• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Noulakaz

Noulakaz

The blog of Avinash, Christina, Anya and Kyan Meetoo.

  • Home
  • About
  • People
    • Christina & Avinash Meetoo
    • Avinash Meetoo
    • Christina Meetoo
    • Anya Meetoo
    • Kyan Meetoo
  • General
    • News
    • Mauritius
    • Politics
    • Education
    • Business
    • Travel
  • Computing
    • Apple
    • Linux
    • LUGM
    • Programming
    • Web
    • Technology
    • Knowledge Seven
  • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Movies
    • Photography
    • Sports

Expensive is not necessarily good

24 December 2008 By Avinash Meetoo 27 Comments

Social Networks

The other day while having dinner at a friend’s place, we had an interesting conversation about one of the core values of Web 2.0 i.e. harnessing collective intelligence. One friend argued that websites like Wikipedia and Amazon were so full of vandals (defacing pages on Wikipedia and writing bogus reviews on Amazon for example) that we should never use them to learn / decide what to buy…

Interestingly, my other friends said that they were not too sure about Amazon being unreliable (maybe because they had no choice than believing that the comments on Amazon were sincerely written as their entire buying strategy was based on that being true…) but, surely, he was right about Wikipedia which couldn’t possibly be authoritative.

 

I was the only one saying that Wikipedia is good enough. In fact, it’s more than good enough in the sense that if one feels a specific page is not good enough he can make it become good enough by editing it. Of course, there are vandals on Wikipedia but the website features an excellent version tracking system and, more important, more honest people than vandals.

In fact, I immediately realised that some people had a bad perception of Wikipedia because, brace yourself, it is free. Yep. Same as open source software. For some bizarre reason, some of us believe that something which is free is obligatorily not good. And, of course, what is expensive is obligatorily good.

And this is a very bad thing. Because it’s false. Remember this when doing your Christmas shopping.

Merry Christmas to you!

Filed Under: Mauritius, News, Technology, Web

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. vicks says

    24 December 2008 at 19:23

    hmm can we reference Wikipedia in our project? is it a reliable source of information to quote in our reports?

  2. Yashvin says

    24 December 2008 at 19:43

    I like wikipedia :)

  3. Emmerdeur says

    25 December 2008 at 00:38

    that’s so true..
    in fact with some friends i was talking about the power behind using Joomla! and all I got was negative feedback..and yeh because it is open source!!
    btw, anybody knows how to build our own template and use it with Joomla!…
    that would be highly appreciated if somebody could help!..

  4. avinash says

    25 December 2008 at 07:21

    In our era of software-generated research paper being accepted at an IEEE conference, I would say that Wikipedia is very respectable and accurate. So I can’t see why someone cannot quote part of it in a project or paper.

    Philosophically speaking, quoting Wikipedia is the same as using Firefox. Both are free. Both have been created over a period of time by volunteers. And both have been thoroughly scrutinised by enough eyeballs.

    I personally use WordPress and Drupal but not Joomla. What I have learned over the years is that, in order to design a new template, one has to proceed in phases. Start by building a normal HTML page. Then style it with CSS. Use the positioning capabilities of CSS2 (and not tables) to get everything right. When you are satisfied with the design (use Lorem ipsum text to be able to judge whether the design looks nice or not), replace the placeholder text by the tags provided by Joomla.

  5. Emmerdeur says

    25 December 2008 at 08:50

    Thanks for the help. I’m going to try that out. The same question would have applied for WordPress though. How to build your own template for WordPress or Drupal.. Would the same explanation suitable for them?

  6. Jim says

    26 December 2008 at 12:35

    Talking about templates, i don’t understand a damn shit on how to create css style and html coding. Is there a program that can help me design my blogger theme in WYSIWYG then it converts it into a code for me to paste in blogger?

  7. selven says

    26 December 2008 at 14:28

    most people will say expensive means better… very true.

    cheap stuff also means bad :p

    free is good

    anywayz, wikipedia is ok, but reading stuffs from wikipedia i suppose you should always cross reference whatever you are taking in from different sources first to be sure.

    happy festivities to all
    +$3|v3n

  8. avinash says

    27 December 2008 at 00:25

    To Jim:

    You can try your luck with any decent Wysiwyg HTML editor (like Bluefish or Quanta if you use Linux.)

    To Selven:

    Cross reference with what?

  9. Jim says

    27 December 2008 at 14:34

    i dont use linux. Somebody proposed me adobeGoLive to design blogger themes, and also said that i have to learn language c so as to be able to design the themes. But i dont understand c(its a high level langauge i know, which is close to human language) Anyway, just wanted to know if adobegolive has a Wysiwyg option to design the themes then export it in xml format for blogger? and if the c language is difficult?

  10. avinash says

    29 December 2008 at 09:18

    Unfortunately, I have never used Adobe GoLive so I can’t tell you if it can be used as a HTML Wysiwyg editor…

    Concerning C, it is a programming language to write system software (like the Linux kernel) and it is not normally used when designing themes… Many blogging software (like WordPress) allow you to embed small PHP scripts in themes so I guess PHP would be an interesting programming language to learn… at the expense of C.

  11. Jim says

    29 December 2008 at 14:29

    i found many themes like yours on templates sites, but only in 2 column type.
    I just wanted to know if your current template is a premium one (not a free one) ?

  12. avinash says

    29 December 2008 at 19:06

    I don’t use the WordPress.com service. I have my own server with my own installation of the open source WordPress software. And I use a free theme (which I’ve slightly customised). Go to the end of the page and you’ll find a link to where I got the theme from.

  13. fluxy says

    30 December 2008 at 05:55

    I do agree. I myself use OO.org, for my assignments, and it works pretty well for me, and I specially love the Drawing module which makes it a breeze to make dfd’s. As far as Office Package is concerned, I am not a power user, so I may not be able to say more (although MS Access can hardly be rivaled). In real life as well I bought myself some Christmas bargains, it’s amazing what you can buy from street fairs!

    However as much as an enthusiast as I may be, it should be mentioned that while they are some pretty good stuffs out there, for some bizarre reason, some geeks believe that something which is OpenSource is obligatorily good. May I remind them that OpenSource does not exclude non-crapiness. And if there is one attitude that I hate in the FOSS world, it’s “It’s free, don’t like it? Don’t use it.” and “Want a feature? Do it yourself! I don’t care, it’s free.” (infamous gaim/pidgin attitude) , not to mention “The software ate your cat? Don’t blame me, it’s free.”

    Those are some reasons why some times I prefer paying for the real thing, so that I may be able to rant if something doesn’t please me. And besides, most end-users don’t care about the source, because they can’t make anything out of it.

    As far as wikipedia is concerned, it’s a great read for general knowledge and even contains many facts and resources. However when it comes to *cough* serious *cough* research, I’d rather use it as a starting point because you can be sure 75% of those doing the same thing as you will be copy-pasting from there, and secondly, as much as the information may seem genuine, you can never be sure of that – because it’s free…

    Btw Avinash is right. Drupal is far better than joomla. It’s faster, more flexible (you could come across several sites all looking and working differently, but running on drupal under the hood!) and has a rock solid admin interface. The only thing is that it might take a little time to get used to it, but when you do, it’s cruise control. Its themes are rather easy to make – you can modify blank templates available to download.

    WYSIWYG is a pain in the a**. See http://www.w3schools.com. Got nice tutorials and references. A real life saver.

    btw
    Wish you a very happy new year

  14. Emmerdeur says

    30 December 2008 at 09:17

    thanks for the tips for drupal regarding its easiness.
    Cheers.

    Happy new year 2009 to everyone

  15. avinash says

    30 December 2008 at 09:40

    What you say is true. You can find crap software both in the commercial and open source world. You can (fortunately) also find quality software in both worlds. So we shouldn’t be too dogmatic in our choices. For instance, since getting my MacBook, I’ve bought a lot of quality commercial software from independent developers for it and I couldn’t be happier.

    Concerning Wikipedia, I fail to understand why you doubt the information there is genuine because it’s free… Does this mean that if you had to pay to access Wikipedia, you would have been convinced on its authoritativeness? Then pay. And be happy.

    [By the way, I never wrote that Drupal is better than Joomla. I only said that I know and use Drupal but not Joomla…]

  16. mauritius villas says

    5 January 2009 at 11:40

    Is the iphone worth buying in Mauritiius. is it cheap or expensive here.

  17. Anonymous says

    7 January 2009 at 10:25

    Re the use of Wikipedia in scientific publications.

    Wikipedia is a very good source of information, but is NOT acceptable in a scientific publications. The information on wikipedia has been contributed by experts and non experts and there is no way to differentiate what is acceptable and what is not.

    One can read an article in wikipedia for general knowledge and may even be s starting point for a term paper. Students should however be encouraged to look for the proper source when they quote something and the only one accepted in the scientific community is peer reviewed journal.

    Having said that I would like to point our the it is unfortunate that UoM is not giving access to online journals to their students. This is a crucial element is university education – access to scientific jounal, and online is the way to go and can be way cheaper. We should not keep buying hard copies which makes search tedious, and I wonder how many student, if not when compelled by their lecturer, spend time skimming through those journals.

  18. Anonymous says

    7 January 2009 at 10:36

    I went back to the various comments posted above and wanna stress it again. Do not quote from wikipedia in your term papers or your final year dissertation. Major universities kind of ban the use of wikipedia, they are not recommended.

    You do not want to see your external examiner (though I doubt it would happen) rejecting your thesis simply because you quoted wikipedia. But he can surely penalize you.

    There is no harm is reading from it, but always quote peer reviewed scientific journals. I stress on peer reviewed, because these are articles that have been vetted and deemed acceptable for publication. Btw that does not mean that peer review is a foolproof mechanism, remember the article published in nature on cloning in 2005.

  19. avinash says

    7 January 2009 at 13:51

    Wikipedia IS peer-reviewed… whether you like it or not. Same as open source software in fact.

    In a certain sense, its peer-reviewing mechanism is better than the one used for research publications because it is public and anyone can see what has been accepted or not.

    Loads and loads of crap is published in research journals every year. I know. I’ve read lots of them… unfortunately. You should read this to get a glimpse of what research has become in a lot of universities.

    In fact, the future of research publications is arXiv. In a few years, it has become very very reputable… even if its contents is not peer-reviewed.

  20. Jim says

    7 January 2009 at 14:32

    Did you all see the article in Le mauricien about the ovni at pointe aux sables? Can someone get the videos or photos? (Ovnis are far more interesting than discussing about wikis, prices etc)
    Or avinash can publish an article about it.

  21. selven says

    7 January 2009 at 15:54

    Cross reference with what?

    expensive is good >>> e.g an aston martin is really worth its price.

    cheap stuffs>> there’s a reason it is cheap, buy an aston martin for 1/4 the price of an aston martin, probably it has hit somewhere, or its stolen goods.

    Free Stuff >>> Someone giving you a free aston martin would be idiotic …. unless s/he wants to gift it to you as a sign or gratitude/love/friendship <—- that’s way better and more truthworthy.

    “The software ate your cat? Don’t blame me, it’s free.”

    Well the guy is right, he wrote it for his own purpose, you don’t like it, f*ck off, you are using it everyday, and the guy didn’t get any money for that, he gave you the freedom to implement your change, go an do it and stop comparing it to microshit’s product! its a gift, you don’t continuously say the gift was not good or the gift lack this or that when you receive one, you just accept it.

    But then those are high quality gifts :p e.g apache!

    Those are some reasons why some times I prefer paying for the real thing, so that I may be able to rant if something doesn’t please me

    Well as far as i know people who pays for microsoft license still can rant to them so much??? they still will be kicked in the ass if they take a plane, go directly to bill gate and shout “your fucken product sucks, i just bought that and it is not working!”

    IEEE has started making authors “copyright” their works under IEEE and make the articles non free [even if the author wanted it to be free], so, if you read and ieee article and wasn’t satisfied, does that mean you’ll be refunded or your can shout out at ieee that “you guys sucks and have stolen my money??? they’ll sue you.

    as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is a great info base where you can start to get an idea about things, as a logical being, you should stop TRUSTING any source of information, even from a paid source… pffft, the information is there, read it, make your own opinion from it, take the information you judge good and reject what you consider erroneous.. don’t take anything for god words! coz god’s words comes only from me.

    do you think that if you buy XXXX book on YYYY topic for a truly exhorbitant price, written by a truly remarkable author ZZZZ makes the book trustworthy???? nooooooooooo, you should consider everyone to be a liar and challenge what they say [inside your brain] and try to visualize it if what he says is right, or try to tihnk in what kind of trance the author was when he wrote that!

    Students should however be encouraged to look for the proper source when they quote something and the only one accepted in the scientific community is peer reviewed journal.

    pffft according to me [and that’s just my opinion, a lot of people in that so called scientific community just trusted what the other scientists before them wrote and quote from their work and wrote other bullshit, which other who comes in should now quote… pffft its a crazy system, we can’t “rate” or quantify [or qualify] things such as truth and knowledge, you just have to appreciate it and find some use for it.

    Wikipedia is a great way to break that trend, because it is a stockpile of information, and both ‘professional’ and non professionals have written stuffs there, infact i would encourage even people from the amazonian forest who knows about medicinal plants etc.. to post stuffs there, this way, even if thigns are “not proven” when you are looking for sometihng you have a vast library of information, and at some point .. the least most insignificant information might be crucial and be a good lead to finding more interesting things.

    I went back to the various comments posted above and wanna stress it again. Do not quote from wikipedia in your term papers or your final year dissertation. Major universities kind of ban the use of wikipedia, they are not recommended.

    I would say, do not quote from any other source other than your own self… but unfortunately, ‘society’ will never believe in you, even if you view things differently, bof, f*ck em, you might not get great marks, you might not end up rich, but atleast you’ll feel superior and true to yourself and at some point in time.. you will win.

    final words…
    don’t trust anything that you read, use your brain to make sense.. probably what you read should be just a lead to further knowledge, nothing more.. a lead that you should visualize and attack from all angle!

    ps. why is the scientology section in wikipedia “locked” <—- trying to hide information???

    nothing is truthworthy
    +$3|v3n

  22. Emmerdeur says

    7 January 2009 at 21:10

    Ovni?
    Le Mauricien of which edition?

  23. Emmerdeur says

    7 January 2009 at 21:20

    http://lemauricien.com/mauricien/in090106.htm

    j’aurais bien voulu voir effectivement les 3mins qu’il a pu filmer! dommage qu’il y a pas la signautre du journaliste car je pense qu’il l’a visione!

  24. Anonymous says

    8 January 2009 at 04:38

    I am surprised by the reaction to my comment on Wikipedia.

    No Sir. Wikipedia, I state it again, Wikipedia is a good source of information, a really valuable one. But it cannot and should not be used as scientific reference. A better way would be to read and look for the proper scientific paper to verify the content.

    Please refer to this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2106
    Also to this http://www.virtuallyadvising.com/content/news/uwirenews20060402wikipedia.html
    This one is funny “Don’t tell Clint Eastwood he’s a vegan” but his wiki page mention that he is: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/01/05/don039t-tell-clint-eastwood-he039s-a-vegan.html

    I agree that access to the scientific journal cost a lot and unfortunately, our university does not seem to value this, for lack of funds of course. But we as academics should push the idea for greater access to scientific publications, online publication.

    Re Selven’s comments.
    In a letter Newton wrote to Hooke in February 1676, he noted “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”

    And this is what science is all about. We are all dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants. Through “rigorous” scientific analysis we bring our little contribution to this vast ocean of knowledge. And it is the same ocean of knowledge we turn to in search of the truth.

    What are we expected to do when we embark on our final year research at the university, or on any kind of research? We have a topic in mind, a brief idea and our supervisor asks us to do a literature review. This is where you go to the scientific publications, and you read what is related to your field, you churn and you assess and do your critique. You are allowed to agree and disagree, you verify and counter-verify. You may find somebody who suggest X and somebody else suggesting Y. Which is which? You point it out in your literature review chapter.

    At the end this tedious process, you are expected to identify this little gap in the knowledge. And trust me it is a very difficult task, because there is so much out there and we have all heard ourself saying “But damn this has already been done!!!” And it is not like, you read it, don’t like it and ask for your money back! It is not about like or dislike, it is about critique.

    Once you’ve identified the gap in knowledge, you design your experiment, run it analyze your results and publish your work. It is the responsibility of a scientist to publish his work, to share it with the scientific community.
    And by doing so, the dwarf that we are, will have gone through the findings of the giants and move the breadth of knowledge a little further.

    It is not easy to find what is right from what is not. It demands a lot of experience and nobody can become an expert in everything. This is where the peer review process becomes important. When a paper is submitted to a journal, the editor sends it to three reviewers and they report back to the editor and the latter report to the author(s) whether the paper is accepted, require corrections, or is rejected. It is not a fool proof process, but it is the best available.

  25. avinash says

    8 January 2009 at 09:20

    I repeat: Wikipedia IS peer-reviewed.

    I am not an academic anymore but, were I still one, I would not have penalised students quoting from Wikipedia. In fact, maybe the real reason why some universities don’t like their student quoting from Wikipedia is that many students tend to copy paste whole pages from it to complete their assignments and this is very bad. But, once more, I don’t see why a student should not be allowed to quote responsibly from Wikipedia. It is as authoritative, for me, as any other encyclopaedia.

  26. Anonymous says

    8 January 2009 at 11:46

    Since we have been talking of the peer review process, on a more humorous note, I would like to share this:

    http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=581

  27. selven says

    8 January 2009 at 12:04

    At user Anonymous: you didn’t understood most of what i said. I’ll reply to what i believe you got well.

    It is the responsibility of a scientist to publish his work, to share it with the scientific community.

    Sure enough, it is his reponsibility [and it shouldn’t be, it should be by passion], but this in no way make what he says “HOLY”, even if it was peer reviewed by a bunch of people just like him! That’s why i am more for an open pool of information [lightly peer reviewed] without really being too much an icon for “THIS IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING ELSE MATTERS”.

    The way academics sees scientific papers that have been reviewed is just like that, they believe or assume it is right [or assume other are wrong]. but if someone really want to study a particular field/part of field, he should read everything that there is to it, even what other claim not to be correct, because there’s no smoke without a fire, it might be a useful lead. In a perfect world where knowledge means something, the knowledge seeker should be neutral about things and not discard readings just coz it comes from a source that is “not official”.

    else there’s no difference between a “by the book kid” and a “scientist/artist”

    =)

    +$3|v3n

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Our Personal Websites

Avinash Meetoo
Christina Meetoo
Anya Meetoo
Kyan Meetoo

Related Posts

  • Merry Christmas to all of you
  • Amazon.com is down!!!
  • 15 minutes of fame on BBC News but no joy from Last.fm (yet)
  • Imagine a World without Free Knowledge

Random Posts

  • Liverpool players born before 2004 who might leave
  • Our first PADI Open Water diving session
  • Bonzour Tou Dimounn
  • The Peter Principle

Archives

  • May 2025 (2)
  • April 2025 (4)
  • January 2025 (3)
  • December 2024 (2)
  • November 2024 (2)
  • October 2024 (3)
  • September 2024 (7)
  • August 2024 (1)
  • July 2024 (1)
  • June 2024 (2)
  • May 2024 (3)
  • January 2024 (2)
  • December 2023 (1)
  • October 2023 (1)
  • September 2023 (4)
  • August 2023 (3)
  • July 2023 (1)
  • June 2023 (4)
  • May 2023 (1)
  • April 2023 (1)
  • March 2023 (5)
  • February 2023 (1)
  • December 2022 (1)
  • November 2022 (1)
  • October 2022 (4)
  • August 2022 (4)
  • July 2022 (3)
  • June 2022 (5)
  • May 2022 (5)
  • January 2022 (3)
  • December 2021 (2)
  • November 2021 (1)
  • October 2021 (1)
  • September 2021 (4)
  • August 2021 (2)
  • July 2021 (14)
  • May 2021 (2)
  • April 2021 (4)
  • March 2021 (9)
  • February 2021 (2)
  • January 2021 (1)
  • October 2020 (1)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (2)
  • July 2020 (5)
  • June 2020 (3)
  • May 2020 (5)
  • April 2020 (6)
  • March 2020 (2)
  • February 2020 (2)
  • January 2020 (2)
  • October 2019 (1)
  • September 2019 (2)
  • July 2019 (2)
  • June 2019 (1)
  • May 2019 (3)
  • April 2019 (2)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • February 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • October 2018 (3)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (2)
  • June 2018 (1)
  • May 2018 (2)
  • April 2018 (1)
  • February 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (1)
  • October 2017 (1)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • August 2017 (1)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • May 2017 (4)
  • April 2017 (3)
  • March 2017 (4)
  • February 2017 (5)
  • January 2017 (3)
  • October 2016 (1)
  • September 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (4)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (3)
  • February 2016 (3)
  • January 2016 (1)
  • December 2015 (1)
  • November 2015 (2)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • August 2015 (3)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (1)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • October 2014 (1)
  • March 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (3)
  • December 2013 (1)
  • October 2013 (1)
  • September 2013 (1)
  • August 2013 (1)
  • July 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (1)
  • March 2013 (3)
  • January 2013 (2)
  • December 2012 (3)
  • November 2012 (4)
  • September 2012 (3)
  • August 2012 (2)
  • July 2012 (3)
  • June 2012 (2)
  • May 2012 (1)
  • April 2012 (2)
  • February 2012 (1)
  • January 2012 (4)
  • December 2011 (2)
  • November 2011 (1)
  • October 2011 (4)
  • September 2011 (2)
  • August 2011 (1)
  • July 2011 (2)
  • June 2011 (4)
  • April 2011 (7)
  • March 2011 (2)
  • February 2011 (1)
  • January 2011 (3)
  • November 2010 (3)
  • October 2010 (1)
  • September 2010 (2)
  • August 2010 (4)
  • July 2010 (2)
  • June 2010 (1)
  • May 2010 (3)
  • April 2010 (4)
  • March 2010 (3)
  • February 2010 (3)
  • January 2010 (5)
  • December 2009 (2)
  • November 2009 (3)
  • October 2009 (1)
  • September 2009 (5)
  • August 2009 (3)
  • July 2009 (1)
  • June 2009 (3)
  • May 2009 (2)
  • April 2009 (7)
  • March 2009 (12)
  • February 2009 (10)
  • January 2009 (5)
  • December 2008 (4)
  • November 2008 (11)
  • October 2008 (6)
  • September 2008 (7)
  • August 2008 (3)
  • July 2008 (8)
  • June 2008 (6)
  • May 2008 (5)
  • April 2008 (7)
  • March 2008 (6)
  • February 2008 (3)
  • January 2008 (6)
  • December 2007 (11)
  • November 2007 (10)
  • October 2007 (7)
  • September 2007 (9)
  • August 2007 (3)
  • July 2007 (7)
  • June 2007 (8)
  • May 2007 (14)
  • April 2007 (11)
  • March 2007 (18)
  • February 2007 (14)
  • January 2007 (15)
  • December 2006 (16)
  • November 2006 (10)
  • October 2006 (7)
  • September 2006 (8)
  • August 2006 (8)
  • July 2006 (6)
  • June 2006 (4)
  • May 2006 (13)
  • April 2006 (10)
  • March 2006 (11)
  • February 2006 (7)
  • January 2006 (14)
  • December 2005 (8)
  • November 2005 (6)
  • October 2005 (7)
  • September 2005 (2)
  • August 2005 (6)
  • July 2005 (2)
  • June 2005 (6)
  • May 2005 (15)
  • April 2005 (12)
  • March 2005 (3)
  • February 2005 (8)
  • January 2005 (3)
  • December 2004 (1)
  • November 2004 (2)
  • October 2004 (2)
  • September 2004 (3)
  • August 2004 (3)
  • July 2004 (3)
  • June 2004 (3)
  • May 2004 (6)
  • April 2004 (10)
  • March 2004 (12)
Creative Commons License This work is licensed by Avinash Meetoo under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License.