×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jimmy Wales To Become UK Government Adviser

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the revision-wars-coming-to-a-government-near-you dept.

Government 95

judgecorp writes "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is to become a U.K. government adviser on open government. The unpaid post, announced at SXSW, will see him contributing ideas on issues including the single government portal open.gov.uk, among other things. Wales has been an outspoken critic of some government intiatives in the U.S., including the SOPA act on copyright — whose British counterpart, the DEA, is already law."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

95 comments

first douchebag (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335551)

oh, sorry, Jimbo beat me to it.

Fucking wow. (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335559)

Seriously.

This is about the most sensible government related news (especially from teh UK) I've heard in about a decade.

Some people may or may nhot have objections to Mr Wales personal politics and drives (I can't think of any right now, myself). Some people object to anything. But having a guy with a deep dedication to freedom of information in a place where he can at least get a point of view across to government, even if it's then ignored, is a huge step forwards.

Re:Fucking wow. (5, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335733)

even if it's then ignored, is a huge step forwards.

That depends on the purpose of putting him into that role. If the purpose is to get input from someone who is actually trying to make things better, then it is a good thing. If the purpose is merely to appease the masses by putting in someone and then not listening to a thing they say - just to have the appearance of trying to make things better, then it is worse than not putting him into that role at all.

Sorry for the half empty tone here, it's been a frustrating day for me.

It's a trap. (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336039)

The true reason is, so that they can put him behind bars for protesting
against content tyranny with the SOPA blackout.

Re:It's a trap. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336171)

The true reason is, so that they can put him behind bars for protesting against content tyranny with the SOPA blackout.

You're wrong. Your ideas are those of a jackass. And you're a fuck-hole.

Re:Fucking wow. (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336137)

It's true, but even in glass-half-empty world, the politician has realised that it's a concern and a symbolic gesture must be made, which is progress in my book!

Re:Fucking wow. (2)

SlashV (1069110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336765)

The government may have listened to the Godfather.. Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.

Re:Fucking wow. (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336937)

If the purpose is merely to appease the masses...

It's an appointment that only a minority will take notice of let alone approve of; so I don't think it can be considered as pointlessly populist.

Having said that, the current government does seem to concentrate on appeasing a minority to the exclusion of all else. A different minority though.

Re:Fucking wow. (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339515)

They did the same thing in America with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They created it, they appointed Elizabeth Warren (a longtime supporter of consumer protections and more regulation), and then made her completely ineffective at getting anything actually done.

Re:Fucking wow. (0)

Exclamation mark! (1961328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335763)

Exactly as you said "even if it's then ignored". Having an adviser is one thing. Listening to the advice is another. I'm afraid most governments heed their mothers advice to clean their ears.

Re:Fucking wow. (3, Interesting)

l-ascorbic (200822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337353)

The UK govt has been surprisingly good about listening to advice from tech advisors. open.gov.uk itself is the result of advice from some guy called Tim Berners-Lee. The new gov.uk [www.gov.uk] site is also a great sign of the government finally starting to get it.

Please Read (5, Funny)

GonzoPhysicist (1231558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335781)

How could they ignore him, just think of all the personal appeals he'll be making.

And if they do... (2)

jopsen (885607) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336977)

And if they do ignore him, at least he'll have a position he can leave in protest :)
Though, I do see any reason why they would ignore him?

Re:Fucking wow. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335943)

even if it's then ignored, is a huge step forwards

I totally agree. We should send letters of thanks to the UK government .. might I suggest:

"Dear PM,

We, the peoples of teh internets, would like to offer our thx for your efforts to allow Jimmy Wales (our spiritual leader) to not be heard.

We're not at all naive, and understand that this is a mere token jesture to placate the non blue-bloods, but nonetheless feel that this is a great step forward.

Sincerely"

How's that?

Re:Fucking wow. (3, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336009)

What's he going to do, shout down some good idea from someone just because they haven't posted enough and aren't well known? Following rules are more important to Wikipedia than actually getting the facts in. Actually, I guess that makes wikipedia and normal governments pretty similar...

Re:Fucking wow. (3, Insightful)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336145)

This is about the most sensible government related news I've heard in about a decade

This is so true. While I doubt about it, that would be even greater if it could have a bit of influence over the other European countries. E.g. France, a country that currently takes the exact opposite direction.

Karma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336283)

But having a guy with a deep dedication to freedom of information in a place where he can at least get a point of view across to government, even if it's then ignored, is a huge step forwards.

Personally, I'm expecting his position to be deleted for lack of notability in the future.

Re:Fucking wow. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336289)

Some people may or may nhot have objections to Mr Wales personal politics and drives (I can't think of any right now, myself).

He's a follower of Ayn Rand. Seriously. Not that that should stop him advising on open government, assuming that he knows anything about the subject which he may do.

Re:Fucking wow. (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336325)

Hmm, that is a cause for concern, but yopu're right, if he's only advising on-topic then all is well.

TBH the UK could do with an infusion of smal-government ideology. But only a small one. Never should go full-rand...

Re:Fucking wow. (1)

Lunar_Lamp (976812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336471)

While the words have changed somewhat over the past few years, one of David Cameron's (current UK Prime minister) key stances in his early opposition was "small government". It still seems that he thinks this way, but has represented his thoughts on the matter ("big society"), and being in a coalition government obviously means his party does not have carte blanch to do as they wish there.

Re:Fucking wow. (3, Insightful)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336321)

Humm, best thing since Gordon Brown's cabinet of "all the talents" maybe. That had plenty of notable advisers.

Also remember most of the House of Lords is made of people like Jimbo (not personality but success).

Re:Fucking wow. (3, Interesting)

lxs (131946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337099)

Remember the fate of David Nutt [wikipedia.org]? Goverment advisors are not supposed to actually give advice of have an opinion of their own.

Re:Fucking wow. (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339115)

I wish some TV broadcaster would re-commission 'Yes Minister' or 'Yes Prime Minister'.

Re:Fucking wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39340319)

There is no need. The original series said it all. Look at the repeats still just as relevant (an funny)

Re:Fucking wow. (1)

KevReedUK (1066760) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345899)

I, too, would like to see this re-commissioned and brought up-to-date. Unfortunately, though, I don't see it happening in the remotely foreseeable future.

In the meantime though, just re-watch the same old episodes when they are re-run. Was doing this a little over a month ago and my step-daughter (late teens and relatively switched on) walked in, caught a couple of minutes and then stormed off to watch TV in her room saying that she'd rather watch some "next top model" crap that the current affairs program I was watching.

The filming of it may appear a bit on the dated side, but the content could just as easily be a fly-on-the-wall documentary in any modern-day UK government department if the policy results we end up seeing over here are anything to go by!

Re:Fucking wow. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336489)

Too bad the politicians are not the ones in unfunded positions given the total lack of value they add to society. Oh right! The politicians *cough cough* had to *cough cough* give up *cough cough* lucrative careers in the private sector to fulfill their civic duty to get elected to government. Each politician should receive one dollar per year for serving and based on their performance when the retire can receive a maximum of one thousand dollars or each year in office. Plus two free round-trips home each year by bus or train.

Re:Fucking wow. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336493)

Seriously.

This is about the most sensible government related news (especially from teh UK) I've heard in about a decade.

That would require the appointment to be more than just spin and there to be some chance of them listening to what he says even if it is not what they want to do anyway

Re:Fucking wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336781)

Citation Needed.....Oh, wait..

Re:Fucking wow. (2)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339165)

Well there is a sort of irony about the fact that a man who has turned what was supposed to be an open organization into a gigantic nest of nepotism, cronyism, corruption and abuse of power in charge of an "open government" initiative.

Whatever you might think about Wikipedia, and it has a lot of positive attributes, its governance sucks. The place is in a lot of ways more corrupt and has a greater lack of transparency than the government he's now advising.

Re:Fucking wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39340365)

This is about the most sensible government related news (especially from teh UK) I've heard in about a decade.

Really. I bet you need to learn more about him. He's been accused of both incompetent and fraudulent accounting practices, extremely overstating their need for financing (which purchasing place), and not spending money where its provides the biggest bang in return. Oh wait, what am I saying, he sounds like the perfect candidate to become involved in politics.

Sorry, but Mr. Wales is about as douche baggy as they get.

The DEA is not SOPA (4, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335625)

Not only is the DEA not SOPA, it was also pushed through under very dubious circumstances right before the last election (most MPs didn't even vote on it, never mind discuss it properly) and is subject to ongoing legal challenges on several counts.

It's a silly bit of law, made on a technicality, but let's not get hysterical.

Re:The DEA is not SOPA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335993)

http://www.2lapparel.com/
Not long ago I have become a large fan of Ricky Gunn and his "Guide to create. " In their show he listed 10 essential items for each woman's wardrobe. I've been able to consider his ideas associated with Silhouette, Fit and Percentage and apply these phones men's fashion. Subsequent is, in my estimation, most essential products (no specific order) which to build any kind of men's wardrobe having a reason or two why.

By 'Lord' Mandleson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336455)

Who was only made a Lord by Gordon Brown, who in turn wasn't elected as Prime Minister, he sort of whined his way into the job and was kicked out at the next election.

Mandleson's first name is 'Twice Disgraced', or at least that's what I think it is from the way he's always referred to in headlines like 'Twice Disgraced Mandleson is under suspicion of...'

Re:By 'Lord' Mandleson (2)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336853)

Except Prime Minister has never been an elected position.

From Wikipedia:

British Prime Ministers have never been elected directly by the public. They have all become Prime Minister indirectly because firstly, they were members of either the Commons or Lords; secondly, they were the leader of a great political party; and, thirdly, they either inherited a majority in the Commons, or won more seats than the opposition in a general election.

Re:By 'Lord' Mandleson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39337021)

*sigh* Technically, yes, but when there is a general election, it is known that the leader of the winning party will become prime minister. People vote for the party they wish to be in power, and a major part of each party's campaign revolves around the leader who will become prime minister if the party wins a majority. Ergo people do effectively vote for a prime minister.

Except in cases like Brown's, when the incumbent decides to hang up his towel and his deputy becomes prime minister. Then we say he is an unelected prime minister, because the people voted for the other guy (even though, yes, technically they only voted for the other guy's party). This is what parent is referring to.

Thanks for the Wikipedia quote though. The British often need outsiders to explain how their political system works on paper, lest we ignore that and just talk about how it works in practice.

Re:By 'Lord' Mandleson (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337443)

*sigh* Technically, yes, but when there is a general election, it is known that the leader of the winning party will become prime minister. People vote for the party they wish to be in power, and a major part of each party's campaign revolves around the leader who will become prime minister if the party wins a majority. Ergo people do effectively vote for a prime minister.

Except in cases like Brown's, when the incumbent decides to hang up his towel and his deputy becomes prime minister. Then we say he is an unelected prime minister, because the people voted for the other guy (even though, yes, technically they only voted for the other guy's party). This is what parent is referring to.

Thanks for the Wikipedia quote though. The British often need outsiders to explain how their political system works on paper, lest we ignore that and just talk about how it works in practice.

Blair made it quite clear he wasn't going to serve the full 05-10 term. It was also clear that Brown would be next in line. People did vote in Brown in 2005, certainly more the american public voted for in LBJ in 1963, or even more Gerald Ford in 1973.

In 1990 it was a bit of a shock that Major took the reigns, although he still had been voted in by his constituency. There's more of an argument he was "unelected", however as he then won in 1992, I suppose you might say he's more "legitimate".

Re:By 'Lord' Mandleson (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342235)

Blair made it quite clear he wasn't going to serve the full 05-10 term.

No, he didn't. In fact, he explicitly and very publicly said exactly the opposite, in direct response to popular concerns about voting for the Labour Party at the general election and winding up with Gordon Brown as PM. Try googling "Tony Blair full third term", and get back to us after you've finished reading a version of the quote covered by basically every major media outlet in the UK.

Re:By 'Lord' Mandleson (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339105)

The British often need outsiders to explain how their political system works on paper, ...

Don't feel bad. [wikipedia.org] You're not as different as you think.

Re:The DEA is not SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336729)

It was voted on by a lot of MPs, but only maybe 20 turned up for the debate. Everyone else followed the whip.

Re:The DEA is not SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39337207)

Yeah, at least the UK saw some debate. In Ireland government ministers prefer not to trouble its citizens or their elected representatives with such things, as ably demonstrated by Sean Sherlock's pushing through the Irish SOPA, with no formal debate and in the face of pretty substantial protests.

Re:The DEA is not SOPA (1)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337235)

(most MPs didn't even vote on it, never mind discuss it properly) ....

what I observed was a near empty room, someone suggesting voting, then suddenly a room full of MPs from all sides all doing as their whips had told them too. It looked like a *lot* of MPs voted to me

Re:The DEA is not SOPA (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342497)

That's pretty close to what happened, except that it only appeared to be the Labour MPs who were whipped enough to turn up en masse, and even then quite a few rebelled. The Tories mostly kept awfully quiet, despite earlier seeming like they supported the legislation, and the few who did turn up came down marginally against the bill overall. The Lib Dems who did vote were voting against. In any case, fewer than half of our then-MPs voted, which for a bill this controversial is appallingly low.

Faggot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335631)

Is he going to work for the Minister of Freetarded Faggotry? This freetard can burn in hell.

He's going to give them the puppydog eyes too. (1, Funny)

Pezbian (1641885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335783)

Seeing his mug on Wikipedia's "beggin strips" made me cringe.

The cute college girl with the labret piercing, on the other hand...

Re:He's going to give them the puppydog eyes too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336873)

cute college girl with the labret piercing

That. Girl. All of my love.
I read Wikipedia articles for entirely no reason just in hopes of seeing my love.
Oh how I miss her. Come back to me darling, we have things to learn, worlds to conque...visit.

Silencing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335821)

Does this mean that Jimmy Wales/Wikipedia can no longer comment (negatively) about the DEA (Digital Economy Act)? That would be a stunt; get him appointed on another noble cause (open government) but muzzle him on unrelated government issues...

What I'm not looking forward to (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335823)

Invade Pakistan - a personal appeal from Jimmy Wales.

Re:What I'm not looking forward to (-1, Troll)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336269)

Has he removed that explicit Wikipedia shock page that thousands of unsuspecting girls open daily? You know what page I mean. Wait a moment, have to check it out.... oh! sweet jesus.. Is that Jimmy's own? Why such a resistance to remove it? It's still hanging there [wikipedia.org]. Could we use some drawing or something more sensitive? Jimbo?

Re:What I'm not looking forward to (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39343621)

Why would an "unsuspecting girl" open a Wikipedia article titled "Human penis"? More importantly, if they do, why shouldn't they expect to see the subject of the article?

Re:What I'm not looking forward to (1)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39347393)

The explicit content is the problem, there should be a pic, scheme or a decent drawing not some exhibitionist's snaps of his own wang.

Re:What I'm not looking forward to (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39347605)

Wikipedia is perfectly predictable in that regard - if you go to an article, you can expect the subject of the article to be pictured in the top right corner of the page. A well-made photo of the real thing is the best illustration you can get, so what's wrong with that? And if you don't want to see something "icky", just don't go to the corresponding article.

I won't support Jimmy Wales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39337417)

His Wikipedia page on Barack Obama will not allow criticism or negative comments on Obama, while his page on Bush 43 will. Not particularly "open", but politicized. I don't trust Jimmy Wales any further than I can throw him. Good concept, but the wrong person.

Good luck with that (1, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335849)

The guy who brought edit wars, [citation needed], and ceaseless begging to the great hordes of the Internet is going to be a consultant to the UK gubmint? Despite doing it pro bono, he's overpaid.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335927)

I am going to revert that comment, it's unsourced!

Re:Good luck with that (2)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336335)

Go back to Wikipedia, copy your post there and link the source back to your original slashdot posting.

Best way to win edit wars too.

WALES (0)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39335893)

He should have become advisor to the government of WALES

Re:WALES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39335921)

Good idea. I suggest you fly over on a plane designed with Jimmy Buffett as an advisor, and tell them.

Re:WALES (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337439)

He just did.

Re:WALES (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340149)

IIRC, the governance of Wales is now separate from that of England, unlike what it was until fairly recently.

Re:WALES (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340303)

Yes and no. Wales now has a separate government from England - the Welsh Assembly - but they still both come under the heading of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Re:WALES (1)

KevReedUK (1066760) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346361)

Yes, but at the same time a resounding no.

The UK parliament in Westminster has legislative powers over the whole of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales).

Scotland has it's own, elected parliament, with quite wide ranging authority to set policies that apply only to Scotland. Scotland, however, still remains part of the UK and subject to the UK parliament (much to the dismay of their First Minister, if the press is to be believed).

Northern Ireland has it's own, elected parliament, similar to that of Scotland, but with somewhat less autonomy.

Wales has it's own, elected, Assembly (why they chose not to use the word parliament, I'm not too clear on). Much like the parliaments in Scotland and Northern Ireland, it has had powers devolved to it, although IIRC not as many.

England doesn't have it's own devolved legislature, although as the lions share of the MPs who sit at Westminster come from England, it has often been argued that the UK parliament's decision-making is heavily slanted in favour of England making the need for such to be somewhat of an irrelevance.

So in a way, yes it is fair to say that governance of Wales is separate, in as much as they have the ability to set their own policy in some areas. That being said, because they remain bound by decisions of the UK parliament in Westminster (along with England, Scotland and Northern Ireland), it is also fair to say that they are not separately governed.

It is also fair to say that the majority of those living in (certainly my locality in) Wales have no concrete concept of where the line is drawn between what powers the Welsh Assembly has vs. what powers remain exclusive to Westminster. Obviously, foreign and military policy remains with Westminster, but other areas seem to be a little more grey.

Support him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336015)

If the purpose is merely to appease the masses by putting in someone and then not listening to a thing they say - just to have the appearance of trying to make things better, then it is worse than not putting him into that role at all. For more details:- http://canadajobsnew.com/

I feel bad for the Brits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336077)

His smug face is going to be plastered all over the place in an attempt to mooch more cash for the queen.

well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336113)

Hmm...could be a good thing though

Oh the irony. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336117)

A man in charge of a site that polices additions to its content and will not allow certain ideas to be posted or themes to be followed, is going to advise the UK Government on openness.

Coming soon - Bill Gates to advise on Open Source.

Re:Oh the irony. (4, Insightful)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336603)

Rule of law is whst makes freedom possible. What you appear to be describing is an online version of that Randian dream, Somalia. Try building an online encyclopedia of this scale, without having rules and measures to deal with the guys who will devote alarming amounts of time to replacing all nouns with "shitcock".

Theres no irony (1)

voss (52565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337433)

Freedom of speech includes the right of editoral control to decide both what and what not to publish.

Re:Oh the irony. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39346705)

Shitcock of shitcock is whst makes shitcock possible. What shitcock appear to be describing is a shitcock shitcock of that Shitcock shitcock, Shitcock. Try building a shitcock shitcock of this scale, without having shitcocks and shitcocks to deal with the shitcocks who will devote alarming amounts of shitcock to replacing all shitcocks with "shitcock".

Heathenii (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336123)

His site has a paranoid psychotic definition of the ancient Norwegian heathen religion. Despite complaints, this hate assault persists.

Re:Heathenii (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336567)

Oh, really? What exactly are you referring to?

Re:Heathenii (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337095)

Type "Heathen" into the search, you get some sort of nasty foreign gibberish. They need to check some other ones two, try the British "Wicca", you get something nasty and foreign too. I think they should be jailed for trying it on with two very proud religious traditions ...

Re:Heathenii (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337349)

Nasty and foreign? So you can't point to something specific that is incorrect, while confirming you have issues. Well played.

Re:Heathenii (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339973)

Type "Heathen" into the search, you get some sort of nasty foreign gibberish. They need to check some other ones two, try the British "Wicca", you get something nasty and foreign too. I think they should be jailed for trying it on with two very proud religious traditions ...

I don't speak Norwegian, so can't comment on that one, but the UK "wicca" entry looks all right to me. It appears to be a sober description of wicca as a belief system, something that is actually quite hard to do without laughing.

Re:Heathenii (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39342033)

Then you don't know what it is either, so you and your pals make one up. What if they had a similar section called "Jews"?

wales advising england (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336583)

hmm good one

No, don't go... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39338711)

It's a trap!

Unpaid position but... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339507)

he has to sign an NDA??? and as such remove anything from wikipedia that contridicts that NDA?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...