Protest Against Wikipedia !!!

"Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it" MUCH?

This is, I think, quite a good point. Or better yet, WRITE ARTICLES FOR THE VICTIMS. I'm assuming that you know anything about them. It'd be a shame if you were campaigning on behalf of their memory if you didn't know enough about them to even make a stub, wouldn't it? You'd look like a right tard then.

Because they're not that interesting to anyone but their families?

I'm surprised anyone's bothered to make any other argument at all, really. It's not necessarily moral, but it's still the truth. No-one remembered the names of victims (particularly spree killing victims) before Wikipedia, so why should it be punished because we're suddenly fixating on being on-line moral crusaders for a few seconds before we get distracted by some photoshopped kitten pictures?













LOOK LOOK!

 

Heh heh, there's a kitting firing a gun!

:lol:

 

We don't even have accurate counts of how many civilians have been killed in Afghanstan, Irag or even Lebanon. Let alone know their faces or names.

 

Exactly. Should we boycott Wikipedia until we do?


Thing is, of all the "academic" resources to protest against for supposedly forgetting victims in favour of murderers, Wikipedia is the worst one to go for, simply because anyone can get an account and add articles. Christ, given the amount of shit that is on there, despite being of no interest to anyone (for example, search for "DX Files"), I'm pretty sure anyone could just stick an article on for the victims, or even every single victim and no-one would object.

Whereas censoring an academic resource simply because you find the subject of one article ideologically distasteful is totally unjustifiable. An encyclopaedia does not condone murder just by commenting on it; that's just nonsense.

 

That's the nature of Wikipedia, anyone can contribute. That's what has made it what it is. To try and restrict that would be to negate it's purpose.

 

Well quite, that's why it seems so facetious to complain about an article that is on there doing a disservice to the victims. It's not like Cho's article is taking up space so that his victims' articles won't fit on the website or anything.

 

How many of you would sy this if you gave two pennies worth of crap for what happened. You dont think you just say. If you knew the people who got kill you would not want his name there

 

There is nothing on wiki to stop anyone from posting a testimonial to someone who was lost. To deny an entry for the killer would only tend to diminish the event.

That would be like listing the Iraqi war without mentioning Bush.

 

who cares that we know where he was born etcetcetctetcetc
they can have the name of the event. Then also have show what happened and put the gunman inside the story not on a page of his own

 

Why? That serves nothing. Why would you have an article about a school shooting where the killer was apprehended and not give his name? It's historical information. Again, it's no justification.

And saying "if you were the victims' family you wouldn't want it" is a ridiculous statement. You can't possibly have any idea. Maybe they'd actually want people to be able to find out about what happened.

 

Coming from someone using the killer's name as his screen name...

 

Does nobody besides me feel that enforcing a ban upon his name his an unnecessary and overt restriction on basic freedom of speech?

I'm not trying to drag in some slippery slope argument, but with that logic (ie: censoring speech to protect society) where do you draw the line?

I find it more logical and likely to believe that people in this case will read about him and find him sick and pitiful rather than some hero.

 

You wont find me taking you seriously with a username like that. And why are you trying to limit information that is already out there? That is truly immoral in my eyes. I personally would never complain about any information being made available on the internet, unless it was of personal nature and damaging to a private individual. If Seung-Hui Cho having a wiki page is too much to bear for you (and judging by your username, I doubt you're the "sensitive" type), don't read it. Don't try to censor and limit for others though.

 

I think that's what we're all saying.

 

It's so funny what a bunch of rednecks dominate the Protest forum. Do you actually realize that if any decent human being ever happens to read your posts they are very likely to die from laughing?

This is supposed to be a "Protest" Forum, but all I see is a bunch of gov compliant couch potatoes who do nothing but stream out the same garbage in thread after thread.

Don't look at Wiki?

How about you don't look at the posts in the Protest Forum.

You wouldn't go into go into the Vegetarian Forum and start laughing at the people there because they don't like meat, would you?

So why do it here against the people who WANT to protest?

Is it because if you troll the vegetarians you will get your asses banned?

There are political forums for political debates, and there are protest forums for people who want to "protest".

Rednecks. take your majority trolling society and the troll who is oretending to be a peaceful p ass ifist and stick it right up your gary glitter. You don;t intimidate me, or scare me a bit you bunch of wackos.

And as for the kid with the Korean synonym, he is probably protesting against what is happening in America in his own individual way, but you are all too busy flaming everyone who genuinely wants to see solutions in this world than to have the intelligence to show respect to anything or anyone other than your own flag or your own posts.

 

Wow.


Just wow.


I know this is the protest forum, but so what? I mean, the word "fuck" 800 times is technically writing, but if someone posted it in the Writer's Forum, would you want people to be too afraid of looking "redneck" to say anything about it?

I don't think anyone arguing against this pretty much indefensible protest is a redneck, but it's an unfortunate tendency of the left to want to characterise those who disagree with him as stoopid rednecks, just like the right likes to characterise the left as a bunch of artsy-fartsy homosexuals. If you can't engage with a debate without just slating your "opponent", stay out of it, because it cheapens the whole affair.

 

So you support selective censorship?


I'm interested in what the terms are, then. What do you consider acceptable for wikipedia to cover, and what is 'crossing the line'?

 

I don't. It seemed like WS did. I might be wrong here.

Far as I'm aware, the primary reason Wikipedia doesn't have articles is because they're badly written, or prevent people abusing it for the sake of self-promotion (doesn't always work though). I wouldn't be surprised, based on this thread, if someone had already posted an article about the victims, and had it removed because it was atrociously written over-emotional guff.

 

In the UK there's also a little thing called "public interest". Cho isn't going to profit from it, and if the article is balanced, it won't glorify him to anyone who isn't a massive fan of spree killers already, and those people will probably edify him even more if they feel he's being censored from history. IT'LL MAKE HIM COOLER.

 

First, it is not my place, or station, to tell people what they should or should not post, but it seems that everything either me or sentient discuss in the "Protest" forum immediately attracts a swarm of hostile right-wing wrath that wants to attack our opinions merely because they can't accept that a protest forum is about... protesting! Wikipedia IS glorifying what happened in VT, just as sales of guns continue to increase the chances of a similar incident occuring yet again.

If Wikipedia is NOT glorifying the VT massacre, and is merely there to record historical events, then by all means it should have an entry on every single item of news from every newspaper in the world, including local news, tiddly-wink contests, conker competitions, and budgering.

SC what is your point? You say that someone writing a swear word infinite times constitutes writing? Technically you are correct. Then again, the birth of a stick insect is also a historic event since, technically, it belongs in the past. Therefore it should be included in Wiki. So, let's stop getting surreal and get back on track.

There are students out there who may, like Seung, feel alienated, disgruntled, etc. They may use Wiki to do their homework.











They may have a gun.











They may decide that they would like to go out blazing in the hall of infamy.

This is the Protest Forum.

Students, protest against the irresponsible insensitive indifference and lack of relevant academia shown by the monster Wikipedia.

And everyone who doesn't want to protest, go make a hot cup of cocoa and go to bed. Let the human beings take care of this planet while we still can.