RIAA CEO says Google and Wikipedia 'misinformed' the public about SOPA, PIPA - BGR, "They made it sound like our owning the net was a bad thing!& Options

[Newsfeed]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />RIAA CEO says Google and [b]Wikipedia 'misinformed' the public about SOPA, PIPA[/b]
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 ...



View the article

[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.

[Somey]

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.

[Silver seren]

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".

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.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[Somey]

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.