Comments on: Wikipedia Doesn’t Make You Coffee Either http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/comment-page-1/#comment-37391 Richard Bennett Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:04:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/#comment-37391 <p>Frauds thrive on naive, gullible idealists, and the Wikipedia project brings the two groups together like nothing we've ever seen before.</p> Frauds thrive on naive, gullible idealists, and the Wikipedia project brings the two groups together like nothing we’ve ever seen before.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/comment-page-1/#comment-47620 Richard Bennett Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:04:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/#comment-47620 <p>Frauds thrive on naive, gullible idealists, and the Wikipedia project brings the two groups together like nothing we've ever seen before.</p> Frauds thrive on naive, gullible idealists, and the Wikipedia project brings the two groups together like nothing we’ve ever seen before.

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/comment-page-1/#comment-37390 Crosbie Fitch Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:21:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/#comment-37390 <p>Two different points here. 1) Wikipedia isn't flawed simply because a fraud edits it. 2) Do you have good evidence to support your suggestion that most libertarians support fraud and refuse to condemn it?</p> <p>There are frauds who pretend to libertarianism as well as theology degrees, you know.</p> <p>Frauds may be morally bankrupt, but how does that contaminate anyone else who supports the Wikipedia project?</p> Two different points here. 1) Wikipedia isn’t flawed simply because a fraud edits it. 2) Do you have good evidence to support your suggestion that most libertarians support fraud and refuse to condemn it?

There are frauds who pretend to libertarianism as well as theology degrees, you know.

Frauds may be morally bankrupt, but how does that contaminate anyone else who supports the Wikipedia project?

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/comment-page-1/#comment-47619 Crosbie Fitch Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:21:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/#comment-47619 <p>Two different points here.<br>1) Wikipedia isn't flawed simply because a fraud edits it.<br>2) Do you have good evidence to support your suggestion that most libertarians support fraud and refuse to condemn it?<br><br>There are frauds who pretend to libertarianism as well as theology degrees, you know.<br><br>Frauds may be morally bankrupt, but how does that contaminate anyone else who supports the Wikipedia project?</p> Two different points here.
1) Wikipedia isn’t flawed simply because a fraud edits it.
2) Do you have good evidence to support your suggestion that most libertarians support fraud and refuse to condemn it?

There are frauds who pretend to libertarianism as well as theology degrees, you know.

Frauds may be morally bankrupt, but how does that contaminate anyone else who supports the Wikipedia project?

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/comment-page-1/#comment-37389 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:55:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/#comment-37389 <p>And here I thought Libertarians condemned fraud, as core moral principle, rather than using it as an opportunity to attack the defrauded.</p> <p>It really shows how morally bankrupt are the Wikipedia apologists.</p> <p>The point is that Wikipedia management both hired, and defends, a blatant liar WHO USED THE LIES TO PROMOTE WIKIPEDIA! If that doesn't merit ONE WORD of approbation, in comparison to the intense derision of the deceived - well, that says a lot about the twisted morality here.</p> And here I thought Libertarians condemned fraud, as core moral principle, rather than using it as an opportunity to attack the defrauded.

It really shows how morally bankrupt are the Wikipedia apologists.

The point is that Wikipedia management both hired, and defends, a blatant liar WHO USED THE LIES TO PROMOTE WIKIPEDIA! If that doesn’t merit ONE WORD of approbation, in comparison to the intense derision of the deceived – well, that says a lot about the twisted morality here.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/comment-page-1/#comment-47618 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:55:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/02/wikipedia-doesnt-make-you-coffee-either/#comment-47618 <p>And here I thought Libertarians condemned fraud, as core moral principle, rather than using it as an opportunity to attack the defrauded.<br><br>It really shows how morally bankrupt are the Wikipedia apologists.<br><br>The point is that Wikipedia management both hired, and defends, a blatant liar WHO USED THE LIES TO PROMOTE WIKIPEDIA! If that doesn't merit ONE WORD of approbation, in comparison to the intense derision of the deceived - well, that says a lot about the twisted morality here.</p> And here I thought Libertarians condemned fraud, as core moral principle, rather than using it as an opportunity to attack the defrauded.

It really shows how morally bankrupt are the Wikipedia apologists.

The point is that Wikipedia management both hired, and defends, a blatant liar WHO USED THE LIES TO PROMOTE WIKIPEDIA! If that doesn’t merit ONE WORD of approbation, in comparison to the intense derision of the deceived – well, that says a lot about the twisted morality here.

]]>