Too bad it's those anarchists/traitors/dissidents/hippies/[label] trying to make their socialist/anrarchist/communist/[derogatory adjective] opinions into facts.
See what I did there?
A Senator or anyone within the Senate has just as much of a right to their opinions as any of us do and they also have the same permission to edit Wikipedia entries as we do.
So what is the point in pointing out that someone presumably within the US Senate has changed a word in the Wikipedia article about Snowden? To point out that they're wrong? What if we're the ones who are wrong?
This act doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights in any way. Its an attempt to persuade possibly but we can't blame them for that. They have just as much a right to try and persuade people to seeing things their way as we do.
I'm just wondering what kind of discussion is this supposed to spark? I've seen a fair number of posts on HN lately that are little more than attempts to preach to the converted and turn the comments into a back-slapping fest. Is it weird that I consider the opposing viewpoint any time I make an argument or consider an issue? I don't necessarily agree with changing dissident to traitor but I don't see anything wrong with someone believing that either.
I think you're debating semantics here. What if the person looks at it as doing the world a service by correcting wrong information? Then that would probably fit into the job somehow.
In any case though, I don't think the ethics of editing a word on Wikipedia during work hours is what we're supposed to be getting up in arms about. I'm really not sure still why we're supposed to be upset.
See what I did there?
A Senator or anyone within the Senate has just as much of a right to their opinions as any of us do and they also have the same permission to edit Wikipedia entries as we do.
So what is the point in pointing out that someone presumably within the US Senate has changed a word in the Wikipedia article about Snowden? To point out that they're wrong? What if we're the ones who are wrong?
This act doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights in any way. Its an attempt to persuade possibly but we can't blame them for that. They have just as much a right to try and persuade people to seeing things their way as we do.
I'm just wondering what kind of discussion is this supposed to spark? I've seen a fair number of posts on HN lately that are little more than attempts to preach to the converted and turn the comments into a back-slapping fest. Is it weird that I consider the opposing viewpoint any time I make an argument or consider an issue? I don't necessarily agree with changing dissident to traitor but I don't see anything wrong with someone believing that either.