Because the world is radically new, the ideal encyclopedia should be radical, too.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
By the time I came down from Yale, I was already more radicalized and had begun to read New Masses.
I think it's fascinating to look at a world that an author has created that has sort of stemmed from the world now, and usually dystopian books point out something about our current world and exaggerates a tendency or a belief.
The core of Wikipedia is something people really believe in. That is too valuable for the world to screw it up.
Many writers are radical. I am not, because of my age and because of my terrible fear of demagogy.
Radical constructivism, thus, is radical because it breaks with convention and develops a theory of knowledge in which knowledge does not reflect an 'objective' ontological reality.
When I went to school, it was radical just to be involved in anything.
I am a radical.
I wouldn't call it radical; I would call it enthusiasm for progress.
When my generation grew up, our only sources of knowledge were books, teachers, parents and friends. The encyclopedia was an item of luxury. We faced big limits in what we could learn, where we could be and who we could reach.
Radical politics tend to be simple minded.
No opposing quotes found.