4 ms·
> There was a far more productive reading you could have taken. As an individual, sure. But it's still a massively "go to" source of facts for billions of peop
by foverzar 3y ago
> There was a far more productive reading you could have taken.
As an individual, sure. But it's still a massively "go to" source of facts for billions of people.
> Free speech allows Wikipedia to publish unpopular or controversial speech
Do you really feel like Wikipedia has unpopular opinions? My impression is kinda opposite.
> Wikipedia documents opinions and ideologies
It would have been awesome if it was actually plural.
- Clamchop 3y agoI'm _not_ claiming that Wikipedia has or doesn't have unpopular opinions. I'm making a distinction between the legal framework in which Wikipedia exists (they _can_ publish unpopular or controversial speech) and what Wikipedia does (they intend not to express their own opinions at all; whether you believe they succeed is immaterial). OP was conflating the two, but Wikipedia has no obligation or principle to be a platform for free speech. It's completely irrelevant.
- foverzar 3y agoAh, I get it. I think the OP was referring not to the legal definition of free speech, but rather to the spirit of it.