Wikipedia Is Basically a Corporate Bureaucracy, Says Study (gizmodo.com) 153
Jennifer Ouellette, reporting for Gizmodo: Wikipedia is a voluntary organization dedicated to the noble goal of decentralized knowledge creation. But as the community has evolved over time, it has wandered further and further from its early egalitarian ideals, according to a new paper published in the journal Future Internet. In fact, such systems usually end up looking a lot like 20th-century bureaucracies. [...] This may seem surprising, since there is no policing authority on Wikipedia -- no established top-down means of control. The community is self-governing, relying primarily on social pressure to enforce the established core norms, according to co-author Simon DeDeo, a complexity scientist at Indiana University. [...] "You start with a decentralized democratic system, but over time you get the emergence of a leadership class with privileged access to information and social networks," DeDeo explained. "Their interests begin to diverge from the rest of the group. They no longer have the same needs and goals. So not only do they come to gain the most power within the system, but they may use it in ways that conflict with the needs of everybody else.""The Iron Law of Oligarchy, demonstrated by Wikipedia," wrote Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist at Caltech. "Rebel all you want, ultimately you become The Establishment."
There are reasons bureaucracies exist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Once parts of a bureaucracy - generally as a result of these changes they so resist - begin to operate primarily so as to ensure their continued existence, that's generally the tipping point where very soon the entire system turns into something Sir Humphrey Appleby would be most proud of.
It also becomes ultimately hostile to all things it should originally have served and worked for the good of.
Re: (Score:1)
Read up on the "agentic state" and see why bureaucracies wind up being hopelessly hidebound.
Sometimes I think Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not to impressed with wikipedia one of the things they do is make sure that biographies/discographies of indie label artists are not published even if they top the cmj charts, are on many the ordinary digital music services, have CDs in distribution to music specialty stores, and have played for crowds of over 50K.
Re: (Score:1)
so how did these people make it into Wikipedia then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Mandi immediately began work on her major label debut album, Alice In No Man’s Lan
She had one album on a major label...
Re: (Score:3)
The very term "encyclopedia" means a comprehensive store of information. The default stance to take should be there is a compelling reason to include pretty much everything and everyone. Only the most mundane should be excluded. It's not like you buy Wikipedia in leather bound volumes.
That word doesn't mean what you think it does (Score:3)
> The very term "encyclopedia" means a comprehensive store of information. The default stance to take should be there is a compelling reason to include pretty much everything and everyone.
No, the word encyclopedia is greek for "general education ", much like high school provides a general education. It does not mean "a gargantuan database of every sentence ever uttered, whether useful or not".
Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, includes objective, verifiable facts about noteworthy topics. Let's call that a
Re:There are reasons bureaucracies exist (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not an "iron law" though, at least I don't think so. Standardizing business processes in itself is a good thing, however I think we are not (yet) very good at designing those business processes and promote the right way to use them.
Re:There are reasons bureaucracies exist (Score:5, Interesting)
predictable mediocrity
It doesn't even have to be mediocre, it just hast to be consistent. McDonalds didn't get to be a big huge restaurant chain by making good or even average burgers. It got there making passible (D-) burgers that were completely consistent from New York to Los Angeles.
That is the whole point of the bureaucracy, is to provided consistent services / products, and the more consistent, the better the margins (and profit). But there in lies the problem, the more consistent you are, the closer you are to the center mean (average) and the tighter the curve, the better consistency you have, which ultimately lowers the mean over time. The problem here, is that there is NO effort applied to making better quality at all, just consistency.
True greatness comes from those that are outside of the statistics of average that provide consistency. BUT that also requires the ability to fail, spectacularly. True greatness (unique) has great risk and artistry requires taking chances on the off chance of creating something spectacular.
To make it into a car analogy, you can build and engine to get 200,000 miles without much maintenance, or you can build an engine that can produce 500 HP that is always on the verge of blowing up spectacularly and needing all sorts of constant attention. Both are "great" in their class, however, one is more consistent.
This applies to all systems that are built. You can build for consistency or you can build for greatness. Once you realize that these systems built for consistency are driving towards the mean, then you can realize where the actual problems are when trying to move to greatness. That is one of the great barriers that I think Edwards Deming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming ) helped to break down. But his style processes MUST be a conscience decision. It is also something I think Breaks down the Bureaucracy that leads to mediocrity. Mid to Upper Management cannot adequately understand the process to make improvements to it, and therefore are incapable of modifying the process to improve it.
Re: (Score:3)
big huge restaurant chain by making good or even average burgers. It got there making passible (D-) burgers that were completely consistent from New York to Los Angeles.
When considering McDonald's I think it's important to consider their core competencies: fast, and cheap. They deliver on those, and deliver very well.
Re:There are reasons bureaucracies exist (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And consistency too. Usually when I'm in a new place where I do not know about the quality of local food I eat at Mc'Donnalds, because their process is so standardized that it is very difficult to make the sandwich the wrong way. It is not ideal of course, but you can rely that the sandwich will always be at least acceptable.
That is probably management's goal, but McDonalds is currently not consistent at all. There are big differences between franchise-owned restaurants and company-owned restaurants. There are enormous differences between McDonalds restaurants in good neighborhoods and those in bad neighborhoods. There are regional differences too.
McDonalds got to where they are today by selling total consistency and standardization. But they lost their way many years ago. It's a total crapshoot now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fast, and cheap.
Fast. Not Cheap
I can get a better burger, if I am willing to wait. And it really isn't that much more expensive (if at all). Compare In-n-Out pricing to McDonalds. Within a buck of each other for a "meal"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thomas Kinkade Paintings vs Monet.
Both are decent, but there was no point KinKade was going to ever measure up to Monet in artistry. I don't care how good his process was. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
"Bureaucracies are often a very efficient way of performing work"
They may start out that way, and depending on how well they're managed (the strong leadership paradox) they may continue operating efficiently for quite some time. But invariably they become corrupt or wasteful. Its like an often modified piece of code, if its edited & cleaned up occasionally by someone who knows what they're doing it operates very well. If a bunch of people just throw in mods randomly without auditing the code it becom
Re:There are reasons bureaucracies exist (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Even in Lord of the Flies they were able to create various operating structures at different times.
Some people seem to think structure is somehow external to the human experience, without understanding that is not only internal but a strong, deep trait.
They are big, therefore they have structure.
Were they small, they would also have structure.
Were they one person doing the whole thing, they would have structure. But the word "bureaucracy" wouldn't apply. It might not matter that much; I doubt even 50% of th
And all Bureaucracies are subject. . .. (Score:2)
. . . to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy [jerrypournelle.com]. It's just human nature.
Re:There are reasons bureaucracies exist (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it hilarious, because calling it a "bureaucracy" is like saying, "the sun rises." It is just a statement of fact that flows directly from it being large, and requiring processes.
I'll give the young haters a hint: bureaucracy is a word, and it can be looked up in the dictionary. It is not a pejorative bad word. It is a word, with meaning. A neutral, descriptive word, that is neither good nor bad.
If you read/watch the news, when a politician is against an agency action they describe the people making the decision as "bureaucrats." When the same people are taking an action they approve of, they're "non-partisan career professionals" according to the same person. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who gets information from Wikipedia and tries to use it in actual conversation with other people who's knowledge comes from a source other than Wikipedia will find himself losing friends, credibility, and/or freedom from psychiatric care REAL quick.
So, which encyclopedia do you use that is better? L O L
I grew up with Britannica in the house, the most expensive thing my family owned. (it was worth more than our car!) And it was good, compared to the ones at school. But it had a lot of flaws; it wasn't actually an authoritative source of information about anything at all. It was just a good starting point. Wikipedia is better in every way.
Haters hate, but information isn't emotional; reading information while feeling emotions doesn't make that informati
Really? (Score:3)
Really? Tell us something that the average person doesn't know, and one of the reasons why if you go to school they will explicitly tell you not to trust wikipedia, not to even use it as a basis for research for furthering your topic. Never mind they've got their own problems, where wikipedia investigates wikipedia [reddit.com] and finds no wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:3)
[...] one of the reasons why if you go to school they will explicitly tell you not to trust wikipedia, not to even use it as a basis for research for furthering your topic.
Teachers had the same complaint about the Dummies book. Whenever I need a broad overview of an unfamiliar subject, I would get a Dummies book (or go to Wikipedia), from there I'll decide where to go from there. Alas, schools don't teach critical thinking skills and most people can't jump from a single source to multiple sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Teachers have the same complaint about 50 year old encyclopedias they are often out of date or have incomplete information.
So fork it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So fork it. Problem "solved". People like to complain about stuff.
Well said.
Still, forking never actually seems to work. After the initial uproar that led to the fork dies down, people pretty much abandon the fork and go back to the trunk project, and continue to grumble about the same issues. Can anyone name a forked-and-renamed project that actually became the most prominent branch? There's bound to have been some, but I can't for the life of me think of one.
Devuan? Nope. Soylent News? Nope. Wikipedia 2? Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Libre Office?
Re: (Score:2)
Libre Office?
Yeah, I guess that's one. Although that's really more a matter of Oracle chopping off the rest of the trunk just above the branch. It seems that's just standard operating procedure down at Oracle Orchards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A few successful forks come to mind, besides Libre Office: Firefox (from mozilla), webkit (from khtml). ubuntu (from debian), joomla (from mambo), xorg (from xfree86).
Re: (Score:2)
And there is blink (from webkit).
Re: (Score:2)
EGCS [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
systemd. It took over udev, and is now installed on far more places than udev was before.
Re: (Score:3)
I remembered there was a good Wikipedia fork out there, however Googling "wikipedia fork" finds you some nice wikipedia articles about cutlery, a town in Washington, and the concept of a software fork.
All human groups tend toward the same order (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>> "wisdom of the crowd,"
Everything I've ever seen in my 52+ years of life confirms that sentence is an oxymoron.
Firmly agreed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> if you give that person the ability to gain wealth or glory from that idea, he or she will implement it to the benefit of all.
I dont agree with that either. In such a case they will implement it for their own benefit regardless if others benefit or not, or even get actively hurt. Look at the big pharma corps for perfect examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Very much agree. I'm struggling to see what your "larger purpose and values system" here in the US might be though, at least one that has any real power and isn't biassed towards a particular religion or some other special interest group (which ultimately just comes down to self-serving power/money again).
Bureaucracies do not have top down control (Score:5, Insightful)
Playing King of the Hill (Score:5, Insightful)
The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can. Some will attempt to justify it with official-sounding reasons for reversing, others will simply revert without much comment.
This is why I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore, and why I do not browse it as much as I used to. The idea was interesting, but due to the way it was set up, the trolls run the place.
Re:Playing King of the Hill (Score:5, Insightful)
...The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can....
Worth repeating... The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Almost every time I have found an error on Wikipedia it turned out that someone else had already corrected it before, only to be reverted by someone who felt he owned the page. Usually they didn't provide an edit summary to explain why they reverted the correction, and often it was clear they had not in fact read the correction at all. It's really disheartening; more often than not I find myself sighing and moving on if I spot an error, even when it's as uncontroversial as a typo. The wiki spirit is dead an
Re: (Score:1)
Be bold in your edits because it's easy for us to revert and ignore!
Re: (Score:2)
While you are correct, it seems an easy problem to fix with meta moderation which /. Used to use in its early days.
Thus reverts must be voted on as to whether they were justified or not; then those moderations are also meta moderated.
Re: (Score:3)
The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can.
Just revert the reversion, unless they made a valid point. Due to the 3RR rule, you can revert 3 times, unless another author agrees with them, Also, your edit will wind up remaining in place, because the other user is also not allowed to revert more than 3 times, and if they do, you can request intervention.
Re: (Score:1)
"Unless another author agrees with them" ...
What happens if "self-important busy-body" has two accounts?
Re: (Score:2)
Just revert the reversion, unless they made a valid point. Due to the 3RR rule, you can revert 3 times, unless another author agrees with them, Also, your edit will wind up remaining in place, because the other user is also not allowed to revert more than 3 times, and if they do, you can request intervention.
I'm sorry, I have this thing called a life. I'm not going to play games like trying to bump-up against an edit/revert counter with a bunch of people that don't have lives, I have better things to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I have this thing called a life. I'm not going to play games like trying to bump-up against an edit/revert counter with a bunch of people that don't have lives
Then it starts to seem like you were not very sincere about contributing the article in the first place, if you're unwilling to engage with other people community and/or the other editors, and confront them, resolve conflicting goals, or decide which differences are important to argue over. The encyclopedia anyone can edit, Does Not ne
Re: (Score:1)
The only edit I made stuck, it was trivial though. I simply added a link to something I wanted to read about, but wasn't linked (Japanese Lacquerware was referenced but not linked in the Urushiol article, since then it has had Chinese, and Korean added and linked).
I'm too lazy to research real edits though, but that seems like the trivial type you say would get reverted for no reason.
Re: (Score:3)
The only edit I made stuck, it was trivial though. I simply added a link to something I wanted to read about, but wasn't linked (Japanese Lacquerware was referenced but not linked in the Urushiol article, since then it has had Chinese, and Korean added and linked).
So you're the dirty motherfucker who did that! >:-(
Re:Playing King of the Hill (Score:4, Insightful)
Some will attempt to justify it with official-sounding reasons for reversing
If you actually read the "official-sounding reasons", you'll probably find that they're following policy, whereas you're not.
There are a lot of "casual edits" that get reverted because they're crap submitted by someone who doesn't understand the need for Wikipedia being verifiable, or even what an encyclopaedia should be about.
It really is a difficult battle to win. On one side you get people mocking factual inaccuracies in Wikipedia, and on the other you get people complaining that their unsupported fact (with included personal observation) gets removed. We can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...If you actually read the "official-sounding reasons", you'll probably find that they're following policy, whereas you're not....
Such as reverting a major edit because the tense of a single verb in the edit was not correct? Yes, that was the "official sounding reason" given.
.
Why not just correct the verb's tense instead of using the incorrect tense to justify the complete removal of the edit?
WikiPedia had, has and will continue to have (did I get those verb tenses correct?) a significant problem with helicopter editors who want to do little more than feed their egos, instead of assuring accuracy of articles.
Until WikiPedia fac
Re: (Score:1)
The "editors" that camp on thousands of articles have automated tools to reverse changes, even though the edit may do nothing more than correct a single spelling or grammar issue. If you dare ask why errors were restored, you can expect the wrath of the "editor" and his mates to come down upon you, and find all of your work deleted. Fuck wiki, their constant begging, and their so-called editors.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're implying you know of a better way of setting it up? If so, why don't you go ahead and do it?
Re: (Score:2)
This is completely correct, but the solution is not forking, as many will suggest. Recognizing that there are different views on everything should be accomplished not by just having different paragraphs in the same article, but entirely different articles with different maintainers under the same title, with presentation clearly calling out the different maintainers. Further, you could make the articles clearly part of someone or some group's approval.
This way people who want to understand the differing vie
There is policing (Score:5, Insightful)
This may seem surprising, since there is no policing authority on Wikipedia
Yes there is.... Haven't you ever heard of "New Page Patrol" ? There are such things as Oversighters (History Suppression); The WP Foundation has Police power through Oversighter, and Control of stewards who assign Administrative permissions to some users, who then act as police, [wikipedia.org]Selective Deletion [wikipedia.org] (Destroying/Hiding historical information about past actions), Banned Users, Requests for Discussion, Votes for Deletion, Speedy Page Deletion (eg BLP), and Banned Content
no established top-down means of control. The community is self-governing, relying primarily on social pressure to enforce the established core norms
There are top-down means of control in regards to certain actions (Oversighting).
Re: (Score:1)
Blocks, bans, pagelocks, and deletions. To name but a few.
Wikipedia is chock-a-block with means and methods of control. Access to those means, is gained exclusively through corrupt backchannels. Editing does not come into it. It's a tyranny of the passive-aggressive, over the the well meaning.
The system is outrageously, absurdly, and perniciously corrupt. It would be better for everyone if Wikipedia was shut down at this point, because the political agendas and wingnu
There is also outside policingRe:There is policing (Score:1)
In limited cases - mostly those involving legal issues or to prevent real-world harm - The Wikimedia Foundation steps in and "dictates from on high."
Granted, that's not exactly "external" as the WMF trustees are elected by the community.
The WMF also steps in - whether willingly or not - when a court orders them to do so or, more commonly, when their in-house lawyers tell them they have to step in or they will likely be hauled into court and lose or when it's so obvious that they would lose they don't even n
WikiPedia - where truth goes to die... (Score:1)
.
Wikipedia: where truth dies online [spiked-online.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But it is sited, and up to date, which is far superior than the encyclopedias I had growing up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sited, but is It *cited*? It shouldn't be because Wikipedia is a secondary source but I think we can agree wikipedia is cited far too often and possibly not sited enough (since they always ask for more money, presumably to expand the number of sites to deal with all the citations. None of which has anything to do with articles occasionally having of its own citations.
To be clear I'm not mocking you but could not resist the play of words
Reminds me... (Score:1)
"Rebel all you want, ultimately you become The Establishment."
Reminds me of when the Kinks were at the Carnegie and remarked something like "...Rock'n'Roll has become respectable. Bummer."
I quit contributing financially (Score:1)
for a long time due to SJW's seizing articles and the bureaucracy letting it happen.
Basic rules for classifying political alignment on WIkipedia:
If it's seen as a positive thing it's left wing, if it's seen it's negative it's right, even if the world socialism is used to describe the ideology.
If there's a way to take a stab at something male when gender neutral terms would work just as well or better take the stab. If it gets neutralized change it back and use the justification "no it was right before".
Som
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like a committee member is a guest mod on Slashdot today.
The important thing is the data not the people (Score:3)
>> The community is self-governing, relying primarily on social pressure to enforce the established core norms
The real trouble with this approach is not that a few people get control, but that it inevitably leads to a real bias in the Wikipedia entries themselves.
wikipedia bias runs rampant (Score:2, Insightful)
entrenched editors at wikimedia have made content there highly biased.
for example check the article on british empire;
attempts to include the factual cited details about british empire's mass murders and genocides, ethnic cleansings(well in to 1970s) , regime sanctioned slavery and bonded labor, preventable famines that killed millions(in to 1940s), large scale land and resource grabs, destruction and looting of cultural treasures, regular revolts and protests against regime ( both violent and non violent)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikipedia pages represent the range of views of the British Empire that exists in the world, from a force for order and civilization on the globe to an evil empire. The main article leans towards the traditional historical views, but pages on genocides, war crimes, etc. are also there. I'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy you, but it doesn't make it "highly biased". What would be highly biased
Re: (Score:2)
there is blatant bias in main british empire article (or as you say "leans towards the traditional historical views").
those attempt to remove that 'leaning' with well cited factual details (some of which are used without problem in some of other articles you cite) are censored and banned from wikipedia, by entrenched privileged editors. (that is the way to "represent the range of views"? ). even the discussion page is censored. ( for confirmation see history pages, of the article and of discussion page, i
Re: (Score:2)
since your comment assumes things that cannot be rationally deduced from my comment, i can only hope that you will at least read my comment before replying, if you can read that is.
while you are about it, hope you read the main most and article too.
but i only hope, given your status as an ac.
User content (Score:3)
Back around 1999 to 2001 when people were all excited about user generated content being able to bypass the gatekeepers, I predicted that sooner or later out of practical considerations a bureaucracy would arise around wikipedia, just like the gatekeeper of say, encyclopaedia britannica, except sans the qualifications.
Guess what, here we are.
Re: (Score:1)
Back around 1999 to 2001 when people were all excited about user generated content being able to bypass the gatekeepers, I predicted..
Have you got a link to that? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is hard to establish facts without authority. For anything that you are not personally an expert or at least experienced with, you have to rely on someone else telling you what is true. Sometimes you can personally go and verify those statements, but frequently our best means of determining whether something is false are the collisions between two or more people disagreeing about a fact. And then it becomes a matter who you trust more and what method you use to bestow your trust.
For instance, you
Perfect description of Stage 4 capitalism (Score:3)
Karl Marx could not have written that any better.
Re: (Score:2)
AKA: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Equal (Score:2)
Pah, study (Score:2)
Wikipedia Is Basically a Corporate Bureaucracy, Says Study
Never mind the study. What does the billiard room have to say about it?
ShittiPedia (Score:1)
Catch 22 rules (Score:2)
I've seen rules used to push whatever agenda someone has on wikipedia. Couple of my favorites, only internet accessible verification of a published article is allowed as fact. So that time, when an author tries to correct a "theory" someone else has on his own book, he isn't an authority. Even if he has a website of his own with verification. Also excludes the 70's and 80's topical stories, since many aired on TV and only made a few news articles. So we have no historically available news sites to b
Re: (Score:2)
Nor should he be. Interpretation is done by the readers, not the writer, so just because the author meant something to be interpreted a certain way tells us nothing about how it is actually interpreted.
Isn't wikimedia a registered 501(c) corporation (Score:2)
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (Score:2)
Wikipedia is a real life Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Its organizational structure may be a bit chaotic and perhaps not as democratic as some think it should be, but in a couple thousand years it will probably be pretty difficult to make your way around the galaxy without it.
Regardless, all nonprofit organizations become "corporate bureaucracies" after a while once they start employing people. Once people make a career out of a nonprofit they will do whatever they can to sustain it because they want to
Re: (Score:1)
"Corporate" is the wrong word to use in this case. It implies a separate entity, with financial profit to be made by the owners of said entity.
Which just shows that you do not understand the "corporate". "Corporate" does not imply anything about financial profit. Corporate implies that the organization has an identity independent of any of the people connected with it. For example, as long as Steve Jobs was alive and running Apple, Apple was not "corporate", because its identity was intrinsically tied to Steve Jobs. For the period of time that Steve Jobs was not at Apple, Apple WAS corporate (becoming "corporate" was part of the reason that Steve
Re:"Corporate" is the wrong word! (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, as long as Steve Jobs was alive and running Apple, Apple was not "corporate", because its identity was intrinsically tied to Steve Jobs.
You're getting confused between "corporate" (a separate legal entity) with Steve Job's reality distortion field (whatever you think it was).
Re: (Score:1)
Although that definition of corporation explains why
Re:"Corporate" is the wrong word! (Score:4, Insightful)
However, no one would have used "corporate" to describe Apple while Steve Jobs was alive because the perceived "personality" of Apple while Steve Jobs was alive was the same as the perceived personality of Steve Jobs.
By that argument the following companies are not "corporate" because they had strong CEO personalities: GE with Jack Welch, HP with Carly Fiona, Microsoft with Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer, Oracle with Larry Ellison, and eBay with Meg Whiteman, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, all of that misses the primary point I was making, which is that "corporate" does NOT imply that the organizations primary focus is on making a profit.
Re: (Score:1)
... HP with Carly Fiona
She's so amazing people can't even remember her name.
Re: (Score:2)
She's so amazing people can't even remember her name.
Even more so if she becomes a VP pick.
http://www.people.com/article/ted-cruz-campaign-vetting-carly-fiorina-vice-president [people.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because having a female VP pick worked so well 8 years ago?
A winning strategy by the looks of it.
Presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) intends to name former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential running mate if he succeeds in winning the GOP nomination, multiple sources reported Wednesday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-carly-fiorina-vice-president_us_5720e23ce4b0f309baef5657 [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Up with the proletariat!
VOTE TRUMP 2016
I assume this is satire, because the irony is dripping from those two statements.
Re:"Citation Needed" Vandalism (Score:4, Funny)
What you describe is not vandalism at all. It is simply called "attention to detail" and "being thorough."
Any disputable statement of fact should require a legitimate citation. For example, there is a growing body of research that demonstrates that the statement "the sky is blue" is not always true. According to the Jeppesen Private Pilot Manual, the sky is sometimes filled with water vapor in a way that makes it appear gray. And, according to the same book, the sky can appear pitch black for several hours a day in some places.
So, the categorical statement that "the sky is blue" is demonstrably false. "The sky is sometimes blue" would be more accurate. "The sky sometimes appears blue to persons with unimpaired perception of colors" would be even more accurate.
Actually, can you link me to the article that says the sky is blue? I think I would like to go correct this misinformation.