kleuske 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (23) comment rss

  • On the post: FBI And United Airlines Shoot The Messenger After Security Researcher Discovers Vulnerabilities In Airplane Computer System

    kleuske ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2015 @ 03:41am

    Bill the f*ckers...

    This man should bill the airline for services provided. Make it a substantial bill, too.

  • On the post: Latest 'Think Of The Children' Scaremongering: Pirated Films Might 'Disturb' Them

    kleuske ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2013 @ 03:39am

    Definition:

    To disturb: Coming down on your kid and you like a ton of bricks for downloading a film that was broadcast a year ago, especially by the entertainment industry.

  • On the post: Chris Dodd: Bogus Facebook 'Copyright' Declaration Proves Everyone Loves Copyright

    kleuske ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2012 @ 12:18pm

    Nitpick... Bern

    The 'Berner Convention' may be a relic from German (where it's 'Berner Konvention'. Perhaps English is not the authors native language?

    An additional question would be "which one?"*) The german wiki lists five.

    *) 1886, of course.

  • On the post: Faulkner Estate Sues Sony Pictures Because Owen Wilson Quoted Nine Words (Incorrectly)

    kleuske ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 02:00pm

    Prophetic?

    Poor man. Poor mankind. (Light in August,1932, Chapter 4)

  • On the post: Collection Society To Libraries: No Story Time For Kids Unless You Pay To Read Aloud

    kleuske ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2012 @ 11:11am

    It seems silly, financially

    From a strictly financial POV this action seems downright silly if not stoopid. If the aim is to fetch as much cash as possible, you should PAY people to read your books to children. Shortsightedness seems to be the common theme as far as copyright-barons go.

  • On the post: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia

    kleuske ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 07:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WP:NPOV, Neutrality

    Pardon. This reponse was placed by mistake and is no reply to the post it is linked to. Instead it was directed at Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 4:46am

  • On the post: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia

    kleuske ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 07:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WP:NPOV, Neutrality

    Nice one... Claim your opponent is delusional instead of bringing any actual arguments.

    I'm under no delusions that dirty tricks aren't employed now, mosty because i reverted quite a few of them, Like the attempt of an employee of a major entertainment company trying to have another user blocked for unwelcome edits. I've gotten a haughty mail from a VP of PR of anothe major company after reverting his edits which turned the article into an advertorial, a college professor playing dummy and pretending not to understand the concept of selfpromotion.... etc ad nauseam. I think i know what im talking about, and i havent even started on guys like Miroslav Magola. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kleuske/Miroslaw_Magola

    So, as far as i'm concerned, the only good PR-guys are banned PR-guys. I don't care what POV you're payed to represent, it ain't NPOV.

  • On the post: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia

    kleuske ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 04:05am

    Re: Re: Strawman

    What a nice non-argument you have there.

  • On the post: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia

    kleuske ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 04:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: WP:NPOV, Neutrality

    On the basis of the premisse of their jobs, i can, without prejudice say that. You seem to be convinced that PR-people act only out of the goodness of their hearts and complete disregard to their employers POV, which is a tad on the very naive side.

  • On the post: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia

    kleuske ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 04:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: WP:NPOV, Neutrality

    Ok. Nice tactics. Responding to a minor point and making that the issue. No, you're right. At the moment we can only be reasonably sure.

    If you can "likely" (mind the qualifier) find hundreds of articles amongst 3.000.000 plus on en.wiki alone, you can _still_ be reasonably sure.

    If the floodgates are opened, we _can_ be sure PR-firms will jump on it and wikipedia _will_ be useless.

  • On the post: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia

    kleuske ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 02:19am

    Re: Re: WP:NPOV, Neutrality

    And the conclusion i don't know "the facts" is based on what, exactly? Your post seems a perfect example of an "ad hominem" attack.

    You do not adress _any_ of the points made, but directly label my comments as "prejudiced". Well, please spell out which of my statements was prejudiced, not based on fact or otherwise incorrect.

    Contributions _are_ judged on their content and i am one of the (many) people doing just that. I don't reason from an abstract idea, but from very concrete experience.

  • On the post: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia

    kleuske ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2012 @ 01:38am

    Re: Re: WP:NPOV, Neutrality

    They can, but that's not the issue.PR-folk, if they want to be ethical, should not contribute at all. Contributions are bound to be non-neutral and transparancy does not help that issue one bit.

    Another objection is that these professionals get payed for doing what they do, and hence can easily afford to spend the entire workday working the article, thus putting the occasional contributor, i.e. one that does have (an) other job(s) to tend to at a disadvantage.

    The result will be that

    a) sensitive articles will be dominated by PR-people getting payed to make it reflect the companies POV (and let's not forget, that is what they are payed to do)
    b) WP:NPOV and the public perception of WP's neutrality will go to the dogs.

    And I know the practice you describe is commonplace. I've reverted or nominated quite a few PR-pieces and, since the PR people are PAYED and TRAINED to get their point across, it almost inevitably results in a lengthy debate on (oftentimes) silly or trivial points, killing the joy of being a wikipedia editor.

    Then there's the issue of astroturfing. If you cannot be sure which articles were written to provide information and wich articles were written by professionals to reflect the POV of company X, wikipedia is useless. It will be no more than an advertisement venue, a lobbyists paradise.

    In order to keep the playing field level, professional PR-people should be banned indefinately.

  • On the post: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia

    kleuske ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2012 @ 10:40pm

    WP:NPOV, Neutrality

    Being an avid contributor and vandalfighter I do have an opinion on this one. One of the most important, no, the most important things in wikipedia is neutrality. It is nice to think that lobbyists want to ethically contribute, but it's clear from the outset that they cannot neutrally contribute. Either they're not doing their jobs or they are not neutral. I think pro's should be banned for that reason.

  • On the post: The Internet Strikes Back: Anonymous Takes Down DOJ.gov, RIAA, MPAA Sites To Protest Megaupload Seizure

    kleuske ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2012 @ 03:24pm

    snigger

    Give 'm hell, Anons. Don't get caught.

  • On the post: Jon Stewart Now Knows About SOPA/PIPA… And He's Not Impressed

    kleuske ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2012 @ 08:13am

    Re: Re: Nerds? Experts!

    I don't mind if a fellow nerd calls me a nerd, i take it as a compliment. It's something else when these overgrown jockstraps start calling us nerds and/or geeks. I think Steward danced around that effect quite elegantly.

  • On the post: Jon Stewart Now Knows About SOPA/PIPA… And He's Not Impressed

    kleuske ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2012 @ 05:04am

    Nerds? Experts!

    He sure put them right on the "nerd" thing.

  • On the post: British Historian On Porn And Internet Censorship: North Korea Is Right — The Internet Is Our Enemy

    kleuske ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2011 @ 09:05am

    Hmmm...

    They say you get from the internet whatever you're looking for. The fact that this man finds only porn is rather telling.

  • On the post: Righthaven Fails To Pay Sanctions; Complains A Day Late

    kleuske ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 10:46am

    It occurs to me that if Righthaven produces the transcripts, the bottom will fall out from under its settlement-business. This suggests the stalling is more than just obstinate behavior, it's trying to stay in business. I bet they'd rather risk contempt of court that actually informing their intended victims and they will stall as long as they can. I see a bankruptcy looming...

    Now that puts a smirk on my face.

  • On the post: Irony: FBI Says Apple Letting You Remotely Kill iPhones They've Taken Is 'Big Brother-ish'

    kleuske ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 08:42am

    Kaboom!

    Another irony-meter gone. Does anyone know what the prices on ignorantium are these days? I figure i need some to shield myself and my equipment from the sheer mass of irony emitted on the net these days. Does anyone have a clue on whether the new cynicium based irony-dampers actually work?

  • On the post: Should ISPs Cut Off The Entertainment Industry For Pushing Them To Censor?

    kleuske ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2011 @ 03:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In fact it has made the problem worse by putting a de facto monopoly in the hands of criminals, who have no qualms about using weapons, or selling real nasty stuff to youngsters.Ask a Mexican how prohibition worked out, then ask a dutchman how their tolerance worked out.I dare to surmise both will agree the Dutch solution worked better. Much better.

Next >>