Interesting to note, then, that the supply of flu vaccine is very low just now.
My wife is in the medical field, and she and her colleagues have been trying to obtain it for a month or more, only to be told by the suppliers that they don't have any to send.
#11: I think we can live with that.
You know who else does this? Consumer Reports. I wish I was kidding.
For more information about his blog, you should CALL HIM. Because that's how bloggers trade information - via long-distance telephone call.
I will have to watch that episode again. Maybe tonight, even!
Harry@965:
I just dropped by Making Light to tell people about this story - glad to see you beat me to it.
Hey, that's great news. I have always found all three of those blogs to be worth reading.
Keith@70:
I can't remember a scene where Rorschach beats up the Comedian. When does that happen?
Now I want to write a story where the characters are actually named Ebefpunpu, Avtugbjy and Bmlznaqvnf.
On Bjorn Lomborg, here's another red flag: books whose promotional materials repeatedly give the number of footnotes they contain as evidence of reliability.
Are there *any* books that are (say) over a century old and still useful as scholarly works?
Walter Bagehot's The English Constitution (1867).
Greg@488:
Ah, I see.
I'm even more disappointed to find out he's a devout fan of Ayn Rand.
Greg@422:
Jimbo Wales worked in porn? Seriously?
Margaret@276:
"I'd think about having two classes of editor in your scheme - one for content, and one for style."
I second that suggestion. I've had plenty of negative experience with copyeditors who are perfectly qualified to correct spelling, grammar and other technical errors, but get out of their depth when they take it upon themselves to "correct" reportage or factual information that they do not have the knowledge to appropriately edit.
Permit me a tangent: I worked for a company (which I shall leave nameless) where a very immature early-20s guy was given blanket authority as a copyeditor to demand things far beyond what the role should have allowed (and as a guy now working as a newspaper editor who started as a copyeditor, I know where the boundaries should be). He sent out a weekly style-guide email to everyone in the company, with the bosses' blessing, that included tips like not misusing a particular grammar error (I forget what) or he'd "get so mad I want to RIP MY HEAD OFF AND THROW IT AT YOU!" (I'm paraphrasing, but the gist and the all-caps bullying is accurate.) The experience was incredibly frustrating. He was really a very smart guy, and usually right about style issues, but he extended that to think he could call himself an expert on everything else, and he was often a real jerk about it. The company later imploded, I think in no small part because it did things like that. The Wikipedia troll-editors (who I'm sure are a small percentage of all Wiki editors, but a loud percentage) remind me a lot of this guy.
Also, I think the notion of letting Wikipedia editors be anonymous or pseudonymous is a very bad idea, despite the fact that I am posting here pseudonymously. My real name is on the pages of everything I write for my paid gigs, in part because that puts a greater emphasis on the fact that what's in those pages is my responsibility.
Fragano@240:
Very nice. [applause]
Ed, the problem is that the bad guys can ban the good guys from Wikipedia and delete all their edits.
Kathryn@126:
And that's NOT depressing! Thank you. It's always good to see optimism.
Greg@124:
Man, that's depressing.
Has there been any indication that Wikipedia's high-level administration even acknowledges that there is a problem?
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 5 |
| 2007 | 19 |
| 2006 | 2 |
| 2005 | 4 |
| 2004 | 1 |
Total: 32 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Jim:
Show all comments by Jim.