!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229362</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>OnePumpChump</author>
	<datestamp>1257193440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their "noteworthy" filter on everything, and so they've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of "relevant" human knowledge. Of course, they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn't relevant, and wield the delete hammer often.</i>
<br> <br>
That would be just FINE if it wasn't for the fact that there are different groups of admins writing different contradictory rules, and that they're applied differently by different admins from article to article and day to day.
<br> <br>
There should be ONE page for all general rules.   It should link to any and all category-specific rules (yes, that list could be long...so what?).  Keep it shallow and there will be no excuse for conflicts or confusion.  Nothing in discussion pages or anything not linked to directly from the main rules page should not be takeen to be a rule, or even a recommendation that editors should follow.  Rules specifically for admins should be similarly colocated.
<br> <br>
As for the personal capriciousness of admins, maybe they need some formalized meta-moderation.  Last I checked it worked pretty well here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their " noteworthy " filter on everything , and so they 've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of " relevant " human knowledge .
Of course , they alone are the arbiters of what is and is n't relevant , and wield the delete hammer often .
That would be just FINE if it was n't for the fact that there are different groups of admins writing different contradictory rules , and that they 're applied differently by different admins from article to article and day to day .
There should be ONE page for all general rules .
It should link to any and all category-specific rules ( yes , that list could be long...so what ? ) .
Keep it shallow and there will be no excuse for conflicts or confusion .
Nothing in discussion pages or anything not linked to directly from the main rules page should not be takeen to be a rule , or even a recommendation that editors should follow .
Rules specifically for admins should be similarly colocated .
As for the personal capriciousness of admins , maybe they need some formalized meta-moderation .
Last I checked it worked pretty well here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their "noteworthy" filter on everything, and so they've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of "relevant" human knowledge.
Of course, they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn't relevant, and wield the delete hammer often.
That would be just FINE if it wasn't for the fact that there are different groups of admins writing different contradictory rules, and that they're applied differently by different admins from article to article and day to day.
There should be ONE page for all general rules.
It should link to any and all category-specific rules (yes, that list could be long...so what?).
Keep it shallow and there will be no excuse for conflicts or confusion.
Nothing in discussion pages or anything not linked to directly from the main rules page should not be takeen to be a rule, or even a recommendation that editors should follow.
Rules specifically for admins should be similarly colocated.
As for the personal capriciousness of admins, maybe they need some formalized meta-moderation.
Last I checked it worked pretty well here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228730</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem with wikipedia is fairly effectively demonstrated with the following two examples:</p><p>Some guy nominates <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles\_for\_deletion/Heavy\_Metal\_(Terminator:\_The\_Sarah\_Connor\_Chronicles)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)</a> [wikipedia.org] for deletion and fails in his attempt. So what does he do? Merges every episode, save that one, into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List\_of\_Terminator:\_The\_Sarah\_Connor\_Chronicles\_episodes" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes</a> [wikipedia.org]. You see - this user knows he couldn't get consensus by an AfD so he engages in backroom deals to gain support.</p><p>And then there's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Torchic" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Torchic</a> [wikipedia.org]. A front page featured article with 20 paragraphs and 46 citations now reduced to redirecting to a list of pokemon, with 2-3 paragraphs (depending on whether or not a one sentence paragraph counts) and no citations. Amazing stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem with wikipedia is fairly effectively demonstrated with the following two examples : Some guy nominates Heavy Metal ( Terminator : The Sarah Connor Chronicles ) [ wikipedia.org ] for deletion and fails in his attempt .
So what does he do ?
Merges every episode , save that one , into List of Terminator : The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes [ wikipedia.org ] .
You see - this user knows he could n't get consensus by an AfD so he engages in backroom deals to gain support.And then there 's Torchic [ wikipedia.org ] .
A front page featured article with 20 paragraphs and 46 citations now reduced to redirecting to a list of pokemon , with 2-3 paragraphs ( depending on whether or not a one sentence paragraph counts ) and no citations .
Amazing stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem with wikipedia is fairly effectively demonstrated with the following two examples:Some guy nominates Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) [wikipedia.org] for deletion and fails in his attempt.
So what does he do?
Merges every episode, save that one, into List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes [wikipedia.org].
You see - this user knows he couldn't get consensus by an AfD so he engages in backroom deals to gain support.And then there's Torchic [wikipedia.org].
A front page featured article with 20 paragraphs and 46 citations now reduced to redirecting to a list of pokemon, with 2-3 paragraphs (depending on whether or not a one sentence paragraph counts) and no citations.
Amazing stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229058</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1257192000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's not much to do anymore, at least for me.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well I'm a mathematician and to my mind there is an awful lot to be done on the mathematics pages on Wikipedia.</p><p>The majority of mathematics articles on Wikipedia typically begin with a rambling, incoherent and unhelpful introduction to the topic. When they do begin to properly define the entity at hand, they typically pick the most opaque and rambling definition possible. Important properties are often glossed over while any pertinent mathematical oddities are given their own individual sections on the page. Throughout the spectacle, hyperlinks to equally poorly written articles are liberally thrown down as though the author believes the reader would actually benefit from the topics convoluted connections to some advanced graduate level topic. <a href="http://everything2.net/title/Wikipedia+Mathematics" title="everything2.net">This article</a> [everything2.net] basically sums up the situation in a nutshell.</p><p>I've actually attempted to change things, but it's an uphill struggle which I for one know I can't win. Time and again I have been faced with what I can only describe as completely inane article custodians whos arguments at times read like a satire of themselves. In the instance of only one article I was told that "Compound interest is the best way to introduce e^x as everyone understands compound interest", "It's better to talk about the properties of a function before defining it", and "Thinking that a certain method is a better way to introduce a topic breaks Neutral Point of View policy."</p><p>At times, the stonewalling becomes so exasperating that I end up losing patience somewhat and end up essentially telling these people outright that they are being stupid. Bad idea. I have recently been brought up on Wikiettique charges of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette\_alerts#User:ObsessiveMathsFreak\_pattern\_of\_incivility" title="wikipedia.org">hurting someone's feelings</a> [wikipedia.org], and despite my complete and utter lack of ability to change just about anything on the site, have been labeled "a bully"; a label to go with my being a "Point of Viewer".</p><p>My current opinion is that the Wikipedia editors and custodians have the mentality of 12 year olds. I have tried and tried to explain to these people that the articles they have taken charge of are in need of serious reform; with mathematical bric-a-brac like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_trigonometric\_identities" title="wikipedia.org">havercosine</a> [wikipedia.org] coming before the sum of cosines formula on trigonometry pages. If you try and change something, they will revert it. If you try and argue a case, they will dismiss it. If you press them on their opinions, they will appeal to WP:RULES. If you press them further, they will quite literally start crying. I deeply, deeply wish I was exaggerating here. I cannot believe I once thought so highly of Wikipedia and the people that ran it. The influence of these pages on the learning and perception of mathematics worldwide terrifies me.</p><p>Now, maybe I'm just an old crank, too stuck in my old ways. But you tell me where the formula for the the sum "cosA + cosB" should be on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_trigonometric\_identities" title="wikipedia.org">this page</a> [wikipedia.org]. Before or after the formula for the sum of an infinite number of cosines, or that for "versed cosine"? Now; guess where it is?</p><p>Wikipedia is rotten from the top to the bottom. I used to think that the rot set in at the top with Wales, and slowly trickled down to the user base. Now I'm not so sure. It may be that Wikipedia was always going to primarily attract the type of person who is not interesting in providing knowledge for all, but only those for whom its articles are personal prestige projects, intended to impress only themselves and their imagined audience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's not much to do anymore , at least for me.Well I 'm a mathematician and to my mind there is an awful lot to be done on the mathematics pages on Wikipedia.The majority of mathematics articles on Wikipedia typically begin with a rambling , incoherent and unhelpful introduction to the topic .
When they do begin to properly define the entity at hand , they typically pick the most opaque and rambling definition possible .
Important properties are often glossed over while any pertinent mathematical oddities are given their own individual sections on the page .
Throughout the spectacle , hyperlinks to equally poorly written articles are liberally thrown down as though the author believes the reader would actually benefit from the topics convoluted connections to some advanced graduate level topic .
This article [ everything2.net ] basically sums up the situation in a nutshell.I 've actually attempted to change things , but it 's an uphill struggle which I for one know I ca n't win .
Time and again I have been faced with what I can only describe as completely inane article custodians whos arguments at times read like a satire of themselves .
In the instance of only one article I was told that " Compound interest is the best way to introduce e ^ x as everyone understands compound interest " , " It 's better to talk about the properties of a function before defining it " , and " Thinking that a certain method is a better way to introduce a topic breaks Neutral Point of View policy .
" At times , the stonewalling becomes so exasperating that I end up losing patience somewhat and end up essentially telling these people outright that they are being stupid .
Bad idea .
I have recently been brought up on Wikiettique charges of hurting someone 's feelings [ wikipedia.org ] , and despite my complete and utter lack of ability to change just about anything on the site , have been labeled " a bully " ; a label to go with my being a " Point of Viewer " .My current opinion is that the Wikipedia editors and custodians have the mentality of 12 year olds .
I have tried and tried to explain to these people that the articles they have taken charge of are in need of serious reform ; with mathematical bric-a-brac like havercosine [ wikipedia.org ] coming before the sum of cosines formula on trigonometry pages .
If you try and change something , they will revert it .
If you try and argue a case , they will dismiss it .
If you press them on their opinions , they will appeal to WP : RULES .
If you press them further , they will quite literally start crying .
I deeply , deeply wish I was exaggerating here .
I can not believe I once thought so highly of Wikipedia and the people that ran it .
The influence of these pages on the learning and perception of mathematics worldwide terrifies me.Now , maybe I 'm just an old crank , too stuck in my old ways .
But you tell me where the formula for the the sum " cosA + cosB " should be on this page [ wikipedia.org ] .
Before or after the formula for the sum of an infinite number of cosines , or that for " versed cosine " ?
Now ; guess where it is ? Wikipedia is rotten from the top to the bottom .
I used to think that the rot set in at the top with Wales , and slowly trickled down to the user base .
Now I 'm not so sure .
It may be that Wikipedia was always going to primarily attract the type of person who is not interesting in providing knowledge for all , but only those for whom its articles are personal prestige projects , intended to impress only themselves and their imagined audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's not much to do anymore, at least for me.Well I'm a mathematician and to my mind there is an awful lot to be done on the mathematics pages on Wikipedia.The majority of mathematics articles on Wikipedia typically begin with a rambling, incoherent and unhelpful introduction to the topic.
When they do begin to properly define the entity at hand, they typically pick the most opaque and rambling definition possible.
Important properties are often glossed over while any pertinent mathematical oddities are given their own individual sections on the page.
Throughout the spectacle, hyperlinks to equally poorly written articles are liberally thrown down as though the author believes the reader would actually benefit from the topics convoluted connections to some advanced graduate level topic.
This article [everything2.net] basically sums up the situation in a nutshell.I've actually attempted to change things, but it's an uphill struggle which I for one know I can't win.
Time and again I have been faced with what I can only describe as completely inane article custodians whos arguments at times read like a satire of themselves.
In the instance of only one article I was told that "Compound interest is the best way to introduce e^x as everyone understands compound interest", "It's better to talk about the properties of a function before defining it", and "Thinking that a certain method is a better way to introduce a topic breaks Neutral Point of View policy.
"At times, the stonewalling becomes so exasperating that I end up losing patience somewhat and end up essentially telling these people outright that they are being stupid.
Bad idea.
I have recently been brought up on Wikiettique charges of hurting someone's feelings [wikipedia.org], and despite my complete and utter lack of ability to change just about anything on the site, have been labeled "a bully"; a label to go with my being a "Point of Viewer".My current opinion is that the Wikipedia editors and custodians have the mentality of 12 year olds.
I have tried and tried to explain to these people that the articles they have taken charge of are in need of serious reform; with mathematical bric-a-brac like havercosine [wikipedia.org] coming before the sum of cosines formula on trigonometry pages.
If you try and change something, they will revert it.
If you try and argue a case, they will dismiss it.
If you press them on their opinions, they will appeal to WP:RULES.
If you press them further, they will quite literally start crying.
I deeply, deeply wish I was exaggerating here.
I cannot believe I once thought so highly of Wikipedia and the people that ran it.
The influence of these pages on the learning and perception of mathematics worldwide terrifies me.Now, maybe I'm just an old crank, too stuck in my old ways.
But you tell me where the formula for the the sum "cosA + cosB" should be on this page [wikipedia.org].
Before or after the formula for the sum of an infinite number of cosines, or that for "versed cosine"?
Now; guess where it is?Wikipedia is rotten from the top to the bottom.
I used to think that the rot set in at the top with Wales, and slowly trickled down to the user base.
Now I'm not so sure.
It may be that Wikipedia was always going to primarily attract the type of person who is not interesting in providing knowledge for all, but only those for whom its articles are personal prestige projects, intended to impress only themselves and their imagined audience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228754</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>superdana</author>
	<datestamp>1257190740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'd add that the concept of "compendium of all human knowledge" included a whole lot of stuff that can't be cited.</i> <br>
<br>
I would further add that it's impossible to even define the concept of "compendium of all human knowledge" without a theory of knowledge, an area that has been under continuous debate for several thousand years. Good luck getting Wikipedians to agree on <em>that.</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd add that the concept of " compendium of all human knowledge " included a whole lot of stuff that ca n't be cited .
I would further add that it 's impossible to even define the concept of " compendium of all human knowledge " without a theory of knowledge , an area that has been under continuous debate for several thousand years .
Good luck getting Wikipedians to agree on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd add that the concept of "compendium of all human knowledge" included a whole lot of stuff that can't be cited.
I would further add that it's impossible to even define the concept of "compendium of all human knowledge" without a theory of knowledge, an area that has been under continuous debate for several thousand years.
Good luck getting Wikipedians to agree on that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227934</id>
	<title>Re:Rules are to be broken, but not on Wikipedia.</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1257187020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I've seen this happen to several articles which I know had some useful content and which were about something that was definitely not obscure, yet some editor threatened to delete it, people complained about this and then it was deleted anyway...</p><p>Then there are articles about certain subjects where the "editor cabal" sweeps in and decides that "this is how history should be written" even when people give them a multitude of sources that show that they're wrong and people who were there tell them "no, that's wrong" and try to argue against them, in the end it often boils down to "well, I think you're biased because you have sources that prove me wrong/because you were there and therefore you are a commie/nazi/whatever since I'm convinced only commies/nazis/whatevers were present when $EVENT took place".</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 've seen this happen to several articles which I know had some useful content and which were about something that was definitely not obscure , yet some editor threatened to delete it , people complained about this and then it was deleted anyway...Then there are articles about certain subjects where the " editor cabal " sweeps in and decides that " this is how history should be written " even when people give them a multitude of sources that show that they 're wrong and people who were there tell them " no , that 's wrong " and try to argue against them , in the end it often boils down to " well , I think you 're biased because you have sources that prove me wrong/because you were there and therefore you are a commie/nazi/whatever since I 'm convinced only commies/nazis/whatevers were present when $ EVENT took place " ./Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I've seen this happen to several articles which I know had some useful content and which were about something that was definitely not obscure, yet some editor threatened to delete it, people complained about this and then it was deleted anyway...Then there are articles about certain subjects where the "editor cabal" sweeps in and decides that "this is how history should be written" even when people give them a multitude of sources that show that they're wrong and people who were there tell them "no, that's wrong" and try to argue against them, in the end it often boils down to "well, I think you're biased because you have sources that prove me wrong/because you were there and therefore you are a commie/nazi/whatever since I'm convinced only commies/nazis/whatevers were present when $EVENT took place"./Mikael</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230806</id>
	<title>Re:As a long-time contributor</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257157980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think any of the inclusionist editors such as myself have any problem with the elimination of spam and promotional junk. Indeed, I wouldn't even call that removal deletionism. The deletionism that creates problems is the deletion of character lists, the merging and deletion of episodes for television shows, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think any of the inclusionist editors such as myself have any problem with the elimination of spam and promotional junk .
Indeed , I would n't even call that removal deletionism .
The deletionism that creates problems is the deletion of character lists , the merging and deletion of episodes for television shows , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think any of the inclusionist editors such as myself have any problem with the elimination of spam and promotional junk.
Indeed, I wouldn't even call that removal deletionism.
The deletionism that creates problems is the deletion of character lists, the merging and deletion of episodes for television shows, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228518</id>
	<title>Like Knight Rider - One Man Can Make a Difference.</title>
	<author>mrbrown1602</author>
	<datestamp>1257189900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortuantely, that difference is usually bad. Take, for example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Price\_Is\_Right\_(U.S.\_game\_show)" title="wikipedia.org">The Price is Right</a> [wikipedia.org] article, and its accompanying articles. The game show is a legend, and has had over 100 different pricing games, all with unique rules, and many of them are very well known and notable.</p><p>However, it's impossible to find books or websites explaining the rules or discussing the games' histories. Sure, there are thousands of clips on Youtube, but who in there right mind is going to take the time to use those as citations? As a result, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sottolacqua" title="wikipedia.org">one flamboyantly gay user</a> [wikipedia.org] has been able to single handedly destroy most of the somewhat well written articles (yeah, some of them are full of "fancruft", but the vast majority are not).</p><p>That's just wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortuantely , that difference is usually bad .
Take , for example , The Price is Right [ wikipedia.org ] article , and its accompanying articles .
The game show is a legend , and has had over 100 different pricing games , all with unique rules , and many of them are very well known and notable.However , it 's impossible to find books or websites explaining the rules or discussing the games ' histories .
Sure , there are thousands of clips on Youtube , but who in there right mind is going to take the time to use those as citations ?
As a result , one flamboyantly gay user [ wikipedia.org ] has been able to single handedly destroy most of the somewhat well written articles ( yeah , some of them are full of " fancruft " , but the vast majority are not ) .That 's just wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortuantely, that difference is usually bad.
Take, for example, The Price is Right [wikipedia.org] article, and its accompanying articles.
The game show is a legend, and has had over 100 different pricing games, all with unique rules, and many of them are very well known and notable.However, it's impossible to find books or websites explaining the rules or discussing the games' histories.
Sure, there are thousands of clips on Youtube, but who in there right mind is going to take the time to use those as citations?
As a result, one flamboyantly gay user [wikipedia.org] has been able to single handedly destroy most of the somewhat well written articles (yeah, some of them are full of "fancruft", but the vast majority are not).That's just wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30240888</id>
	<title>Maybe it's just getting complete enough?</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1259240160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Wikipedia is getting complete enough for people to run out of things to write...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Wikipedia is getting complete enough for people to run out of things to write.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Wikipedia is getting complete enough for people to run out of things to write...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234112</id>
	<title>WP:OWN</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257186720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If he didn't agree with your edits he would find something to complain about</p></div><p>That's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN" title="wikipedia.org">ownership</a> [wikipedia.org], and there's a policy against it. Have you tried the various forms of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving\_disputes" title="wikipedia.org">dispute resolution</a> [wikipedia.org] that Wikipedia offers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If he did n't agree with your edits he would find something to complain aboutThat 's called ownership [ wikipedia.org ] , and there 's a policy against it .
Have you tried the various forms of dispute resolution [ wikipedia.org ] that Wikipedia offers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he didn't agree with your edits he would find something to complain aboutThat's called ownership [wikipedia.org], and there's a policy against it.
Have you tried the various forms of dispute resolution [wikipedia.org] that Wikipedia offers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229680</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia:Statistics</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257194940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that you have no proof whatsoever on those statistics, do you?</p><p>All you have is the trust in your eyes, the screen, the cable, the electronics in your computer, the operating system, the browser, the internet provider, random servers on the internet, the Wikipedia server, the person who made the statistics page, the people who created the graphics and extracted the information, the people who collected the data, and the technology and everything else involved in that.<br>While you can&rsquo;t even prove that anything except yourself even exists. ^^</p><p>(Don&rsquo;t get me wrong: I&rsquo;m not stating an opinion on if this is good/bad/right/wrong and all than simple-minded shit.)</p><p>What I&rsquo;m saying is: Don&rsquo;t trust everything you see.<br>After all, the probability of it coming from some some jobless person in his underpants, who is very insecure and defensive of the own reality, and has built his happy-place, is pretty close to 100\%.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that you have no proof whatsoever on those statistics , do you ? All you have is the trust in your eyes , the screen , the cable , the electronics in your computer , the operating system , the browser , the internet provider , random servers on the internet , the Wikipedia server , the person who made the statistics page , the people who created the graphics and extracted the information , the people who collected the data , and the technology and everything else involved in that.While you can    t even prove that anything except yourself even exists .
^ ^ ( Don    t get me wrong : I    m not stating an opinion on if this is good/bad/right/wrong and all than simple-minded shit .
) What I    m saying is : Don    t trust everything you see.After all , the probability of it coming from some some jobless person in his underpants , who is very insecure and defensive of the own reality , and has built his happy-place , is pretty close to 100 \ % .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that you have no proof whatsoever on those statistics, do you?All you have is the trust in your eyes, the screen, the cable, the electronics in your computer, the operating system, the browser, the internet provider, random servers on the internet, the Wikipedia server, the person who made the statistics page, the people who created the graphics and extracted the information, the people who collected the data, and the technology and everything else involved in that.While you can’t even prove that anything except yourself even exists.
^^(Don’t get me wrong: I’m not stating an opinion on if this is good/bad/right/wrong and all than simple-minded shit.
)What I’m saying is: Don’t trust everything you see.After all, the probability of it coming from some some jobless person in his underpants, who is very insecure and defensive of the own reality, and has built his happy-place, is pretty close to 100\%.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231566</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>orangemike</author>
	<datestamp>1257163080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a strong cultural bias towards writing about what matters to English-speaking Americans AND is available/verifiable online. There are undoubtedly myriads of villages in Heilongjiang alone that have no article about them; just as there are state legislators (past and present) even in the U.S. who have no articles: because nobody has bothered.

But every porn star, American Idol candidate, Pokemon, and South Park episode has an article: because those are topics which suit the interests of the average contributor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a strong cultural bias towards writing about what matters to English-speaking Americans AND is available/verifiable online .
There are undoubtedly myriads of villages in Heilongjiang alone that have no article about them ; just as there are state legislators ( past and present ) even in the U.S. who have no articles : because nobody has bothered .
But every porn star , American Idol candidate , Pokemon , and South Park episode has an article : because those are topics which suit the interests of the average contributor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a strong cultural bias towards writing about what matters to English-speaking Americans AND is available/verifiable online.
There are undoubtedly myriads of villages in Heilongjiang alone that have no article about them; just as there are state legislators (past and present) even in the U.S. who have no articles: because nobody has bothered.
But every porn star, American Idol candidate, Pokemon, and South Park episode has an article: because those are topics which suit the interests of the average contributor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227388</id>
	<title>Not only the english Wikipedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The german version is having these problems, as well, with authors being frustrated, because their articles are being deleted for various stupid reasons (like: only referenced in blogs, no real-world influence, except for some obscure hacker meetings etc.) The discussions have even reached the big media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The german version is having these problems , as well , with authors being frustrated , because their articles are being deleted for various stupid reasons ( like : only referenced in blogs , no real-world influence , except for some obscure hacker meetings etc .
) The discussions have even reached the big media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The german version is having these problems, as well, with authors being frustrated, because their articles are being deleted for various stupid reasons (like: only referenced in blogs, no real-world influence, except for some obscure hacker meetings etc.
) The discussions have even reached the big media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227520</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1257185220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.</p></div><p>The keyword being <b>them</b> - not necessarily the project.</p><p>There are many discussions in dozens of blogs about what the benefit for the Wikipedia "inner circle" is. Most of it isn't very friendly. Much of it sounds right nevertheless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 've learned in life , when people are being dicks they 're doing it for a reason that benefits them.The keyword being them - not necessarily the project.There are many discussions in dozens of blogs about what the benefit for the Wikipedia " inner circle " is .
Most of it is n't very friendly .
Much of it sounds right nevertheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I've learned in life, when people are being dicks they're doing it for a reason that benefits them.The keyword being them - not necessarily the project.There are many discussions in dozens of blogs about what the benefit for the Wikipedia "inner circle" is.
Most of it isn't very friendly.
Much of it sounds right nevertheless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228086</id>
	<title>Re:too much political bias</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>we need more ovens indeed. Missing Hitler much?</htmltext>
<tokenext>we need more ovens indeed .
Missing Hitler much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need more ovens indeed.
Missing Hitler much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30237312</id>
	<title>Re:add one</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1259253420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most of the people who attack Wikipedia for being deletionist don't understand its purpose: Wikipedia seeks to be a reliable source of information before it seeks to be a complete source of information.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which has to be one of the most handwaving-and-smokescreen lines of doublethink bullshit I've ever read.  Being deletionist does nothing to improve reliability.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Just five years ago Wikipedia was considered somewhat a joke because it contained so much misinformation and unreliable information.</p></div></blockquote><p>In many place, it still <i>has</i> that reputation - usually with "bad and/or muddled writing" added.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the people who attack Wikipedia for being deletionist do n't understand its purpose : Wikipedia seeks to be a reliable source of information before it seeks to be a complete source of information.Which has to be one of the most handwaving-and-smokescreen lines of doublethink bullshit I 've ever read .
Being deletionist does nothing to improve reliability .
    Just five years ago Wikipedia was considered somewhat a joke because it contained so much misinformation and unreliable information.In many place , it still has that reputation - usually with " bad and/or muddled writing " added .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the people who attack Wikipedia for being deletionist don't understand its purpose: Wikipedia seeks to be a reliable source of information before it seeks to be a complete source of information.Which has to be one of the most handwaving-and-smokescreen lines of doublethink bullshit I've ever read.
Being deletionist does nothing to improve reliability.
  
  Just five years ago Wikipedia was considered somewhat a joke because it contained so much misinformation and unreliable information.In many place, it still has that reputation - usually with "bad and/or muddled writing" added.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228232</id>
	<title>I can relate</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257188400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are times when I feel like a lawyer when some people get into a dispute with me. It becomes a battle of who can quote the rule that suits them best. There are so many rules that it has gotten out of hand, knowing the rules of Wikipedia is quickly becoming a full time job in itself. I even had one guy dispute one of my edits because I quoted a primary source and he insisted that the rules prefer secondary sources over primary. I knew the subject much better than he and I knew that the primary source was correct and his secondary source was bogus. But that wasn't good enough for the 'rules.' Nevertheless, I slapped a Dispute tag on the offending part of the article, took it to the Content Noticeboard, and that section of the article has remained in dispute ever since. I can't be bothered resolving it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are times when I feel like a lawyer when some people get into a dispute with me .
It becomes a battle of who can quote the rule that suits them best .
There are so many rules that it has gotten out of hand , knowing the rules of Wikipedia is quickly becoming a full time job in itself .
I even had one guy dispute one of my edits because I quoted a primary source and he insisted that the rules prefer secondary sources over primary .
I knew the subject much better than he and I knew that the primary source was correct and his secondary source was bogus .
But that was n't good enough for the 'rules .
' Nevertheless , I slapped a Dispute tag on the offending part of the article , took it to the Content Noticeboard , and that section of the article has remained in dispute ever since .
I ca n't be bothered resolving it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are times when I feel like a lawyer when some people get into a dispute with me.
It becomes a battle of who can quote the rule that suits them best.
There are so many rules that it has gotten out of hand, knowing the rules of Wikipedia is quickly becoming a full time job in itself.
I even had one guy dispute one of my edits because I quoted a primary source and he insisted that the rules prefer secondary sources over primary.
I knew the subject much better than he and I knew that the primary source was correct and his secondary source was bogus.
But that wasn't good enough for the 'rules.
' Nevertheless, I slapped a Dispute tag on the offending part of the article, took it to the Content Noticeboard, and that section of the article has remained in dispute ever since.
I can't be bothered resolving it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229156</id>
	<title>This is a worry?</title>
	<author>Zadaz</author>
	<datestamp>1257192540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After you build the house you don't keep the builders around.  That would be awkward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After you build the house you do n't keep the builders around .
That would be awkward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After you build the house you don't keep the builders around.
That would be awkward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228934</id>
	<title>Deletionists</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1257191460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deletionists are people wholly incapable of understanding that topics uninteresting to them are not necessarily topics uninteresting to everyone. They also don't understand that there's plenty of space available, and that a multitude of articles doesn't cause confusion because there are search engines and disambiguation.</p><p>In other words, deletionists are both douchebags AND stupid. Not sure either can be fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deletionists are people wholly incapable of understanding that topics uninteresting to them are not necessarily topics uninteresting to everyone .
They also do n't understand that there 's plenty of space available , and that a multitude of articles does n't cause confusion because there are search engines and disambiguation.In other words , deletionists are both douchebags AND stupid .
Not sure either can be fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deletionists are people wholly incapable of understanding that topics uninteresting to them are not necessarily topics uninteresting to everyone.
They also don't understand that there's plenty of space available, and that a multitude of articles doesn't cause confusion because there are search engines and disambiguation.In other words, deletionists are both douchebags AND stupid.
Not sure either can be fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228178</id>
	<title>So keep your claims of "it's finished, dummies"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the Chinese writer wants to contribute about Heilongjiang, I'll be right there supporting them.  But it's not going to be anyone who's been with Wikipedia all this time.  Those people have already written everything <i>they</i> know.  The original post is about the current editors leaving.  It's finished for them.</p><p>Now figure out a way to get Jing Gu to write about Heilongjiang.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Chinese writer wants to contribute about Heilongjiang , I 'll be right there supporting them .
But it 's not going to be anyone who 's been with Wikipedia all this time .
Those people have already written everything they know .
The original post is about the current editors leaving .
It 's finished for them.Now figure out a way to get Jing Gu to write about Heilongjiang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Chinese writer wants to contribute about Heilongjiang, I'll be right there supporting them.
But it's not going to be anyone who's been with Wikipedia all this time.
Those people have already written everything they know.
The original post is about the current editors leaving.
It's finished for them.Now figure out a way to get Jing Gu to write about Heilongjiang.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230444</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Elbowgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1257155700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could possibly be that those 38 million people are incredibly boring and not worth writing more than a couple of paragraphs.</p><p>Just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could possibly be that those 38 million people are incredibly boring and not worth writing more than a couple of paragraphs.Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could possibly be that those 38 million people are incredibly boring and not worth writing more than a couple of paragraphs.Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228424</id>
	<title>The Peter Principle on steriods...</title>
	<author>snow2go</author>
	<datestamp>1257189360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with most volunteer organizations, is the people that gravitate towards leadership positions are often the people LEAST capable of running the organization effectively.

The "normal" people are too busy leading their real lives to seek leadership positions, so into the vacuum step the feeble-minded or sociopathic tyrants hell-bent on payback.

It's just like a volunteer fire company or church group.  The same dynamic often develops there too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with most volunteer organizations , is the people that gravitate towards leadership positions are often the people LEAST capable of running the organization effectively .
The " normal " people are too busy leading their real lives to seek leadership positions , so into the vacuum step the feeble-minded or sociopathic tyrants hell-bent on payback .
It 's just like a volunteer fire company or church group .
The same dynamic often develops there too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with most volunteer organizations, is the people that gravitate towards leadership positions are often the people LEAST capable of running the organization effectively.
The "normal" people are too busy leading their real lives to seek leadership positions, so into the vacuum step the feeble-minded or sociopathic tyrants hell-bent on payback.
It's just like a volunteer fire company or church group.
The same dynamic often develops there too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233044</id>
	<title>Re:It just isn't worth the fight anymore.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what is the article so we can try to fix it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what is the article so we can try to fix it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is the article so we can try to fix it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230552</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1257156180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's wonderful that Facebook has come and collected so much of the irrelevant crap behind a reg-wall so I don't have to find it.</p><p>I only hope Microsoft throws Fox's content behind a paywall and hides it from Google for a similar cleanup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's wonderful that Facebook has come and collected so much of the irrelevant crap behind a reg-wall so I do n't have to find it.I only hope Microsoft throws Fox 's content behind a paywall and hides it from Google for a similar cleanup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's wonderful that Facebook has come and collected so much of the irrelevant crap behind a reg-wall so I don't have to find it.I only hope Microsoft throws Fox's content behind a paywall and hides it from Google for a similar cleanup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228026</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1257187380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the contents of Wikipedia are creative commons so if enough people get fed up with their policies then they can start the whole thing up again with all the current content, but without the current rules and admins<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the contents of Wikipedia are creative commons so if enough people get fed up with their policies then they can start the whole thing up again with all the current content , but without the current rules and admins ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the contents of Wikipedia are creative commons so if enough people get fed up with their policies then they can start the whole thing up again with all the current content, but without the current rules and admins ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia was supposed to end up being something akin to a compendium of all human knowledge, which in theory could never really be "full" because human knowledge always expands.  The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their "noteworthy" filter on everything, and so they've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of "relevant" human knowledge.  Of course, they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn't relevant, and wield the delete hammer often.  Under these circumstances, yes you'll eventually come to the end of what is "appropriate" for wikipedia.
<br> <br>
Having said that, I don't think even with their draconian and arbitrary relevancy policies that they're anywhere near the end of everything that would fit on the site.  The issue is not that they're running out of things to put up, it's that they're actively driving contributors away by subjecting them to all these hoops to jump through that didn't exist before.  You have the old guard admins fighting amongst themselves, and throwing up arbitrary restrictions to make it harder and more frustrating for new editors to get involved.
<br> <br>
Wikipedia is also much more susceptible to rot than most other sites.  Without a steady stream of admins coming in and doing the grunt work of cleaning up the many thousands of articles on the site, those articles will eventually be taken over by the trolls and become useless.  Eventually, enough articles will suffer this fate that no one will consider the site any kind of good resource anymore, and we will have lost something truly remarkable.
<br> <br>
Wikipedia as it stood not too long ago was a remarkable testament to the power of collaborative editing, and represented an incredible resource.  If it continues the slide it's on, it will end up being an object lesson in how political infighting and needless bureaucracy (particularly bureaucracy designed to protect personal fiefdoms) can ruin things for everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia was supposed to end up being something akin to a compendium of all human knowledge , which in theory could never really be " full " because human knowledge always expands .
The problem is , the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their " noteworthy " filter on everything , and so they 've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of " relevant " human knowledge .
Of course , they alone are the arbiters of what is and is n't relevant , and wield the delete hammer often .
Under these circumstances , yes you 'll eventually come to the end of what is " appropriate " for wikipedia .
Having said that , I do n't think even with their draconian and arbitrary relevancy policies that they 're anywhere near the end of everything that would fit on the site .
The issue is not that they 're running out of things to put up , it 's that they 're actively driving contributors away by subjecting them to all these hoops to jump through that did n't exist before .
You have the old guard admins fighting amongst themselves , and throwing up arbitrary restrictions to make it harder and more frustrating for new editors to get involved .
Wikipedia is also much more susceptible to rot than most other sites .
Without a steady stream of admins coming in and doing the grunt work of cleaning up the many thousands of articles on the site , those articles will eventually be taken over by the trolls and become useless .
Eventually , enough articles will suffer this fate that no one will consider the site any kind of good resource anymore , and we will have lost something truly remarkable .
Wikipedia as it stood not too long ago was a remarkable testament to the power of collaborative editing , and represented an incredible resource .
If it continues the slide it 's on , it will end up being an object lesson in how political infighting and needless bureaucracy ( particularly bureaucracy designed to protect personal fiefdoms ) can ruin things for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia was supposed to end up being something akin to a compendium of all human knowledge, which in theory could never really be "full" because human knowledge always expands.
The problem is, the powers that be over there decided to arbitrarily apply their "noteworthy" filter on everything, and so they've collapsed the infinite array of human knowledge down into a decidedly finite set of "relevant" human knowledge.
Of course, they alone are the arbiters of what is and isn't relevant, and wield the delete hammer often.
Under these circumstances, yes you'll eventually come to the end of what is "appropriate" for wikipedia.
Having said that, I don't think even with their draconian and arbitrary relevancy policies that they're anywhere near the end of everything that would fit on the site.
The issue is not that they're running out of things to put up, it's that they're actively driving contributors away by subjecting them to all these hoops to jump through that didn't exist before.
You have the old guard admins fighting amongst themselves, and throwing up arbitrary restrictions to make it harder and more frustrating for new editors to get involved.
Wikipedia is also much more susceptible to rot than most other sites.
Without a steady stream of admins coming in and doing the grunt work of cleaning up the many thousands of articles on the site, those articles will eventually be taken over by the trolls and become useless.
Eventually, enough articles will suffer this fate that no one will consider the site any kind of good resource anymore, and we will have lost something truly remarkable.
Wikipedia as it stood not too long ago was a remarkable testament to the power of collaborative editing, and represented an incredible resource.
If it continues the slide it's on, it will end up being an object lesson in how political infighting and needless bureaucracy (particularly bureaucracy designed to protect personal fiefdoms) can ruin things for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234432</id>
	<title>Re:It's finished, dummies</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257191820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia was blocked before in China, and there is no reason to assume it won't be blocked again.  Hardly worth it to contribute to something that won't benefit the people.  <p>Chinese people don't need, nor want foreigners talking about the interior affairs of their country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia was blocked before in China , and there is no reason to assume it wo n't be blocked again .
Hardly worth it to contribute to something that wo n't benefit the people .
Chinese people do n't need , nor want foreigners talking about the interior affairs of their country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia was blocked before in China, and there is no reason to assume it won't be blocked again.
Hardly worth it to contribute to something that won't benefit the people.
Chinese people don't need, nor want foreigners talking about the interior affairs of their country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231250</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia:Statistics</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1257161220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, I'd say that anyone who dismisses all evidence they see as '[probably] coming from some some jobless person in his underpants, who is very insecure and defensive of the own reality, and has built his happy-place' is probably just some jobless person in his underpants, who is very insecure and defensive of the own reality, and has built his happy-place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I 'd say that anyone who dismisses all evidence they see as ' [ probably ] coming from some some jobless person in his underpants , who is very insecure and defensive of the own reality , and has built his happy-place ' is probably just some jobless person in his underpants , who is very insecure and defensive of the own reality , and has built his happy-place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I'd say that anyone who dismisses all evidence they see as '[probably] coming from some some jobless person in his underpants, who is very insecure and defensive of the own reality, and has built his happy-place' is probably just some jobless person in his underpants, who is very insecure and defensive of the own reality, and has built his happy-place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229020</id>
	<title>dogmatic factions rule medicine and climate</title>
	<author>harvey the nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1257191820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia has become a captive of dogmatists.  Two areas exemplify this: climate and medicine. Conflicts of interests and an unscientific prejudice for pushing "global warming" occurs, where major scientists are disparaged by their clear inferiors and their "dissident" works undercut.

In medicine, the most reactionary doctors control articles about which they know nothing, eager to pass on information known to be false, from biased, *provably wrong*, "mainstream" journals. Where their clinical and scientific misunderstandings would be embarrassing if more broadly known, as well as getting you booted from serious  universities or organizations a generation ago for incompetence or fraud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia has become a captive of dogmatists .
Two areas exemplify this : climate and medicine .
Conflicts of interests and an unscientific prejudice for pushing " global warming " occurs , where major scientists are disparaged by their clear inferiors and their " dissident " works undercut .
In medicine , the most reactionary doctors control articles about which they know nothing , eager to pass on information known to be false , from biased , * provably wrong * , " mainstream " journals .
Where their clinical and scientific misunderstandings would be embarrassing if more broadly known , as well as getting you booted from serious universities or organizations a generation ago for incompetence or fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia has become a captive of dogmatists.
Two areas exemplify this: climate and medicine.
Conflicts of interests and an unscientific prejudice for pushing "global warming" occurs, where major scientists are disparaged by their clear inferiors and their "dissident" works undercut.
In medicine, the most reactionary doctors control articles about which they know nothing, eager to pass on information known to be false, from biased, *provably wrong*, "mainstream" journals.
Where their clinical and scientific misunderstandings would be embarrassing if more broadly known, as well as getting you booted from serious  universities or organizations a generation ago for incompetence or fraud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228878</id>
	<title>Freedom?</title>
	<author>Corson</author>
	<datestamp>1257191280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I once tried adding information to a Wikipedia article and the editor-in-charge (?) summarily dismissed and deleted my edits arguing that it's "irrelevant information". The article was about a movie and I was just pointing to a PC game based on the movie. But he just wouldn't accept that piece of information and had the right to revert the changes I had made and there was nothing I could do about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I once tried adding information to a Wikipedia article and the editor-in-charge ( ?
) summarily dismissed and deleted my edits arguing that it 's " irrelevant information " .
The article was about a movie and I was just pointing to a PC game based on the movie .
But he just would n't accept that piece of information and had the right to revert the changes I had made and there was nothing I could do about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once tried adding information to a Wikipedia article and the editor-in-charge (?
) summarily dismissed and deleted my edits arguing that it's "irrelevant information".
The article was about a movie and I was just pointing to a PC game based on the movie.
But he just wouldn't accept that piece of information and had the right to revert the changes I had made and there was nothing I could do about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230834</id>
	<title>Copy editors leaving WSJ in droves</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1257158100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is one of the dumber stories the WSJ wrote, although since Murdoch took over, there have been a lot of dumb, poorly edited stories.</p><p>The significant fact, as I and other readers pointed out in the comments, is that it's meaningless to say that 50,000 wikipedia editors left, unless you know the base number that it's drawn from.</p><p>Google search for "Number of Wikipedia editors." 300,000 editors have edited Wikipedia more than 10 times. So that would make it 17\%. Aren't WSJ reporters supposed to do that?</p><p>But another WSJ reader said:</p><p>Guys, Do your homework. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia becoming less relevant or the other reasons discussed. It's because they mahttp://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers?art\_pos=6#de a technical change to the site that makes it less attractive for spammers to use. It's a good thing that these spammers are no longer editing the site to link to their blogs / websites.</p><p><a href="http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Wikipedia\_Adds\_NOFOLLOW\_Attribute\_To\_Outbound\_Lin" title="webmonkey.com">http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Wikipedia\_Adds\_NOFOLLOW\_Attribute\_To\_Outbound\_Lin</a> [webmonkey.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is one of the dumber stories the WSJ wrote , although since Murdoch took over , there have been a lot of dumb , poorly edited stories.The significant fact , as I and other readers pointed out in the comments , is that it 's meaningless to say that 50,000 wikipedia editors left , unless you know the base number that it 's drawn from.Google search for " Number of Wikipedia editors .
" 300,000 editors have edited Wikipedia more than 10 times .
So that would make it 17 \ % .
Are n't WSJ reporters supposed to do that ? But another WSJ reader said : Guys , Do your homework .
This has nothing to do with Wikipedia becoming less relevant or the other reasons discussed .
It 's because they mahttp : //news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers ? art \ _pos = 6 # de a technical change to the site that makes it less attractive for spammers to use .
It 's a good thing that these spammers are no longer editing the site to link to their blogs / websites.http : //www.webmonkey.com/blog/Wikipedia \ _Adds \ _NOFOLLOW \ _Attribute \ _To \ _Outbound \ _Lin [ webmonkey.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is one of the dumber stories the WSJ wrote, although since Murdoch took over, there have been a lot of dumb, poorly edited stories.The significant fact, as I and other readers pointed out in the comments, is that it's meaningless to say that 50,000 wikipedia editors left, unless you know the base number that it's drawn from.Google search for "Number of Wikipedia editors.
" 300,000 editors have edited Wikipedia more than 10 times.
So that would make it 17\%.
Aren't WSJ reporters supposed to do that?But another WSJ reader said:Guys, Do your homework.
This has nothing to do with Wikipedia becoming less relevant or the other reasons discussed.
It's because they mahttp://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers?art\_pos=6#de a technical change to the site that makes it less attractive for spammers to use.
It's a good thing that these spammers are no longer editing the site to link to their blogs / websites.http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Wikipedia\_Adds\_NOFOLLOW\_Attribute\_To\_Outbound\_Lin [webmonkey.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30235866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30254700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30235280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30235854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30257058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30237312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30259064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30252264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30254312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_160236_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30254312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30254700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229680
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30235280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30259064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228616
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229716
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230280
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30257058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228204
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228028
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228684
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233626
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234288
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232014
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228178
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30232988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30235854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228814
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30235866
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234714
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30237312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30229436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30234370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30233548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30252264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30227694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30231614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_160236.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30228058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_160236.30230760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
