Wed 7th March 2012, 5:50am
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.