Today’s Internet age is putting an end to the hardcover encyclopedia business. Why spend fortunes on a massive (albeit attractive) World Book set when you can get what you need a mouse click away on the Internet? Any student preparing a research paper and searching Google will probably be handed over quickly to the "Wikipedia" on-line encyclopedia system. What’s more – and here’s an offer that presumably can’t be beat – it’s free!
Consumer beware.
At Wikipedia you won’t find a distinguished body of tweedy old professors poring over every paragraph on the Hanseatic League. It’s actually on the other end of the credibility spectrum. Wikipedia is an "open-source" encyclopedia, a reference source anyone can create. The danger in this system becomes very obvious, very quickly. Recently the comedian and movie star Sinbad had to announce that he was not, in fact, dead of a heart attack at age 50 as his Wikipedia entry claimed. "Somebody vandalized the page," claimed Wikipedia spokeswoman Sandra Ordonez.
Not only can Wikipedia articles be written by anyone with Internet access, others can then edit that material by adding off-setting and consequently off-putting material whose purpose is to create intellectual mischief.
The other day Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.
Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an axe to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a ‘quick buck,’ noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was ‘convenient’ and ‘profitable’ for him to do so."
Where did this come from? An accompanying footnote linked to a column I wrote when Goldberg’s "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37)" was released in 2005. Among other things I called it "a wonderful read for anyone not on that list." I’d opened my column by joking that "I hate him" -- because he’d written a set of New York Times best-sellers I wish I’d thought to write first. There you have it.
But the author wasn’t guilty of misunderstanding me. Remember how the Wikipedia entry said I charged Goldberg with opportunism, for never mentioning liberal bias until it was "convenient" and "profitable" for him? Neither those sentiments nor those words appeared anywhere in my column footnoted by Wikipedia.
In fact those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS News. Ultimately it ruined his newscast career.
My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here’s full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney’s complaints. In the Goldberg article’s history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)
Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a long list of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace – even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he’d edited thousands of articles with flair.
The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its website’s reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their ten things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this."
It’s enough to make used-car salesmen cringe.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I had always thought Wikipedi
March 20, 2007 - 22:17 ET by dahliatraversI had always thought Wikipedia was a more relaxed version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Until a couple of years ago, when I came across a Wikipedia entry that was startlingly incomplete, inaccurate and biased. Now, when I'm researching something, I don't waste my time clicking on the Wikipedia link, unless it's to prove a point with someone on the left side of the spectrum.
"Open source encyclopedia". Isn't that pretty much an oxymoron?
Can't trust Wikipedia? Really
March 20, 2007 - 22:19 ET by balboaCan't trust Wikipedia? Really? You're kidding. Next you're gonna tell me that Pintos blow up if you crash into the back of them.
There have been a number of instances of "vandalism" lately that I think will lead to more changes at Wiki. I've used Wikipedia only for getting the most basic of info, and always take it with a grain of salt.
Pinto's blow up; now your sho
March 20, 2007 - 22:45 ET by M J BPinto's blow up; now your showing your age!
LOL! Great point there MJB! W
March 20, 2007 - 23:05 ET by bigtimerLOL!
Great point there MJB!
Well boa...what say you?
Nothing wrong with that though...I'm in the same age range...lol again!
Ahhh...memories.
Pinto Shminto! Now the Chev
March 21, 2007 - 08:11 ET by MightyMouthPinto Shminto! Now the Chevy Vega, that was a car!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I thought they would blow up
March 21, 2007 - 07:19 ET by danboI thought they would blow up if you crash into them while they had explosives strapped to their fuel tank. Or was that another car/story?
Gotta agree, only use wiki when you're in a rush. Definately be suspect of this source. Very unreliable. Sometimes (especially in hot issues) lots of BS.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
"We don't want you to trust us"
March 20, 2007 - 22:26 ET by RJEven so, Wikipedia can be carefully used for basic information.
More like, we don't want to
March 20, 2007 - 22:35 ET by BlameTheMediaMore like, we don't want to trust you. (in the universal sense.)
It’s enough to make used-ca
March 20, 2007 - 22:27 ET by bigtimerIt’s enough to make used-car salesmen cringe.
Yeah Brent...but not trial lawyers...they are rated below used-car salesman last I saw.
LOL!
I never use Wikipedia. Never will that I can think of...unless it is to fight a troll for some crazy reason.
Thanks for all the hard work from you and Goldberg on this. I am going to check the link out on Conservapedia.
Btw...The Weekly Washington Times had a great write up of you and NB's my other half tells me....we subscribe to her up in the wilderness.
Britannica versus Wikipedia
March 20, 2007 - 22:38 ET by CGattonRather a contrast to the article Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, Nature.Com, December 14, 2005, in which it was claimed "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries," wouldn't you agree? While the article itself states that the comparison was only between scientific articles, the reporting of the study generally left the impression that articles from all fields were included.
It isn't until paragraph nine that the CNET article, for example, mentions that only scientific articles were covered, and then only because they quoted directly from the article. Earlier, paragraph six begins, "For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called 'relevant' field experts for peer review." Sure sounds to me like a broad spectrum of entries were compared, rather than a very narrow cross-section.
Deceit...I guess it's everywhere. I cringe everytime a Google search sends me there, and more and more frequently it's high in the search list. Fortunately, it's fairly easy to spot someone who is a hit-and-run Wiki driver. They usually crash and burn quickly in a real discussion.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Unfortunately, this may also
March 21, 2007 - 07:26 ET by danboUnfortunately, this may also tell you something about the science journals. As Nature.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
This is part of the "n
March 20, 2007 - 22:45 ET by mdokrThis is part of the "new media" you've all been clamoring for. Ane now you don't want it? Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Well isn't that just a fine p
March 20, 2007 - 23:32 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWell isn't that just a fine piece of sophistry. The new media we want is one that will either admit its bias upfront and be done with it, or truly give both sides to an opinion piece, and report only news as fact, rather than interpret for their viewers and readers. If they do not present the whole story, they are lying and if they are lying, they are undermining what the first amendment stands for.
The new media isn't the Internet, it is conservatives coming into the national discourse in a way they had not done before. Radio, Internet, print and Television.... they are all a part of the 'new' media. Now, try and spin this any way you like it, but in the end, your statement is still quite pure sophistry.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Wikipedia is awful. I'm compo
March 20, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Dave PierreWikipedia is awful. I'm composing a new article about my recent experience there. They are only one half-step removed from Daily Kos and DemUnderground, IMHO.
Universities with any salt
March 20, 2007 - 23:08 ET by liberal_bug_zapperUniversities with any salt or merit tell their students that if they use Wikipeida as a reference, they'll automatically get a failing grade. I should know, I am currently a graduate student in Computer Science and our professors always tell us that any reference from Wikipedia will get us a fail on any paper we hand in.
Wikipedia was a bad idea. History is history, and should not be left up to leftist interpretation. But the battle is being waged to make this leftist tool a legitimate encyclopedia, and this must be stopped. The Internet is and can be a good tool and a tool for good, but it can also be a tool for evil, lies and purposely misleading propaganda, and 99% of it bends to the left, and some of it is situated in the far left corner.
However, the problem isn't small, it's huge. The Internet is here to stay, and unless we push back the leftist hoards taking control of the conversations and ideas on the net, we, the conservatives of the world will be marginalized and made to look as if we're the odd ones out. Perception becomes reality.
Oh, and Conservapedia isn't the answer either, however well intentioned. We should not start separating history and labeling it 'Conservative' or 'Progressive i.e. Liberal'... History isn't up for idological debate. It happened, both Liberal and Conservative idologies have shaped it, and that history must be kept and preserved. We need to push back at the Liberal intelectuals who no longer want a debate, but who want to completely dominate the discussion re-write all history to reflect their view.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Nice Post, LBZ. But other tha
March 20, 2007 - 23:22 ET by BlondeNice Post, LBZ.
But other than "shoot the libs", what are you suggesting?
Not that I necessarily disagree.
We must do what they do in
March 20, 2007 - 23:50 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWe must do what they do in our conservative way. We must become active. You are right that it seems a very daunting task, and it is. They have taken much of academia, and they now have a ton of skulls full of mush out there on the Internet with no jobs, in mom and dad's basement, scrawling propaganda on the net 24/7.
We must fight back by getting our people into Universities, the News and on large community websites even if we have to spend millions to purchase or build them. Socialist are always better than individualists at creating large communities as they are all communists at heart. We on the other hand have a much harder time as we rarely (if ever) succumb to group-think. It makes our task all that much harder, to fight LiBorg. Collectivists do what they do, but they will become more and more arrogant and brave as their tactics keep winning. If the only message getting to the masses is theirs, or one filtered by them.... we lose.
Blonde, Bigtimer and the rest of you... I will say here and now... we must fight them in the arena of ideas, and we must beat them there first. We must encourage our children and our friends to get into the fray. There is some hope, I mean, look at the Berkeley Campus College Republicans... they outnumber the College Democrats. But we can't rest easy because of this and assume that the pendulum is swinging back our way. That's not the way it works any longer. We must continue to spread our ideology calmly and with class, but we need to do it in the arena where ideas are being spread, and we need to constantly counter everything they say. This is why NewsBusters is so important. We need more than just pointing out their bias though, we need networks that actively promote neutral news reporting, or at least, both sides equally represented.
I also firmly believe we need to reign in lying in public... i.e. slander and libel. It's getting so that you can't tell what's true and what's made up any longer. The government needs to say, you can say anything you like as long as you can prove it... otherwise, you have to print at the top of every article, book, and television speech in BOLD LETTERS "THIS IS OPINION AND MAY NOT EVEN BE TRUE!" or face jail time. This would go for everyone. These disclaimers cannot be in small print, they need to be flashing again and again on the screen for unproven claims. This way, we can start to sort out opinion from fact. So far, there is so much opinion in the arena of ideas that people are not able to make up their minds about something because the information they may be getting is very likely made up.
All of this stuff I've talked about will take generations to fix, as it took the liberals generations to create. They're in this for the long fight, and so must we be, unless we want to yield our country to them.
____________________________________________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." ~ Thomas Paine
lbz..Well, I am in for the fi
March 21, 2007 - 00:11 ET by bigtimerlbz..
Well, I am in for the fight to the end...have been for quite some time...in fact before the internet was around...lol!
Your post said what we are in for and need to do very succinctly.
Thank goodness for people like you and blogs like NB's!
LBZ, Thank you for you eloque
March 21, 2007 - 05:15 ET by old croLBZ, Thank you for you eloquent verbalization of what has been bugging me this morning... Why we must fight back and how. I feel better already!
Another concern, like Wikipedia, search engines can be coerced into what is returned in an inquiry. Google comes to mind but Diggs is the poster boy for thought and expression collectivism that can be censored. You are very right in that the left, being indoctrinated as socialists, have the training for this groupthink, while conservatives, believing in the individual and personal responsibility do not.
I believe it is time to take off the gloves.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower (1887-1956)
Evening lbz... Boy did you sa
March 20, 2007 - 23:31 ET by bigtimerEvening lbz...
Boy did you say a mouthful there!
I totally agree and look at the situation through the same prism you do in this very important fight...especially the rewriting of history, which we see happening every day in the msm just with politics...especially the Clinton legacy, they, especially Hillary, are giving it their utmost to compare this President and his administration to them...there is zilch... nada... none... when it comes to the difference..one is good in heart and motives...the other bad in all he/she ever strived for, that even has the audacity to think he/she is or is ever is going to be....IMHO.
Thanks...
Btw...I hate it that sometimes that we always seem to disconnect at times when I see you...I am turning this wonderful machine off...well, sometimes that is!
LOL!
I have to get off of here and get things ready to button up for the night and ready for tomorrow! That old GWing is hitting us here tonight...in the low teens...I hope that is as low as it gets!
Dateline News
March 20, 2007 - 23:33 ET by MBConservDo any of you guys remember 10+ years ago the Dateline story where they rigged late model GMC/Chevy trucks to blow up upon side impact. I was a young child when that story came out and it scared the hell out of me because I always rode with my grandpa in a pick-up such as that one.
They were forced to issue a retraction, what gives with Dan Rather, or the usual left-wing media bias now? It took me until now to realize that even then, the media was trying to indoctrinate the youth.
An interesting fact on Wiki, if one is a conservative, they are clearly named a "conservative." If one is liberal, they are labeled an "activist," or a "peace advocate." What the hell is so wrong with liberals calling themselves liberals, I proudly call myself conservative!!
"Before I refuse to take your questions...I have a statement.." Ronald Reagan
MBC...I remember it well...gl
March 20, 2007 - 23:54 ET by bigtimerMBC...
I remember it well...glad you realize whats what with the leftist msm agenda and such...and Ol' Blather is still blathering on...and on....and on....same ol' agenda too!
You gotta laugh now and then, even though it is maddening at times, in fact pure madness....life is too short not to!
Makes the world go 'round...so they say!
Like your tagline!
Brent, if used correctly, Wik
March 20, 2007 - 23:18 ET by Del DolemonteBrent, if used correctly, Wiki can be useful, but one has to be VERY careful.
I've found that when it comes to "emotional" topics, such as (of course) politics, Wiki is susceptible to tomfoolery, cases of which have been well documented (such as their John Siegenthaler debacle, not to mention certain Democrat politicians having their staff members alter their boss' Wiki entries).
However, if you stray away from stuff that's not open to argument, they're not that bad. Yesterday, I was doing some research on legendary guitarist Les Paul, and was surprised to see how good their info was.
And I was also surprised to see that according to them, the US was NOT the country that supplied Iraq with most of their military toys in the past 30 years (of course, someone has probably "edited" that by now!)
However, Wiki's own founder, Jimmy Wales, has cautioned college kids not to use Wiki for their research papers, and my brother, a newspaper editor, says his reporters are all under standing orders to never use Wiki as a source.
Del, you are right. Wiki is
March 21, 2007 - 02:38 ET by ALDel, you are right.
Wiki is extremely valuable tool for all technical staff. Just do not automatically believe what it is written on “controversial” subjects, like “global warming” or “inquisition”. Still it is useful even for political searches. Take a look at “Albert Gore” page and follow the links and sources.
Not a very good Wiki scold, it has bias against Goldberg.
March 20, 2007 - 23:30 ET by SportPoliticsNot a very good Wiki scold, it has bias against Goldberg. "... a mock-jealous swipe at Golberg's opportunism. ..." So, the scolding editor leaves the impression his or her opinion is that Golberg was opportunistic, even if Mr. Bozell's swipe was "mock-jealous". I think the scolding editor's correction shows bias. That's how I've seen the NYTimes do their corrections. While they are correcting major lies and errors, they produce a correction that has immense biased flaws in it as well. It's like a smart aleck knowingly having to flay one it's own partisan adherents, but less than willing to do it properly, and therefore slipping in that little catch word or phrase that lets the biased original author know they have an ally on their team. Pretty lousy for accuracy, and shabby for objectivity.
My problem with Wikipedia is
March 20, 2007 - 23:52 ET by KC MulvilleMy problem with Wikipedia is that it trades away an encyclopedia’s authority. If you’re looking for some general comments, Wikipedia isn’t bad, but if you need authority, Wikipedia is a disaster.
Let me be clear about what authority means here. I have degrees in philosophy, which means as a student, I often needed to research and defend arguments. You'd read whatever books were available, but as a student, you didn't have enough experience to know who were the winners and losers. You were always worried that after your argument, the professor would smile benignly and then say, “You don’t seem to address the classic refutation of your position …” That’s where an authoritative resource came in handy. With a traditional encyclopedia, or a philosophy encyclopedia, you could trust that you weren’t going to make a stupendous error. It wasn't perfect, but at least it kept you in the ballpark.
With Wikipedia, you have no such trust. I’m fairly sure that some of the philosophical entries were written by philosophers promoting their own agenda, and don’t reflect a comprehensive review of the topic. That could kill a term paper and knock your grade down a few notches. You have to be careful.
Each Article Archives its History & Discussion
March 21, 2007 - 00:58 ET by securityHi Brent,Pulled you up on W
March 21, 2007 - 01:03 ET by shawn228Hi Brent,
Pulled you up on Wikipedia the other day. Looks like you had a sticky situation with the WWF "Now WWE" back in 02. Seem like your organization lost 3.5 million dollars for falsely accusing them. Just curious is this old article from the past media bias or does it have some truth to it?
http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_07_08.jsp
World Wrestling Entertainment Settles Lawsuit With Parents Television Council
Founder Brent Bozell Issues ApologyJuly 8, 2002STAMFORD, CONN, July 8, 2002 - World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: WWE) today announced it has successfully settled its lawsuit against the Parents Television Council (PTC), L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center (MRC), and others. As a result, WWE will receive $3.5 million and a series of non-monetary considerations, including a personal letter of apology from Mr. Bozell (see the posting at the PTC website, www.parentstv.org, and at wwe.com or corporate.wwe.com).
The lawsuit centered on various statements made by PTC and its representatives linking the deaths of four children to the WWE SmackDown! television program and on statements claiming that certain advertisers had stopped advertising on SmackDown.
In his letter of apology, Mr. Bozell acknowledged that the PTC's concerns with the content of WWE'S programming has been reduced significantly over the past years, and went on to admit that it was not fair to WWE to have passed on to advertisers accusations about children's deaths which were false. In addition, as part of the settlement agreement, Mr. Bozell has offered to meet with certain specific advertisers with whom he or members of his organizations met with or sent letters to regarding WWE to personally explain the basis of his letter of apology.
"We have always maintained that certain statements made about us by the PTC went beyond fair comment or criticism, and were false, defamatory, and very unfair,'' said Linda McMahon, WWE CEO. "We feel vindicated by this settlement."
###
Media Contact:
Gary Davis, Vice President, Corporate Communications
203-353-5066
Investor Contact:
Tom Gibbons, Vice President, Investor Relations
203-328-2576
Can't seem to find the original transcipt of the apology anywhere on the PTC website, would love it if you could tell me where to find it. Thanks Brent
WWE fans are also good at Wik
March 21, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Tim GrahamWWE fans are also good at Wikipedia bias. In Bozell's article, someone recently added a “Criticism” section noting that professional wrestler Mick Foley castigated Bozell in his book.
I think its title was "Me Big And Stupid, Fake Wrestle On TV, Grr."
But then go to Mick Foley’s Wikipedia page, and you find an enormous article chronicling his life, taking up about as many words as the World Book would devote to World War II. But there is no “criticism” section castigating him.
I agree that Wikipedia is s
March 21, 2007 - 03:55 ET by marvlI agree that Wikipedia is susceptible to the kind of deliberate mudslinging you mention here. However, overall it is an excellent reference, and the factual error rate is generally on a par with more traditional published works such as Encyclopedia Britannica. The fact that everyone/anyone can amend it is also a strength, as it does allow errors to be corrected quickly. And don't neglect the breadth of knowledge in Wikipedia. There are articles in it you would never find in traditional references. Imagine looking up one of my favorite bands, Dos Gringos, in the Britannica.
What got me was stumbling o
March 21, 2007 - 04:54 ET by sarcasmoWhat got me was stumbling onto the entry with all McDonalds menus throughout McDonalds-history... Sure, Wiki gets abused, and sure there aren't many conservative (or libertarian...) editors, but some parts of it are surprisingly rich in information to the point that you start wondering -- a lot -- about the author. :) Complaining about it -- even legitimate beefs like this one -- won't make Wiki go away, the best you can do is work on fixing it or learn to deal with it or -- as the conservative version has done -- copy it and try to do it better.
JMR
sarc -- for me, Wikipedia i
March 21, 2007 - 05:22 ET by Jack Bauersarc -- for me, Wikipedia is the lazy persons "reference" source on the interenet.
Almost an internet within the internet. Which makes it the anti-internet to me.
Wasn't the www supposed to enable people to instantly access thousands, and even millions of reference points on any given subject?
Yahoo and Google anything, and you'll find all those links.
Yet instead of cross checking, from what I can gather people go straight to the Wikipedia first and last, and accept it as gospel?
Obviously I have no problem with a Wikipedia entry that gives the correct date for the Battle of Thermopylae. That's easily checkable.
But when the majority of people seem to use as their only/primary source a publication that is open to anyone editing it. That is NOT good. How does anyone know whether the entry is, in fact, correct. When so many are incorrect?
A woman can't be just a litle bit pregnant. That's an absolute. And for me, a reference souce cannot be just a little bit false or innaccurate.
Anyone whio is really interested in accuracy for its own sake should stick to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Well, it's certainly not th
March 21, 2007 - 06:00 ET by sarcasmoWell, it's certainly not the ultimate source, but neither is Wiki always lazy. It just depends on the topic. (Take, for example, the...er...encyclopedic McDonalds-menu entry -- that person is instead IMO something that rhymes with "lazy," if you get my drift...) Ultimately you have to look back at what inspired Wiki if you want any chance of changing it, and that's good news for people willing to put in some time in the future, but bad news for Brent Bozell right at this moment, because what inspired it is open source software. You can bitch, individually, all you want about Linux, but nothing useful is likely to happen unless you go become a programmer & pitch in to add the features you want. From that "well, why didn't you go fix it, then?" viewpoint, changing Wikipedia is considerably-easier, but it will take both time & hard work to improve -- just like the left have apparently been spending there. The conservative alternative competition is also a good thing, but is likely to be incomplete if -- as the left -- they're too obsessive about letting politics intrude. In this case, money isn't likely to be a good political substitute for those individual virtues like hard work...And some of us find that, on balance, to be a hopeful thing for the future.
JMR
Hey Jack,"Almost an in
March 21, 2007 - 07:48 ET by kafkakaeferHey Jack,
"Almost an internet within the internet. Which makes it the anti-internet to me."
Taken some courses in dialectic reasoning? Hegel hails you, my friend. (Theke, Antitheke, Syntheke :-))
"How does anyone know whether the entry is, in fact, correct."
How do you know that an Internetsource, which cannot be edited, is correct? How do you know a newspaper is correct? How do you know TV-news are correct? Both are edited multiple times.
"Anyone whio is really interested in accuracy for its own sake should stick to the Encyclopedia Britannica."
You have one? I envy you and agree.
"Hegel says somewhere all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
The Eighteeenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) sect. 1, Cf.
Let me get this straight...
March 21, 2007 - 13:45 ET by marvlLet me get this straight... it is better to use a search engine to
search a medium where anyone can post anything (the internet) than to
use an online reference where anyone can add or edit material. The
latter is at least under peer review of sorts. I do believe you have
it backwards.
Of course, it's possible that the internet is only
a figment of your imagination, and given that there's no certainty that
you actually exist, it may make no sense to discuss the merits of this
metaphysical nonentity. You know, kinda like Al Gore's brain.
I think Jack's point was to
March 21, 2007 - 13:49 ET by MightyMouthI think Jack's point was to cross check your sources instead of relying on only one source.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yawn. rephrase that to &quo
March 21, 2007 - 14:06 ET by Jack BauerYawn. rephrase that to "let you get this bent."
"Peer review" my arse. (And that not an offer, just in case you didn't get that straight either.)
But if you're happy being "peer reviewed" by 15 year old acne faced yoofs who spend way too much time on the web, and other frauds, carry on.
a reference source cannot be
March 21, 2007 - 21:01 ET by dahliatraversa reference source cannot be just a little bit false or inaccurate
Exactly. Once one thing is deliberately wrong (and it's a lot more than one), the whole thing is suspect as a source.
However, overall it is an e
March 21, 2007 - 05:10 ET by Jack BauerHowever, overall it is an excellent reference, and the factual error rate is generally on a par with more traditional published works such as Encyclopedia Britannica.
And how, exactly, do you know that?
Sounds like total bollocks to me... a made up stat.
There are an army of fact-checkers to sustain your ridiculous statement?. Or did you find that "fact" in "Wikipedia" too?
As soon as someone cites wiki
March 21, 2007 - 06:59 ET by MivvisAs soon as someone cites wikipedia in a debate/comment, they automatically lose that debate in my book.
Heh. Can I assume this appl
March 21, 2007 - 07:20 ET by sarcasmoHeh. Can I assume this applies all the time? :) Because I've seen it cited in blog posts by various people here, of various political beliefs. Wikipedia, like it or not, is an imperfect tool. Right now, it's biased to the left because lefties are working harder on it than others are, to the point that it's spawned competition/critique, but it's not going away with an intellectual simplification like Godwin's Law. I still believe that depending on the issue this very young thing already has excellent content, but I saw it when it was born, which was back when you could easily email Jimmy Wales himself, which I did. I never expected anything remotely this comprehensive from some random idealistic young Tampa webmaster, and while supportive in theory I think I probably said something like that to him back then. This was also back when it was obvious beneath the surface that -- like most innovations on the web -- it was spawned at least in part by profits from porn, a factoid both Mr. Wales & his critics on the right probably don't really want to hear from this hypercapitalist, but just as with the VHS VCR & later with DVDs, the marketplace right now has politically-incorrect to mention and very horny "early adopter" men years-ago to thank for this innovation, too. Porn rules, and it often improves our lives in ways nobody-but-sarcasmo wants to admit. Hypocrites suck.
JMR
And another thing regarding
March 21, 2007 - 07:36 ET by sarcasmoAnd another thing regarding the "We are fully aware of this" comment by Mr. Moller...No used car salesman (and no lawyer that ever testified about how to spend my tax money in front of the big-government FCC) is ever that-honest, IMO.
JMR
I forget where I found this,
March 21, 2007 - 09:16 ET by S PI forget where I found this, it may have even been here at NB, but here's another great (but long) article on the issues with Wikipedia.
http://www.edge.org/...
dbl post
March 21, 2007 - 09:16 ET by S Pdbl post