Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gamecock]

So what I'm getting here is that a certain poster, as usual, went to Wikipedia yesterday and found it was down for 24 hours. He was pissed off, because how dare perhaps the most useful (and free) website on the internet has been running a banner asking for donations to meet costs, and now he had to go someplace else to get his information for one day! Really, how spoiled have people become...it's a FREE service. It's non-profit. They don't owe you jack.

A lot of rage over little to nothing. I'm sure Wikipedia will be hurt that you are boycotting them from this point forward. Not to be inflammatory, but I bet he will be back. Wiki is just too darn useful.

[silkhighway]

I'll also mention that all the information on Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). If you don't like Wikimedia taking a political stance on an issue that directly affects them, it's entirely within your right to copy the information and start your own wiki site.

[Nowhere Man]

Do you believe encyclopedias should engage in political advocacy?

This is an interesting point being dragged out unnecessarily.

I think it depends on two critical questions:

1) Were not the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Funk & Wagnalls, etc... also governed by some potentially corrupting entity? To play as loosely as SR does with wiki, the only answer is yes. Unlike wiki, some undefined entity defined what would be in encyclopedias. Wiki democratized this process by letting anyone define its entries.

2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well. This very simply addresses your claim in terms of logical validity. You say, "oh, now all of wikipedia is poisoned for opposing SOPA". Well, let's test that out: How about its articles concerning bats?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat

There it is. Would you improve upon that entry by stating that wikipedia opposes SOPA?

How about submarines?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine

Oh yes, I believed that was true before wikipedia supported the SOPA...

But, really, let's get back to logical fallacies.

You're trying to poison the well.
let's repost that since you might have missed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Do you have a better example of an encyclopedia that offered qualitatively better information? If so, you're invited to post it before you vomit more about Wiki bias.

And, let's indulge your position:

Let's say Wiki comes out as a SOPA flag-waver.

DOH!

Now, everything in wiki is obviated because it's part of the New World Order.

Steelrails, you and I disagree about most everything, but I enjoy your posts because I think you are above the cafe-standard of never being wrong about anything.

You're wrong here, dude.

Wiki is better than any encyclopedia published, and we don't have to pay for it.

There are about ____ other people/entities you should spend your time on.

Let's get back to your question:
Do you believe encyclopedias should engage in political advocacy?

By definition as an information source, they automatically do.

Just because you don't like Wikipedia's stance, it doesn't make their encyclopedia wrong, and your best efforts should be engaged in seeing that this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act is accurate.

Show us something inaccurate instead of blobbing off about how wiki is now automatically inaccurate, especially all of wiki.

Let us revisit logical fallacies:

You now have a fully provable claim: that wiki is now inaccurate due to its SOPA support.

The burden is on you now to show us how SOPA has corrupted wiki.

Otherwise, you're gonna get kinda FOXnews on us.

[Steelrails]

[Kuros]

[duke of new york]

[Kuros]

[northway]

[Steelrails]

[caniff]

[Steelrails]

[The Floating World]

[kvacum]

I absolutely agree with their actions in this regard!

[caniff]

[actionjackson]