Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WikipediaP2P

wikipediap2p.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: WikipediaP2P

#91

Post by mikeash »

osense wrote: post #61
oceanofsolaris wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's reformulate it then: topics where some actors have a strong incentive (monetary or emotional) to manipulate other peoples opinion.

I guess that's better :) To expand a bit on my previous comment, the sad part is that even though we know that the topic is not really controversial scientifically, we somehow, subconsciously, refer to it as one. Elections and all that.

All something needs to be controversial is for there to be a great deal of public disagreement about it. Climate change definitely qualifies. Unfortunately, this has just about nothing to do with factual basis, evidence, etc.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#92

Post by guerrerocarlos »

GolDDranks wrote: post #45
rkangel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd considered that. That would explain the second, but the first has to be sloppiness. If nothing else, if you want to produce english content, set your spellchecker to english.

I think the first one is meant to be "reaching"?

Both fixed, was my bad, if you see any other please tell me. Indeed non-native over here.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#94

Post by blackflame7000 »

ensignavenger wrote: post #85
osense wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that's better :) To expand a bit on my previous comment, the sad part is that even though we know that the topic is not really controversial scientifically, we somehow, subconsciously, refer to it as one. Elections and all that.

Even accepting the science, there is plenty of room for controversy over what actions should be taken as a result.

Yea the true controversy isn't weather the climate is changing but rather the rate at which it is occurring and the degree to which humans should intervene to take corrective action.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#95

Post by guerrerocarlos »

oceanofsolaris wrote: post #48

I understand that this is an early implementation. Nevertheless, I have a question: how does it make sure the site you receive is actually the a) correct one (someone could distribute incorrect pages e.g. about controversial topics like North Korea or Climate Change; or inject some malicious code that e.g. uses your account to submit changes to wikipedia) b) most recent one (or at least a reasonably new one). I imagi…

- Github link fixed. - Ideally Wikipedia could add just a signature in the page metadata and the extension could check it against it's public key. - CacheP2P has one solution implemented (checksums of links contents defined in the metadata of each page), but would require Wikipedia to enable it.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#96

Post by shinski »

fixing a typo on the main page would help improve its apparent legitimacy.

>""This is an unofficial extension and not endorsed by Wikipedia in any way, it's just an implementation of latest web-technologies towards sharing of knowelege."" <---knowledge

Re: WikipediaP2P

#97

Post by shinski »

fixing a typo on the main page would help improve its apparent legitimacy.

>""This is an unofficial extension and not endorsed by Wikipedia in any way, it's just an implementation of latest web-technologies towards sharing of knowelege."" <---knowledge

Re: WikipediaP2P

#98

Post by atom_enger »

discreditable wrote: post #86

A better way to support Wikipedia would be to donate. $10 probably covers more than the strain you put on Wikipedia for a year. https://donate.wikimedia.org/

I encourage a repeating donation. If you work a tech job you can very likely afford 5/month. The site has changed my life for the better and I constantly find myself on there satisfying whatever is piquing my curiosity at the moment. To be clear, I'm not affiliated in any way just a huge supporter.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#99

Post by blackflame7000 »

thatcat wrote: post #89
hmexx wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Views don't have to be binary like "it's a hoax" or "the end is near". In between those 2 you have stuff like: - World may be warming but I don't believe we should act yet - World may be warming but I don't believe the actions we are taking make a difference - World is warming but I don't believe we know whether the result will be necessary a "bad thing" - World is warming but I don't believe we know the main cause -…

Problem is while those reasons may help people sleep at night, none resemble a logical chain of reasoning. Seems more like a list justifications for apathy in spite of opposing evidence bc trying is politically untenable and denying science is easier.

Still though, in order to get people to willingly go along with restrictive environmental regulation you have to address those arguments. From a business owners perspective, the only thing they hear when discussing environmental regulation is increased production costs. You have to combat their skepticism with undeniable proof which I think has yet to be presented.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#100

Post by [deleted] »

grzm wrote: post #80
wyager wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every person who thinks global warming isn't real (for some reason), there's someone who thinks we're all going to get killed by a giant global warming-induced tsunami like in that awful movie. Climate change is controversial, because people are making many claims without sufficient evidence (e.g. completely trusting some set of our current predictive models) or using it as a justification for political ends (lik…

"people are making many claims without sufficient evidence (e.g. completely trusting some set of our current predictive models)" Do you believe climate change is a problem and should be addressed but see others making claims beyond what the evidence supports? Or do you think climate change isn't an issue? If the former, what in particular are you thinking of? If the latter, what would it take to convince you that it'…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN