Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ News Worth Discussing _ RIAA CEO says Google and Wikipedia 'misinformed' the public about SOPA, PIPA - BGR
Posted by: Newsfeed
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNEft9IgWCq7o0tVkMKE1UjtmiTSRg&url=http://www.bgr.com/2012/03/02/riaa-ceo-says-google-and-wikipedia-misinformed-the-public-about-sopa-pipa/
BGR
The RIAA's CEO Cary Sherman said that he hopes the Stop Online Piracy Act protest were a “one-time experience.†In an op-ed piece written in The New York Times earlier this month, Sherman accused companies such as Google and Wikipedia of exploiting ...
http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ned=us&ncl=dwb3rmY_1by_KfM
Posted by: mbz1
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Fri 2nd March 2012, 8:09pm) 
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNEft9IgWCq7o0tVkMKE1UjtmiTSRg&url=http://www.bgr.com/2012/03/02/riaa-ceo-says-google-and-wikipedia-misinformed-the-public-about-sopa-pipa/
BGR
The RIAA's CEO Cary Sherman said that he hopes the Stop Online Piracy Act protest were a “one-time experience.†In an op-ed piece written in The New York Times earlier this month, Sherman accused companies such as Google and Wikipedia of exploiting ...
<a href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ned=us&ncl=dwb3rmY_1by_KfM" target="_blank"></a>
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNEft9IgWCq7o0tVkMKE1UjtmiTSRg&url=http://www.bgr.com/2012/03/02/riaa-ceo-says-google-and-wikipedia-misinformed-the-public-about-sopa-pipa/
QUOTE
When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations.
Posted by: thekohser
I agree with the RIAA CEO.
Posted by: Silver seren
I think the refuting point has already been stated a significant number of times by a large amount of people.
Wikipedia is a neutral source of information as an encyclopedia, but the Wikimedia Foundation never purported to be neutral. It couldn't be in the first place if it's going to advocate free dissemination of information, which is the model of how Wikipedia works anyways.
Posted by: Fusion
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 6th March 2012, 12:18am)
Wikipedia is a neutral source of information as an encyclopedia
That is clearly nonsense. Any number of articles show a clear POV. Sometimes that is due to ignorance, and sometimes it is deliberate manipulation. I think most people here are well aware of this.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 5th March 2012, 6:18pm)
Wikipedia is a neutral source of information as an encyclopedia, but the Wikimedia Foundation never purported to be neutral.
That's a total dodge - the WMF is perfectly aware that 90 percent of internet users don't differentiate between the site and the people who run it. Just because the RIAA is doing bad things for evil and malicious reasons doesn't mean they don't have a valid point, in this instance at least.
Posted by: Silver seren
QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 6th March 2012, 9:46pm)
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 6th March 2012, 12:18am)
Wikipedia is a neutral source of information as an encyclopedia
That is clearly nonsense. Any number of articles show a clear POV. Sometimes that is due to ignorance, and sometimes it is deliberate manipulation. I think most people here are well aware of this.
Sorry, I should have worded it as "Wikipedia attempts to present neutral information like its purpose of being an encyclopedia represents".
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th March 2012, 10:34pm)
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 5th March 2012, 6:18pm)
Wikipedia is a neutral source of information as an encyclopedia, but the Wikimedia Foundation never purported to be neutral.
That's a total dodge - the WMF is perfectly aware that 90 percent of internet users don't differentiate between the site and the people who run it. Just because the RIAA is doing bad things for evil and malicious reasons doesn't mean they don't have a valid point, in this instance at least.
A direct comparison to the RIAA would be like saying that the music they produce, if it purports toward some sort of ideology or something to that affect, then that means that the RIAA is also trying to push that ideology.
Clearly, this isn't true.
In the same manner, the WMF is not the same as Wikipedia. Just because 90% of people don't differentiate it in their heads doesn't mean that there isn't a difference.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 6th March 2012, 11:50pm)
In the same manner, the WMF is not the same as Wikipedia. Just because 90% of people don't differentiate it in their heads doesn't mean that there isn't a difference.
That's just the same dodge expressed in a different way. The point is that the WMF have taken advantage of the fact that most people don't differentiate, which has very little to do with whether or not the difference is "real."
The issue is whether or not they were right to do so, and while I'm perfectly willing to accept that they were, I suspect that's only because the RIAA's plan is evil, and the end justifies the means.
Posted by: lilburne
I addressed this issue on JWs talk page a day or so ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=479866345
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 7th March 2012, 12:50am)
In the same manner, the WMF is not the same as Wikipedia. Just because 90% of people don't differentiate it in their heads doesn't mean that there isn't a difference.
What about when the WMF itself presented Sue Garder as "Wikipedia executive director" in fundraising banners?
I wonder if that meme https://www.google.com/search?q=%22wikipedia+director+sue+gardner%22?
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(lilburne @ Wed 7th March 2012, 2:06am)
I addressed this issue on JWs talk page a day or so ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=479866345
Do http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=480857658&oldid=480845124 you lied about this issue, you lying liar?
Of course, Lilburne, I immediately recognize exactly what you were hinting at there, but Jimbo's too haughty to play along, so he just went with the "liar" route, hoping that will satisfy at least 90% of his minions, which it likely will.
Posted by: lilburne
It is a travesty, a vile and mean traducement. What reprobate could say such a things.