Even though we make fun of Wikipedia, and even though any serious scientific piece shouldn't cite Wikipedia, fact remains that the community-created and maintained encyclopaedia has turned into an impressive database of knowledge. Even though I don't think you should trust it blindly, it's usually an excellent starting point for information, especially when used in a casual setting. Still, its open nature is also a threat to Wikipedia, this week exemplified by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee banning Scientology from editing Wikipedia pages.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:1997-10-01
Very humorous retort, 6c1452, but I'll say that I actually do welcome the astroturfing campaign to OSNews, officially.
Here's a little PR lesson for everyone: the public discourse is like an aircraft carrier. You can signal from far away that you're going to attack it, and all you'll do is bring down hellfire on yourself, and make it go in exactly the opposite direction of where you want it to go. It'll scramble its fighters and launch its missiles right down your throat, and probably end up calling in an airstrike on your home port for good measure.
Alternately, you can approach in a friendly manner, and nudge it in the direction that you want it to go, gently. With enough gentle nudging, you can steer that big boat right where you want it to go.
Please, please let every organization that wants to control the public discourse on a particular topic do it by way of polite, friendly postings on news forums.
Welcome to OSNews, Milo!
Member since:
2007-08-29
I for one would like to welcome the church of scientology's astroturfing campaign to osnews. Nice registration date, dude.