User:James Blond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One way or another this user is especcially interested in the article entitled "Blond".
Doesn't spend much time to W. Now and then a little hour. So he neither follows it all closely.
Contributions untill now to:
- Talk:Blond
- Talk:Disappearing blonde gene
- Talk:Dumb blonde
- Talk:James Hewitt
- Elton John
- User talk:VKing
- [[3]]
- [[4]]
- Talk:Blonde jokes
- [[5]]
- Facelift
- [[6]]
- Pedophilia
- Strabismus
- Talk:Incest [[7]].
- Talk:Beard [[8]]
- Talk:Hair removal [[9]]
[edit] On Wikipedia
Although this user is a user himself, since some time he's aware of the fact, that a few serious formal objections have to be made against Wikipedia's system.
In the first place there's the fact, that in principle anyone can add data to it's articles, whether he's an expert in the concerning matter, or not. He even can add incorrect data conciously. Mostly somebody else will correct, but this happens not always by far. This means, that all by all on this moment there are many incorrect data in this published encyclopedia. Although use of it is free, this can cause serious damage to especcially readers, who are not aware of this, as well as to those, about whom incorrect data are published.
To avoid this and eventual juridical claims, it's necessary, that at least above every article there's a warning, saying that there's no guarantee for the reliability of it's content.
A second objection concerns the fact, that by far not all violations of copyrights are recognized and deleted immediately. This means, that publisher Wp constantly breaks the law in this respect and constantly damages extern authors.
In the third place sometimes added texts are insulting, whereas editing this is punishable.
These serious drawbacks of WP's nowadays system can only be eliminated by rather fargoing changes:
Wp could become an association, with members, who are known by name and other personalia. Only these members can log in, internly discuss the content of articles and make proposals about it. They cannot publish articles or changes themselves. Only (professional) experts can. The extra means this takes, can come from a low contribution, all members have to pay. Eventually some neutral advertisements might eliminate deficits.
Think, there's no other way, in case Wp wants to become a reliable and completely legally functioning organisation.
[edit] More about illegal on line publishing
For this part there's a conviction (it can not be called scientifically prooved and generally recognized yet), that not only Wikipedia's activity is partly illegal, but that other siteowners, who also (sometimes) publish insulting texts, that are added by users, who often stay anonymous, act partly punishably as well.
Owners of chatsites and discussiongroups mostly forbid to add a.o. insulting texts. But they know in advance, that some users will not behave according to that rule. So when it happens again, they are responsable for the insult being published. Removing it a few minutes later, doesn't change the principle; it has been published.
The only way to be sure of a fully legal course of things, seems the way described above: additions cannot be published by users themselves, but just by the siteowning publisher, after he chequed their legality.
Moreover for this part there's a strong presumption, that Google's and other searchsiteowners' activities are also partly illegal. After all, especcially as far as concerns sites, they have "in cache", they are equally spreading and/or showing publically illegal texts and images, the way the involved direct sitepublishers do. At least they're accessory.
[edit] On censorship
Lately a well known functionary of a well known software producing company declared, that in his vision governments that have the wish to, will not succeed in censoring all, that's published on the web. "It has become too big for that", he said.
Well, this doesn't necessarily have to be so. If a country really wants to censor all websites avaible there, it could not only use special investigators, but also choose for a rewarding system. (He or she, who reports a site, in which prohibited content appears, gets a standard reward). Than suddenly that country would have the disposal of in certain cases milions of 'investigators', .
(Eventual reactions on this comment via the Talk page, please.)
