Reddit shutting down to protest SOPA/PIPA

[CCNaru]

lol who cares? reddit is shit

 

[CrimzonEyed]

I use internet every day, though never heard of reddit (well maybe, but not that I can remember xD)

 

[Midna]

what's reddit?

Get off the internet. Hand in your internet card and leave through the exit to the left. ಠ_ಠ

ProtoKun, it is only necessary to know what Reddit is so that one can recognize their shitty stolen jokes, and to know never, ever to go there.

 

[Shano56]

Either they're for realz and this is where I say "Good for you, at least you have an ideology to follow" or this is how you turn standard server maintenance into a web-wide advertisement of your board.

Yea if wikipedia goes down, half of the countries students grade will go down by 80% XD

NEVER trust Wikipedia, always use it as ONE of your sources, not the definite source. I've seen stupidity layered with misinterpretation on more than one occasion - remember that the Wiki "writes itself", whatever you find there is a compilation that's not necessarily correct.

I hate it when people say NEVER trust wikipedia. Most of their articles are accurate. Just cuz anyone can edit them doesn't mean that anyone can add their opinions, stupid edits get reverted. if someone said never cite wikipedia as a source for an academic paper, I would be okay with that.

I think all websites against SOPA/PIPA should do this. The larger the scale of site blackouts, the more of an impact it would make.

1 day of GBATemp offline = 1 million raging users at Costello's doors with rocks, sticks, molotov's and spiked dildos.

Not if GBATemp redirected to a page that said something along the lines of SOPA having shut GBATemp down, or maybe WILL shut GBATemp down if it's passed. Or maybe they could put a background of the Red Spice guy and have the Red Spice guy's 'the man your man could smell like' story on there with the words changed so it's like "the site your GBAtemp could look like after SOPA's passed."

Don't you mean old spice xD

 

[Foxi4]

I hate it when people say NEVER trust wikipedia. Most of their articles are accurate. Just cuz anyone can edit them doesn't mean that anyone can add their opinions, stupid edits get reverted. if someone said never cite wikipedia as a source for an academic paper, I would be okay with that/

...which is exactly where you'd normally use it as source material that you mention. You don't casually say "Canines are mammals, and I know that from Wikipedia.Org!" when among other people, do you?

 

[gamefan5]

Nice. I give my full support. Now if only Facebook would shut down too to support... XP

 

[Shano56]

I hate it when people say NEVER trust wikipedia. Most of their articles are accurate. Just cuz anyone can edit them doesn't mean that anyone can add their opinions, stupid edits get reverted. if someone said never cite wikipedia as a source for an academic paper, I would be okay with that/

...which is exactly where you'd normally use it as source material that you mention. You don't casually say "Canines are mammals, and I know that from Wikipedia.Org!" when among other people, do you?

Your reply seems to have no relation to your first post. trusting wikipedia has nothing to do with citing it or using it in casual conversations. The reason academic professors don't like it as a source, is because it's not a primary source (many authors).

 

[Foxi4]

NEVER trust Wikipedia, always use it as ONE of your sources, not the definite source. I've seen stupidity layered with misinterpretation on more than one occasion - remember that the Wiki "writes itself", whatever you find there is a compilation that's not necessarily correct.

 

[Shano56]

NEVER trust Wikipedia, always use it as ONE of your sources, not the definite source. I've seen stupidity layered with misinterpretation on more than one occasion - remember that the Wiki "writes itself", whatever you find there is a compilation that's not necessarily correct.

Then you're contradicing yourself. "NEVER trust Wikipedia"

 

[Foxi4]

NEVER trust Wikipedia, always use it as ONE of your sources, not the definite source. I've seen stupidity layered with misinterpretation on more than one occasion - remember that the Wiki "writes itself", whatever you find there is a compilation that's not necessarily correct.

Then you're contradicing yourself. "NEVER trust Wikipedia"

Trusting and mentioning sources are two very different ideas. Information on Wikipedia may be correct, but at the same time may not and you need to double-check it.

Check the dictionary definition of "trust" and stop derailing the thread.

 

[Shano56]

NEVER trust Wikipedia, always use it as ONE of your sources, not the definite source. I've seen stupidity layered with misinterpretation on more than one occasion - remember that the Wiki "writes itself", whatever you find there is a compilation that's not necessarily correct.

Then you're contradicing yourself. "NEVER trust Wikipedia"

Trusting and mentioning sources are two very different ideas. Information on Wikipedia may be correct, but at the same time may not and you need to double-check it.

Check the dictionary definition of "trust" and stop derailing the thread.

That doesn't make much sense. No point in arguing with a rock though. You think you're right so whatever I'm done

 

[Foxi4]

I don't quite understand what's unclear in this simple message: "Information on Wikipedia may be edited and/or posted by anyone, people who create articles don't necessarily know what they're writing about and may misinterpret certain facts, thus one should not take information from the page for granted and cross-examine it with other sources to check it for validity before blurting out something dumb when writing a paper or dicussing a matter of utmost importance". You really have to be a rock yourself not to agree with that.

 

[PyroSpark]

So far so good.

 

[Valwin]

a day without reddit omg isl iek the best day evar

 

[Midna]

Shano, Foxi is right. Using WIkipedia as your one trusted source is the worst idea you could think of. My friend Finn has had "Cogswell's" (his last name) up on a Wikipedian list of Australian restaurants. For years. Discrete changes to less frequented articles often go unnoticed. And if those discrete changes are legitimate misinformation rather than harmless jokes, we have a problem. And then there's this bullshit:

I kid you not, this is a legitimate problem on WIkipedia. People who take Wikipedia as their only source, as Foxi4 is warning against, sometimes inadvertently become sources for Wikipedia its self.

 

[nando]

there is nothing wrong with using wiki for objective facts. i use to find stuff like math formulas etc when i help my kid with homework. everything on the internet is written by someone and even text books like the ones that come from texas are suspect as to how objective they are. really you can't trust anything.

 

[Foxi4]

Theeere we go, a proper extension of the argument. I'd like to add a few things before we finish this:

The reason academic professors don't like it as a source, is because it's not a primary source (many authors)

Untrue. On the same basis you could say that all the studies that involve collaboration of scientists, all anthologies and all Encyclopedias are false and untrustworthy. Wikipedia is not particularily "liked" by professors because it's not certified for validity and anyone can change its contents on a daily basis - it's a fluid information medium. Something that's written there the day you were writing your work or the day you started discussing something may disappear tomorrow or be parpahrased invalidating your point. You're shooting yourself in the foot if you choose to use a source that can show you the middle finger without earlier notice as the foundation of your argument.

Discrete changes to less frequented articles often go unnoticed. And if those discrete changes are legitimate misinformation rather than harmless jokes, we have a problem.

With some articles there's also the problem of interpretation of facts. Some people don't really see the difference between direct and indirect consequences of given events and put them in a single basket, which sometimes causes fallacies in a thesis or argument. A person who is not a specialist in a given field may write an article that will be "basically true" but only "on the basic level, if you omit certain important aspects that are a matter of further research". You may recieve the information about the final result, but the process leading to it may be written in an incorrect fashion.

there is nothing wrong with using wiki for objective facts. i use to find stuff like math formulas etc when i help my kid with homework. everything on the internet is written by someone and even text books like the ones that come from texas are suspect as to how objective they are. really you can't trust anything.

Simple facts, yes. More complex articles - not really.

With a textbook, you always know whom you should grab by the balls if there is a clear error in the work. With the Internet you can grab your own for trusting an anonymous person on "the other side". Not only that, we mentioned already that using only one source is a mistake in the first place - many scientists may have a different take on the same event.

 

[DSGamer64]

No matter how many people protest SOPA, it's still going to go through. Why? Because politicians are the puppets of the entertainment industry in the USA and they are trying to push through a bunch of non-realistic bullshit to treat people who download worse then paedophiles and actual criminals who are a real threat to a society.

 

[chyyran]

I've read news articles that Amazon, Google and Facebook may shutdown too.

And I'm spreading awareness wherever I can on my part, in real life, of course.

Alas, those idiotic money hungry hypocrites that call themselves "Representatives" and "Senators" will be as ignorant as, well,

The US Government, You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

 

[loco365]

I've read news articles that Amazon, Google and Facebook may shutdown too.

And I'm spreading awareness wherever I can on my part, in real life, of course.

Alas, those idiotic money hungry hypocrites that call themselves "Representatives" and "Senators" will be as ignorant as, well,

The US Government, You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

I see what will happen. All the popular sites will shut down, the world will "end" (based on how people are these days on social networking sites), and SOPA might get the idea. I see how this works.

From my perspective, that is.