The contributor has only made 2 anonymous posts both anti film. Says a lot really
Originally Posted by Monito
Cosina Wiki [article] is implied... what else would it be.
Quote from Wikipedia:
A wiki is a website that allows the creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a
Last edited by ic-racer; 07-04-2011 at 02:16 PM. Click to view previous post history.
heres a good wiki
Originally Posted by Monito
As far as I know; I use all my cameras. They are all in working order and have a pretty good sense that most in Apug do the same. I have no problems finding film.
" A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~
Folks, relax. Last I looked, photography, and perhaps especially analogue photography, is a detail-oriented discipline.
There are many Wikis. Based on the OP's post, I didn't know whether to look at the Camerapedia Wiki or the Wikipedia Wiki, or the alternate to Camerapedia. There are others (I didn't feel a need to check the Leica wiki, for example). It turned out to be on Wikipedia. Wikis are composed of articles, just as websites are composed of pages and forums have threads which have posts. A page is not a site. Similarly an article is not a wiki.
So specifying "Wikipedia" was useful, hopefully, for some. For others, it seems that Wikipedia is the only Wiki they are aware of. Which is ok. Perhaps learning that there are others is ok too. Perhaps even letting people know that there are others is ok too.
I used all neutral words (please reread my post). Gosh. I didn't know that Wikis were such an emotionally charged topic on APUG. I did not use any pejorative terms, but I can now that a poster has set the tone. So, please, unclench your obsessive focus on sphincters and realize that if a person provides details, it may or may not be a criticism, and if it is a criticism it is probably constructive, in which case perhaps relaxed people are willing and able to accept a little constructive criticism.
So, did I do wrong to post neutral information in an APUG forum?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
It was necessary to specify where the original "wiki" article was. I did not bother searching for it as it was not specified where it was. Wikipedia is a particular species, "wiki" is an entire genus. Precision is never a sin.
Actually one was better than three. Newspaper brought, since their inception in XVIII century, a wealth of contradicting, contrasting information and people had to face a plurality of sources, and take a position.
Originally Posted by polyglot
When "public opinion" was formed through newspapers, free thinking flourished. We own to the newspaper age the "enlightment" age, the modern liberal democracy, and a great lot of independence movements all over Europe (among those, the Italian struggle for independence, Italy celebrates this year its 150th anniversary from the "official" unification date).
Radio had an opposite effect. Radio entered into every household, included the ignorant masses, which were the vast majority of population, and gave a "truth", a "trusted source of information", without any contradictory. It just fell from above. It was like the word of God. It was for an entire planet like the Gospel. Radio favoured the birth of dictatorships all over Europe (especially Fascist ones, and Nazism in particular, which were in a sense greatly favoured by the radio). In communist countries, the radio certainly favoured the "personality cult". One Stalin, or one Mao, could be depicted as the omnipotent saviour of the country, the Godsend against the (many) external and internal enemies (saboteurs, anarchists, capitalists, Jews, priests, speculators, bankers and various other forms of traitors and parasites, according to taste).
Radio allowed any government (whether present culture defines it as fascist or not) to enter any household without contradictory, to distribute guilts, to give excuses, to create myths, to cement that particular blind form of "patriotism" which make every dissent a menace to the national health and wealth.
Countries which think are democratic (such as the US) followed the same pattern. Just imagine the enormous power the weekly President's radio speach had over the general public, or the daily government-controlled radio news had on ignorant masses. Television did not certainly improve the situation by itself. Only, in recent years TV and radio space become more "pluralist" and so somehow recreated the situation of pre-radio years.
If we analyse the political evolution of every country in the radio days we see an enormous raise of fascism in all its forms. Not just in countries like Hungary, Yugoslavia, Greece, Spain (during "carlism" well before the Franco golpe) etc. where suddenly fascist regimes managed to gain, and especially preserve, power, but also in so-called democratic countries, where fascist attitudes become normal and widely accepted. Just to mention the US: thousands of blacks lynched without any form of state intervention, massive control of the state over the media, "Palmer raids" against Italian and anarchist before the war, concentration of US citizens of Japanese descent during the war, ridiculous Nuernberg process after the war, MacCarthysm after the war, are all signs of a "fascistised" society, a society where the radio, or government controlled TV, is the prevalent source of information.
Don't get carried away/
Wiki Author Disses Film Cameras...
He isn't an author just a sad individual who decided to edit two pages.
However the OP's right because unless you can see the history of the page editing it does come across as the author of the article was anti film cameras.
I think this is quite true but with a caveat. Newspapers (when there is plurality of ownership as mostly seen prior to the mid 19th century) provide an excellent medium for the literate to become aware of politics and issues but leave behind the illiterate. So we see a renaissance but what I suspect we don't see is that most of the population doesn't get to participate in that because they're too busy in the factories.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
Bring on radio, which reduces all education-related barriers to mass communication and involves everyone, for better or (much more likely) worse. The quantity of information you can pack into an hour of radio is much smaller than you can put in a couple of newspaper articles and given the broader audience, it will be written to appeal to baser instincts and the lowest common denominator. And as you say, people respond to a cult of personality in voice where they would likely be repelled by the same words written.
What amazes me is that centuries after the enlightenment, after civil rights and "universal" suffrage, radio (in the USA) remains a hate-filled echo-chamber and holdout for those who would return to theocracy and/or fascism.
I'm actually curious about who the mystery anti-film editor is. Two edits on the same topic on a no-name account leads me to believe that he might have a stake in digital, but doesn't want to attach his name to it. Of course, I've seen way too many vanity pages and horribly biased rants posted as "fact" to really assume good faith anymore, so I could just be projecting my paranoia.
Also HAHA Evil bodies. They caused our fall from Kodak-loving grace.