Atvelonis's recent activity

  1. Comment on Oregon will allow students to take “mental health days” just as they would sick days, expanding the reasons for excused school absences to include mental or behavioral health in ~health

    Atvelonis Link
    The article brings up the flimsy opposition to the bill ("they'll just use it to cut"), and this quote from one of the students who introduced the legislation is an excellent counterpoint: This is...

    The article brings up the flimsy opposition to the bill ("they'll just use it to cut"), and this quote from one of the students who introduced the legislation is an excellent counterpoint:

    “Why should we encourage lying to our parents and teachers?” she said. “Being open to adults about our mental health promotes positive dialogue that could help kids get the help they need.”

    This is really important! So many people in this country delude themselves with the idea that mental health problems are things that can just be ignored. "What do you mean, 'I'm depressed'? Have you tried being a little happier?" The criticizing parents are correct to say that students could just pretend to be physically ill if they really need to stay home, but that only further encourages this cult of ignorance surrounding mental health. (If you can't see it, it must not be real!) With the advent of the internet I think there's been a certain amount more discussion about mental health entering the public consciousness, although we still have a long way to go. Hopefully other states will follow suit in this regard in the foreseeable future.

    5 votes
  2. Comment on What’s left of liberalism?: Why the left and right both seem to agree that liberalism has failed us. in ~misc

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    Thank you for the links! I'll have to read up on this more, evidently.

    Thank you for the links! I'll have to read up on this more, evidently.

    1 vote
  3. Comment on What’s left of liberalism?: Why the left and right both seem to agree that liberalism has failed us. in ~misc

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    That's true, and I agree that this sort of pessimism will probably encourage more proactive behavior by young people in the long term. However, I think that the smug "old, conservative people will...

    That's true, and I agree that this sort of pessimism will probably encourage more proactive behavior by young people in the long term. However, I think that the smug "old, conservative people will just die off if we give it time" sentiment is nevertheless staggeringly prevalent among Gen Z. The phrase "old, white men" is used in nearly every conversation about politics on a college campus, and not without reason, but what is missing from these discussion about the domineering class is that it is not a static entity.

    These old men were young once, and their children are going to inherit not only their raw wealth, but the socioeconomic perspective that comes alongside it. Simply observing that young people tend to be more liberal and older people tend to be more conservative is not enough; one must also recognize that the process of becoming older and more ingrained in the capitalist system naturally pushes people from the left to the center. And leftism, focused on a utopia that has never actually been achieved, is too academic to take precedent over the moderate's dream of an eternal status quo.

    5 votes
  4. Comment on What’s left of liberalism?: Why the left and right both seem to agree that liberalism has failed us. in ~misc

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    I think by "liberal-left alliance" he meant "everyone who isn't on the right." Not that a Marxist and a neoliberal necessarily agree on very much, but that they have a fundamental expectation that...

    I think by "liberal-left alliance" he meant "everyone who isn't on the right." Not that a Marxist and a neoliberal necessarily agree on very much, but that they have a fundamental expectation that they will be able to outlast the "conservative generations" as time continues, hence his elaboration upon the flares of the surprisingly high number of right-leaning members of Generation Z. This is bound tightly to the inclination of modern peoples to believe that things simply "get better" as time goes on, which is both unreasonable and simply false.

    It's true that demographic shifts in the United States have led, generally speaking, to a more left-leaning populace. More Americans are moving to diverse and densely-populated cities, hubs of anti-conservative sentiment, or at the very least areas in which it is significantly harder to remain completely encapsulated by long-held opinions. Cities, if nothing else, develop the way people perceive each other; more groups of people interacting with each other more often means fewer misunderstandings between them. Any significant movement to the left in America has been caused by this, which was itself caused by changing economic tides; there are simply more opportunities for success in cities.

    The problem here is that both leftists and neoliberals anticipate that this shift is going to continue indefinitely, by virtue of time being the independent variable, when in fact it is being slowed by the newfound ability of conservative groups to coordinate ideas more cohesively than they could in the past. Before the internet allowed the ideas of literally anyone on the planet to proliferate undeterred, the best way to provoke change was in a place with a lot of people. Cities, leaning to the left, are great for that. It would follow that as cities inevitably grow and rural areas inevitable decline, this lean to the left will become a leap.

    But this is not what is happening. Because a person in Manhattan can now just as easily read a tweet from rural Nebraska as they can Brooklyn, this passive political shift to the left is starting to actively be reversed. Neither leftists nor liberals, each convinced that anything other than the right will prevail in time, are doing much to counter the rise of conservatism online. This is the fundamental problem that everyone left of center is facing.

    10 votes
  5. Comment on Reddit's 'Manosphere' and the Challenge of Quantifying Hate in ~tech

    Atvelonis (edited ) Link
    I appreciate the general message that this is sending, but it doesn't mention any of the subreddits that exist to counter the misogynistic take that /r/TheRedPill and other such communities have...

    I appreciate the general message that this is sending, but it doesn't mention any of the subreddits that exist to counter the misogynistic take that /r/TheRedPill and other such communities have taken. My favorite one is /r/MensLib, which takes a far more nuanced and less circlejerk-y approach to any and all discussions of "men's issues" than /r/MensRights et al. From the sidebar:

    Welcome! /r/MensLib is a community to explore and address men's issues in a positive and solutions-focused way. Through discussing the male gender role, providing mutual support, raising awareness on men's issues, and promoting efforts that address them, we hope to create active progress on issues men face, and to build a healthier, kinder, and more inclusive masculinity. We recognize that men's issues often intersect with race, sexual orientation and identity, disability, socioeconomic status, and other axes of identity, and encourage open discussion of these considerations. We consider ourselves a pro-feminist community.

    Emphasis mine. This is a productive way to engage in discussion about these topics, yet it gets staggeringly little media attention, or even from Redditors themselves. Even many users on Reddit who do not actively participate in toxic subs still identify more strongly with the kneejerk reactions and paranoid rants about women that happen in redpilled communities than they do with the legitimate, level-headed, and thoughtful discourse that exists in bluepilled ones. Hence, /r/MensLib has 70,000 subscribers, and /r/MensRights has 225,000. The later is older, certainly, but the author of this article is still completely right to state that the tone of men's issues has shifted in the past few years, and not for the better. Redditors make it worse by turning a blind eye.

    17 votes
  6. Comment on The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia in ~tech

    Atvelonis (edited ) Link Parent
    I agree that they're certainly not insignificant per se—2% of administrative actions is a large absolute value—but because of how big Wikipedia is, I'm not convinced that any of these hits are big...

    I agree that they're certainly not insignificant per se—2% of administrative actions is a large absolute value—but because of how big Wikipedia is, I'm not convinced that any of these hits are big enough to be seriously concerned about in the long term.

    My comparatively tiny wiki took a major user rights hit a few years back (petty drama, mostly). From August 2014 to January 2015, we lost 12 administrators. Of those 12, only 5 were at all active, but after this mass exodus we had exactly 2 remaining administrators, 0 of whom were active in any meaningful capacity; that is effectively a 100% decrease in administrative actions (or, at best, 83%). And yet, by some miracle, the wiki stands today, and functions perfectly well! We're a bit short on the old guard, naturally, but enough institutional memory was preserved through other staff members and written documentation that the community was able to regroup and get back to work. Nowadays, I think we are actually one of the better-functioning wikis out there.

    These things do become exponentially harder to manage as the scale of the site increases, but I think that Wikipedia's remaining userbase is still more than equipped to handle this.

    2 votes
  7. Comment on The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia in ~tech

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    I personally think this is actually not as big a deal for Wikipedia as it is being made out to be by the media and themselves. While 21 resignations is not insubstantial, it is also important to...

    I personally think this is actually not as big a deal for Wikipedia as it is being made out to be by the media and themselves. While 21 resignations is not insubstantial, it is also important to note that Wikipedia still has 1132 users with the "administrator" right. Some of these users are more inactive than others, but admins are procedurally culled for inactivity, so most of these users are either somewhat or very active on the site.

    Wikipedia will be perfectly fine. Given the issue at hand here, the people leaving are very likely somewhat toxic themselves, or lack the proper judgment to hold a leadership role.

  8. Comment on The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia in ~tech

    Atvelonis (edited ) Link Parent
    I'm surprised I missed this thread. I've been editing a sizable wiki for just under five years now, and have been an administrator on it for four of those, bureaucrat for three. While my community...

    I'm surprised I missed this thread. I've been editing a sizable wiki for just under five years now, and have been an administrator on it for four of those, bureaucrat for three. While my community is generally much sweeter than Wikipedia's, being so much smaller, we have run into the "he's a good editor, so we'll give him another chance" issue on more than one occasion.

    At a certain point, a bureaucrat just has to put their foot down. You're completely right to say that toxic behavior drives away future editors; admins need to think about these things in terms of "net gain" and "net loss," not short-term benefit. It doesn't matter how prolific one single editor is; the site is made up of many, and if that one editor is discouraging a lot of people from editing, their net contribution is negative, regardless of how many beautiful pages they create.

    Most community leaders do not put much consideration into administrative theory, especially on wikis. This is a mistake. If you cannot recognize bad behavior, then you are part of the problem. The issue is not really structural insofar as the idea of centralizing power among specific people can and does work in other environments. At work, for example, your boss can fire you. Someone who is in the same position as you cannot do that. There's a certain capacity for misuse here, but in a well-managed company with thoughtful hiring strategies, a dictatorial boss is not an issue. The boss is instead a philosopher-king for his work, so to speak.

    Wikis are exactly the same; they just need to become more established, and go through a tougher selection process for staff. Currently, I believe that the process for user rights requests on Wikipedia is incredibly loose. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's "requests for adminship" page:

    There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense.

    The problem here is that the community doesn't actually do a very good job of vetting candidates in a public vote. They look at their contributions, see that they're good, and then glance at their talk page. If the aspiring sysop has not made any cartoonishly offensive remarks in the past few months, they give it the go-ahead. Some users ask probing questions during the application, but they are rarely hard to answer and most voters do not think about them for more than a minute. The only time that someone in the wider community opposes a request for adminship is when they have personally been affected by misbehavior, or it is incredibly obvious that a candidate is undeserving of the role they are applying for. What Wikipedia needs is a much more thorough staff selection process; it needs specific behavioral guidelines, probably a private interview with a panel of bureaucrats (I've held them on my wiki; they work wonders), and, importantly, an emphasis on kindness just as much as pragmatism. The expectation must be that they are pleasant.

    The idea of giving out "many small permissions" is interesting, and I know that at least one of our sister wikis is considering taking a baby step in that direction. However, there are some permissions that are simply not tenable in large groups; the most salient of these is user blocks. It's not really like a social shunning, where people simply refuse to engage with someone toxic. That already happens on wikis. Blocking is a step up from almost any other permission because it literally changes the makeup of the community; there's no way for a permission like this to exist in MediaWiki and work in a decentralized fashion. It would take a complete revamp of the system to work, and, if completely decentralized, would still be subject to mob mentality.

    3 votes
  9. Comment on Oregon governor sends police to find missing Republicans, bring them to Capitol in ~news

    Atvelonis Link
    This is nice and all, but someone who makes six figures is not going to care about such a small fine, especially if they're in hiding as a political stunt. I don't see why lawmakers are so...

    Senate Democrats also announced that missing GOP lawmakers would be fined $500 per day. The money will be deducted from their per diem and salary.

    This is nice and all, but someone who makes six figures is not going to care about such a small fine, especially if they're in hiding as a political stunt. I don't see why lawmakers are so hesitant to apply bigger fines to the uber-rich. It's the same for massive corporations: what's $1 million to a company that makes that much in an hour?

    7 votes
  10. Comment on Harvard rescinds admission to Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv over past comments in ~news

    Atvelonis (edited ) Link Parent
    Not that I disagree with you, but the way that the media picks up on incidents like this makes it seem like the use of racial slurs in American high schools is uncommon. This is absolutely untrue;...

    Not that I disagree with you, but the way that the media picks up on incidents like this makes it seem like the use of racial slurs in American high schools is uncommon. This is absolutely untrue; I made a comment on the topic here several months ago. In my anecdotal experience, students who throw around racial slurs pass off such language as "just a joke." They're considered weird by their classmates, but because these are the kids who have been acting annoying since kindergarten, many students simply accept that they're just goofing around.

    Those who are a little more keen will obviously disapprove of such language, and may comment on it in private, but it's pretty rare for them to actually call anyone out on it. There are social reasons for this: it doesn't matter how much moral high ground you have, in a closed social environment like a school, especially smaller ones, starting any kind of drama leads to an incredible amount of backlash, spite, and general discomfort. If you call out people for racism, you will get a reputation for being pushy or obnoxious, even if people agree with what you're saying.

    High schoolers aren't stupid. They understand that racial slurs are bad. They use them because they think they're funny. Their classmates see this, recognize that it's problematic, and continue to act as bystanders because the action of calling out someone for bad behavior, especially someone with a lot of friends, is an instant way to invite four years of nastiness upon yourself.

    6 votes
  11. Comment on Comment vote counts are now visible again in ~tildes.official

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    I also really liked not being able to see votes. Personally, I'd prefer if votes were hidden to everyone other than the creator by default for a certain period of time, perhaps a week, so that you...

    I also really liked not being able to see votes. Personally, I'd prefer if votes were hidden to everyone other than the creator by default for a certain period of time, perhaps a week, so that you could eventually receive feedback on your comments, but wouldn't have to deal with the social pressures associated with a popularity dynamic in internet comments while actively engaging with the community. I felt like my comments were less composed and more naturally spoken when I wasn't thinking about that.

    13 votes
  12. Comment on DOOM Eternal – Official E3 Story Trailer in ~games

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    Honestly, the story isn't the thing that compels me to play DOOM, it's the visceral action (the power behind the guns, the effects in combat, etc.) combined with the visual aesthetic and the...

    Honestly, the story isn't the thing that compels me to play DOOM, it's the visceral action (the power behind the guns, the effects in combat, etc.) combined with the visual aesthetic and the soundtrack that really make it stand apart. I would play DOOM even if it didn't have a narrative at all beyond killing demons. It's just fun.

    4 votes
  13. Comment on It is official, the smoking age will be 21 in Texas in ~news

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    You're right that smoking isn't great for brain development, but I don't think that's the full picture. In the case of alcohol, in my anecdotal experience, underage drinkers actually tend to be...

    You're right that smoking isn't great for brain development, but I don't think that's the full picture. In the case of alcohol, in my anecdotal experience, underage drinkers actually tend to be the most unhealthy about it. There's a certain risk factor or coolness associated with alcohol that appeals to teenagers, so going all-out and getting completely wasted is the best way to stick it to the man and have fun. However, I don't think this holds true once you reach the arbitrary age of 21 and alcohol becomes legally accessible. At that point, I think most people start to drink less because there's no element of illicit behavior anymore. It's just drinking.

    I will say that it's pretty insane how accepted straight-up alcoholism is on college campuses (for example) in this country, especially in fraternities and sports teams. Administrators will make an effort to cut down on underage drinking to avoid legal liability, but the students never care, and do it anyway. It doesn't help that they'll usually get in trouble for reporting a safety incident if there's any alcohol involved, despite what admin says.

    9 votes
  14. Comment on It is official, the smoking age will be 21 in Texas in ~news

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    The draft hasn't been called upon since Vietnam, but it would only be used again in a situation where there are literally not enough volunteers to be on the front lines. There are plenty of...

    The draft hasn't been called upon since Vietnam, but it would only be used again in a situation where there are literally not enough volunteers to be on the front lines. There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military, but the draft doesn't primarily exist to fill them.

    9 votes
  15. Comment on Stan Rogers & Ryan's Fancy - Barrett's Privateers in ~music

    Atvelonis Link
    There's a longer (and clearer) version of the song here. It's one of my favorite sea shanties, especially because of how well it fits with the genuine pieces from back in the day.

    There's a longer (and clearer) version of the song here. It's one of my favorite sea shanties, especially because of how well it fits with the genuine pieces from back in the day.

    2 votes
  16. Comment on Of Vices and Rears; or Why I've Stopped Reading Jane Austen in ~books

    Atvelonis (edited ) Link
    This is an interesting piece of analysis. I'm not a Jane Austen scholar, but I do have a few comments. Perhaps the reasoning behind the author's take is more evident with additional context, but I...

    This is an interesting piece of analysis. I'm not a Jane Austen scholar, but I do have a few comments.

    "Of various admirals, I could tell you a great deal; of them and their flags, and the gradation of their pay, and their bickerings and jealousies. But in general, I can assure you that they are all passed over, and all very ill used. Certainly, my home at my uncle’s brought me acquainted with a circle of admirals. Of Rears and Vices, I saw enough. Now, do not be suspecting me of a pun, I entreat."

    This is a clear reference to sodomy in the British navy, along with the equally clear suggestion that some of the admirals who frequented her uncle’s house are practitioners of a “vice” that constituted a capital offence at the time. [...]

    I love Jane Austen. Yet here she dismisses all that human suffering and need in a witticism that is intended to reveal the questionable moral judgment of Mary Crawford—not of the slave-owning Sir Thomas, and certainly not of the Royal Navy.

    Perhaps the reasoning behind the author's take is more evident with additional context, but I really didn't read it this way. The remark was snarky, sure, and subversive. I don't think it's intentionally dismissive of the suffering of homosexuals in Victorian England, and certainly not supportive of that. Going into detail about the horrors of the execution process in what was clearly only supposed to be a one-line comment by Mary would be a little hamfisted, no? Would that add to the joke at all?

    The author even says later on, "She is lifting the veil, just a little, on the social hypocrisy of the period. In this, and in her financial independence, she is a liberated woman." That's the purpose; it calls out hypocrisy, implying what it will. If you were to read this joke and realize how hypocritical the ruling class is being, then if anything it would suggest that the way they are treating gays without the power of an officership is unnecessary, even unjust.

    Perhaps this would have been clearer if Austen had included references to the cruelty endured by such groups at the time, which I think is the author of this article's real point, but is that reason enough to "stop reading Jane Austen"? No...? She's still providing a subversive commentary here. Criticism of the upper class is, I think, a common theme in her novels. This is just another part of that.

    In a similar way, the book affirms a passive and subservient role for women in a male-dominated moral order. I often think that the idealized world of Mansfield Park has much in common with the plantation society of Virginia: agrarian, aristocratic, rich, where white women enjoy a protected and privileged status and are expected to provide the kind of moral glue that justifies its institutions, including slavery.

    I probably shouldn't even be commenting here since I haven't read Mansfield Park, but I recently got around to Persuasion, and I felt that it was quite clear in its discontent with the traditional power structure in a marriage. I would expect that Austen is never really defending gender roles and the like here, more working in the confines of what was acceptable in Victorian times (tradition) in order to suggest social change. Is she going to state boldly that sodomy should be legalized, accompanied naturally by vivid descriptions of the practice from the courtroom? No, probably not, lest her book be banned or ignored. But she structures her criticism in such a way that the reader would be able to reach that conclusion on their own.

    Per "Persuasion: The ‘Unfeudal Tone of the Present Day'," by Claudia L. Johnson, the novel's apparent conservatism in this regard surely only went to facilitate its reception "during a time when all social criticism, particularly that which aimed at the institution of the family in general and the place of women in particular, came to be associated with the radical cause. [...] Austen defended and enlarged a progressive middle ground that had been eaten away by the polarizing polemics born of the 1790s." Revolutions were hot at the time, so openly subversive literature was very skeptically looked upon in England. This approach allowed for progressive ideas to continue to spread in some way, which is better than not spreading at all.

    But how “right” is Mr. Right? In Austen’s moral universe, we are invited to believe that Colonel Brandon, Darcy, Edmund, Mr. Knightly, and Captain Wentworth are as virtuous—that is, as virginal—as the women they marry.

    This was another comment that I was confused about. I can only speak to Persuasion, again, but in the context of that novel, the author's statement here is definitely not the full picture. Anne certainly fawns over Wentworth, but it's also made quite clear that he's not necessarily the forward-thinking man he's "supposed" to be, as a rising star in the Navy (i.e. new money, an affront to the Elliots' long-held perception of class). Johnson notes that Wentworth is "ideologically opposed to the way of life Sir Walter represents" but "his steadfastness to the point of inflexibility [about gender roles] actually aligns him with Sir Walter." But the thing here is that his hypocritical conservatism isn't defended in the novel, it's poked at. Anne comments on multiple occasions that Admiral and Lady Croft enjoy a wonderfully harmonious relationship, even traveling together on the Admiral's ship. At one point, Wentworth replies with, "I might not like them the better for that perhaps. Such a number of women and children have no right to be comfortable on board" (1.8). This comment is challenged, though, and Wentworth becomes flustered. The takeaway is that he's far from perfect.

    I know this is going to be taken as a very "centrist" perspective, but I don't have a problem with subversion in literature being subtler than I would actually like; it was the reality of the time. Austen could have been much more provocative, sure, and gone on about the suffering of gay men in Victorian prisons, but I don't think that not having done so is sufficient reason to just stop reading her work altogether. "This author doesn't represent literally every single belief I have, so I'm not going to read anything by them anymore." This mindset is incredibly common among left-leaning influencers, and I think it does a disservice to us all. Appreciate a work of literature for what it offers, especially in a historical context; nothing is ever going to be absolutely perfect to you or anyone else.

    3 votes
  17. Comment on Has anyone here considered the idea that it is immoral to procreate? in ~humanities

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    Right. My experience is anecdotal as well, and on a much smaller scale, but I spent my four years of high school becoming increasingly existentially anxious (depressed?) about my future—I had...

    Right. My experience is anecdotal as well, and on a much smaller scale, but I spent my four years of high school becoming increasingly existentially anxious (depressed?) about my future—I had friends and all, but I was definitely pretty unhappy. Fortune smiled on me as a senior, though, and my "resting happiness level" increased substantially once I got to college. It's not like there weren't bad days there either, but I was obviously in a much better place mentally. As far as I can tell, I've not drifted back to the place I started since.

    2 votes
  18. Comment on A Simple Way to Reduce Harassment in Online Discussion Groups in ~tech

    Atvelonis (edited ) Link Parent
    Those approaches aren't mutually exclusive, though. In fact, I would suggest that prominently displaying the rules goes hand-in-hand with being very tough about enforcing them. I agree with...

    Those approaches aren't mutually exclusive, though. In fact, I would suggest that prominently displaying the rules goes hand-in-hand with being very tough about enforcing them.

    I agree with @Cosmos that being a sticker about the rules inevitably causes a certain amount of backlash against the moderators on any forum. I've dealt with this quite a bit myself. But the moderators are the ones who hold the power; call me authoritarian, but on a website with consistent enough traffic (like Reddit, or in my case Wikia), it is literally impossible for users to have any long-term effect on the tone of the site if the moderators are more proactive about rule enforcement than users are about rule-breaking.

    Mods can ban people. Users can ban no one. Mods can delete posts and comments. Users cannot. Mods have all of the power and users have none of it, at least beyond sheer numbers, an advantage which can be offset by getting more mods and making use of automated moderation techniques. Accusations about arbitrary rule enforcement don't actually change traffic in a significant way; /r/politics (for example) is still an incredibly popular sub, despite constantly being accused of bias from various perspectives. Most people don't ever read these accusations, even if they make it to the press, or just don't care.

    People can whine all they like, but if the moderators want to enforce a specific point of view on a community (e.g. "no harassment"), they can definitely do it, and there's very little that can be done to stop them.

    3 votes
  19. Comment on The Remarkable Story of a Woman Who Preserved Over 30 Years of TV History in ~tv

    Atvelonis Link
    This is incredible. I'm fascinated by archival projects; the web in particular is something that's fairly easy to archive with the help of the Wayback Machine extension, which lets you archive any...

    This is incredible. I'm fascinated by archival projects; the web in particular is something that's fairly easy to archive with the help of the Wayback Machine extension, which lets you archive any page you're on, but broadcast television is a completely different beast, especially in Stokes' time.

    In 1975, Stokes got a Betamax magnetic videotape recorder and began recording bits of sitcoms, science documentaries, and political news coverage. From the outset of the Iran Hostage Crisis on November 4, 1979, “she hit record and she never stopped,” said her son Michael Metelits in Recorder: The Marion Stokes Project, a newly released documentary about his mother and the archival project that became her life’s work.

    The year 1980 brought the launch of CNN, and the 24-hour news cycle. Soon, three, four, five, and sometimes as many as eight tapes were spinning away at once in Stokes’s apartment, recording news broadcasts, commercials, and everything in between on multiple networks. While many people assumed that television networks held on to everything they aired, that wasn’t the case. Studios were constantly erasing and recycling broadcast tapes in order to save money and free up storage space.

    I think it's valuable to retain all of the television of past eras for posterity. It's the equivalent of the many millions of books and plays and poems that ancient artists have created that have since been lost to history. People have surely already made use of resources like the Internet Archive to research cultural phenomena from the 1980s and thereabouts; Stokes' contribution here is clearly massive.

    1 vote
  20. Comment on Wikipedia’s Refusal to Profile a Black Female Scientist Shows Its Diversity Problem in ~tech

    Atvelonis Link Parent
    It would count as a primary but non–self-published source if released by a third party. Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources, so long as editors are not analyzing or synthesizing any of...

    It would count as a primary but non–self-published source if released by a third party. Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources, so long as editors are not analyzing or synthesizing any of the material in that source, only reiterating it. Editors are cautious about using such sources, but they aren't overarchingly disallowed. Depending on the perceived reliability of the publisher, this source may be accepted by Wikipedia or ignored. This additional step does present a challenge as far as fighting the good fight is concerned, but it also makes it a little more difficult to insert potentially misleading information onto the site in general.

    2 votes