How Wikipedia's sloppy facts obscured reality in Apple vs. Samsung trial

1356789

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 170
    zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

     

    Seems obvious to me. People who can't afford an Apple product hate the company because they can't afford it. 


     

    This kind of dumbassery (your comment) is the reason some people hate Apple. 

  • Reply 42 of 170
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    Apple ][ is that you?

    <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

     

    So right.

  • Reply 43 of 170
    zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member

    Forget it, I got it the wrong way around.

  • Reply 44 of 170
    darklitedarklite Posts: 229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chabig View Post

     

    I just tried to edit that page. Samsung reverted it within two minutes.


     

    The section in question:

    Quote:

     One 2005 design patent "at the heart of the dispute is Design Patent 504,889",[49] which consists of a one-sentence claim about the ornamental design of an electronic device, accompanied by nine figures depicting a thin rectangular cuboid with rounded corners.[50] A U.S. jury trial was scheduled for July 30, 2012[2] and calendared by the court through September 7, 2012. 


    It's got nothing to do with Samsung. You deleted that section twice without any explanation (understandably reverted), and then deleted it saying "the deleted text implied that the legal case was about rectangles with rounded corners. In reality, the case was about direct and willful copying of multiple design elements". However, the statement about the details of the 2005 design patent is correct, and I think that it's arguably fair to describe it (with a source) as being 'at the heart of the dispute' given that it was the most hotly disputed part - there was a great deal of controversy and debate over this one patent. That said, you could argue over whether it was truly 'at the heart of the dispute' - and the place to do that is the talk page.

     

    You were also deleting the sentence about when the trial was - presumably this was by mistake, but it's also another reason your edits were reverted.

     

    edit: A user called Fishbert has suggested on the talk page that a better approach would be to call for a RFC or a dispute resolution as a solution, rather than edit-warring like this (which won't get anywhere productive). That might be worth following up if people are serious about getting it changed.

  • Reply 45 of 170
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    maestro64 wrote: »
    My Kids school will not allow them to use wikipedia since it lack any facts and two the kid when they find out what others in their classes are researching would go on to wikipedia and edit the information to include random stupid things which most kids would just copy and use in class.

    That is factually untrue. It arguably contains more factual data than any single source in the world, which includes the world's largest and most diverse physical libraries since there is scientific data to back up the "half-life of knowledge" theory which could obsolete a great deal of their printed non-fiction.

    That is not to say that Wikipedia doesn't also contain a great deal of speculative, incorrect, and even outright falsified data, but the same could be said for even the best printed Encyclopedia. Even if we assume a much lower ratio of occurrence no source is perfect; and an old, printed encyclopedia has the aforementioned consideration of the "half-life of knowledge" which doesn't afflict Wikipedia to the same degree.

    You'll notice on most (if not all) comprehensive Wikipedia pages there is considerable sourcing and long discussion pages as to what gets added and why. I feel that Wikipedia is an invaluable tool and an excellent source for helping a child learn to think critically. In the past decade, Idoubt there has been scarcely a day that has gone by that I haven't used Wikipedia in some fashion, even if just a jumping off point to another site.

  • Reply 46 of 170
    dabedabe Posts: 99member
    cnocbui wrote: »
    You have to wonder why didn't DED just correct these erring articles if it is so important.

    Rubbish. This observation makes absolutely no sense when you consider that the article is part of a series in which the Wikipedia discussion is only one component. Are you suggesting that DED should make it his business to publish the entire series on Wikipedia somehow?
  • Reply 47 of 170

    My ultimate dream is for DED to write an exposé on his own articles and how they obscure reality.  I am concerned, though, that such an article may cause a feedback loop that brings down the internet...

  • Reply 48 of 170
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post



    You have to wonder why didn't DED just correct these erring articles if it is so important.



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

     

    Yeah I know.  The time spent creating this article could have been spent correcting the Wikipedia page, assuming it's of any importance at all.




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

     



    You honestly think shaming them is going to work?




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

     

    DED seemingly..




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    Funny indeed, but did little to sway the case.

     

    And not a single word of condemnation from you guys against the company/individuals modifying Wikipedia to mislead others, a perversion of one of the very principles that made the internet so great: the open, accurate, sharing of information.

     

    It says a lot about your characters.

  • Reply 49 of 170
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    gtr wrote: »
    And not a single word of condemnation from you guys against the company/individuals modifying Wikipedia to mislead others, a perversion of one of the very principles that made the internet so great: the open, accurate, sharing of information.

    It says a lot about your characters.

    400
  • Reply 50 of 170
    blitz1blitz1 Posts: 413member
    At least, here, no-one is biased!
  • Reply 51 of 170
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Delete
  • Reply 52 of 170
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.&action=history

     

    A user with ip 76.4.247.152 edited the article several times.  They are deleted by user Ging287 who claims he/she is " Hello. I am a casual user and minor contributor to Wikipedia. I mostly try to find typos and unsourced claims and fix/remove them."  Wikipedia does allow you to trace facts.  The ability to trace is very important in this internet age.

  • Reply 53 of 170
    atlappleatlapple Posts: 496member

    Sloppy facts about a subject that 99% of the population has no interest in understanding and could care less. When is Apple not at war with someone? No one is paying attention. Customers at Best Buy were purchasing  a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and thought they were buying an iPad. Yep the world has their finger on the pulse of this trial. 

  • Reply 54 of 170
    Dan_DilgerDan_Dilger Posts: 1,583member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

     

    My ultimate dream is for DED to write an exposé on his own articles and how they obscure reality.  I am concerned, though, that such an article may cause a feedback loop that brings down the internet...


     

    Can you outline a few DED "reality obscuring" problems? There are literally hundreds of DED articles up on a wide range of subjects, so it should be easy for you to find and describe lots of serious problems if DED can outline half a dozen major problems in a single Wikipedia article. Or are you simply creating a false equivalency and not backing up your accusations with any facts in a lazy effort to discredit actual journalism?

     

    That’s not something to be proud of. 

  • Reply 55 of 170
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Apple ][ is that you?

    LOL, that was my reaction too.
  • Reply 56 of 170
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    blitz1 wrote: »
    At least, here, no-one is biased!

    You got that damn straight!
  • Reply 57 of 170
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.&action=history

     

    A user with ip 76.4.247.152 edited the article several times.  They are deleted by user Ging287 who claims he/she is " Hello. I am a casual user and minor contributor to Wikipedia. I mostly try to find typos and unsourced claims and fix/remove them."  Wikipedia does allow you to trace facts.  The ability to trace is very important in this internet age.


    That went really well didn't it? The IP in question originates from Las Vegas, NV.

     

    Looks like DED's article inspired a few people to vandalize the page and insert their own biased remarks. At this point it appears that cooler heads, with actual Wikipedia trusted user status need to edit the page and include references and make notes regarding the reason the edits were necessary. Going in there with just an IP address sans user name and writing "Samsung go suck a duck" is of course going to be reverted. What did you expect?

  • Reply 58 of 170
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

     

     

    Can you outline a few DED "reality obscuring" problems? There are literally hundreds of DED articles up on a wide range of subjects, so it should be easy for you to find and describe lots of serious problems if DED can outline half a dozen major problems in a single Wikipedia article. Or are you simply creating a false equivalency and not backing up your accusations with any facts in a lazy effort to discredit actual journalism?

     

    That’s not something to be proud of. 


     

    Seriously though. you don't need to defend him, he can defend himself.

  • Reply 59 of 170
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

     

     

    Seriously though. you don't need to defend him, he can defend himself.


     

    He is defending himself.

  • Reply 60 of 170
    thttht Posts: 4,498member
    You want to know another good one?

    Try to find an original PDF user manual for the Neonode n1m (the phone Apple haters claim is prior art for slide to unlock). They have all been removed, even from Neonodes own support site. The ones you can still find are "edited" versions. What's been edited? The phrasing about unlocking your phone now says "Slide to Unlock". The original said something like "swipe right to accept".

    Wow. Getting info on the N1m was quite hard to find info on in the first place.

    I wonder if Myriam Joire's demo is still on YouTube? [edit: still there on youtube]
Sign In or Register to comment.