|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:43 pm Post subject: Boo Wikipedia. Boo |
 |
|
Between all the "Personal Appeals" and now this, you're like a more sanctimonious version of NPR/PBS. What's next, tote-bags and telethons?
You are supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, not a forum for internet advocacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I fully support their actions in this regard. Down with the S.O.P.A. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stout
Joined: 28 May 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More indications that the elite are closing ranks. Seems the US really is headed towards becoming a totalitarian, fascist state.
Anyone who's observed recent events can't be too surprised, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more
The Wikipedia community has blacked out the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th to raise awareness about legislation being proposed by the U.S. Congress � the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate � and to encourage readers to speak out against it. This legislation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet.
Although the bills have been amended since their introduction, they are still deeply problematic. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global sites - including ones like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is worse than the disease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But what's next? If wikipedia is going to engage in political advocacy that threatens their neutrality.
Boo SOPA and Boo Wikipedia.
What's next, Jimmy Wales ordering a wikipedia shutdown over the Afghanistan War or if Mitt Romney wins the election? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm more than fine with this blackout. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails: I'd have thought you'd be totally down with this, given your libertarian leanings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you click really fast, you can surf Wikipedia like normal before the blackout page loads. Or you can just click "Stop" right after the page loads. Double clicking Refresh/Stop from the Blackout page will also give you the real page.
I found the "Personal Appeals" worse than the blackout to be honest. I don't even know what the Personal Appeals were about, but it was very annoying to have the picture of a person right above an article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
But what's next? If wikipedia is going to engage in political advocacy that threatens their neutrality.
Boo SOPA and Boo Wikipedia.
What's next, Jimmy Wales ordering a wikipedia shutdown over the Afghanistan War or if Mitt Romney wins the election? |
Oh please. "Neutrality" you say??  This legislation affects their site directly. Plus it's FREE, so if you don't like it don't use it. Nobody is forcing you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Steelrails: I'd have thought you'd be totally down with this, given your libertarian leanings. |
In past threads, I've seen him argue (among other things) in favor of governments waging "total war" against civilians, and cops beating up student loan defaulters "to teach them a lesson" (paraphrasing). A libertarian he certainly ain't... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Steelrails: I'd have thought you'd be totally down with this, given your libertarian leanings. |
In past threads, I've seen him argue (among other things) in favor of governments waging "total war" against civilians, and cops beating up student loan defaulters "to teach them a lesson" (paraphrasing). A libertarian he certainly ain't... |
Paulite, perhaps? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Steelrails: I'd have thought you'd be totally down with this, given your libertarian leanings. |
In past threads, I've seen him argue (among other things) in favor of governments waging "total war" against civilians, and cops beating up student loan defaulters "to teach them a lesson" (paraphrasing). A libertarian he certainly ain't... |
Well as a free enterprise, wikipedia certainly is within its rights to do so. However, turning a digital encyclopedia into a venue for political advocacy can certainly lead to future doubts about its neutrality.
I'd have no problem with say, a youtube doing this.
Unfortunately, wikipedia would have to recuse itself of any articles relating to SOPA. By advocating for a certain position regarding that issue, it is now a biased source. Now considering that hundreds of members of Congress will vote on this, that makes their pages questionable.
Of course this is a bit extreme, but it raises an issue. I certainly don't want wikipedia to spin off into left-wing, right-wing, and Ron-Paulite versions. I really think this sets a bad precedent.
As for SOPA, I'm mildly against it. I mean, you have to respect the entertainment industry's point about having rights to royalties and such, but at the same time the measures clearly go to far and amount to censorship.
Now as for my libertarianism and visitorqs, "claims", of course what he wrote is out of context and inaccurate. I stated that civilians who engage in acts of terrorism outside the U.S. and support attacks, might be forfeiting their right to a trial and be subjected to targeted killings. Now, obviously this is Constitutionally grey, but the pragmatic-realist part of me says, "You know what, if you leave the country, start screaming about how that country should be bombed, and start actively plotting and aiding those who are, don't be surprised when you're blown up and don't come crying about it." That's not police state. That's that person being a murder-aiding idiot. That's why we have police and the military. Does that mean I support assassination inside our borders or secret trials or the Patriot Act or any of that, no. Just, I don't really have any sympathy or outrage over that incident.
As for student loan defaulters, I believe that deliberate non-payment of a loan is tantamount to fraud, a crime and a felony depending on the amount. Now if the police decide to arrest you for fraud and you decide to put up a fight, don't be surprised if you get beat by the police. Sorry, but if instead of paying back your loan, you're buying a dime-bag a day, you're defrauding the creditor. You're not an innocent victim, you're a criminal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Think of it as a sneak preview of the future Wikipedia if we continue down this path of legislation.
If you really want to view Wikipedia pages, just search the topic on Google and use the link to the cached version of the site.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Unfortunately, wikipedia would have to recuse itself of any articles relating to SOPA. By advocating for a certain position regarding that issue, it is now a biased source. Now considering that hundreds of members of Congress will vote on this, that makes their pages questionable. |
I don't think so, since the people who decided to do this are not the people writing or editing the articles. They may contribute, but Wikipedia articles are still maintained by the general public with all their individual biases, which tends to cancel them all out. People who support SOPA or people who want to report on it in a neutral way have just as much access to the content of the articles as the ones who protest SOPA.
This concern would be realistic for a normal publication, but the people behind the blackout of the site are not the same people who are responsible for the information in the encyclopedia, nor are they even associated in any distinct way, since the latter is basically "everybody."
Last edited by duke of new york on Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal 2.0
Joined: 10 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
But what's next? If wikipedia is going to engage in political advocacy that threatens their neutrality.
Boo SOPA and Boo Wikipedia.
What's next, Jimmy Wales ordering a wikipedia shutdown over the Afghanistan War or if Mitt Romney wins the election? |
They're doing it so that they can remain neutral and FREE! (I'd totally want a tote bag, though...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:17 am Post subject: Re: Boo Wikipedia. Boo |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Between all the "Personal Appeals" and now this, you're like a more sanctimonious version of NPR/PBS. What's next, tote-bags and telethons?
You are supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, not a forum for internet advocacy. |
Have you donated money to wikipedia?
If not, kindly STFU. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
Think of it as a sneak preview of the future Wikipedia if we continue down this path of legislation.
If you really want to view Wikipedia pages, just search the topic on Google and use the link to the cached version of the site.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Unfortunately, wikipedia would have to recuse itself of any articles relating to SOPA. By advocating for a certain position regarding that issue, it is now a biased source. Now considering that hundreds of members of Congress will vote on this, that makes their pages questionable. |
I don't think so, since the people who decided to do this are not the people writing or editing the articles. They may contribute, but Wikipedia articles are still maintained by the general public with all their individual biases, which tends to cancel them all out. People who support SOPA or people who want to report on it in a neutral way have just as much access to the content of the articles as the ones who protest SOPA.
This concern would be realistic for a normal publication, but the people behind the blackout of the site are not the same people who are responsible for the information in the encyclopedia, nor are they even associated in any distinct way, since the latter is basically "everybody." |
Well said. This move does not impact wikipedia's content whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
