Hacker News Reader

Comment by kizer | Hacker News Reader

If the rules he's using are being followed correctly, and if the information he is posting is well-sourced, then your only other course of action would be to petition to change wikipedia's rules.

"Well-sourced" is not the only criterion. I could edit a page, citing credible sources, and still distort it by including implicit, one-sided interpretations of those sources results/contents.

Also, if the rules do not have, in short, "be objective", then yes, we should petition to change wikipedia's rules.

View on HN

> I could edit a page, citing credible sources, and still distort it by including implicit, one-sided interpretations of those sources results/contents.

As an example of this, at a certain point John Perry Barlow was indicated as being against net neutrality. The source for the claim was his declaration of independence of the cyberspace because it claimed he didn't want government intervention in the net. As far as I know, this isn't "being against net neutrality" and I never read anything by JPB advocating against it.

So yes, someone can always cite something and twist its meaning to fit a particular agenda.

“Telecom regulations give a lot of leverage to organizations whether governmental or corporate to close down the right to know. My long experience says as soon as you give government the authority to impose regulations on the Internet you are doing something to frustrate the right to know. People tend to presume on theoretical grounds a little right minded regulation will help people build beneficial architectures and organizations. I do not think there is anything to support that theory. Every time I have seen any sort of regulation of the Internet the results have been mayhem. Declaring the Internet and the telephone network to be the same thing is like declaring a Buick and a symphony to be the same thing because they both make noise.”

- John Perry Barlow

http://calinnovates.org/category/issues/platform-access/net-...

It's interesting that the passage you quoted is not itself sourced in the link you gave. I tried looking for that same passage on Google and came out empty handed (except for the site you linked to).

Do you have a first-party source for that? I would like to see it in its original context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com