3 ms·
Wikipedia may have a political agenda, but here it is simply fighting for survival. It may indeed go away, but its editors are willing to fight to prevent it.
by pygy_ 15y ago
Wikipedia may have a political agenda, but here it is simply fighting for survival. It may indeed go away, but its editors are willing to fight to prevent it.
Jimbo Wales did a wide editor survey on his talk page. The few opposing voices (that I remember of) were about Wikipedia's neutrality. They were missing the fact that, while Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, the existence of Wikipedia relies on non-neutral things like the right to freedom of expression and not being taken down on a whim because someone, somewhere, reported for some reason to some authority that some page was infringing some copyright.
- ErrantX 15y agoWell, in fairness, that couldn't happen to Wikipedia directly because of provisions in the SOPA legislation. The concern (which no one at WP is doing a good job of explaining...) is that we might be defined under SOPA as a "search engine" and therefore forced to stop linking to sites that, on a whim, are considered copyright infringing.
- pygy_ 15y ago> Well, in fairness, that couldn't happen to Wikipedia directly because of provisions in the SOPA legislation. 'till next time? Good thing you show that you won't let people walk on your turf.
- gojomo 15y ago"But special rules apply now because our very existence is at stake" is a red flag for bandwagon/groupthink situations.