WikiPedia

Someone recently reminded me of something I already knew, which is that WikiPedia is a collaborative Open Source Project for information. I wish to be the first to say that I was skeptical about them from the beginning. Wikipedia is the first place I go for facts because of one principle. They do have people who volunteer information but all of the information is reviewed both by the site administrators and the authors. One can be a WikiPedia Author just for signing up, but their Terms of Service are really strict and if you are caught providing false information or opinions that are nonresearchable, they will remove your content and send you an email explaining why they deleted your content and gently reminding you if you do this a few times instead of this once, they are ready to revoke your authority to be an author with no way to sign in. I watch when a NEWS story comes on the regular news and can pretty much figure after all the editing is over, which it really never is, that they have more of an accurate story than most mainstream media. But usually within two days to a week they have an article that can be relied on and if anyone thinks it is incorrect, erroneous, or slighted they can vote to have it removed.

There whole list of what WikiPedia is and is not is here:
Wikipedia policy
Global principles
What Wikipedia is not
Ignore all rules
Content standards
Neutral point of view
Verifiability
No original research
Contents [hide]
1 Style and format
1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
2 Content
2.1 Wikipedia is not a dictionary
2.2 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
2.3 Wikipedia is not a soapbox
2.4 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
2.5 Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site
2.6 Wikipedia is not a directory
2.7 Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
2.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
2.9 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
2.10 Wikipedia is not censored
3 Community
3.1 Wikipedia is not a democracy
3.2 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
3.3 Wikipedia is not a battleground
3.4 Wikipedia is not an anarchy
3.5 Wikipedia is not your web host
4 And finally...
5 When you wonder what to do
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Similar official policies on sister projects

Biographies of living persons
Naming conventions
Working with others
Civility
No personal attacks
Harassment
No legal threats
Consensus
Dispute resolution
More
List of policies
List of guidelines
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.

I love Streaming Video

I watch a lot of streaming video on Hulu and the other video websites. It is easier than TV since I can stop it and come back at any time. Good selection of movies out there and a lot of TV shows that I wouldn't have had a chance to see at all if it weren't for this new feature.
Here is an example of one of my favorites, from the series Royal Pains:

Being Allergic To Stupid

I think if you are one of those people who grew up questioning everything you were told that didn't make sense, then, you are what I recently heard David Letterman call "thoughtful". When I can't imagine something being considered correct and someone tells me, "Well, that's just how it is", I feel even more indignant. It is like they farted and then said, "Well, I think maybe it is the air quality in the room which can be adjusted through filtration if you ...", and I want to say, "Asshole, go in the bathroom to shit your pants, I don't want to be involved, thanks." Why is it that some people somehow think their presence or opinion is always necessary if it isn't something that should be shared with everyone else. There are radio talk show hosts that make a living out of being the farter in the room and some idiot out there makes it possible by supporting their position. Today I heard one that inspired me to say something. I was looking at Google on the competition for the young people from grades K-3rd, on up to 12th grade. One of the drawings, of course from someone with a Mexican last name is about street art. That is what he called it was Public Art. It is also called grafiti. It is vandalism and is not considered an art form. I hope some of the local artists in his neighborhood grace his family's home with some public art and maybe all over their car, as well. Then, perhaps his parents will teach him the difference between art and vandalism as his parents are having the local artists in the area arrested for defacing HIS family's property.
I know that some people have given the grafiti artists a couple of areas in town to do with as they wish and I can tell you one of the places in California where you can see the best "public art" is the prisons there. Some of the local artists in the prison who are the kind of people who started that kind of art are living there and the prison authorities and the California Department of Corrections, being the most progressive in the country, let some of them have a couple of walls facing the athletic field to display their talents. Might mean something, huh? Ya' think?