You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
Russia has banned Wikipedia
Posted:
Russia has banned WikipediaPosted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 06, 201112Year Member
Posts: 12,347
Reputation Power: 632
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 06, 201112Year Member
Posts: 12,347
Reputation Power: 632
The Russian version of the world's largest encyclopedia has been targeted by the country's media watchdog because of a page on the site that reportedly made references to a type of cannabis.
The watchdog, named Roskomnadzor, took issue with a page that discussed the drug, charas a variety of hashish cannabis made from the resin of the cannabis plant. The site was ordered to remove the page.
Because the Russian version of the site employs the secure HTTPS prefix for URLs, individual pages can't be blocked. That means the entire site gets blocked instead.
Source: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
#putinsuckswiener
#2. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 20,220
Reputation Power: 1362
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 20,220
Reputation Power: 1362
Wikipedia is a load of nonsense anyway.
They won't be missing out on much.
They won't be missing out on much.
- 3useful
- 3not useful
#3. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 24, 20159Year Member
Posts: 11,179
Reputation Power: 3366
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 24, 20159Year Member
Posts: 11,179
Reputation Power: 3366
Mickers wrote Wikipedia is a load of nonsense anyway.
They won't be missing out on much.
Yeah they wont be missing out on much because Who even uses Wikipedia anyway, I know i certainly dont.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#4. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 27, 201113Year Member
Posts: 5,024
Reputation Power: 361
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 27, 201113Year Member
Posts: 5,024
Reputation Power: 361
Wikipedia is just full of shit most of the time, so they arent missing out on much xD
- 0useful
- 2not useful
#5. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 14, 201014Year Member
Posts: 1,387
Reputation Power: 98
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 14, 201014Year Member
Posts: 1,387
Reputation Power: 98
I have never been the biggest fan of wikipedia. Wouldn't mind if the US followed Russia, myself.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#6. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 20,220
Reputation Power: 1362
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 20,220
Reputation Power: 1362
Whom wroteMickers wrote Wikipedia is a load of nonsense anyway.
They won't be missing out on much.
Yeah they wont be missing out on much because Who even uses Wikipedia anyway, I know i certainly dont.
Hahaha, used it for homework as a kid, not since.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#7. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 06, 201112Year Member
Posts: 12,347
Reputation Power: 632
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 06, 201112Year Member
Posts: 12,347
Reputation Power: 632
#8. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201211Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Just an FYI for all the people who think Wikipedia is crap.
Studies constantly show that Wikipedia is just as accurate as other, well trusted, search engines like Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Not to mention that almost all Wikipedia pages have sources for the information at the bottom of each entry.
You're not saying that Wikipedia is inaccurate, you're saying that the source they got the information from is inaccurate.
If a page is waiting to be reviewed and approved the URL shows up in red any way, so you know when something might not be accurate.
Studies constantly show that Wikipedia is just as accurate as other, well trusted, search engines like Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Not to mention that almost all Wikipedia pages have sources for the information at the bottom of each entry.
You're not saying that Wikipedia is inaccurate, you're saying that the source they got the information from is inaccurate.
If a page is waiting to be reviewed and approved the URL shows up in red any way, so you know when something might not be accurate.
- 3useful
- 0not useful
#9. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 06, 201112Year Member
Posts: 12,347
Reputation Power: 632
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 06, 201112Year Member
Posts: 12,347
Reputation Power: 632
ManWithNoName wrote Just an FYI for all the people who think Wikipedia is crap.
Studies constantly show that Wikipedia is just as accurate as other, well trusted, search engines like Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Not to mention that almost all Wikipedia pages have sources for the information at the bottom of each entry.
You're not saying that Wikipedia is inaccurate, you're saying that the source they got the information from is inaccurate.
If a page is waiting to be reviewed and approved the URL shows up in red any way, so you know when something might not be accurate.
During middle school it was drilled into our heads that Wikipedia was unreliable, so you weren't allowed to use it as a source in projects.
It's obviously different now, but that is the reason why most think it's not good.
- 2useful
- 0not useful
#10. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 08, 201013Year Member
Posts: 2,243
Reputation Power: 136
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 08, 201013Year Member
Posts: 2,243
Reputation Power: 136
Wikipedia is a bunch of crap anyway they dont need false information.
- 0useful
- 3not useful
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.