Posted on 01/03/2006 7:36:59 PM PST by lqclamar
There is currently a heated debate at the Wikipedia article on Free Republic about a proposed new section that some editors there want to include.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_Republic#Free_Republic_Action_Alert_vs._Wikipedia
A version proposed by some editors wants to add a new section that describes efforts by members of FR to edit wikipedia. This is in response to a thread last week that pointed out liberal bias on several major Wikipedia articles such as George W. Bush and Abortion. In response to that post some liberal wikipedia administrators posted a "notice" on the Bush page and others warning their own that freepers may be trying to undo the leftist bias in the articles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush#Free_Republic_.22Action_Alert.22)
Anyone who is interested please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_Republic#Free_Republic_Action_Alert_vs._Wikipedia
I moved this to the talk page from the article:
This stuff shouldn't be in the article because of WP:ASR --rogerd 20:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up lqclamar.
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.
If they permit people to "edit," why do they get upset when people "edit?"
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*
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?
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?
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.
Well, well, GMTA and all that!
:-)
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
I actually found FR by watching some libs trash it in a Wikipedia discussion.
See above.
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.
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.
Too much information, IMO.
More than we need to know about why you're here.
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.
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!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.