"Free Republic vs. Wikipedia???" - Debate at the Wikipedia FR article

Wikipedia article on Free Republic

[Howlin]

Free Republic Action Alert vs. Wikipedia

I moved this to the talk page from the article:

On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated attack against several Wikipedia articles (George W. Bush, Abortion, and Kwanza) specifically calling for far-right POV vandalism with tips on how to evade detection. [12] user:HopeSeekr of xMule 15:31, December 31, 2005

This stuff shouldn't be in the article because of WP:ASR --rogerd 20:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[fatima]

Thanks for the heads up lqclamar.

[traviskicks]

lol, interesting.

One would think that Wikipedia folks would lean libertarian, given the success of their model, which seems, at least to me, to be based on those principles.

[ConservativeMind]

I happened to have seen the Wikipedia Bush reference when it was perverted by liberals.

Funny, the site link is currently not working. Even the Google cache is gone from there.

[Howlin]

If they permit people to "edit," why do they get upset when people "edit?"

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

*guffaw*

I love this novel conception of "vandalism," which seems to be shared only by the Wikiphiles.

What exactly constitutes "vandalism" in their eyes?

Amending horribly distorted, inaccurate, biased information promulgated by that website's editors?

Oh noes!!!

We can't have that, now can we?

*prolonged eye roll*

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I have a question for you:

Ever since you signed on at FR you have only been on the wikipedia stuff and posting the threads on it.

Do you get money for diverting traffic there? what's your stake in this?

[Howlin]

Is there any particular reason that ALL your posts about about Wikipedia?

You've been here six weeks and ALL of them link to that web site.

Are you trolling for hits for them?

[fatima]

I found them last week and found them strange.We add the info:)Who am I to believe.Happy New Year Do not dub me shapka broham.

[Howlin]

Well, well, GMTA and all that!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Happy New Year, Fatima!

:-)

-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)

[lqclamar]

No stake or money for me - just an interest in what I believe to be one of the biggest liberal threats on the net right now.

I actually found FR by watching some libs trash it in a Wikipedia discussion.

[lqclamar]

See above.

[lqclamar]

Also, the Wikipedia libs monitor FR intensely and do everything they can to trash it in their article about us. Some of the most active editors who work on the wikipedia FR article are DUmmies with an anti-FR agenda.

By posting about their dirty laundry and their discussions of us on FR it sends a clear signal that we know what they're up to, which means they can get away with less than otherwise would be possible.

[muawiyah]

Good show.

I think in the long run discussions in FR will prove to be more trustworthy and truthful than articles posted/edited/posted/edited in Wikipedia.

The element of Wikipedia I've found most useful are the cross-references folks place there when they write/edit a piece. They all too frequently "point" to the correct word that's just out of reach in my mind, and I can take it from there.

As far as using Wikipedia as an authoritative source, it's not. Rather, it's more like a compendium of opinions about tertiary sources which themselves are far downstream from the secondary and primary sources.

I've added a few things myself on some of the Wikipedia pieces ~ usually when I've found an out and out mistake, and sometimes when the material is clearly "opinion".

These could do worse, and have, by getting the authoritative interest of Freepers in preparing and maintaining suitible encyclopedia pieces.

[Howlin]

Too much information, IMO.

More than we need to know about why you're here.

[kingu]

Umm, some of the biggest threats are the latimes.com, the nytimes.com, salon.com, etc. I agree with your concept - a more balanced group of editors will give a generally more balanced resource.

I don't agree with your methods, however. I'm sure that plenty have gone there, edited an entry, and minutes later had that entry restored, thereby demonstrating to them the futility of trying to change a liberal mind, and in effect validating your charge.

Had that been my only experience there, I would have just shrugged and ignored this post. Instead I've gone through and edited dozens of articles, fixing grammar here and there, spell checking, and indeed, putting in accurate facts rather than the latest liberal drivel to come off the line.

To others: If you're a fan of any topic, there's an entry in the wikipedia for it, and likely a couple, and likely in desperate need of real editing. Avoid the hotspots, find topics you're comfortable in demonstrating authoritative knowledge in, and dig in and have fun. If you happen by those hotspots later on, people will take your point of view more seriously, and in the meantime you're going to be improving a resource that people do indeed use as a reference.

[lqclamar]

Umm, some of the biggest threats are the latimes.com, the nytimes.com, salon.com

That's true for the MSM, but I'm talking about net-specific liberalism. Wikipedia is so dangerous because there are hundreds of mimic sites that copy its articles verbatim and google - the widest used search engine - picks them all up and multiplies them by the thousands.

Suppose you didn't have an opinion either way on Bush and you wanted to find out who he was and what he stood for. Imagine if you went to Google and typed in "George W. Bush," and the first 10 hits that came up were the left-controlled Wikipedia article on him and copycat sites with that same article that lift their text from Wikipedia.

It's not quite that bad yet but it's trending that way. Right now the wikipedia article on Bush is the #3 hit for him on Google, and there are dozens of copycat sites with it deeper in the search results.

The Wikipedia site on Bill Frist is the #2 hit above both the NY Times and LA Times site profiles of Frist. Its Tom DeLay article is #4. Its Ann Coulter article is #5. Type in just about any conservative name and the wikipedia article is almost always in the top 10 and almost always outranks even the major MSM newspaper sites. That makes it a VERY dangerous medium especially when any article about a conservative is controlled by vicious left wingers with a political agenda.

[calex59]

Too much information, IMO. More than we need to know about why you're here.

If you didn't want to hear his answer you shouldn't have asked him. Ask a guy and when he answers tell him he was too long winded. What a great guy you are!