Protest Against Wikipedia !!!

No, I'm sorry, I don't agree. Wikipedia is not "merely there to record historical events", it's a reference source, therefore it deals with things people might actually want to know about. If enough people want to know about a piece of local news, one of them will probably take the time to make an article about it. In this case, lots of people have been interested in the VTech killer, so the article exists.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

My point was that just because someone is technically protesting against something, that doesn't mean that people should automatically support it if it makes zero sense.

So you're saying the birth of a stick instinct is as important than the death of 32 humans?

Also, when you come out with shit like this:

It's very hard to take you seriously. Since when was censoring reference material anything other than right-wing? Since when was claiming that kids will be inspired to go on killing sprees by the media or by stuff that they're read anything but right-wing? What you are proposing is pretty much a nannying influence over the media.

I reckon you're right though. We should also take down any reference to the Holocaust, because kids MAY read it and MAY have guns and MAY decide as a direct result of reading it to murder 6 million Jews. It's an OUTRAGE

Seriously dude, unless this is an exercise in irony and the punchline's just waiting around the corner, you're talking grade A shite. No-one is going to be influenced to shoot anyone by a Wikipedia article, and writing about Cho in a balanced way is no more likely to glorify him than writing about Adolf Hitler. People who are attracted to that "dark side" will be attracted to it no matter how heavily you censor it, so it's obviously more desireable that they at least have accurate information, rather than leaving it up to the lunatic fringe to give them distorted versions of the facts.

 

And if we say "we're protesting at your irresponsible insensitive indifference to freedom of information", is that Different?

 

Everyone you need to go a school and learn tp how make arguments good. You attack me for name when in real life is name and is like I am call John Jones or David Smith in your language. Many many people have same names or combination. Is not a issue I came here debate the real issue but if you dont care enuff about then is not the fruit on the tree for me.

 

Funny if true.

 

the point you all seem to have glued your heads into your arseholes with is the fact that no-one is suggesting that any information be suppressed, just that the coverage should be redesigned so it does not appear to make him more famous than either the events or the victims, I have not argued for any sensorship or suppression just that he should not be afforded a page of his own and made to look more famous than either the events of that day, or the victims all the information on that page could be placed within the story of the events rather than on his hall of fame page

Actually you have all given me an idea maybe you could all just read what I write instead of spouting loads of irrelevent crap about what you think may be written here

 

How would you feel if there was a page for him, a page for the events and a page for the victims?

 

hitler got his eternal fame too, all these other creeps too. no matter what if someone does something this horrifying, it's news and should be told. freedom of information is too important. we must remember history to try to prevent that earlier made mistakes will repeat themselves.

 

I like it better where
there is a page for the events with him and his facts as part of that and a page for the victims? It just looks too much like iconising him if he is given a page of his own, wheres your page? you have done more humane things than he did - you deserve to be more famous perhaps - so where is the page on that cop that rescued 10 people from a flooded river ?

 

I just think you're wrong, unfortunately. I just don't think documenting something amounts to glorifying it. I can't see that we're going to agree on it though.

And while I agree up to a point about the cop, there is the problem that Wikipedia is publicly created. It's not like someone couldn't make a page about him, they just haven't because he's not that interesting. That's not a problem with Wikipedia, it's a problem with humanity.

 

true but who made the page on him? find that out and essentially you find out why they made it

 

So, are you trying to say that Seung-Hui Cho is in fact your real name?


Another thing to mention is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You can't really blame Wikipedia for what people put up on it. And, basically, no one wants information on the victims. They want information on the killer, so there's a page about him. Get over it. Should they not have a page on Hitler unless they can come up with a page for each of his millions of victims? No, because no one wants to read about them anyway.

 

And that would serve what?

The thing is, I can see Wikipedia turning into the new MacDonalds is this takes off. At the moment, it's one of the most scrutinised and constantly refined information sources going, and as a result it takes a vast amount of flak, compared to books which people can put out and which no-one bothers to read. If someone published a book about who Cho Thing was actually really awesome and all the students probably deserved it, you'd probably never know about it, let alone read it.

 

Greatness, significance, whatever you want to call it is not a matter of being a good person. Hitler was a far greater individual than many people who selflessly work at homeless shelters are.

Great does not have to be defined as positive or good, but it does always mean influential, having an impact. This individual, this killer is a significant person and he will be remembered for a long, long time for good reason. What he did was extraordinary (not a good thing, only "out of the ordinary").

It would be an act of desperate ignorance to try to conceal information about him. People want to know, they deserve to know. Hide information from people for moral reasons? I don't see the logic in it, and personally I find it a case of immoral morality.

He has his own page because it contains information and minute details that are not directly important to understanding the events of the shooting as they unfolded but for giving us the raw resources to try to understand why this shooting took place.

You can't lump his life story in with the shooting, it would be a case of too much information, some of which would have arguable relevance to the shooting. For the basic sake of organization, he deserves his own wikipedia entry. Give him his own site and those interested in understanding more about the shooting and the events that precipitated it, can click on Cho's site and learn more.

The big point you seem to be missing is that this is not information being thrust in people's faces on TV by the media seeking sensational stories to entertain us with, this is a website written by people. This is the information people want, and this is what they'll have, and that's the way it should be.

And calling me a redneck or a right wnger for disagreeing with you, wow, awesome logic man. You made an argument that a lot of people clearly took offense at, and you got hit with pennies.

Freedom of speech. It doesn't gurantee anyone will listen to you or even respond politely with what you say. It just means you can make your points and you did, and you got flak for it, and now you're arguing back. Good, that's the way I like it.

But even if I hypoethetically did make a website with the attempt of making a cultural icon out of or even worshipping Cho as a great person, what power has been invested in you to allow you to take it down?

I already made my argument on copy cat crimes. If people are so miserable and desperate that this is the final thing that lets them snap, so be it. The problem isn't with them as much as it is with the 99.99% of society that back them into their corners.

Let something like this be an example of what happens when you ignore those troubled out of fear of being troubled yourself. Maybe Cho should become an icon, if it would only help would shed some light on some very serious problems troubling this planet.

But no, let's continue demonizing and fearing him, right? Let's let our devils rot in obscurity in hell as monsters. Cho doesn't deserve recognition as a significant human being, he's just an ugly detail.

I think you're the one who's missing the point of this all.

 

The cop probably also bangs the hookers he arrests. What's your point? His impact on society isn't all that large.
This guy did. It's not glorifying him to make a page about him - it's abiding to the laws of supply and demand. People demand to know about someone like this, and wiki supplies it.
No one gives a shit about the fireman who pulled a cat out of a tree. People are interested in a person who could go on this sort of shooting spree.

Also, why should the victims get pages? Just because they were shot?
How do you know they weren't asshats? Out of 32 college students, I bet most of them were jerks. They probably didn't have terribly interesting lives, either. It's not saying the shooter is a better person than them, it's just documenting a signifigant moment in history and the most signifigant person in creating that moment.

 

Remember when Columbine happened, and we were all like "Well yeah... but they were only college athletes", and then when 9/11 happened "Well yeah... but they were only tourists and stockbrokers"? Or were your friends nice people?

 

Hey sentient, Cho said he died "for the weak and defenseless".
That would include whiners like you.

Don't worry, Cho is on your side, buddy.

 

I don't agree with you. The only thing Ilearned from that baloney is that senility has stuck at the grand old age of 24.

 

I am forced to repeat an earlier post of mine

 

And yet you're amazed why all the meanies pounce on you in this bit of the forum. Repeating the same old "you are all stupid" rhetoric is fine if it gets you off, I guess, but you're allying yourself with Protest (capital P) and accusing anyone who disagrees of being against protest (lower case p), and all that does is reinforces the stereotype of protester-as-obsessive-lunatic-possibly-in-jester-hat.

What do we want? UNREALISTIC SOLUTIONS TO NON-EXISTENT PROBLEMS!!!
When do we want them? SHUT UP REDNECK STUPIDHEADZ!!!

 

White,

You criticize others of being right wing but you are the one who is so lacking in your faith in humanity that you actually support the argument that Seung-Hui Cho's wikipedia page is a potential danger to our society.

If this is your honest stance on the issue, and you're not just trolling for kicks, you are honestly one of the most conservative people I've encountered on this forum.