There are many examples of edit wars between people fighting political battles, but I don’t think your link is one of them. I think how he treated his dog was cruel and I believe how he responded by lying and gaslighting his audience was disgusting, but that doesn’t mean it belongs on Wikipedia. In your link I don’t see Hasan white knights protecting their master from bad publicity, I see Hasan haters trying to bludgeon the change into the article by ignoring any objection and just reverting edits. It was frustrating to read people bringing up the same Forbes article and not reading the reason why it wasn’t suitable. Again, I dislike Hasan in general and especially for this, but if this was so important then why hasn’t any major news outlet written about it? You may disagree about what does and doesn’t belong on Wikipedia, and I have my own objections, but I truly don’t believe the rules were designed by a left leaning cabal to make their favorite Twitch streamer avoid egg on their face.
I appreciate your reasoned comment and think that it's thoughtful, but I respectfully disagree with some of your claims.
> In your link I don’t see Hasan white knights protecting their master from bad publicity
Yes, because it's not overt. Nobody says that when they're doing it. What's happening is claiming that the story is not notable so it can be removed because it's bad publicity for him:
> This is a nothing story and not encyclopedic.
> it seems to be "drama" amongst the terminally online
Then it turns out that it's notable because some sources are reporting it, but the editors make every effort to discount all of those sources:
> The Australian is noted as a center-right newssheet. I think there has been no rfc on it, but it seems an opinionated source.
> WP:NEWSWEEK has been noted to have had some quality decline according to RSP.
> WP:DEXERTO states not to use it for BLP and that its very tabloidy.
> WP:DAILYDOT also states its highly biased and opinionated. It seems rather tabloidy as well.
> See WP:TIMESOFINDIA but its not reliable enough for this
...and this is used as a reason to not even put a single-paragraph summary at the end of his article, despite the fact that the event is extremely notable as part of his career, and is exactly the information that someone reading the Wikipedia page would want to know.
> I see Hasan haters trying to bludgeon the change into the article by ignoring any objection and just reverting edits.
Yes, I see some of those people too. But, in response, the editors are reverting the changes and locking out the topic. An impartial editor concerned about the truth and curating a useful encyclopedia would not do that - they'd create new changes to remove specifically only the offending unsourced material and rewrite sourced material to be neutral.
> if this was so important then why hasn’t any major news outlet written about it
Along with the other sources listed in the talk page that the editors did their best to discount, The Guardian wrote about it - that certainly counts as a "major news outlet".
Nobody wants a ton of drama on Wikipedia, but this clearly surpasses the threshold of "drama" given that (1) it's still being discussed months afterwards (2) it has transcended the cultural circles around Hasan (which is the main metric for "drama") and (3) it's received reporting from many news outlets, including large and reliable ones like The Guardian.
I want to make sure I understand -- In The Guardian article you linked, the author is making no claim about what happened to Kaya, he is only giving Hasan's statement about the incident. The claim presented in the article essentially boils down to: Kaya yelped while Hasan was reaching for something unrelated and that it's a "conspiracy theory" to think that Hasan uses a shock collar as he claims he doesn't. You're saying you're in favor of the Wikipedia article being updated to say this?
Not the person you're replying to, but I wonder what the true unemployment rate is when you exclude people who are doing gig work temporarily after they have been laid off from their career job.
>but I wonder what the true unemployment rate is when you exclude people who are doing gig work temporarily after they have been laid off from their career job.
That would presumably show up in personal/household income figures, but everything looks normal:
A New York lawyer used ChatGPT to write a filing with references to fake cases. After a human told him they were hallucinated, he asked ChatGPT if that was true (which said they were real cases). He then screenshotted that answer and submitted it to the judge with the explanation "ChatGPT ... assured the reliability of its content." https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/54/mata-v-avia... (pages 19, 41-43)
It’s less of a switch and more of an upgrade. The hub will continue to work with Zigbee devices, it just adds Matter support to those devices you already have.
Might be an upgrade if you're using devices through Ikea's hub, but if you've been buying Ikea's zigbee devices for use with some other zigbee network it's a bummer that you won't be able to get them anymore.
Even if you're all in Ikea's ecosystem it will still mean whatever new devices you add from now on are a separate mesh network and can't use the existing zigbee products as repeaters. If the next thing you want to add is at the far end of your house from the hub, it won't have reception there with Matter until you put other new devices in between.
I'm seeing a lot more of these phishing links relying on sites.google.com . Users are becoming trained to look at the domain, which appears correct to them. Is it a mistake of Google to continue to let people post user content on a subdomain of their main domain?
It’s interesting how these big tech companies are playing a role in all these scams. I do a fair amount of paid ads on Facebook, and I get probably about 20 phishing messages a day via Facebook channels; trying to get me to install fake Facebook ads management apps (iOS TestFlight), or leading me to Facebook.com urls that are phishing pages via facebooks custom page designer.
These messages come through Facebook, use facebooks own infrastructure to host their payloads, and use language which Facebook would know should only come from their own official channels. How is this not super easy for Facebook to block?? I can only explain it as sheer laziness/lack of care.
the phishers use any of the free file sharing sites. I've seen dropbox, sharefile , even docusign URLs used as well. i don't think you want users considering the domain as a sign of validity, only that odd domains are definitely a sign of invalidity.
As long as sites.google.com is not blocked by Chrome (which will never happen) or until Google stops making money on them (which won't happen either because spammers are paying for it), Google will continue to run the service.
The "free" hosts were already harbingers of the end times. Once, having a dedicated IP address per machine stopped being a requirement, the personal website that would be casually hosted whenever your PC is on was done.
> the personal website that would be casually hosted whenever your PC is on
I don't think that was ever really a thing. Which isn't to say that no one did it, but it was never a common practice. And free web site hosting came earlier than you're implying - sites like Tripod and Angelfire launched in the mid-1990s, at a time when most users were still on dialup.
Must be a regional thing, because where I live, mass internet adoption pretty much started in the 90s with the dedicated Ethernet connections. As such, every PC had its own IP address, it was a time before home routers. Later, the dreaded NAT was introduced, but the ISPs kept their "LAN" networks free. People hosted all sorts of things. It was a common practice for people to host an FTP server, a game server, an IRC and such on their home computers, and that "LAN" was not subject to the internet speed limit that was capped at around 600kb/s while the LAN would go as fast as the hardware allowed.
That sounds like a very specific setup like a university dorm or perhaps managed apartment complex. But I doubt that was the norm for home internet connectivity anywhere, ever.
reply