Is it a good tactic, I wonder, to blackout in protest of something that might permanently black things out all over... hmm?
Wikipedia decided to go dark for 24 hours (in order to "raise awareness" apparently - one supposes that a simple banner/message on top of the page, whichever page is chosen, would not have sufficed?) so dark we go to protest the fact that U.S. Congress is merely discussing at this time the possibility of passing some restrictive legislation that would limit access to free stuff on the web, like we're all used to it by now...
Wikipedia® chose to go dark indeed on the 18th of the first month of the ominous year of 2012 - and it is all for our own good, of course.
Their encyclopedia articles have become the easy-access/easy-solution for any-and-all interrogations that we might have had, at any time during our cyber-lives - and to be met with a dark screen and a sinister message (though the hyperlink "learn more" does lend it a hopeful twist) not to mention a downright dark version of the logo -the Wikipedia® logo- like I personally have never seen it before, casting its shadow upon each and every letter in the same way you'd expect it from The Twilight Zone logo or the Tales From The Crypt logo - but not Wikipedia® - come on...! Thus, to be met with all of that instead of the usual stuff-we-seek-FAST... well, it is quite unsettling? Frustrating. Not to mention disheartening, of course!
But, once again, this is indeed how Wikipedia® decided to greet its users for the 24 hours of January 18th, 2012 (surely a sign of the oncoming apocalypse right there) - have a look now:
Sorry - couldn't get the *dark logo* in there - but you got the sombre message!
Well, Wikimedia's mission is clear, of course: to make knowledge accessible to all, freely and free of charge! But in choosing to apply the blackout method here, didn't the group practically forfeit already, abdicating in advance even, if only for a day, as the legislation looming on the horizon is not anything remotely close to being effective yet...? But, obviously, Wikipedia® and many other "big players" on the web fear that it will be, without a doubt, and incessantly at that?
That is, alas, what all this implies here!!!
TheFreeDictionary (by Farlex!) is not one of those "big time players" on the "triple w" - it merely copies and serves up the same stuff to be found on Wiki in the first place! And whenever it does so (which is all the time) it follows the data up with a "warning" or "caution" message in tinier characters, just to be on the safe side and all... It goes like this:
This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia® - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the Wikipedia® encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.
Thanks a million, GNU! To think that we owe it all to a GNU - wow! The web is a beast to be tamed, indeed (who said that, again?) and it appears that the beast is tamed and it was a GNU. But that is another long story... And another long sidetrack, I know.
Now, if that is the value that is attributed to Free Documentation - then, perhaps, none of us should want it so darn much in the first place, hmm?
Please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article... Owtch!
Maybe it is indeed time to dust off the old Encyclopaedia Brittanica, that has gone unused for decades now (at least) - eh?
Because the Age of Free Information is about to end ignominiously - thanks to a bunch of old elitistic farts in congress that want to keep it all for themselves and their bratty grand-bastards!
And no GNU can possibly stop THEM!
(May depend on which gnu we pin all of our slim hopes on, of course; this one might have a greater chance than this one here; but don't hold your breath on that, okay?)
The battle might rage on - but then it will most likely end like that old tale of the goat dreaming to be on the mountain and the wolf meeting it there...
Hmm... 2012 really is shaping up to be the end of the world alright - wow.
Wikipedia decided to go dark for 24 hours (in order to "raise awareness" apparently - one supposes that a simple banner/message on top of the page, whichever page is chosen, would not have sufficed?) so dark we go to protest the fact that U.S. Congress is merely discussing at this time the possibility of passing some restrictive legislation that would limit access to free stuff on the web, like we're all used to it by now...
Wikipedia® chose to go dark indeed on the 18th of the first month of the ominous year of 2012 - and it is all for our own good, of course.
Their encyclopedia articles have become the easy-access/easy-solution for any-and-all interrogations that we might have had, at any time during our cyber-lives - and to be met with a dark screen and a sinister message (though the hyperlink "learn more" does lend it a hopeful twist) not to mention a downright dark version of the logo -the Wikipedia® logo- like I personally have never seen it before, casting its shadow upon each and every letter in the same way you'd expect it from The Twilight Zone logo or the Tales From The Crypt logo - but not Wikipedia® - come on...! Thus, to be met with all of that instead of the usual stuff-we-seek-FAST... well, it is quite unsettling? Frustrating. Not to mention disheartening, of course!
But, once again, this is indeed how Wikipedia® decided to greet its users for the 24 hours of January 18th, 2012 (surely a sign of the oncoming apocalypse right there) - have a look now:
Imagine a World
Without Free Knowledge
Without Free Knowledge
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.Learn more.
Sorry - couldn't get the *dark logo* in there - but you got the sombre message!
Well, Wikimedia's mission is clear, of course: to make knowledge accessible to all, freely and free of charge! But in choosing to apply the blackout method here, didn't the group practically forfeit already, abdicating in advance even, if only for a day, as the legislation looming on the horizon is not anything remotely close to being effective yet...? But, obviously, Wikipedia® and many other "big players" on the web fear that it will be, without a doubt, and incessantly at that?
That is, alas, what all this implies here!!!
TheFreeDictionary (by Farlex!) is not one of those "big time players" on the "triple w" - it merely copies and serves up the same stuff to be found on Wiki in the first place! And whenever it does so (which is all the time) it follows the data up with a "warning" or "caution" message in tinier characters, just to be on the safe side and all... It goes like this:
This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia® - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the Wikipedia® encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.
Thanks a million, GNU! To think that we owe it all to a GNU - wow! The web is a beast to be tamed, indeed (who said that, again?) and it appears that the beast is tamed and it was a GNU. But that is another long story... And another long sidetrack, I know.
Now, if that is the value that is attributed to Free Documentation - then, perhaps, none of us should want it so darn much in the first place, hmm?
Please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article... Owtch!
Maybe it is indeed time to dust off the old Encyclopaedia Brittanica, that has gone unused for decades now (at least) - eh?
Because the Age of Free Information is about to end ignominiously - thanks to a bunch of old elitistic farts in congress that want to keep it all for themselves and their bratty grand-bastards!
And no GNU can possibly stop THEM!
(May depend on which gnu we pin all of our slim hopes on, of course; this one might have a greater chance than this one here; but don't hold your breath on that, okay?)
The battle might rage on - but then it will most likely end like that old tale of the goat dreaming to be on the mountain and the wolf meeting it there...
Hmm... 2012 really is shaping up to be the end of the world alright - wow.
Comments