MiB in gparted?

[Dave Woyciesjes]

Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
>> Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> 
>>> B) Wikipedia has been found to be largely on par with several of the big 
>>> boys in "reputation" in terms of average errors while providing far more 
>>> topics of reference
>> 	Not as far as I've seen. From what I've read, it's not as reliable.
> 
> You could google for the controversial article published by Nature 
> regarding a study of Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica, circa 2006. 
> It caused quite a stir from both sides, and Wikipedia even instituted 
> more safeguards afterwards, but I think the initial results are worth 
> your interest if you wish to pursue the topic.

	Thank you, I shall dig it up when I get the chance. For those who are 
curious:
Nature's article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Britannica's Response:
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

And Wikipedia articles on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_succeeding

>>> And as to the poster not having a definitive source, please don't bitch 
>>> about XYZ without offering an alternative. Otherwise it's more pointless 
>>> than bringing a wikipedia debate to an Ubuntu tech forum. If something 
>>> in the Wiki is wrong, people can feel free to correct it and find 
>>> references to refute what's stated.
>> 	I never bitched about not having a definitive source. I merely stated 
>> my opinion that wikipedia is not always as trustworthy as their 
>> followers make it out to be.
>> 	Do make note that I said "my opinion" in the above paragraph.
> 
> Saying it's not as trustworthy is something, opinion or not, that 
> deserves to be substantiated. You can't just dismiss it from potentially 
> stirring up ire by disclaiming it as an opinion any more than you can 
> say "That guy's a jerk! :-)" and claim you didn't mean anything by it 
> because of a smiley.

	I knew there would be folks who disagree. That's normal. I figured 
people here would see it as my two cents; and OT; and dismiss it as 
such. Asking too much I guess. Considering the way the "su/sudo" 
discussions go here, I should've known better, I guess.

> In dealing in an industry where we routinely have academics swinging on 
> both sides of the issue (you can't use Wikipedia for research because 
> it's inaccurate! Anyone can do anything!...well, did you alter it?...no? 
> Then what's preventing you from spoofing authoritative sources to pass 
> as original works or falsifying information??) this isn't something that 
> just passes as a brain hiccup. It can influence people's reputations and 
> hard work. So maybe it's not an issue for you any more than you shed a 
> tear for hitting a squirrel on your way to work, but it's not 
> necessarily an insignificant issue for others.

	Honestly, not being sarcastic or snide; I'm not getting the relevance 
of this paragraph.

>> 	Yes, complaining about something without suggesting an option is 
>> stupid. Same as bringing an OT debate here. Which isn't what I did.
>> 	Please re-read my third message on this topic, dated 2/9/2009 15:54PM 
>> (EST) where I did recognize that wikipedia is OT here; I stated that I 
>> was putting in my _opinion_; and apologized for the 'rant' of sorts.
> 
> I apologize if you believe that my statements were entirely targeting 
> you, in reality only a portion was. I was ranting as well about, as I 
> stated, people bringing up inaccuracy of Wikipedia with little or no 
> substantive proof of it; I have people making rules and rejecting it as 
> a research source when in fact they've not had any proof that it is more 
> or less informative than any other source. They simply assume.

	Okay, understood. There was a previous post that did poke at me 
directly, and I forgot to take a breath after dealing with that one.

> And unless I'm mistaken, you brought the rant up in the first place, 
> bringing the topic here. If you define bringing the OT debate by the 
> initial statements of the topic, I think you did bring it here; if you 
> define it as the first person to "take the bait", then I did.

	Good point.

>> 	I would've let it go (this thread), but when someone inserts meaning 
>> into my message that wasn't there; or attacks me in anyway, I will 
>> defend myself.
> 
> I'll assume you're referring to the post immediately following yours? I 
> don't think I sent that...I don't recall inserting words into your 
> statements, although there are implications to what you sent initially 
> that can be reasonably inferred.

	Yeah, the one before yours. As noted above, I usually take a pause 
after I issue rebuttals.

>> 	If you're in anyway confused about my message, please ask politely, 
>> like an adult; and I will do my best to explain and reply in kind. Let's 
>> just keep this civil, shall we?
> 
> I was ranting on the topic and only portions actually were directed at 
> your posting, as I explained above. The ambiguousness of the references 
> were my fault, unless you're taking issue with those portions that 
> directly referenced you.
> 
> *shrug* as far as I'm concerned I've said my piece. Or is that peace? 
> Anything more will risk incurring the wrath of the listmoms. If you want 
> to discuss it then feel free to email me...otherwise I hold no ill will 
> towards you, and hope you feel likewise.
> 

	Agreed. We've said our "peice" to each other, and here we say "peace". 
Yep, if anyone wants to continue this, off-list it goes...

-- 
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/

"From there to here,
 From here to there,
Funny things
are everywhere."
--- Dr. Seuss