Comments:Wikinews interviews Sue Gardner on Wikipedia blackout
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Comments from feedback form - "awesome!"||0||21:35, 22 January 2012|
|Comments from feedback form - "So this article is not neutral..."||6||05:18, 21 January 2012|
|Please list all the contact information for the house and senate phone numbers web addresses ((SUPPORTERS)) so on||0||15:20, 20 January 2012|
|Wikipedia blackout||3||09:01, 19 January 2012|
|Great job!||0||20:19, 18 January 2012|
|Great interview||1||13:35, 18 January 2012|
So this article is not neutral and I applaud that! Love that a company this big is take a stance. This article is not meant to be neutral, go Wikipedia!!!
Wikinews is neutral in reporting: but we do have interviews where interviewees are allowed to say what they wish and express their opinions. We don't do Fox News style fake balance though.
Fox News often sets up a back and forth with two guests. The "information" presented on Wikipedia's website during the protest made no allowance for any rebuttal with respect to the claims of fact that were made. How about for your next interview calling up The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation and asking them about where their funding is coming from and what their view of the protest is.
Not, based on this page (http://www.itif.org/content/board), someone I'd trust to be "unbiased" about SOPA or PIPA.
Orrin Hatch is well-known to be so deep in the pockets of big media companies that he's covered in lint.
And Darrell Issa, who's also on the board, isn't the biggest anti-SOPA Congressman on the Hill? Even if they ARE biased, why so scared of hearing an opposing view? The ITIF people happen to know a lot about what's actually in these bills. Instead of interviewing Sue how about arranging a debate between her and someone who disagrees with her?
It's evident you suffer from a malady all too common in our modern world: you can't recognize neutrality even if you see it. Presumably this malady stems in part from rarely having the opportunity to see it; I prescribe hanging around Wikinews. A Wikinewsie learns to find and present a neutral view of the news, without bias from their own opinions. We all have opinions; the trick is to know where neutrality is, so one knows where one is relative to it.
Please list all the contact information for the house and senate phone numbers web addresses ((SUPPORTERS)) so on
Not all english speakers are US citizens. What do you gain by depriving the people of Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and others of your service when they have no power to influence the legislation you object to. Englishman.
With minor rewording (to remove the assertion of opinion at the end), that would have made a great question to ask in the interview. Coming up with good questions for an interview is really difficult.
Disclaimer: I've created and painstakingly edited hundreds of high quality technical articles on WP. But it was quite a shock when in response to a routine WP inquiry, I was redirected to what appears to be a poorly designed and HIGHLY INTRUSIVE advertising page. Needless to say, not only had I not participated in "largest-ever community discussion on English Wikipedia" (pat yourself on the back 3 more times, Sue), I was utterly unaware of the action and have wasted quite a bit of time just trying to figure out what has happened. So the work of hundreds of thousands of people donated with the understanding that it would be freely available to everyone, all the time, has been hijacked by a small group of vocal users. (The ultimate irony: one cannot even review the discussion while the "blackout" is in place.) As usual, bureaucrats take over and corrupt a great volunteer project once it grows beyond a certain size and starts to make impact. What contribution to the content of Wikipedia have you made, Sue, and why are you so arrogant?