|
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 24, 2012 1:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| actionjackson wrote: |
| Gamecock wrote: |
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. |
This whole post reminded me of this. (1:30 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk |
Missed the point. It's not about "Oh no my online encyclopedia is gone", its about the fact that the world's largest and most read encyclopedia should not be engaging in political advocacy. That is against the ethical standards established for encyclopedias. How can they claim to be for open-information and then engage in a stunt like that? The government's wrong for limiting speech, but we an encyclopedia (something that is supposed to be content-neutral) are justified in engaging in political advocacy?
The whole thing seems like its setting the precedent for something out of a William Gibson novel where a net-based popular company engages in manipulative mass-action through its legions of loyal subscribers. Will we in ten years be dancing to youtube's tune? It's a fine line between democracy and demagoguery.
| Quote: |
| Sounds naive to me, guy. The gov't 'ladies of the whenever' (Congress and its agencies) will target who they get paid to target. That's what I meant when I said the gov'ts "opinion". |
Well that's the danger in SOPA- overactive litigation that has a "stop first, go to court second" approach. It also has the potential for a website to be shut down because it was linked to a link to a link of a bootleg of Footloose.
But let's be real, it's not political speech or expression that will be censored, it will be websites like youtube, or potentially wikipedia that host a bunch of content but quite simply don't have the capacity to monitor it. It is ridiculous to expect them to do more than they already do and remain a viable business. SOPA just isn't practicable. It would be a legal and bureaucratic nightmare that would would impose such costs on commerce and innovation and information that the gains would not be justified.
But if "truth" is a core principle people believe in, lets cut the bull- This is about getting stuff for free.
The real question is whether or not the copyright, particularly for movies, music, and now books, is still practicable in the 21st century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Someone back there said that most of wikipedia is plagiarised...
No, it's not. It's based on free use and what can be considered common knowledge. Anything beyond that needs to be sourced. You see it frequently where "citation needed" is flagged.
| Quote: |
| But let's be real, it's not political speech or expression that will be censored, it will be websites like youtube, or potentially wikipedia that host a bunch of content but quite simply don't have the capacity to monitor it. |
OMFG. You obviously don't know too much about wikipedia (and appear to be applying your knowledge of youtube to wiki).
You can't just chuck up an image from anywhere. All images come from wikicommons. The GREAT thing about wikicommons is that, as a teacher where piracy is an issue, you can use wiki's images legally. Your uninformed, offhand assumption that wiki uses unmonitored pirated imagery is totally offf-base.
| Quote: |
Also, I believe that there is something to be said for a source that would stay out of the fray and objectively record the history of what was happening, even if that history was threatening to it. Such an act would, at least to me, be a more powerful moral statement about that source's necessity and significance. |
Easier said than done:
| Quote: |
Racism and sexism
Critics have charged past editions with racism and sexism.[26][46] For instance, the 11th edition (1910�1911) characterises the Ku Klux Klan as protecting the white race and restoring order to the American South after the American Civil War, citing the need to "control the negro", and "the frequent occurrence of the crime of rape by negro men upon white women."[47][48] Similarly, the "Civilization" article argues for eugenics, stating that it is irrational to "propagate low orders of intelligence, to feed the ranks of paupers, defectives and criminals ... which to-day constitute so threatening an obstacle to racial progress."[49] The 11th edition has no biography of Marie Curie, despite her winning of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1903 and the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1911, although she is mentioned briefly under the biography of her husband Pierre Curie.[50] The Britannica employed a large female editorial staff that wrote hundreds of articles for which they were not given credit.[26] |
Boo Brittanica, Boo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Someone back there said that most of wikipedia is plagiarised...
No, it's not. It's based on free use and what can be considered common knowledge. Anything beyond that needs to be sourced. You see it frequently where "citation needed" is flagged. |
Yeah, I said that. I was talking about the large chunks of text that are literally just copied and pasted from other sites. I often use Wikipedia as a bibliography, and it seems that almost every time, the section of the Wikipedia article is a word-for-word copy of the source. It would be fine if it was cited, quoted, and not too long, but it is rarely quoted and it is often too large a part of an article to quote, anyway. And as for the "citation needed" flags, Wikipedia is littered with them. You can barely find an article without at least one. I think those tend to be stuff people just pulled out of their rears with no proper source, though, not always plagiarism. |
|
| 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
