larger societal issues

OK - let's tackle them instead of dancing around them. The human race is collectively a bunch of selfish jerkwads who by and large conduct themselves deplorably. Many of them are overtly bad and steal, swear, commit violence, or any number of vile deeds. Others are jerks who lie, manipulate, abandon personal responsibility, and seek to undermine others for their own benefit. Still more are hypersensitive and hold grudges over petty things for years, gossip, or see personal affronts where none exist. Still others are poor saps who have had bad things happen to them and use it as an excuse to Be bad themselves. I could go on and on.

Since before human history, humans have been this way. Pretending that there is some sort of "solution" that will make the tendency of humans to be jackhats just go away is preposterously naive. The best you can do is try to MANAGE this tendency. Therefore the question becomes this... "What is the most statistically effective method that will reduce the human tendency to be a bunch of jerks?"

The answer is obvious - and probably antithetical to a lot of the people here in the Sift. But it is undeniable. MORALITY. Personal morality. And what is the best venue for acquiring a personal morality and philosophical ethic?

Church.

Yes. I said it. Everyone talks about wanting to 'make a better world by making better people', but there are only a few organizations that make that their sole objective. And yet these same organizations (that are the best hope we have for establishing a 'moral people') are routinely villified, attacked, denigrated, mocked, and regarded with disdain and hostility by the very people moaning that we need 'better people'.

I'm not saying churches/religions are perfect. People are still jerks, and will misappropriate ANY organization to justify their own jerkiness. Religions have suffered from that problem for a long time. It seems to me quite a baffling degree of blindness that we have people carping about the need for a "better world" and yet at the same time the same people attack, trash, and denigrate both the organizations and people that are specifically dedicated to that function.

I fully expect this opinion to be attacked in and of itself, ignoring the fact that I have freely admitted religion isn't perfect. I'm just saying that religion - Christianity most specifically - is entirely DESIGNED to instill in people the moral base some of you are pining for. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbor. Do good to them that despitefully use you. Honor father & mother. Do not steal, lie, or fool around - yadda yadda yadda. Should not this kind of sentiment be promoted, rather than attacked? Or - if not 'promoted' - shouldn't it at least be tolerated and respected rather than attacked?

Okay, finally off work, no drive-by comment this time.

I've been a member of a number of online communities over the years, of almost every stripe and size. Political, film, celebrity gossip, astronomy, feminism, books - you name it. Some I've enjoyed more than others, but this by far is my favorite. I've been active here longer than any other URL in the world, so I guess I've found my home. Even when I take vacations, I always come back. This place feels like an old pair of shoes - lived in, comfortable, and fits just right. But with no putrid stench.

I'm guessing it's the people who make me feel at home that matters more than anything else. There are so many funny people, intelligent people, creative people, and just plain interesting people that I could literally name scores and scores of members who have caught my attention and enriched my life, even in a small way. I was even tempted to name as many as I could, but I knew I'd inevitably forget some and I didn't want to do that, and I also didn't want to turn this into an Academy Award speech.

It would be so freaking cool if we could have like a class reunion with hundreds of members, old and new. Seriously. But I know that's seriously impossible. So I hope more long lost members show up today or tomorrow, just to say hi, if nothing else.

I mentioned in another thread that indeed there is nothing to prevent someone from creating a separate site or blog about VideoSift. However that doesn't mean we have to do it here. We don't have to be a part of that. And even if we did post Sift history and member bios in our Wiki, that still doesn't mean that someone else won't do it on blogspot, wordpress, typepad, or wherever.

The cat's always been out of the bag. Someone could have been posting Sift history and member info elsewhere a long time ago. There's also nothing stopping someone from creating another video voting site. We can't control that either. But at least we can control what we do here, and I don't think we need to kick the hornet's nest in our own backyard.

Posting history and biographies here will not prevent it from happening somewhere else. Let's just not do it here in the first place. >> ^ctrlaltbleach:


On a side note even if you try and ban this now the cats out of the bag whats to stop said malicious offender of writing a web documentation somewhere where the sift cannot control? People are curious by nature and destructive by nature while I may have good intentions another member may just love mischief and mayhem none of us really have the power to stop gossip here on the internets or in our real lives.

Kind of a conflicting concept for myself. Not that I think anyone would want to write anything at all about me because I have never really been involved in any particular scandal on the site, but I would be very irritated if articles were written about members that involved personal information. Such as locations, real world names, and facebook profiles etcetera. That kind of information should be left up to the member itself. Although I feel anything that is already documented on the site is up for grabs because all it takes is a little detective work to find out who someone was or what a member did not to mention if you ask people they usually give the answer.

On a side note even if you try and ban this now the cats out of the bag whats to stop said malicious offender of writing a web documentation somewhere where the sift cannot control? People are curious by nature and destructive by nature while I may have good intentions another member may just love mischief and mayhem none of us really have the power to stop gossip here on the internets or in our real lives.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I still don't see any value in having user pages on our wiki in the first place, even if user pages can be edited solely by the user. Members can post as much or as little as they want on their profile page. To have a separate entry on the wiki is useless duplication, IMHO.
As far as topic pages about users, you may believe that only 10-15 members warrant them, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for a lot more than that to show up. If Wikipedia includes shit like an entry about a song that hit #39 on the Billboard adult contemporary chart in 1974, then a wiki page here about a bronze star member who wrote two funny comments will show up sooner or later. Then the wiki becomes a massive repository for trivia and gossip. And maybe that's what some members want, but not me.

I agree that user pages on the wiki are (mostly) redundant. If it's some very simple config setting that won't disrupt any other function on the wiki, sure, turn off user pages. But if it's not, I don't see how it's worth Lucky's time and energy just to make things tidy, especially when there are so many other things to fix and improve.

I just don't believe that there is going to be some rash of topic pages about users suddenly springing up. Who's going to waste their time writing them? And what other pages are going to link to them if they're not particularly relevant? Even then, it can be policed just as wikipedia does - if the community doesn't think a particular page has relevance, then take it down. If a page is getting vandalized, block the vandals.

Trying to come up with a priori rules about editing the wiki that are essentially unenforceable seems like a waste of time. Why aren't the community guidelines that apply at VideoSift good enough for the wiki as well? Read the quote at the top of this Wikipedia adminstrator's page, and consider that in the context of VideoSift's wiki. The VideoSift wiki is never going to be a heavy traffic site, and does not need the kind of editing rules for pages about people that Wikipedia does.

I still don't see any value in having user pages on our wiki in the first place, even if user pages can be edited solely by the user. Members can post as much or as little as they want on their profile page. To have a separate entry on the wiki is useless duplication, IMHO.

As far as topic pages about users, you may believe that only 10-15 members warrant them, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for a lot more than that to show up. If Wikipedia includes shit like an entry about a song that hit #39 on the Billboard adult contemporary chart in 1974, then a wiki page here about a bronze star member who wrote two funny comments will show up sooner or later. Then the wiki becomes a massive repository for trivia and gossip. And maybe that's what some members want, but not me. >> ^jonny:

Editing user pages should probably be restricted to the user in question. But just so every one is clear on this, there is a difference between a user page (http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:jonny), and a page about a user (http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/jonny). The former is very much like a personal profile page here, complete with it it's own Talk page (wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User_talk:jonny) where others can leave messages. The latter is a topic page about a particular user written by the community at large.
I understand the concerns about topic pages on users, but I honestly think it's a very small issue. There are probably no more than 10-15 people in the history of VideoSift that have ever been prominent enough to warrant such a page. Of those, I can think of only one or two that might be bound for an edit war.
Just like VideoSift itself, the entire content of the wiki will be community driven, and one butt hurt user can use that freedom to personally attack others. The answer isn't to restrict editing freedom for the sake of rare cases, but to treat the rase cases as they arise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy), just as they are on VideoSift itself. Concerns about hurtful content on Wiki.videosift.com being more "permanent" are misguided. It's not like the wiki is going to draw large amounts of traffic.

My guesses for the other answers are:
* recipes
* information/news/gossip
* viral videos
* hot potatoes

I have noticed an uptick in headlines that report news that isn't news -- the word "might" shows up alot.

Increase in blah blah "might" follow from blah blah.

Drives me crazy. Report the fricking NEWS, not gossip!

>> ^sanderbos:

Since I don't read as many gossip columns as you apparently do I don't really know what you're going on about. I was referring to the actual reaction of Tim Allen during the actual ceremony :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ozHrZRySw#t=0m50s

<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> spoco2 said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="/avatars/s/spoco2-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">NO ONE was really offended (except perhaps scientologists, they suck at taking jokes), everyone took them as they were intended, in good humour.
So f ck off with all the 'x was insulted', 'y was offended'. It's all bullshit.
</div></div></div>

Which was actually an act... geeze people, these are awards for ACTORS they can sometimes pretend you know.

Since I don't read as many gossip columns as you apparently do I don't really know what you're going on about. I was referring to the *actual reaction* of Tim Allen during the *actual ceremony*:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ozHrZRySw#t=0m50s

>> ^spoco2:


NO ONE was really offended (except perhaps scientologists, they suck at taking jokes), everyone took them as they were intended, in good humour.
So f ck off with all the 'x was insulted', 'y was offended'. It's all bullshit.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tmz, celebrity, news, gossip, terrible, sickening' to 'tmz, celebrity, news, gossip, terrible, sickening, cracked' - edited by bamdrew

i'm glad so many people care about this, i've read the telegraaf piece it was total crap, but i don't consider it to be a quality paper so i'm not surprised (it has a lot of showbizz gossip, and news with the sensationalist titels and all, and has a rightwing bias).

also, i'm glad twitter did the right thing and informed him, i'm not so sure every webservice would do the same.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7805943-golden-voice-ted-williams-blocked-from-boarding-plane-to-new-york-to-see-92-year-old-mother

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/01/ted-williams-reunited-mother-golden-voice-julia-williams.html

Hey there ~ yeah, I'm just now back on VS to see this...took me long enough!
I gotta say...the two of you are so fun to be around and such good sports amoungst drunken 20-somethings.
We had a rambunctious house full and still managed to steal a few moments to talk. As for the gossip... I basically shamelessly recounted goings-on I see on "facebook"
Fully intending to discuss awe-inspiring spiritual/philosophical topics, cryonics, and the state of society's evolution with the relatively recent advent of tightly-knit online communities ~ we ended up trying to hear eachother over enthusiastic drunken exclamations and fireworks. We also got a game of "Apples To Apples" in there somewhere. Overall a fun time, and Don & I thank and appreciate your adventurous, warm spirits for the lovely company!

Silver city's lookin' awfully fun.
Now please entertain me with your gossip knowledge.