Wikipedia, the community-edited encyclopedia that anyone can revise, is one of the Web's biggest success stories. What you may not know is that it also has become an important player in the political world.
Started in 2001 on a shoestring budget, Wikipedia now ranks as the ninth most popular Web site in the U.S., according to Internet ratings company Alexa.com, outpacing such "old media" stalwarts as CNN, ESPN and the New York Times. (It's even more popular worldwide, where it is currently the seventh most-read site.)
This popularity makes Wikipedia very interesting in a political context, particularly because its pages are highly regarded by most Internet search engines. Chances are, if you look up the name of most any state or national politician, the Wikipedia entry on him or her will be in your top three results. In some cases, such as those of President Bush or Vice President Cheney, Wikipedia's article actually beats out the official government biography pages.
When you add to its popularity the fact that Wikipedia has more than 10 million articles and great search-engine placement, it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that Wikipedia is one of the most influential publications in American politics.
Basically anyone who works in political communications will acknowledge the value of Wikipedia as a messaging tool, but you would be surprised to find out how few politicians have come to this realization. That's because most political leaders are either too busy or too technologically out of touch to make the Internet a part of their media diets. Many D.C. elites think that because they have no contact with the interactive Web in their personal lives, no one else does either.
Unfortunately for the right, there seems to be a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats who suffer from this thinking. Whether it's a senator wondering how long it takes for "an Internet" to arrive or a nonprofit president thinking that placing an op-ed in the Podunk Courier is an accomplishment, the right has not placed the value on Wikipedia that it deserves.
Conservatives seem to be making another critical error regarding the online encyclopedia on the question of political bias. You can't entirely blame them either, considering that Wikipedia seems to have tilted leftward in a number of cases.
As my NewsBusters colleague P.J. Gladnick has documented, the online encyclopedia blocked all mention of allegations that former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had conducted an extramarital affair.
In addition, Wikipedia articles on so-called "climate change" similarly tend to leave out information that contradicts conventional liberal views.
The reason for this is in the editing: anyone can alter Wikipedia's entries, in most cases without even bothering to register for an account. What this means in practical terms is that people with enough determination to force their viewpoints on Wikipedia can do so.
Accomplishing this task can take up large amounts of time, up to 15 hours a week, according to Jonathan Schilling, a 50-something software developer from central New Jersey interviewed by the New Republic in April.
Mr. Schilling told the magazine that he spent several hours a day managing the Wikipedia article about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries, all on his own initiative using the online name "Wasted Time R."
Journalist Lawrence Solomon uncovered similar levels of dedication among extreme environmentalists when he tried to correct an entry that inaccurately claimed climate realist Benny Peiser had endorsed an alarmist study.
The temperature debate is not the only area where left-wing bias skews Wikipedia's articles. Right-leaning critics have noted the encyclopedia's tilt in entries on Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat and former talk-show host for the liberal radio network Air America.
Faced with such bias, many people on the right seem willing to retreat from the Wiki Wars, resorting to legal maneuvering to block particularly noxious entries and crying foul about Wiki unfairness. Still others on the right have withdrawn to their own site, Conservapedia.
There is nothing wrong with such efforts, but they are incomplete - incomplete because they fail to recognize that liberal bias at Wikipedia isn't like bias at ABC or CBS. These institutions are dominated by liberals, true, but their systematic structure is such that the ability for people on the right to push for fairness is severely limited.
That is not the case with Wikipedia, a participatory medium in which those who are most active enjoy the most influence. It's time for the right to dust off its hands and engage in some old-fashioned activism.
Go out there and make a difference. If you find bias, we'll be more than happy to spread the word.
(Modified from my Thursday Washington Times column.)
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ugh...
August 22, 2008 - 01:10 ET by Dr_LibertyI tell my students to avoid Wikipedia at all costs, but they still cite it. This sends shudders down my spine.
<insert witty signature here>
Snopes.Com
August 22, 2008 - 06:59 ET by allanfLately I've begun to wonder about snopes.com also. Snopes is not strictly wrong on the facts. But their interpretations take definite tone. Or see their story on Democats Iraq War quotes.
I've begun to notice that
August 22, 2008 - 08:31 ET by BelnumCreeI've begun to notice that lately about Snopes as well.
Yep
August 22, 2008 - 14:27 ET by guefySnopes is definitely liberal.
So just to be clear...
August 22, 2008 - 01:24 ET by HillbillyKingMr Sheffield, this;
Go out there and make a difference. If you find bias, we'll be more than happy to spread the word.
is a request for submissions of Wiki liberal bias that, if applicable, will be examined here on NB?
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Yep
August 22, 2008 - 01:41 ET by Matthew SheffieldOutstanding,
August 22, 2008 - 02:10 ET by HillbillyKingThank you.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
To clarify Matthew's clarity (I hope)
August 22, 2008 - 14:39 ET by sarcasmoI think in his comment Matthew's also saying that if conservatives (or libertarians, for that matter) wish to have their/our views represented fairly at Wikipedia, we'll need to do some work beyond just reporting Wiki's leftwing bias to this site. IOW, it will take correction and discussion and debate and endless patience with annoyances like being in an intellectual minority for a while (it's not all that bad, take it from me!) and all that other nasty, boring stuff which actually leads to change. But Matthew can please correct me if I'm wrong.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Is omission of certain information considered bias?
August 23, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Par for the CourseOn Joe Biden's Wikipedia page, under Biography, Early life and family:
According to Opensecrets, Hunter has been a lobbyist for Oldaker, Biden & Belair since 2004.
I'm curious why the wiki page mentions that Hunter previously worked in the Commerce Department, but fails to mention that he is a partner in a Washington D.C. lobbying firm.
Wow. Let's put a man on mars. It might be easier.
August 22, 2008 - 02:23 ET by JWFSir,
As a conservative and a right wing nutjob, I am attracted towards such ideas as self reliance and individuality and the truth.
I am feel compelled towards such ideas as holding down a job, taking care of my family, saving for retirement and managing a 401k, and resealing my driveway year after year. When I want the truth, I visit sites such as NewsBusters.
The liberals that hoard over the various topics in wikipedia feel no such compulsion, they relie on mommy and daddy, the nanny state, and live in rat infested apartments in rundown parts of loony town and have no driveways. As such, they have all the time in the world to overwrite anything rational, factual, or evidentiary we may attempt to provide.
But I shall endeavor to help out the most trusted and respected Mr. Sheffield!
There are only 4 sentences in the entry for Matthew Sheffield at wikipedia. The last sentence seems a little like a backhand slap at what you are doing at MRC & NB. The entry states the MRC is a group which claims that the U.S. media have a liberal bias. Then the final sentence.
Although he is a media critic, in a speech at the Heritage Foundation in 2005, he stated that he believed the blogosphere can learn principle from the mainstream media. [1]
Maybe it is just me, but that entry seems to have you contradicting yourself. Also, I read reference [1] and wonder how they got the whole principle thing out of there.
At least they provided a link to an autobiographical post of yours that actually spanned out to what looked like a page or more.
Whats more.
August 22, 2008 - 02:52 ET by JWFIf I read the wikipedia page correctly, it took them 500 changes just to arrive at those 4 sentences.
Not a fan of wikipedia in case anyone missed it.
Hey JWF,
August 22, 2008 - 03:13 ET by HillbillyKingI did the same thing, look up Mr. Sheffield on Wiki. I also looked up Newsbusters.org and was redirceted to the MRC entry.
Come on, Newsbusters deserves its OWN Wiki entry. Maybe that can be the members first mission in takin back Wiki from the liberals.
BTW, you got it easy sealing a driveway, I got a mile of gravel to repair once a year. :-}
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
the bias includes offensive
August 22, 2008 - 02:40 ET by Insane Chipmunkthe bias includes offensive measures too. recently all of St. Louis's conservative talk station hosts pages were deleted from Wiki. Granted these pages were not hugely detailed, but now they are lost to time.
It's one thing to change an entry there - saavy people can see the history of changes and revert things back. Once it's deleted, it's gone.
Editing Wikipedia is a waste of time and your life
August 22, 2008 - 03:36 ET by PopularTechNo amount of effort is going to change what eventually appears on Wikipedia because it is broken by design. This is not a matter of spending enough time and energy, it is essentially arguing with everyone who has an internet connection (1.4 Billion people) and monitoring an article indefinitely against changes by anyone who has an internet connection - that is insanity.
You are not going to make a difference wasting your life like this.
The Faith-Based Encyclopedia (Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopedia Britannica)
The Wikipedia FAQK (Wired)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
@ PT
August 22, 2008 - 15:33 ET by geoff.galeAs anyone who reads the tech news knows, Wikipedia has a "secret" group of moderators who rule the site with an iron fist and whose bias and leanings are evident in virtually all of the articles there. These moderators, up to and including the founder Jimmy Wales, have been shown to have participated in repeated re-editing of content, poster banning, and vendettas several times.
The sad fact of the Wikipedia site is that they have manipulated the Google ranking system well enough that their pages show up near the top of virtually all Google searches.
They act just like the Marxist socialists who follow the dictates of Saul Alinsky - winning at any cost.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
There Oughta Be A Study...
August 22, 2008 - 04:03 ET by magicalangelicusAcross all of the major web 2.0 news sources there is a pervasive left-leaning bias. From digg, to slashdot to Wikipedia, the bias remains. So the question is "Why"?
Do people of the Right focus more of their time on other pursuits such as family and work? Or is it a simple a question of age and demographics?
I would love to see a study on this...
In a way, we've seen that study
August 22, 2008 - 04:14 ET by sarcasmoDifferent Republican primary candidates had vastly different results on sites like Digg, with Huckabee & especially Paul doing quite well. IMO this is because Huck & Paul were the only ones who actually attracted many young people to the GOP.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I am starting to see why some people like you Mr. Sarcasmo.
August 22, 2008 - 06:05 ET by JWFThat was a very good try at a solid argument, but I found it wanting. Here is why...
Yes, young people were attracted to the Crackpot and the bit of a crackpot. Still, they were the losers. So they did not do quite well after all.
So it is not just young inexperienced factually devoid people, it may have something to do with young inexperienced factually devoid people with a narrative and little else to occupy their time.
And THAT's your excuse for "a solid argument"???
August 22, 2008 - 06:07 ET by sarcasmoLoser. And here's another in his history of pre-emptive "I told you so" fiscal messages. Digg it, man.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Now, I definitely see it, why people like you.
August 22, 2008 - 06:35 ET by JWFYou are sort of like a little brother. Yes, he is annoying and breaks my stuff, but hey, he is family.
1. I was referring to the presidential campaign when I was referrenced being a loser, not someone or somthing that is marked by consistently or thoroughly bad quality, performance, etc: Don't bother to see that film, it's a real loser.
2. Sorry, did not mean to bump into a fan. Let me get a napkin and help you clean up that coffee off that nice suit.
3. When personally insulting someone with the term, loser, always, always include a link the the youtube site of the "Loser" music video by Ayreon. Or were you using the term as an insult. Kind of hard to tell with it being in its own sentence and all?
4. The original question was why someone of a certain bent is attracted to sites like Digg, you are not allowed to use Digg links as evidence of your argument, sort of like not being allowed to use a word in its very own definition.
5. Not gonna read anything by Rep. Crackpot no matter how many links you provide. Sorry.
JWF
August 22, 2008 - 06:45 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsGive it up, Sarcasmo is never wrong and will be the first to tell you so. His ardent and neverending support of all things Ron Paul must never be challenged. Them's the rules.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Ron Paul
August 22, 2008 - 07:03 ET by Cool ArrowRon Paul's inability to rally the masses against the coming meltdown is not necessarily a valid indictment against him.
Considering some of the decisions our children will be making, he makes perfect sense. I'll do my part and work until I'm 70, not because the Country owes me Social Security, but because our technology has granted me the privilege of living well past the actuarial of my father's generation.
I read the link sarc provided, and agree with his findings. The principles Dr. Paul describes have been true forever. And those kids who follow after Ron Paul have a clearer understanding of our current situation than we credit them with.
I ♣ my seal
Ron Paul's supporters hurt him
August 22, 2008 - 07:14 ET by PopularTechWhen they have to resort to tactics like this, it is game over:
How Ron Paul Supporters Spam Polls Exposed
Paul also attracted all the idiot 911 Truthers, people who must have failed science in school.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Indeed
August 22, 2008 - 08:49 ET by Remixer96Indeed PopularTech. I agree that we should definitely judge Ron Paul by the views of his followers.
Give me a break.
If we as a society have lost the ability to judge someone by their ideas rather than their followers' ideas then there's almost no hope for the future of the Republic.
People are always judged by the company they keep.
August 22, 2008 - 10:46 ET by PopularTechJust like we judge Obama by his marxist friends. Ron Paul defeated Ron Paul but his friends did not help nor did their dishonest tactics.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
rebuttal
August 22, 2008 - 12:40 ET by Remixer96And you don't see something wrong with that?
If we play the guilt by association game, the entire world is literally going to come up guilty in some fashion or another.
Have we really lost so much trust in politicians that we judge their views by the yells of their most skewed supporters? Don't you see how that helps no one, especially the country as a whole?
Not at all
August 22, 2008 - 16:02 ET by PopularTechI don't have any communist friends, nor any who are 911 Truthers. What associations do is force exploration into someone's positions on issues.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Um, NO
August 22, 2008 - 07:35 ET by UnsaneConsidering some of the decisions our children will be making, he makes perfect sense. Like wanting the United States to be as whiny and pathetic on the world stage as possible?
Foreign policy wise, Ron Paul is horrifically naive and ignorant. I hate to break his supporters' hearts, but they NEED to be broken. I wasn't getting shot at by the Federal Reserve or Israelis earlier this year. Nor did they destroy the World Trade Center in 2001.
My old man put it best last January when seeing him in debate: "That jaundiced pipsqueak wants to be President?"
As for his blathering about supporting the Constitution: maybe he can explain why he served in an unconstitutional branch of service. Also, maybe he can show me where in the Constitution there is a role for Congress to supply city buses or funds for the shrimp industry.
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
Pathetic?
August 22, 2008 - 08:58 ET by Remixer96Unsane,
You must be referring to Ron Paul's hesitancy to use force and build up the military in favor of retuning and bettering the US economic engine.
You know it's funny, because I see the two combined, with economics really taking even more precedance.
Take China for example. We literally do not have the option of forcing anythign on them militarily regardless of how strong we may be, because of our economic situation. The Middle East is an increasingly perilous place to conduct operations since virtually any troop movement makes gas prices spike.
So, given that the strength of your military doesn't matter if you're bound by economic chains, I'd say Paul had the correct set of priorities for our children.
Terrorists cannot destroy the United States. An economic collapse could. Where would you put your effort?
Weak, weak, weak
August 22, 2008 - 09:23 ET by UnsaneHmmm. Bettering the economic engine by railing against ICBs? By essentially withdrawing the United States from the world financial system?
"Build up the military?" You ARE joking, right? From the man who has said that what we need to do to right the economy, in his eyes, is to "give up the empire"? I don't know what empire he is talking about, but his detesting of the United States' ability to project power is well known, being the isolationist that he is.
Take China for example. We literally do not have the option of forcing anythign on them militarily regardless of how strong we may be, because of our economic situation. Really? Things aren't all that great in China. If you really believe they are THE world economic powerhouse, then their propaganda machine at work for the Olympics has worked. China is STILL largely an agrarian nation. Eighty percent of the population are farmers who don't even own their own property. Sure, it has made great strides to industrialization. But they aren't quite "there" yet. And China cannot project power around the world. The United States CAN and DOES every single day, something which irritates Paul, and apparently you. And the only thing China has going for it is a cheap labor force. Operations can just as easily be shifted elsewhere, to Vietnam, for instance. The Middle East is an increasingly perilous place to conduct operations since virtually any troop movement makes gas prices spike. You could have written that any time since about 1960 or so. The only difference is that now that China and India are becoming increasingly market-oriented economies, there are more players on the world stage for the "oil pie".
So, given that the strength of your military doesn't matter if you're bound by economic chains, I'd say Paul had the correct set of priorities for our children. WHAT economic chains? Not being on the gold standard and having an ICB, like MOST (if not all) nations have in the 21st Century? Sure, there is the national debt, but ours is not nearly as bad as such places as Japan, who not only has a national debt twice its GDP, but is starting to lose its tax base as its population declines. Fact is that the United States is still the world's most powerful and advanced economy, and is the world's most dynamic.
Don't even come in here crying that China owns all our debt either - at most, ONE-THIRD of the debt is foreign owned. I have yet to see people come in here crying about how much of our debt Japan owns (IIRC, the largest holder of U.S. Treasuries)...oh wait, they DID, twenty years ago. It is also quite difficult for a nation whose GDP is in the BILLIONS to own a debt, entirely, worth TRILLIONS. (Unless of course someone else has China by the balls...)
Terrorists cannot destroy the United States. An economic collapse could. This sentence tells me just how painfully short your memory is, as well as being indicative of your complacency. You may remember that after 11 September 2001 the economy took a major shock. I remember the massive stock sell off after the terrorist attacks of that day on the first day of trading, post-attack - I have and own stocks so that day sticks in my mind as to what kind of damage terrorists can wreak. And economic attacks are very much possible, as past efforts to sabotage Israeli agricultural exports have shown. Where would you put your effort? Hmmm. You CAN'T worry about an economic collapse if there is no country or economy to worry about. Hence my wanting to do something Paul absolutely refuses to do - confront issues of international relations, and formulate a foreign policy.
Well, Paul does have ONE foreign policy idea: if he were President, how long would it take him after his inauguration for him to order the destruction of Israel?
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
Weak BS
August 22, 2008 - 10:25 ET by sarcasmoTruth squad required, again, but I love how you're desperately trying to change the subject from fiscal failure to the foreign policy failure I'm sure you'll now blame on all those strident libertarians in high places.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Response by the illiterate
August 22, 2008 - 17:28 ET by UnsaneAren't you the one who loves to tell people how illiterate they are and how "reading is fundamental?" Instead of lecturing me, maybe you should go bitch at remixer96, who was the one who mixed a discussion on foreign policy and fiscal issues to begin with.
Are you both going out of your way to prove you are blithering idiots?
I also note you have nothing to refute my words with. Typical. And no, I have never blamed Libertarians for anything. Once again you show your penchant for arguing like a Leftist; this time desperately trying to stick words in my mouth. If THAT isn't typical weak BS from you I don't know what is.
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
I can see it
August 22, 2008 - 10:26 ET by Cool ArrowIf we would follow our charter we could have both.
We are now inextricably intwined in alliances we have no intent of defending. Defend Georgia? Even President Bush, a pretty good President in my book, cannot possibly have the cajones to stand toe to toe with the Russkies, and they know it.
But if he does allow Georgia to deteriorate under Russian domination, what stops China from having their way with Taiwan?
Point being, why did we make or continue commitments we long ago realized were untenable?
We guard the border between Iraq and Iran and the border between North and South Koreas, but we won't bother to guard our own?
And Paul isn't going to order the destruction of Israel. More likely he would be more understanding of Israel's right to defend itself than all other administrations have been.
I ♣ my seal
You are an isolationist in denial and here's how
August 22, 2008 - 17:44 ET by UnsaneCool Arrow, you disappoint me greatly. Ignoring The Big Bad World will NOT make it go away.
You recently protested that you are not an isolationist. This post gives the lie to your statement.
Please list the TREATIES we have with Georgia to defend it.
Please also note we have a TREATY with Taiwan.
We guard the border between Iraq and Iran and the border between North and South Koreas, but we won't bother to guard our own? Really? Since when do we guard the border between North and South Korea? I was stationed there in 2005-2006 and saw no such operation, other than a small contingent placed at Camp Bonifas which acts more or less as a quick reaction force. You may want to hit the DMZ at some point and tour it yourself before sticking your foot in your mouth.
Additionally, one reason there aren't that many people pouring south from North Korea is because the NKPA does a very fine job of defending its side of the border by killing anyone who ventures too far south.
We can guard the border with the Border Patrol and other resources...it is a question of will. And we CAN do this all the while protecting freedom in San Antonio by protecting the freedom of Seoul. (h/t to JFK)
And Paul isn't going to order the destruction of Israel. More likely he would be more understanding of Israel's right to defend itself than all other administrations have been. Then you simply have not been paying attention. The United States has barely, if ever, given armed support to Israel by way of deploying forces there. It isn't a case like the Soviet Union propping up the GDR and other puppet regimes as you so desperately want to believe. The 1967, 1973 and 1982 conflicts happened entirely on the Knesset's own call, not because we told them to. Hell, we intervened politically AGAINST Israel from time to time, the most notorious example being in 1956!!!
Paul hates Israel. He calls them "the biggest lobby of the bad sort". Which shows what an inept legislator he is. I know what the biggest lobby of Washington is. Do you? Yeah, Paul says that; yet, for some reason Jonathan Pollard is STILL in the slam, even after 20+ years of Israel's (and AIPAC's!) whining and crying to set him free. Neither Israel nor AIPAC could stop REAGAN from selling AWACS planes to the Saudis. Neither Israel on AIPAC could convince Clinton or Bush 43 to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Yet, Israel is the biggest lobby in government. Also, in his newsletters of old, his most vitriolic statements on foreign matters were directed at Israel.
Like it or not, Israel does what Israel does, and while they are often of the same mind as the United States in foreign matters, they are out for their own defense and have been since the 5th Day of Iyar, 5708.
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing gt thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for themedal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
Unsane
August 23, 2008 - 09:09 ET by Cool ArrowYou disappoint me too.
"This post gives the lie to your statement."
We can disagree on what
isolationism is, and one of us can be Wrong, but when did you incorporate
calling people liars out of the box? You
know the term requires intent.
Treaties with Georgia?
None. You’re right, all we owed
them was an airlift out of Iraq for 2000 Georgian Soldiers with a slap on the
back and a “You guys never were our allies anyway”
And since we also had no Treaty to defend Kuwait, our reason for invading Iraq the
first time must necessarily be that which differentiates Kuwait from Georgia. I'll take that as a "Of course it had nothing to do with Liberating Kuwaitis and everything to do with OIL"
And since the First Gulf War had nothing to do with any stinking Treaty, it
follows that we had no business going in a second time to liberate the Iraqi
people. Unless of course, you’re willing
to concede they all look alike to you and one dead Arab is as good as another.
Korea. Since we’re not guarding the
38th Parallel as you claim, I suppose it would be OK for 30,000
troops to come on home. Ain’t nobody
going to bother the South Koreans, right?
I've never been to Korea, but I'm surprised to learn from you South Koreans can come and go as they please. South to North, North to South. Not so much as a strand of barbed wire to hear Unsane tell it.
Where is the Cuban Embassy? (h/t to JFK)
When did Ron Paul call for the destruction of Israel? I guess he may have. I don't follow him that closely, but you really think Ron Paul wants to violently destroy Israel? Honestly believe it.
Rebuttal
August 22, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Remixer96It would take too long to go piece by piece, so I'll hit you with the big counterpoints.
1) You seem to not be listening to yourself
On the one hand, you claim you don't understand how the US can be seen as an empire, and on the other you claim the the US projects its power into the world every single day. How do you resolve these two stances?
2) 20% of 1.3 billion is more than 75% of the entire US population
If you think this large an urban population isn't a significant world economic player, than you're kidding yourself.
3) You didn't prove me wrong
You absolutely did not disprove my final point. I intended to say there is no way a terrorist could physically destroy the US, thus having "no country to worry about" is an entirely bunk point. It would take 100,000 days to kill off the US population if we had a 9/11 scale attack every single day. The country as a whole has no physical, existential, terrorist threat.
You did point out that terroists could cause an economic shakeup. This is true, but that is not the kind of financial crisis that brings down an international superpower. No international superpower in history has ever been brought down by terrorist attack. Instead they tend to go down due to financial ruin of the systemic variety (nations growing too large, incurring huge national debts, shifting as a population away from production to consumption, etc).
A rebuttal to simplistic thinking
August 22, 2008 - 18:18 ET by UnsaneYou, like most Libertarians/worshippers of Paul, have a laughably simplistic view of the world I shed so long ago I forget when it happened. I will now deal with you point by point.
On the one hand, you claim you don't understand how the US can be seen as an empire, and on the other you claim the the US projects its power into the world every single day. How do you resolve these two stances? This way: if we wanted, we could FORCE the issue, blow entire air forces out of the sky, and muscle our way through nations on a daily basis, yet we do not. We could simply demand landing rights in multiple countries and force our way onto their territory yet we do not. Take the Phillipines for example. When they asked us to leave, we did. Ditto France. We are leaving Ecuador because they want us gone. I would suggest if we WERE an empire, as you seem to think, well, we would have bombed Manila and Quito and demanded we stay there against the will of their people and government, or marched through Paris and deposed de Gaulle to keep the French bases. Yet for some reason we didn't. We've shut bases down voluntarily all over the world. And at those bases we DO use, we PAY for the privilege (except in the case of the Japanese, whose government pays for all the bases we use there).
You seem to think the United States is Great Britain of 100 years ago, yet it is not. We do not colonize people and nations in this day and age; we ask permission to do various things. Even when the SLORC of Burma turned down humanitarian aid, we did not force the issue, even if just one aircraft carrier could have done that trick.
2 20% of 1.3 billion is more than 75% of the entire US population
If you think this large an urban population isn't a significant world economic player, than you're kidding yourself. Maybe you should highlight where I said China was not significant. They ARE, they just aren't this Leviathan you are depicting. They have very serious upside and potential. They have come a VERY long way from the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. But I have been to China and have seen the issues they face.
Are they major world economic players? Yes. Do they have severe problems? Yes.
Infrastructure continues to be a problem for much of the countryside. They face a problem, due to their old one-child policy, of having a population get old before they get rich (which they aren't; this crap I heard about them having the world's third largest economy in the world during the Olympics is BS; Brazil's is bigger than China is yet I don't see you or many others whining about Brazil). Political unrest can yet be a major showstopper; occasional flareups do occur in the countryside and things could get ugly there.
You didn't prove me wrong
You absolutely did not disprove my final point. Jumping up and down, throwing a tantrum like a five year old, screaming this over and over does not refutation make I intended to say there is no way a terrorist could physically destroy the US, thus having "no country to worry about" is an entirely bunk point. It would take 100,000 days to kill off the US population if we had a 9/11 scale attack every single day. The country as a whole has no physical, existential, terrorist threat. Really? We didn't kill every single Japanese yet we brought them to heel. Nor did we commit genocide against the Germans, or many other nations. We barely fired a shot at the Soviet Union and it collapsed due to its own contradictions and a mighty shove from the United States. The country DOES have a physical, existential terrorist threat and I have witnessed this on deployments. I would rather have the terrorists try and take their shots at the military for I know our soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines will kick their asses. You, on the other hand, content to stick your head in the sand and hoping The Big Bad World Just Goes Away, would rather our cops try to stop them after they have killed a few hundred or few thousand people. I'd rather not live in a nation with 300 million people waiting to be slaughtered. I'd much rather live in a nation where the Bad Guys of the world know that if I as much as get a hangnail while visiting Cairo, for instance, for business or pleasure, that it will be at their great personal risk. If people understood this in 2001 perhaps the World Trade Center would be alove and well today.
You did point out that terroists could cause an economic shakeup. This is true, but that is not the kind of financial crisis that brings down an international superpower. Really? It is entirely possible No international superpower in history has ever been brought down by terrorist attack. Instead they tend to go down due to financial ruin of the systemic variety (nations growing too large, incurring huge national debts, shifting as a population away from production to consumption, etc). Again, your laughably simplistic thinking shows itself. No international superpower has ever been brought down by one of those things alone. Take Rome. You could consider the Germanic and Hunnic tribes that brought it down to be terroristic in a sense. But other rot was setting into Rome to make things worse.
Are you implying the United States is shifting away from production to consumption? I will have to let many people in Everett, WA know. As well as Cupertino, CA. As well as a bunch of people in the South Side of San Antonio, even more along the Port of Houston...or ALL OVER Houston, for that matter...hell, the ENTIRE DAMN COUNTRY.
The national debt is a problem and a moral one for me (hey, I have to balance MY checkbook, why can't the government) as well as cost saving (think about that 15% of the budget that is WASTED on interest!). But so sorry, making the United States a whiny, isolationist, disengaged world laughing stock that is hermetically sealed off from the entire world is not the cure. May I suggest that the problem is NOT the United States defending itself and its citizens with offense and rather with the government spending money on things like this and people either not knowing or caring? (I like music and all and donate to them. But why must the federal government pay for them???)
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
Explain how Digg does not support Censorship
August 22, 2008 - 07:05 ET by PopularTechSarc, please explain to me how Digg does not support censorship by allowing the mob to burry stories they do not like.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Last I checked
August 22, 2008 - 08:52 ET by Remixer96Last I checked PopularTech, letting an entire community of people vote to make decisions wasn't considered authoritarian enough to qualify as censorship.
It reminds me more of direct democracy personally.
Truth is not determined by vote or mob rule.
August 22, 2008 - 10:33 ET by PopularTechI take it you support censorship, at least we are clear on that.
Digg stories are burried by a limited number (known only to the Digg administration) before others can see it. It allows a small mob to control content. There is no vote which is irrelevant to the truth.
Our founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of the mob which is why they formed a Constitutional Republic and not a Direct Democracy.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I don't know
August 22, 2008 - 10:49 ET by Cool ArrowWhich sites don't censor themselves?
This site certainly censors itself. Why is it wrong?
I don't see Tumbler, Leon, or Trach around much anymore. Did they just get tired of NB?
Censorship via Mob Rule
August 22, 2008 - 10:57 ET by PopularTechThis site has editorial control and the stories published are not decided by the mob nor are the ones that a liberal might find offensive burried like on Digg.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The mob
August 22, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Cool ArrowWho comprises the mob at Digg. I'll admit to being not very familiar with its heirarchy or its political bent.
I ♣ my seal
Anybody that wants to
August 22, 2008 - 14:04 ET by sarcasmoIncluding, but not limited to, you. Sign up & you too can start rating/commenting right away, if Digg's still like it was when I tried Digg. Aside from the rumored existence of an owner (mentioned below) I detected no heirarchy whatsoever on Digg.
In practice, this means mostly young and therefore "ignorant" people of various ideologies who naturally tend to distrust authority more than most people around here, on average, IMO. Often, these people also distrust Digg.
JMR
PS Allegations of severe anti Ron Paul bias on Digg, which repeatedly led to huge discussions on the DailyPaul.com site, make this particular conversation unintentionally amusing, to this audience of one, at least. (I should do the Daily Paul a favor, login for old time's sake, and post this comment's link so my diehard friends can get one last laugh from NB!) For the record, I think Digg's owner has the exact same property rights as NB's Matthew Sheffield has in NB to make his site reflect his views while allowing others to use it, too.
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Digg inc has a hierarchy - Sarc
August 22, 2008 - 15:45 ET by PopularTechWhere did you get that from?
Digg inc.
It is not some free for all, people get banned all the time and so does content.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Rebuttal
August 22, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Remixer96PopTech,
I do not support censorship. To simply assert so is rude.
Last I checked, digg never claimed to be an objective news site or to have any sort of grasp on "truth." They don't deal with the equality of man nor his inalienable rights. They do popular news stories... and put them on a web page.
The tyranny of the majority, which you seem to equate with censorship, is a separate issue which crops up in issues of government and free speech.
In my view, censorship requires a censor, an authority figure that deems things good and others not. Digg lets the community choose what's good and not. While they do run into majority problems, you would be hard pressed to call it censorship because there is no censor.
Digg censors news based on lack of mob support.
August 22, 2008 - 15:48 ET by PopularTechYou can have a story supported by hundreds of people and a much smaller mob can censor it. It is not a simple 1 to 1 vote - you seem really naive on how Digg works.
Digg’s Top Buried Stories Revealed
Any idea what the story was that made Digg popular? They broke the Paris Hilton's cell phone got hacked - what a joke.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Rebuttal
August 22, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Remixer96PopTech,
I do not support censorship. To simply assert so is rude.
Last I checked, digg never claimed to be an objective news site or to have any sort of grasp on "truth." They don't deal with the equality of man nor his inalienable rights. They do popular news stories... and put them on a web page.
The tyranny of the majority, which you seem to equate with censorship, is a separate issue which crops up in issues of government and free speech.
In my view, censorship requires a censor, an authority figure that deems things good and others not. Digg lets the community choose what's good and not. While they do run into majority problems, you would be hard pressed to call it censorship because there is no censor.
First explain how I said it did...
August 22, 2008 - 10:22 ET by sarcasmoInstead of saying what I actually said above, which is totally different (To recap: Paul & Hick did better than the others on Digg & with young people in general. That's reality, so get used to it rather than hallucinating words I never said in another failed attempt to knock down some moronic strawman you've created.)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
The Technologically illiterate supported Huckabee and Ron Paul?
August 22, 2008 - 10:42 ET by PopularTechDigg supports censorship which does not make it a very good example for the future of youth in the GOP. It is also no an example of youth, rather it is an example of a collective of naive individuals who do not understand technology. I do not believe that it is helping your case to say that the technologically illiterate were attracted to Huckabee and Ron Paul.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You have yet to explain
August 22, 2008 - 10:54 ET by sarcasmoHow I said what you hallucinated, and it's funny that you're calling Digg's crowd illiterate in any way, since the web is entirely a reading based medium. Keep flailin'!!
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
"Technologically Illiterate"
August 22, 2008 - 11:01 ET by PopularTechKeep defending technology you do not understand and that support positions you are allegedly against (censorship).
Just because you use something and do not understand it, is not an excuse.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Once again, you've failed to explain.
August 22, 2008 - 11:04 ET by sarcasmoI hope this has been a lesson about trying to put words in my mouth, but if not, more lessons are forthcoming.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc, Do you support Digg or not?
August 22, 2008 - 11:12 ET by PopularTechLets make this simple, do you support Digg or not?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
First answer my question.
August 22, 2008 - 11:15 ET by sarcasmoDid you, or did you not, just try and fail to put words in my mouth??
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Answer the question
August 22, 2008 - 15:31 ET by PopularTechThe Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"Technologically illiterate?"
August 22, 2008 - 11:40 ET by CobraMan"technologically illiterate"
What does that mean? Does it describe someone who can't read and write Javascript? Cobal? HTML? RPG? Basic?
Or does it describe someone who can't read and write blueprints, wiring diagrams, specifications, etc?
I believe you mean "technologically inept" or "uninformed," don't you?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
I mean what I say
August 22, 2008 - 15:33 ET by PopularTechIt means someone that does not understand technology, such as Digg or Wikipedia. You can call it naive if you want, I like what I said.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Collectivism vs. Individualism (Digg, Wikipedia ect...)
August 22, 2008 - 07:02 ET by PopularTechThe Truth According To Wikipedia (YouTube) (48min)
Sites such as Digg and Wikipedia are Collectivist sites that allow any idiot to post to. Digg's "truth" is based on a popularity contest. Wikipedia's "truth" is based on who ever edited a page last.
The Problems with Digg.com
Digg is run by a punk moron. Wikipedia by a former porn pusher.
Slashdot is an overrated technical news site who's claim to fame was it's comment system where people can rate comments.
I take none of them seriously you can get much better and much more accurate information at other sites.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Wikipedia endorses Child Porn - Kid Friendly!
August 22, 2008 - 07:09 ET by PopularTechBesides the content of Wikipedia being unreliable, it also supports Child Porn:
Is Wikipedia wicked porn? (WorldNetDaily)
- Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action (WorldNetDaily)
- FBI investigates 'Wikipedophilia' (WorldNetDaily)
Erik Möller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia (Valleywag)
- Wikipedia leader Erik Möller: "Children are pornography" (Valleywag)
- Wikipedia's porn-loving No. 2 and his abiding concern for the children (Valleywag)
- Wikipedia's Erik Möller on the history of child sexual abuse: All Greek to him! (Valleywag)
- Why Sue Gardner hired a pedophilia supporter to run Wikipedia (Valleywag)
Here is some more good reasons to let kids use Wikipedia:
Violent threats on Wikipedia page went unchecked (Los Angeles Times)
Wikipedia publishes suicide instructions (WorldNetDaily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Thanks
August 22, 2008 - 14:31 ET by guefyFor that info. I had no idea. Surprising!
Wikipedia
August 22, 2008 - 07:40 ET by UnsaneA friend of mine and I were bickering one night over Wikipedia after I blasted it in a particularly vicious rant. He actually made a good point when he said it was best used as a starting point for web research purposes. Still, as I told him and I will tell all of you, unfortunately too many people use it as both the starting point and the ending point.
I for one still won't touch Wikipedia for love or money.
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
The Joke that is Wikipedia - an example
August 22, 2008 - 07:59 ET by PopularTechI used it last week as a test, I needed a date that something was built sure enough Wikipedia had a date but I made sure to confirm it, sure enough Wikipedia had the date wrong by two years, what a waste of time. I am better off looking things up from scratch then to get misleading and wrong information off Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is causing irreversible harm to information knowledge.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Banned
August 22, 2008 - 08:01 ET by RightWiredI was banned from Wikipedia 18 months ago by the left wing establishment there. It's a bastion of socialism.
They call it the encylopedia that anyone can edit, but only if you edit it with information the commies approve of. All it takes is one or two zealots to undo your changes three times before their three revert rule takes affect. If you persist, they block you with some sort of lame excuse (trolling, sockpuppet, etc).
Check out:
http://www.conservap...
and
http://www.wikitruth...
RightWired.
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reaga
RightWired...
August 22, 2008 - 15:52 ET by Clear thinkerWiki has a bad habit of wanting to promote what they consider the truth, which many times means their version of reality. Anotherwords, if it's leftist propoganda, then it must be true.
I'm having the same problem here.
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goal
Very true!
August 23, 2008 - 13:40 ET by RightWiredWell said. And thanks for the links!
RightWired.
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reaga
Strom Thurmond's Entry
August 22, 2008 - 08:38 ET by ecnirPIt doesn't take long to mention Sen. Strom Thurmond's run for President under the "segregationist States Rights Democratic Party"...it was included in the second sentence...but the fourth sentence in a purported factual biography of the man makes this dubious charge (lacking any citation, of course, since it is obviously just one person's opinion):
"He is also noted as the most prominent racist to serve in the United States Legislature"
With a former high-ranking Ku Klux Klansman still in the Senate today, and a 200+ year history of people serving in the United States Legislature, including times when there was more acceptance of slavery and institutional racism than there was in Sen. Thurmond's time, that statement in a person's biography stretches credibility.
Imagine this exchange:
Contestant: "I'll take 'Unchallenged Liberal Dogma for $400,' Alex"
Alex Trebek: "Although my record as longest-serving Senator was broken by Sen. Robert Byrd, I was the the most prominent racist in the history of the US Congress."
Contestant: "Who is Republican Senator Strom Thurmond?"
Alex Trebek: "Correct!"
... Then why didn't you change that sentence?
August 22, 2008 - 09:11 ET by Remixer96?
Free Speech Proponent
August 22, 2008 - 09:27 ET by ecnirPBecause I'm of the opinion that it's better to let the ultra-left continue to spout their rhetoric so everyone can see exactly who they are. I like when they make outrageous assertions. I love hearing Rosie spout off. I love Sen. Obama getting sycophantic coverage from the mainstrem media. I am thrilled when Vice-President Gore makes a prediction that the earth will be beyond saving in ten years. It makes it so much easier to make the conservative case when you have the examples to point to. Forcing liberals into our version of political correctness defeats us in the end.
Were I a language arts or English teacher, I'd give an exercise to my students to examine a Wikipedia entry and identify the elements which were fact and which were opinion. And I'd pick an over-the-top example. That would start the schoolyear off on the right foot, demonstrating the folly of relying on that outlet as a research source.
In other words...
August 22, 2008 - 11:00 ET by Foolican...you're apathetic.
Great Idea
August 22, 2008 - 09:15 ET by Remixer96Matthew,
I think this is a great idea myself. The whole idea behind a wiki is to get all the voices in the mix. It's supposed to be a vicious edit war between people with disparate views. That's why citations become so important.
However, I will chip in to say I don't think NB should really be commenting on WP articles. in the time it takes you to comment, why not go and change it instead? Wouldn't that benefit more people by doing so?
Action
August 22, 2008 - 09:25 ET by FoolicanI have to agree. So far the majority of posts that I have read claim that there is a fringe liberal base on Wikipedia, and while I agree that certainly applies to subjects on climate change and climatology, I still use Wikipedia for other purposes (real life, you know! Half-Life, gingivitis, the Sears Tower) and the information available for those particular areas is not only reliable - since the citations are from various third-party sources - but educating.
PopularTech complains that Wikipedia supports pornography, and therefore it should be regulated. This is farther to my right than I would care to be as I am a Libertarian, but Conservapedia is still out there.
Guys, the worst thing you can do is say "we need to shut it down, restrict, regulate, etc." because then you appear no better than the far left liberals you criticize so often for wanting to stifle free speech.
Wikipedia endorses Child Porn not just Porn
August 22, 2008 - 16:09 ET by PopularTechI clearly said Child Porn and the evidence speaks for itself. My point had nothing to do with regulation but rather a WARNING to parents:
Is Wikipedia wicked porn? (WorldNetDaily)
- Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action (WorldNetDaily)
- FBI investigates 'Wikipedophilia' (WorldNetDaily)
Erik Möller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia (Valleywag)
- Wikipedia leader Erik Möller: "Children are pornography" (Valleywag)
- Wikipedia's porn-loving No. 2 and his abiding concern for the children (Valleywag)
- Wikipedia's Erik Möller on the history of child sexual abuse: All Greek to him! (Valleywag)
- Why Sue Gardner hired a pedophilia supporter to run Wikipedia (Valleywag)
Conservapedia is a Religious Conservative version of Wikipedia and just as useless.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Still extremely poor
August 22, 2008 - 09:26 ET by UnsaneThe whole idea behind a wiki is to get all the voices in the mix. And that is for opinion pages like this, not purported factual encyclopedias.
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
Read the Wiki article on
August 22, 2008 - 09:31 ET by FoolicanRead the Wiki article on the FairTax and tell me there's liberal bias in there.
While some articles are hotspots, others are not. Believe it or not, your interpretation of fact may be somebody else's interpretation of blind faith.
Which version?
August 22, 2008 - 16:14 ET by PopularTechThe page you just looked at or the thousands of edits before or after?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"fair"
August 22, 2008 - 18:26 ET by UnsaneI couldn't read that because I am biased against the Unfair Tax. There CAN be NO "fair"...anything. "Fair" is relative. If you have to call your proposal "fair", chances are it is not.
"Fair" is the most loaded and dangerous word in ALL politics.
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
Okay, describe to me what
August 22, 2008 - 18:28 ET by FoolicanOkay, describe to me what the FairTax is since you seem so automatically knowledgeable about it.
Read about the Un-Fair Tax
August 22, 2008 - 19:38 ET by PopularTechAnswers for the FairTax Faction (Townhall)
Fair Tax, Flawed Tax (The Wall Street Journal)
Just how Fair is the 'FairTax'? (Money Magazine)
ScareTax, Not FairTax (The New York Sun)
Scientology's Fair Tax Plot (CBS News)
- Dianetics, The Tax Plan (The New Republic)
The Fair Tax and its big break for the $200,000-plus crowd (Time)
The Truth about Neal Boortz’s Poorly-Named “FairTax" Plan (Tennesseans for Fair Taxation)
The Fair Tax Fraud (The Ludwig von Mises Institute)
Un-'FairTax' (The Washington Post)
Unspinning the FairTax (FactCheck.org)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Citations are irrelevant to Wikipedia.
August 22, 2008 - 16:13 ET by PopularTechThere is no trump card with Wikipedia, it is simple a battle of attrition with 1.4 Billion internet users.
The only way to do anything to Wikipedia is to explain to people how irrelevant and useless it is.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
There is no trump card
August 22, 2008 - 17:28 ET by FoolicanThere is no trump card with Wikipedia, it is simple a battle of attrition with 1.4 Billion internet users.
And all of those users are politically energized and make edits to such articles of controversy daily to prevent the truth from getting out?
Read Wikipedian policy before you make off-the-cuff statements like that. Oh, wait, Wikipedia is an irrelevant and useless website so anything on it is automatically moot.
Wikipedia = "Truth based on who edits last"
August 22, 2008 - 18:10 ET by PopularTechYou really don't get it. It is not a matter of conspiracy but rather an argument with 1.4 Billion internet users.
It is nice you enjoy the online encyclopedia game that is Wikipedia but it does nothing for your argument or lack there of.
Wikipedian "Policy" is irrelevant! Who defines the policy and who enforces it? How naive are you?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
An argument with 1.4
August 22, 2008 - 18:26 ET by FoolicanAn argument with 1.4 billion Internet users?
I think you're the naive one. You seem to believe that the entire Internet is solely far left liberals and bureaucrats with an agenda.
Arguing with idiots
August 22, 2008 - 19:44 ET by PopularTechReally I believe this? Amazing. I believe the administration of Wikipedia, the moderators and the majority of "content controllers" are liberal. This is irrelevant to my point, which is arguing with 1.4 Billion internet users about a subject that 99% of who you are arguing with do not fully understand.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
wikipedia
August 22, 2008 - 09:23 ET by nuttyI've created an email tagline for myself a short while ago pointing to the censorship and propoganda of wikipedia pointing to the following post...
http://z4.invisionfr...
I've put changes in certain
August 22, 2008 - 17:17 ET by mattmI've put changes in certain entries, mainly slight edits to make them more accurate or provide information that wasn't included, but should have been, but my changes were subsequently removed.
Unsane
August 22, 2008 - 21:32 ET by Cool ArrowMoved to new location
All you who eschew
August 22, 2008 - 22:05 ET by Kenny BunkportAll you who eschew Wikipedia are just marginalizing yourself. I sense an air of intectual snobbery too. Sure you find some errors. I've found errors in encyclopedias as well. Evidently you all are looking up different stuff than me. I haven't found more than a handful of errors in all the use I've put Wiki to.
You all remind me of the old timers 15 years ago. They said they'd never use email (too impersonal), never get news off the Internet (too unreliable), and never conduct business on the Internet (too unsecure). Well, now a lot of them do all of the above every day. Of course, none of us were those people. LOL
Like it or not, the Wikipedia concept is popular and it is doubtful it will go away. You can ignore it and discredit it all you want but you aren't going to dissuade anyone from using it. Sure, you shouldn't use it as a research reference. But after Jr. High, most of my classes disallowed the Encyclopedia Britannica as a cited source. Neither are good reference sources for research and term papers.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Accuracy
August 23, 2008 - 04:26 ET by SchnikeysI'd say more that it depends on what you're researching. Somebody over the internet (a conservative) said it best, I think:
"If you want to know a recipe, the width of the continental United States, and the approximate lifespan of various insects, then Wikipedia would be a good place to look. But you'll learn very little by reading it's socio-political articles."
Earlier in this thread, somebody (PopularTech, I think) made the point that getting any information or certain phrasings to stick is a pain in the ass because you have to go through the "establishment" (a.k.a; anyone who has an internet connection, wants to participate on the site and opposes your contribution). This consists of you participating in what can often be a long, drawn-out argument that frequently ends in a conclusion that has not been adequately tested.
While I don't believe that every person on the internet is a raging, nudist, pot-smoking, glue-sniffing liberal, I do believe that, in the realm of "who gets the final say/whose argument is correct," liberals' desire to establish certain mindsets among the public pushes them to transcend beyond their opponents' complacency toward (what we conservatives see as) a display of effort rather than a reputable academic resource, resulting in the survival of left-leaning viewpoints on Wikipedia.
The process of that site's evolution is something to be studied, not participated in.
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
Wikipedia is not reliable for this information either
August 23, 2008 - 08:25 ET by PopularTechAbsolutely anything on Wikipedia - especially numbers have to verified.
Being right is not good enough for Wikipedia, having facts and sources are not good enough for Wikipedia because at anytime anyone can come by and change it to whatever they feel like.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Clueless and intellectually dishonest about Wikipedia
August 23, 2008 - 08:09 ET by PopularTechI work in IT and have for over 15 years, this is what I do. Your personal experience with Wikipedia is absolutely irrelevant. No one cares how many errors you think you may or may not have seen during the time you viewed the laterst "version" of some pages on Wikipedia. That proves absolutely nothing and shows how little you understand about how Wikipedia actually works.
Just because something is popular does not mean it is remotely accurate. Wikipedia is broken by design.
Please stick you fingers in your ears like most liberals do and declare that you cannot convince me of anything, it really makes your case. Or you can actually try to understanding how something works:
The Faith-Based Encyclopedia (Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopedia Britannica)
The Wikipedia FAQK (Wired)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
An Admirable Idea But Impossible Task
August 23, 2008 - 04:23 ET by Rush FanI agree that Wikipedia does slant left, but the Wiki methodology whereby changes can be made by anyone makes accomplishing Matthew Sheffield’s noble request of participating in making changes (edits) to the website a wasted effort; moreover the task of changing Wikipedia to a more fair and balanced site is impossible when the current liberal moderators and the founder, Jimmy Wales, have final edit. The difficulty is similar to attempting to persuade Keith Olbermann to have a guest who doesn’t always agree with him, when his bosses at MSNBC are of similar persuasion.
However there are things we can do. We can continue to publicize Wikipedia’s imbalance and inaccuracy (I’m thinking of global warming) through NewsBusters and other sites. I believe the publicity that NewsBusters and others recently documented regarding Wikipedia’s failure to mention the Edwards’ affair put pressure on them to finally add that entry. Other changes may not be so easy.
Secondly we can support other Wikipedia style encyclopedias, such as Google's Knol, in the hope that competition will improve both encyclopedias. Here is a comparison of Wikipedia and Knol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the Republicans can subtly portray Obama as an affirmative-action nominee, McCain could well be our next President.” ~ Jeremy Mayer, NY Daily News
Rush Fan
August 23, 2008 - 10:35 ET by lotrHowever there are things we can do. We can continue to publicize Wikipedia’s imbalance and inaccuracy (I’m thinking of global warming) through NewsBusters and other sites.
I have to chime in here. This will not rectify the problem that Matthew Sheffield speaks of. This is commonly called "preaching to the choir." The fact remains: Wikipedia typically comes up as one of the first-page entries on Google internet searches. Wikipedia is free, and non-commercial, much like the early Internet (these considerations in and of themselves make it very enticing -- I, for one, am far more leary of websites that come glommed with adds, and I don't like paying either). However, unlike the MSM, Wikipedia is something that can be modified/adjusted/tweaked. It is not impossible to make changes for the better -- like a lawn, it requires constant attention for maintanence, but this is no different than active blogging on this site.
I totally agree with Matthew's point on this. We can poo-poo it as liberal and unreliable, preach to the choir loft about it, and then stick our heads in the sand while the rest of the world continues to Google and turn to it as a mainstream and "neutral" (after all, anyone can edit it -- there is no leftist litmus test) source of information.
lotr
August 23, 2008 - 20:32 ET by Rush FanI don’t disagree with anything you have stated. If the liberal-bias entries on a popular website are that important to you, then you can take your time to make change after change to Wikipedia.
My point was how much of your valuable time are you willing to commit? For example, do you really believe that any changes you make to Wikipedia’s entry on Global Warming will last more than a few hours, if that? I bet it won’t. There is a liberal just waiting around the corner who is so committed to the global warming hoax that he will spend his valuable time checking for any changes to his beloved global warming entries. That is what he lives for. How can we compete with that? Why would we want to? Remember, he who edits last wins!
Don’t minimize the value and impact of publicizing Wikipedia’s left-leaning bias. Even on NewsBusters, you are not always "preaching to the choir." As I write this on an early Saturday afternoon (PST), there are over 3000 ‘guests’ online in addition to 87 users. I’m certain those guest comprise a variety of political persuasions. Moreover, there are many other websites that publicize Wikipedia’s bias. I Googled “Wikipedia bias” (without the quotes) and the third entry was conservapedia.com Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. If I search “wikipedia global warming” (without the quotes) the fourth entry is this cbsnews.com story titled Wikipropaganda On Global Warming. The eighth entry is a NewsBusters article titled Is Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
Lastly I mentioned Google’s entry knol as a rival encyclopedia site. If competition has a tendency to improve a product, why not competing encyclopedias as well?
By the way, I appreciated your feedback. I know that you don’t know me personally, but I’m not the type to stick my head in the sand. I am the type of person who tries to look for the most cost-effective (in time) approach when I encounter a problem such as this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"...whatever our moral failures are, they are dwarfed by our moral triumphs." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Rush Fan
August 24, 2008 - 12:23 ET by lotrTotally understand the whole cost-benefit analysis thing. It does require time, and in the end one has to weigh the benefits given limited time. And yes, I agree that exposing Wikipedia as biased is not a bad thing, provided there are others outside the choir loft who will buy the argument.
Problem is, publicizing Wikipedia as having liberal bias, only begs the question: Why is it biased left? With the MSM, it's a bit easier to explain, but why Wikipedia? Because there are more leftists out there? Because they have more time to blow? Because they are more Internet savvy? Because they know more or are more academic?
Everyone's complaining
August 23, 2008 - 21:37 ET by Kenny BunkportEveryone's complaining about Wikipedia's liberal bias. What are we comparing to? Here are three examples of liberal bias [IMHO] in the Encyclopedia Britannica Online. I have chosen three controversial subjects.
First Global Warming. Same one-sided argument linking GW to CO2. No mention of disagreement of causation only role of man.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=global%20warming%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
Second Hurricane Katrina. Parrots the MSM reporting. No criticism of Nagin, Blanco. Confusing timeline. Emphasis on slowness of Fed response.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1087226/Hurricane-Katrina#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Hurricane%20Katrina%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
Third a biography of George W. Bush. Notice emphasis on scandal and failure.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/86112/George-W-Bush/230037/Governor-of-Texas#ref=ref727675&tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=George%20W.%20Bush%20%3A%3A%20Governor%20of%20Texas%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
This is of course a far better resource than Wiki because it is edited by experts.
Looks as liberally biased as anything else I've seen.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.