281–290 of 427 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it doesn’t relate to success of a company. I am wondering what you mean by "success" of a company here? Is that purely financial success? Or rate of growth or something like that?
Financial success or rate of growth
But they are not the only things that define the success of a person, or a company. WOuld you agree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that PR companies can push out whatever they want, where as an ordinary individual with personal knowledge of a topic, can't. It means many Wiki articles on person or companies, are often glorified advertisements, rather than encyclopedic entries.
A blog post can be sufficient reference. The point is that Wikipedia isn't original research. You updating the page on the basis of personal knowledge isn't the way it is supposed to work.
Was reverted as that was not reference to some book or sciene article.
Never contributed after that. May be one or 2 graph theory improvements.
Wiki denies realitity.
And for math i use only 10% of my math requests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either the CEO sees what’s going on and is fine with it mean it is their vision, they are putting their feet up and don’t care, or they are not fine with it and have no control over the company. Seems bad any way you look at it.
> they are not fine with it and have no control over the company something something "all unhappy families are unhappy in their own way" In some places, the "vision" is sufficiently vague that all sorts of dumb decisions can be justified by it. Or the CEO is so stupid that he only listens to his direct reports, who all tell him everything is under control. And when they tell him not to "micromanage" he listens and ba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it is really hard if you work for a company and you need some amends on Wikipedia. Imagine your quite large company has a small guitar shop on the other side of the globe that has the same name. You just want a disambiguation so nobody thinks your company is this little guitar shop. You can't just edit it yourself, you need to find a Wikipedia expert and bribe them to somehow help with your plight. It is eas…
Just a few links to companies that advertise to clean up your company profile on Wikipedia. https://www.wikiexpertsinc.com/get-free-wikipedia-consultanc... https://www.legalmorning.com/cleaning-up-a-company-wikipedia...
When I visit Quora, mainly through it being a result for something I've searched for on Google, I can never quite understand what's the question, the answer, and what's an answer to something completely different. So I've never felt compelled to stay or join myself. Also, for a while I just hit a login wall, which of course makes you not click a link there the next time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Richard is most concerned about injustices toward people that take away their freedoms. I am most concerned about the security of people and how software makes them insecure in order to profit from, or abuse them. These are proximate but different. It is a bit worrying that both freedom and security are thought 'fanatical' by some.
> It is a bit worrying that both freedom and security are thought 'fanatical' by some. Because those are your grandpa's and your dad's causes, respectively. The operative word for this generation is "consent." Manipulate someone into giving Consent and you can do whatever the hell you want to them. They asked for and agreed to the abuse! It all starts with clicking "I accept." My skin crawls anytime I see someone bri…
But hey, this thing about "consent". Jolly interesting. Because not a single person I've met born after 2000 really has the capacity
I do not mean that in a disparaging way, but I do mean it in a serious legal sense. I don't think that in the 21st century the vast majority of adults have the capacity to consent to digital contracts. It started with EULAs, and has since plunged the entire legal profession into degeneracy. It's total failure to protect the lives of common people from technology predators is shameful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no experience running a site centered on user generated content, but it seems to me that the biggest problem/threat to any of them is the people who start showing up once it gains traction and becomes more popular. Early users are a different band of the population, on every successful platform from StackOverflow to Uber they create a particular culture which is impossible to maintain as the general public arr…
In what way were early users of Uber different from the current users? Are you saying the drivers used to be better?