Isn't it strange that our desire for newer and ever more dazzling media machines is equaled only by our wish to escape them? Innovations in media have always been driven by the desire to overcome mediation.
Can I be so bold as to suggest that your company's actions stem from sour grapes that you achieved the lowest ranking amongst the Internet giants? While it is true that we've taken legal action against Google's GMail service...We have no specific axe to g
Nowhere on the Internet does this free lunch logic hold more true than at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sure, it's monetarily free, but it costs you heaps in credibility and accuracy, as well as the time spent combing over information for instances of "jason is a faggit" and other assorted such delights hidden mid-paragraph here and there.
Something Awful has a flat out hilarious (if somewhat long in the introduction) article on the nerd bias of wikipedia. The point isn’t to say that one article or another on Wikipedia has factual inaccuracies, but rather to show how much more attention certain topics get than others.
There's been plenty of debate over the past couple of years about the merits of Wikipedia, generally focusing on how "trustworthy" the site is because of its anonymous contributors and lack of professional editorial review.
E. Bagiella, T. Karamlou, H. Chang, und J. Spivack. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 150 (4):
779-82(Oktober 2015)Variables instrumentals; Introductori; CV.