Below is a compilation of my replies to my own heatedly debated Facebook status, “Am I the only one who thinks that Wikipedia blackout is childish? I want my donation back.”
Okay, just to be clear, I don't support SOPA/PIPA but still Wikipedia blackout decision seems childish/irresponsible to me. If they want more attention to the bills, wouldn’t a big, say full-page, banner enough? For me, putting a link/banner or whatever is okay but limiting its own website’s availability is technically unacceptable.
What bonds me to Wikipedia is more than just donations. A project like Wikipedia is possible because of an unsaid social contract between the website and users; we provide and edit information while Wikipedia sets the platform and keeps it running. However, this blackout decision broke Wikipedia’s side of the contract to keep information viewable/editable online. A lot of people have contributed something to the Wikipedia but they now have no control over their information’s availability. What if Wikipedia decides to voice their “opinion” on something else that we may even disagree with too? How far can a web service go for its political agenda?
I am not sure if this is voted or discussed somehow among users. One thing I learn from this is that Wikipedia is not to be trusted to make information freely available. Again, wouldn't a huge banner enough?
0 comments:
Post a Comment