131–140 of 202 posts
I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case well -> see http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikip... Basically, a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular issue affecting one particu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't be neutral on a moving train - Howard Zinn
If you're implying that some issues encompass everyone and everything and suck people in, it is going to be hard to justify that SOPA meets that bar but something like, say, nuclear disarmament doesn't.
I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case well -> see http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikip... Basically, a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular issue affecting one particu…
[deleted]
If your job depends on you being neutral, you don't get a choice. For example, the International Red Cross needs to stay neutral otherwise they won't get access to areas where they are sorely needed. The Swiss stayed neutral through some world changing events.
By opposing SOPA, Wikipedia loses its neutrality and takes a political stance - an act which could have long reaching consequences.
Here's a trivial question for starters - how does humanity trust Wikipedia's articles on SOPA given that it has taken a stance on the issue? Or trust it's pieces on the people supporting SOPA (a lot of whom are perfectly normal, smart, upstanding people we just happen to disagree with strongly).
The taint could be far reaching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're implying that some issues encompass everyone and everything and suck people in, it is going to be hard to justify that SOPA meets that bar but something like, say, nuclear disarmament doesn't.
I am responding to your point (a). Not acting is not being neutral. Not acting is taking a stand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're implying that some issues encompass everyone and everything and suck people in, it is going to be hard to justify that SOPA meets that bar but something like, say, nuclear disarmament doesn't.
I am responding to your point (a). Not acting is not being neutral. Not acting is taking a stand.
I don't think this is a good idea. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that many people depend on all over the world. Encyclopedias should not just switch off for political reasons. Books don't turn off. Digital information should not turn on and off either for any reason. A big red banner covering half the page can get the message across without actually making us unable to access the information stored in wikipedia.
>Encyclopedias should not just switch off for political reasons. Characterizing this as a "political reason" does a huge disservice to what the events of the 18th are all about. This "political reason" has the potential to ruin the internet forever . The point of the blackout is to give people a taste of what could happen under SOPA/PIPA/etc. And get them to call their representatives, and get the word out. Reddit an…
How bad does some political issue have to be for Wikipedia to get involved? And note that SOPA is far down on the list of "universally thought of as evil for all humanity" things that people would like to see changed.
I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case well -> see http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikip... Basically, a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular issue affecting one particu…
I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case well -> see http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikip... Basically, a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular issue affecting one particu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Sad to see my original comment getting downvoted. If your job depends on you being neutral, you don't get a choice. For example, the International Red Cross needs to stay neutral otherwise they won't get access to areas where they are sorely needed. The Swiss stayed neutral through some world changing events. By opposing SOPA, Wikipedia loses its neutrality and takes a political stance - an act which could have long…
Your comment is well-written, summarizes a tenable position and contributes to the discussion. Unfortunately, the principle of not downvoting for mere disagreement has in practice been abandoned on HN.
I'm against SOPA as much as the next person here on HN but I disagree with shutting down Wikipedia. Paul Carr wrote a piece today that argues this case well -> see http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/16/dick-costolo-is-right-wikip... Basically, a) Wikipedia's core principle is neutrality. When they strive for neutrality and balance on much more sensitive issues, taking a stance on one particular issue affecting one particu…