|
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: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Meaningless speculation. Such a thing has not happened, nor will it, nor is it a relevant comparison. |
So wait, speculating about future actions of the American police state is fine, but speculating about future wikipedia action is wrong?
| Quote: |
| And yet you wouldn't object to government censorship of wikipedia... Hmm. |
I completely object to government censorship.
Again, I DO NOT SUPPORT SOPA.
Just because I don't support wikipedia, doesn't mean I support SOPA. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
| Quote: |
| Good thing for wikipedia then that it isn't violating any rules |
Correct, I misspoke. I should say that it is violating principles.
| Quote: |
| Actually you are completely wrong here, and as a matter of fact, Wikipedia is a privately owned and run corporation (albeit non-profit), with a board of trustees that is, according to Wikipedia itself, "the ultimate corporate authority for the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.". And as far as I know it has never received a single cent of taxpayer money. |
I stand corrected. What I meant was that the we do not have stakes in it as investors, which is what being a funder of wikipedia would mean. You are a donator, not a stakeholder.
And while this is legal for wikipedia to do, I do not believe it is ethical.
Do you believe encyclopedias should engage in political advocacy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Meaningless speculation. Such a thing has not happened, nor will it, nor is it a relevant comparison. |
So wait, speculating about future actions of the American police state is fine, but speculating about future wikipedia action is wrong?
| Quote: |
| And yet you wouldn't object to government censorship of wikipedia... Hmm. |
I completely object to government censorship.
Again, I DO NOT SUPPORT SOPA.
Just because I don't support wikipedia, doesn't mean I support SOPA. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
| Quote: |
| Good thing for wikipedia then that it isn't violating any rules |
Correct, I misspoke. I should say that it is violating principles.
| Quote: |
| Actually you are completely wrong here, and as a matter of fact, Wikipedia is a privately owned and run corporation (albeit non-profit), with a board of trustees that is, according to Wikipedia itself, "the ultimate corporate authority for the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.". And as far as I know it has never received a single cent of taxpayer money. |
I stand corrected. What I meant was that the we do not have stakes in it as investors, which is what being a funder of wikipedia would mean. You are a donator, not a stakeholder.
And while this is legal for wikipedia to do, I do not believe it is ethical.
Do you believe encyclopedias should engage in political advocacy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| For 24 hours, then it will come back as before. The entries really haven't been altered, just taken away. There is a difference |
Being denied access as part of a major political publicity campaign is not "everything just as before".
This is wikipedia crossing the Rubicon.
Does the idea of a supposedly neutral, free-access information encyclopedia promoting a political position not disturb you?
What if instead of SOPA, wikipedia had done this over, say abortion? And not supporting whichever side you support? |
Since abortion has nothing to do with wikipedia's future or my access to it, then obviously I would be upset and be aghast. You're talking apples and oranges though.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| This is a bipartisan bill! I think the fact that you're the only one in support of this bill on this thread is proof this is not a Democrat or Republican issue whatsoever. Political affiliation (for once) has nothing to do with this. |
I think the fact that you think that I am in support of SOPA means that you need to re-read my post. I am not. That should be pretty obvious from what I wrote, but it seems like you're just assuming because I don't support wikipedia, I must support SOPA. |
My apologies.
| Steelrails wrote: |
Right...for now. But what if wikipedia decides to take a more "activist" stance? As I said, it seems that China and other places with closed internet access might be next? What about future bills in the U.S. regarding internet law? What about in the U.K.? What about in Azerbaijan? Will those pages now get pop-ups or banners? Will Jimmy Wales' personal appeal now be about politics instead of fund-raising?
Will it just stick to internet law? What about human rights issues? In 2016 will we be looking on at a Christie-Huntsman or Clinton-Schumer or Paul-Paul banner endorsed by wikipedia?
What if Romney or Obama comes out in favor of SOPA? Will wikipedia stay neutral come election day?
Do you not see how inappropriate that is for a supposedly neutral information website? It's an encyclopedia! |
Well IF those events were to take place maybe some of us would change our stance. That is not the case right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Meaningless speculation. Such a thing has not happened, nor will it, nor is it a relevant comparison. |
So wait, speculating about future actions of the American police state is fine, but speculating about future wikipedia action is wrong? |
Huh?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| And yet you wouldn't object to government censorship of wikipedia... Hmm. |
I completely object to government censorship.
Again, I DO NOT SUPPORT SOPA.
Just because I don't support wikipedia, doesn't mean I support SOPA. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? |
It's quite simple really: wikipedia is objecting to its being censored, and you are objecting to that objection. Therefore it is implied that you support that censorship. But if you want to spin, nitpick, or obfuscate your way around it, go ahead. I doubt you'll convince anyone, but you're welcome to try.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Good thing for wikipedia then that it isn't violating any rules |
Correct, I misspoke. I should say that it is violating principles. |
Maybe your principles, but apparently nobody else's.
| Quote: |
| And while this is legal for wikipedia to do, I do not believe it is ethical. |
Oh well. You haven't actually shown it to be unethical in any way, shape, or form. All you've done is say it doesn't sit well with you. Oh well.
| Quote: |
| Do you believe encyclopedias should engage in political advocacy? |
Loaded question. But frankly I see no problem whatsoever with wikipedia protesting government censorship, especially since the actual content of the encyclopedia remains unaffected by the protest (while the censorship itself would, by contrast, most certainly disrupt its operations), is still open source, and still free. Balanced against your wounded sense of ethical idealism, I'd say it's a very fair trade  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
And while this is legal for wikipedia to do, I do not believe it is ethical.
Do you believe encyclopedias should engage in political advocacy? |
You're still talking about Wikipedia as if the directors behind the protest are the same people as the authors of the content. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia in the sense that it has editors who should remain neutral in what they do with their publication. Whatever people decided to take Wikipedia offline for 24 hours are in no way responsible for the information in the encyclopedia. It is not written by them; it is not even edited or approved by them. Therefore, even if they did something like put up a banner or "personal appeal" protesting, say, abortion, it says absolutely nothing about the content of the encyclopedia. If they put up such a banner, you could still go to the Wikipedia article about abortion, and it would have the same biases or lack thereof that it does now, and if you saw any biased material, you could fix it yourself.
I think it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, or any other site not expressly affiliated with a political goal, to make a statement like that. Likewise you may think it is inappropriate for them to make a statement about SOPA, but there is no correlation between a statement from the administrators and the impartiality of the information. Personally, I don't think this is inappropriate, since Wikipedia does have one express interest, which is the free availability of knowledge. I think it is entirely appropriate for the owners of the site to make a statement against legislation that directly endangers the freedom of information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You said that speculating on future actions of wikipedia is inappropriate. But in threads about say future actions by the US Police State, wild speculation and conjecture is appropriate.
In other words, its not speculation that is inappropriate, but speculation that you disagree with.
| Quote: |
| It's quite simple really: wikipedia is objecting to its being censored, and you are objecting to that objection. Therefore it is implied that you support that censorship. But if you want to spin, nitpick, or obfuscate your way around it, go ahead. I doubt you'll convince anyone, but you're welcome to try. |
So if you disagree with a tactic someone does, that must mean you reject the cause which they are advocating?
Seriously? Do you really believe this?
If someone picks up a gun and starts shooting into a crowd in protest of the Afghanistan War, and I object, does that mean I support the Afghanistan War?
No.
I think most people here understand that where I'm coming from. And while my view may be a minority one, apparently some people objected to this measure before it was implemented given the wikipedia FAQ about this situation.
| Quote: |
| But frankly I see no problem whatsoever with wikipedia protesting government censorship, especially since the actual content of the encyclopedia remains unaffected by the protest (while the censorship itself would, by contrast, most certainly disrupt its operations), is still open source, and still free. Balanced against your wounded sense of ethical idealism, I'd say it's a very fair trade |
That wasn't the question. The question is not "Do you believe wikipedia should protest government censorship"
The question is: Do you believe an encyclopedia should engage in political advocacy?
As the "Board" of the encyclopedia wikipedia IS the one to hold accountable, NOT the individual writers. Individual writers make up other encyclopedias, but their overseers can influence content and decide the standards.
The question isn't loaded. The question is the core of the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porksta
Joined: 05 May 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What gets me is that they are always asking for money to keep the site running... and now that they have enough money, they shut the site down. What?
I find it interesting that the mobile version was still up, and could be accessed from a computer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
You said that speculating on future actions of wikipedia is inappropriate. But in threads about say future actions by the US Police State, wild speculation and conjecture is appropriate.
In other words, its not speculation that is inappropriate, but speculation that you disagree with. |
I meant baseless speculation. Your comparison of wikipedia taking on an anti-abortion stance (without precedent and no indication whatsoever that that will ever happen) and US police state issues (totally with precedent, and every indication that it is not only going to happen, but has already happened to a great extent) is pretty much absurd.
| Quote: |
So if you disagree with a tactic someone does, that must mean you reject the cause which they are advocating?
Seriously? Do you really believe this? |
Case by case. In your case, yeah, I think it the shoe fits.
| Quote: |
| I think most people here understand that where I'm coming from. |
Um, actually I've yet to see a single person in this thread empathize with your views...
| Quote: |
That wasn't the question. The question is not "Do you believe wikipedia should protest government censorship"
The question is: Do you believe an encyclopedia should engage in political advocacy? |
Whatever. The answer is: case by case. In this case (since it does not affect the content of the entries in any way, but rather ensures that it will not be censored), sure. You have yet to provide a single reason why not, other than it doesn't sit well with you.
| Quote: |
| As the "Board" of the encyclopedia wikipedia IS the one to hold accountable, NOT the individual writers. Individual writers make up other encyclopedias, but their overseers can influence content and decide the standards. |
You seem to be under some false impression (or delusion) that wikipedia has ever been "neutral". That is not the point at all. The point is that it is a privately owned corporation operating as a non-profit, that is not obligated to you in any way, shape, or form. Therefore they can do whatever the hell they want. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think most people here understand that where I'm coming from. |
Um, actually I've yet to see a single person in this thread empathize with your views... |
Visitorq, you are making the discussion unnecessarily hostile. The rest of us may not agree with Steelrails, but we understand that he is not advocating SOPA, he's saying that since Wikipedia strives to be an objective source of knowledge, its management should not use the site to state political opinions.
Steelrails, consider that the US government passed a law that potentially allowed the government to arbitrarily censor any printed encyclopedia. Would it be unethical or inappropriate for an encyclopedia to issue a public statement condemning the law? Likewise, if there was a movement in Congress to repeal the First Amendment, would it be a violation of journalistic objectivity for a newspaper to issue a statement defending freedom of the press? I think when the issue directly relates to the ability of the publication or website to perform its most basic function, it is not biased for the publication/website to protest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think most people here understand that where I'm coming from. |
Um, actually I've yet to see a single person in this thread empathize with your views... |
Visitorq, you are making the discussion unnecessarily hostile. The rest of us may not agree with Steelrails, but we understand that he is not advocating SOPA, he's saying that since Wikipedia strives to be an objective source of knowledge, its management should not use the site to state political opinions.
|
THANK YOU.
This whole issue is about conflicting values that we hold dear.
For the SOPA thing its about protection of copyrighted material and ensuring that artists have protection for their material (as well as more nefarious things in the case of the industry) vs. Freedom of information and the reach of the law (as well as some people who blatantly want to pirate stuff).
In the wikipedia case its an issue of taking a moral stand vs. remaining objectively neutral. Those are values that are both important and advocating one or the other is not a decision to be made lightly and can have long-term consequences.
Notice how I don't give a hoot about Craigslist going down? Entirely different standard. Same with youtube, or whatever. But something like an encyclopedia is supposed to be held to a different standard. As Joe Friday would say "Just the facts ma'am."
I'm sorry visitorq, you may believe that everything will go back to normal after this, and it might, but I think we may look back at this day as being a shift in wikipedia.
| Quote: |
| Steelrails, consider that the US government passed a law that potentially allowed the government to arbitrarily censor any printed encyclopedia. Would it be unethical or inappropriate for an encyclopedia to issue a public statement condemning the law? Likewise, if there was a movement in Congress to repeal the First Amendment, would it be a violation of journalistic objectivity for a newspaper to issue a statement defending freedom of the press? I think when the issue directly relates to the ability of the publication or website to perform its most basic function, it is not biased for the publication/website to protest. |
I would be much more comfortable if say, they went before Congress and testified on the issue, as PBS/NPR have done from time-to-time. Wikipedia should have the clout to be able to be heard. If the board went there and stated their position I think that would be more in line with professional standards than what they did. Another option would be a radio advertisement. Even a mild banner or link on the front page would be fine. But there was something...excessive about the whole thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I would be much more comfortable if say, they went before Congress and testified on the issue, as PBS/NPR have done from time-to-time. Wikipedia should have the clout to be able to be heard. If the board went there and stated their position I think that would be more in line with professional standards than what they did. Another option would be a radio advertisement. Even a mild banner or link on the front page would be fine. But there was something...excessive about the whole thing. |
Fair enough...but I don't see much of a qualitative difference between the blackout and a radio ad or testifying before Congress. Like you said, it's just a matter of excess. I would argue that there is something excessive about SOPA. The extreme nature of the problem demands an extreme response. The whole point was to inform and mobilize people, which the blackout did more effectively than an advertisement would have and certainly more than political lobbying would have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| [Visitorq, you are making the discussion unnecessarily hostile. |
Thanks, mom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I'm sorry visitorq, you may believe that everything will go back to normal after this, and it might, but I think we may look back at this day as being a shift in wikipedia. |
The difference is that I don't feel entitled to wikipedia. Sure I might be a little irked if they went so downhill that it was no longer a useful site, but beyond that I still wouldn't have any cause to complain. Even if I had donated money, it would have only been a donation (totally voluntary, and not a purchase of anything). Ultimately it would be up to me to start my own encyclopedia and run it the way I wanted, or else just accept it as is.
It's kind of like people who complain about facebook changing their look now and then, even though it's a FREE service that people are 100% able to not use if they don't like it. It's really that simple. Now if tax dollars were involved, then that would be a whole other story... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see where Mr. Steelrails is coming from...(and just for the people on here who see the world in black and white, NO that does not mean that I agree or support SOPA).
However there are many other sites that one can garner information from...wiki is just a cheap and easy way of doing it. But it's not always accurate unless it's been well sourced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| For 24 hours, then it will come back as before. The entries really haven't been altered, just taken away. There is a difference |
Being denied access as part of a major political publicity campaign is not "everything just as before".
This is wikipedia crossing the Rubicon.
Does the idea of a supposedly neutral, free-access information encyclopedia promoting a political position not disturb you?
What if instead of SOPA, wikipedia had done this over, say abortion? And not supporting whichever side you support?
|
What are you, kidding?!
It's only natural that they express a political position on this matter that concerns them directly - and also concerns all of us.
Your position seems odd to me. To paraphrase Voltaire:
"I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your lack of a right to say it." |
|
| 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
