The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> 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!&
Newsfeed
post Fri 2nd March 2012, 8:09pm
Post #1


Postmaster General
********

Group: Bots
Posts: 3,272
Joined: Mon 3rd Sep 2007, 9:29pm
Member No.: 2,885




<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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Mon 5th March 2012, 9:14pm
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Fri 2nd March 2012, 8:09pm) *

<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 ...

<a href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ned=us&ncl=dwb3rmY_1by_KfM" target="_blank"></a>

View the article

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 6th March 2012, 12:01am
Post #3


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



I agree with the RIAA CEO.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Tue 6th March 2012, 12:18am
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Tue 6th March 2012, 9:46pm
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Tue 6th March 2012, 10:34pm
Post #6


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Wed 7th March 2012, 5:50am
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.

This post has been edited by Silver seren: Wed 7th March 2012, 5:51am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Wed 7th March 2012, 6:07am
Post #8


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Wed 7th March 2012, 7:06am
Post #9


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I addressed this issue on JWs talk page a day or so ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=479866345
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Wed 7th March 2012, 1:29pm
Post #10


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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 ever stuck?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 8th March 2012, 8:45pm
Post #11


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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=...oldid=479866345


Do you mean 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.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 8th March 2012, 8:47pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Thu 8th March 2012, 9:49pm
Post #12


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It is a travesty, a vile and mean traducement. What reprobate could say such a things.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 10 14, 6:56am