Wikipedia
 

From the Telegraph:

The digital encyclopaedia will voluntarily shut down for 24 hours tomorrow (18th) in a protest against internet piracy laws in the United States.

A major target of the protest, SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act), has already been effectively halted by opposition from the White House, but Wales said the blackout would go ahead anyway.

Opponents of SOPA and PIPA argue they impose unfair responsibilities on websites such as Wikipedia to check that no material they host infringes copyright. Under current laws if websites remove pirated content when they are notified by the copyright holder they are not liable for damages.

The proposed laws also make it easier for American copyright holders to cut off access to foreign websites hosting unlicensed copies of films, music and television programs.

The legislation has been backed by an intensive lobbying campaign by major media owners, including Rupert Murdoch, and opposed by the giants of Silicon Valley, including Google and Facebook.

Good. I dislike Wikipedia because of the way it dominates internet searches. It can be useful, in fact, 99% of the time it is useful, and I am 'guilty' of quoting from it, as we all do, when it suits me, although I am sceptical about the quality of the information it contains.

It is time that other online references got a look in, and perhaps during the 24 hours that Wikipedia shuts down, people will realise that there are others out there.

If as it seems, you dislike having your internet dictated to you, then you should be foursquare behind the SOPA protests, otherwise you have completetely missed the point of what is going on.

I haven't missed the point of the SOPA protests at all. My comment is out of context but valid nonetheless.

shoutdown/blackout??????
 

does black out means shut down...I was under the impression its just gonna have black background in protest

I love it..its the ultimate quick info

But you need to be wary of some of the info, for example, one of the AGW activists went through the articles and altered things to suit their cause such as saying that medieval warm period didn't actually happen, ok he was caught and is no longer allowed to edit things but people will always put their own slant on things if they can.

It's happened - after a second or so it reverts to a darkened graded screen with an explanatory message:

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally I am comfortable with Wikipedia. One needs to have B/S filter <ON>, but then isn't that SOP with most internet ops? (This worthy forum excepted of course ..:ok:)

FoR!

Wikipedia is a reasonable starting point to research stuff but
certainly not the final say. Also the managers of that site are
glaringly left wing.

It is excellent however in tracking down that favorite movie if
you recall the actor's name - the filmography is usually given
at the bottom of the page.

Surely the chufking point is the campaign against SOPA?

Back again now - apparently they got the response they were hoping for:

SOPA/Blackoutpage - Wikimedia Foundation

F_O_R

Yep, but this never stops the under occupied verbose contingent with an itchy finger and an internet connection does it?:hmm:

Like others, I find Wikipedia a useful starting point. I have often found it subtly wrong in areas I know about - I occasionally get cross enough to go in and change it. It does seem to have a certain political bias, which is easily ignored.

Where it contains references (which it calls citations, like traffic offences) to other sources, those items are usually either accurate or so far out it's blindingly obvious.

It's an excellent place to start a search, but I would never (ever) quote it in an academic paper.

Anyone miss it? Miss what..............................?

Never before in human history have so much information been available to so many people.

The problem is that too many people equate access to information with knowledge, insight and understanding. All the while not knowing how much of the information is correct.

But hey, it has spawned a horde of instant experts who know everything despite having experienced nothing.

Allow me to throw that load of FUD back at you Sir....

The same idiots who can't tell the difference between good and bad information on the internet are the same idiots who will fall for the stories told to them by bank managers, estate agents, care salespeople and treat what the newspapers say as gospel .....

The people who can't tell the difference in real life are the same people who can't tell the difference on the internet.

The benefits of the internet outweigh its disadvantages greatly.

Let's take financial products as an example. You can't trust the commission hungry sales people in your local bank branch who only want to sell you their own product .... so where can you find truly independent information on the whole gamut of financial products and their pros and cons .... at an affordable price ? Yeah, that's right, the internet.

When did you last book a flight or a train ticket face-to-face bricks and mortar ?

Just as there are a whole horde of so called real-life experts with qualifications and "experience" to their name who are a complete and utter waste of space.

( for the avoidance of doubt, that comment was not directed at you incase you think it was !).

( for the avoidance of doubt, that comment was not directed at you incase you think it was !).

I am not that insecure or defensive.

The remainder of your post appears to be a response to something other than what I said.