http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm
We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like argument for us to get the prize money to me.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm
We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like argument for us to get the prize money to me.
The Internet is definitely worthy of the prize as a whole but I'm not following the logic that for-profit websites are more deserving. Google, for example, is a major force for peace. In fact it is the biggest popularizer of Wikimedia content.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm
We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like argument for us to get the prize money to me.
The Internet is definitely worthy of the prize as a whole but I'm not following the logic that for-profit websites are more deserving. Google, for example, is a major force for peace. In fact it is the biggest popularizer of Wikimedia content.
Oops, I meant not-for-profit -sorry.
On 10 March 2010 23:40, Brian J Mingus Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like argument for us to get the prize money to me.
The Internet is definitely worthy of the prize as a whole but I'm not following the logic that for-profit websites are more deserving. Google, for example, is a major force for peace. In fact it is the biggest popularizer of Wikimedia content.
Vint Cerf is alive and well and working at Google ;-)
- d.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:40, Brian J Mingus Brian.Mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm
We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like argument for us to get the prize money to me.
The Internet is definitely worthy of the prize as a whole but I'm not following the logic that for-profit websites are more deserving. Google, for example, is a major force for peace. In fact it is the biggest popularizer of Wikimedia content.
Yes, but Google doesn't really need the prize money.
Although giving it all to Wikimedia is probably not quite right either.
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:40, Brian J Mingus Brian.Mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like argument for us to get the prize money to me.
The Internet is definitely worthy of the prize as a whole but I'm not following the logic that for-profit websites are more deserving. Google, for example, is a major force for peace. In fact it is the biggest popularizer of Wikimedia content.
Yes, but Google doesn't really need the prize money.
Although giving it all to Wikimedia is probably not quite right either
Need has never been a factor in awarding these prizes. They are often made many years after the person's work is done; the need was probably greatest when they were doing their research.
Ec
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:40, Brian J Mingus Brian.Mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm
We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like argument for us to get the prize money to me.
The Internet is definitely worthy of the prize as a whole but I'm not following the logic that for-profit websites are more deserving. Google, for example, is a major force for peace. In fact it is the biggest popularizer of Wikimedia content.
Yes, but Google doesn't really need the prize money.
Although giving it all to Wikimedia is probably not quite right either.
Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
on 3/11/10 12:10 PM, Tim Starling at tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
"Bizarre"? See beyond the visible, Tim.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
"Bizarre"? See beyond the visible, Tim.
I'll try not to bait a further continuation. I'll just say that I've now read the Wikipedia article [[2009 Nobel Peace Prize]] and a linked reference, and I'm satisfied that my view is sufficiently well-informed and that I'm in good company.
-- Tim Starling
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:40, Brian J Mingus <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm
We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like argument for us to get the prize money to me.
The Internet is definitely worthy of the prize as a whole but I'm not following the logic that for-profit websites are more deserving. Google, for example, is a major force for peace. In fact it is the biggest
popularizer
of Wikimedia content.
Yes, but Google doesn't really need the prize money.
Although giving it all to Wikimedia is probably not quite right either.
Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable international relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as POTUS, etc... Given that we must put men and women in harms way and we must drop bombs it makes sense to do so in the most responsible way possible. These unmanned bombers are a step in the right direction. Similarly for anti-missile lasers. Supposing a hostile nation lobs an ICBM in our direction if we are capable of zapping it out of the sky then we can avoid war entirely. It means that we will not have to retaliate with a counter-ICBM. How is that not for peace? How can you disparage these technologies with tongue in cheek? A world without them would be utopia for sure. We do not live in utopia.
Speaking as someone who has been funded by DARPA (I am now funded by [[IARPA]]) and whose research cannot be used for war I can say that not everything they do deserves to be described with insidious undertones. Much of what DARPA invests in has no practical application within any reasonable time frame. Furthermore I would note that the D is for Defense, and Defense does not just mean developing new weapons. More and more defense for us means stopping a threat in its early development so that nobody gets hurt.
Lastly I will note two reasons that the Internet should have been nominated (not that it will necessarily win - it is against > 200 other nominees!)
- Free access to the sum of all human knowledge for those who have it. That's 25% of the world and a recent survey showed that > 80% believe that everyone deserves access to the Internet as a fundamental right, including > 70% of those who aren't even connected yet. - Secondly, the Internet for Peace Manifesto ( http://www.internetforpeace.org/uploads/manifesto/manifesto_english.zip):
We have finally realized that the Internet is much more than a network of
computers. It is an endless web of people.
Men and women from every corner of the globe are connecting to one another thanks to the biggest social interface ever known to humanity.
Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society. And this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through communication.
Because democracy has always flourished where there is openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and conflict.
That's why the Internet is a tool for peace.
That's why anyone who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence.
And that's why the next Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net. A Nobel for each and every once of us.
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable international relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as POTUS, etc...
Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money, even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion here. Thank you.
--Michael Snow
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable
international
relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as POTUS, etc...
Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money, even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion here. Thank you.
--Michael Snow
Yes, hardly anything is relevant for discussion on this list anymore. It happens either on internal WMF mailing lists or IRL.
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable
international
relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as POTUS, etc...
Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money, even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion here. Thank you.
--Michael Snow
Yes, hardly anything is relevant for discussion on this list anymore. It happens either on internal WMF mailing lists or IRL.
It's not that those discussions wouldn't be relevant to have on this list, and periodically people try and encourage others to move them to a more public setting. It's that when this list continues to show a tendency for conversation to degenerate, as it just did, then it's quite hard to persuade people that they should want to have their discussions here.
--Michael Snow
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <
tstarling@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace
given
our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet
a
reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable
international
relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected
as
POTUS, etc...
Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money, even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion here. Thank you.
--Michael Snow
Yes, hardly anything is relevant for discussion on this list anymore. It happens either on internal WMF mailing lists or IRL.
It's not that those discussions wouldn't be relevant to have on this list, and periodically people try and encourage others to move them to a more public setting. It's that when this list continues to show a tendency for conversation to degenerate, as it just did, then it's quite hard to persuade people that they should want to have their discussions here.
--Michael Snow
You believe that my reply to Tim is degenerate? That is offensive.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling <
tstarling@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an
even
more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace
given
our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not
yet a
reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable
international
relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected
as
POTUS, etc...
Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money, even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion here. Thank you.
--Michael Snow
Yes, hardly anything is relevant for discussion on this list anymore. It happens either on internal WMF mailing lists or IRL.
It's not that those discussions wouldn't be relevant to have on this list, and periodically people try and encourage others to move them to a more public setting. It's that when this list continues to show a tendency for conversation to degenerate, as it just did, then it's quite hard to persuade people that they should want to have their discussions here.
--Michael Snow
You believe that my reply to Tim is degenerate? That is offensive.
I've decided that this list is no longer useful so I have decided to unsubscribe. It's been fun. Cheers.
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money, even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion here. Thank you.
--Michael Snow
Yes, hardly anything is relevant for discussion on this list anymore. It happens either on internal WMF mailing lists or IRL.
It's not that those discussions wouldn't be relevant to have on this list, and periodically people try and encourage others to move them to a more public setting. It's that when this list continues to show a tendency for conversation to degenerate, as it just did, then it's quite hard to persuade people that they should want to have their discussions here.
--Michael Snow
You believe that my reply to Tim is degenerate? That is offensive.
Don't imagine for yourself things that I didn't say, and try to not take it so personally. We mostly need to improve our discussion overall, not remove an individual posting or poster. That's what I mean by degenerating. As I indicated earlier, in this case the seeds were sown in the choice of the subject to begin with. I happened to reply to your message because it was the most recent when I wrote. It could just as easily have been Marc's or Tim's.
--Michael Snow
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
It's not that those discussions wouldn't be relevant to have on this list, and periodically people try and encourage others to move them to a more public setting. It's that when this list continues to show a tendency for conversation to degenerate, as it just did, then it's quite hard to persuade people that they should want to have their discussions here.
You believe that my reply to Tim is degenerate? That is offensive.
There's a big difference between "degenerate" as a verb, and the same word as an adjective. The adjective is full of additional connotations.
Past practice has shown that that the most effective way to keep a thread alive is to try to get it stopped.
Ec
Brian J Mingus wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers.
Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even more bizarre choice than last year.
-- Tim Starling
I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable international relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as POTUS, etc...
on 3/11/10 1:03 PM, Michael Snow at wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money, even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion here. Thank you.
--Michael Snow
"Sidetracked" from what? And, how does this discussion interfere with your work, or your day, Michael?
MR
Michael Snow wrote:
Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money, even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion here. Thank you.
A mailing list is only as good as its moderators. It's no secret that this list has become completely worthless in the last few years due to neglect.
I agree that getting into a pissing match over the Nobel Peace Prize isn't on topic, but as others have noted, it's not as though it's getting in the way of useful discussion.
MZMcBride
If the Internet wins, shouldn't they give the prize to the inventor of the Internet?
Is Al Gore even allowed to win twice?
On Mar 10, 2010 6:32 PM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm
We're the biggest non-profit website in the world. That sounds like argument for us to get the prize money to me.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org