| - | Netscape advertised that "the web is for everyone" and stated one of its goals as to "level the playing field" among operating systems by providing a consistent web browsing experience across them. The Netscape web browser interface was identical on any computer. Netscape later experimented with prototypes of a web-based system which would enable users to access and edit their files anywhere across a network, no matter what computer or operating system they happened to be using. This did not escape the attention of [[Microsoft]], which viewed the [[commodification]] of operating systems as a direct threat to its bottom line. It is alleged that several Microsoft executives visited the Netscape campus in June 1995 to propose dividing the market (although Microsoft denies this as it would have breached anti-trust laws), which would have allowed Microsoft to produce web browser software for [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] while leaving all other operating systems to Netscape.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10-20-98/news/news14.html| title=Government alleges illegal campaign by [[Microsoft]]|accessdate=2006-07-14}}</ref> Netscape refused the proposition. | + | Netscape advertised that "the web is for everyone" and stated one of its goals as to "level the playing field" among operating systems by providing a consistent web browsing experience across them. The Netscape web browser interface was identical on any computer. Netscape later experimented with prototypes of a web-based system which would enable users to access and edit their files anywhere across a network, no matter what computer or operating system they happened to be using. This did not escape the attention of [[Microsoft]], which viewed the [[commodification]] of operating systems as a a small town girl, living in a crazy world, she took a midnight train, going anywhere! direct threat to its bottom line. It is alleged that several Microsoft executives visited the Netscape campus in June 1995 to propose dividing the market (although Microsoft denies this as it would have breached anti-trust laws), which would have allowed Microsoft to produce web browser software for [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] while leaving all other operating systems to Netscape.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10-20-98/news/news14.html| title=Government alleges illegal campaign by [[Microsoft]]|accessdate=2006-07-14}}</ref> Netscape refused the proposition. |
Journey improves everything.
But only after approximately three shots' equivalent of alcohol.
If you're not already 2 shots in, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia anyway.
Are there not a lot of these bits of vandalism? I'm a little surprised this one lasted a whole five hours - but it's hardly the end of the world.
From my studies, about 5% of all Wikipedia edits are reverts. This then implies that about 5% of edits are being reverted, leading to ~10% of edits being vandalism. (The limitations of this assumption are in the paper: I don't catch non-immediate reverts [underestimate]; revert wars shouldn't imply extra reverted revisions [overestimate].)
Short version: yes.
Bleurgh, me proofread good. I clearly mean that the other 5% are the vandalism, and the 10% is the proportion of effort wasted on vandalising/unvandalising Wikipedia.
I think you're underestimating the propensity for wikipedos to wankily revert one another's substantiative edits.
Those would be the "revert wars".
ALERT, THERE IS A FACTUAL INACCURACY ON WIKIPEDIA.
It's lonely world, not a crazy world.
Oh snap, they can't even get their vandalism right.
Funny. It took even longer to get the bit about the Swiss diet reverted :)
It's always fun to browse the entry for "flyover state" and see which state has been nominated this week in the "see also" section.