Wikipedia?? Giving it one last chance...(Vanity)

wikipedia ^ | 9.10.05 | Love Doc

[humblegunner]

This is my first time creating a thread, so please be kind...

It's also your very first post.

Welcome to Free Republic.

[LoveDoc]

That too. LOL! (Nothing like starting out with a bang!) Thanks for the welcome...

[jp3]

Welcome to the smartest place on earth...

[Our_Man_In_Gough_Island]

In my opinion you are wasting your time. Wik is committed to the notion of " objective" discussion, which is philosophically a built-in bias to the Left. In almost every non-scientific topic, in order to discuss it well, there must be a " point of view", generally represented by Western traditional social ideals. You are never going to sell that notion to Wik.

In addition, the website is far less technically viable than it would have you realize. It can take hours to get on and get access to posting plus editing one or two simple paragraphs. The thing is a horrible " black hole" for time, and that of course, also favors posters with very little else to do and very few real-world responsibilities. I have written several articles on it, which have been reproduced over the Internet, and in my opinion: chuck it - the project os hopeless.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Welcome to the smartest place on earth...

I agree with your statement, but this "place" is only as god sa it's membership.

[jp3]

true, but zots are a'plentiful when the rats sneak in. Savvy people can spot them dead-on!

[Hot Tabasco]

Therefore, if you like to write, and have some time

I do but I don't. There's too much happening here that I don't have time for any place else.

Wikipedia? Thats in New Zealand isn't it?

[quantim]

We need to start our own conservative edited Wikipedia.

There is no reason to re-invent the wheel.  You'll find everything you need here.

[humblegunner]

In my opinion you are wasting your time.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever decide to go there.

I'm not the author of this thread.

[frankjr]

Don't bother with Wikipedia. As soon as you change something, it will be changed or deleted. Last week I added to the Sean Penn entry how he liked to beat Madonna driving her to file divorce citing spousal abuse. The entry now reads "Sean Penn is most widely known for his stormy relationship with Madonna,"

[tubebender]

FR already has it's own dictionary...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1481648/posts

[Morgan in Denver]

You left out a most important element. Editing Wikipedia on subjects you are familiar with and can authoritatively back up and explain. Because of the time necessary, one has to be passionate about a subject to take enough time to correct Wikipedia.

In addition, I also use Free Republic, Answers.com, Google, Yahoo and other sources for information. To get past simple bias I spread out the search, as I presume most Freepers do.

Liberals will accept the single source party line easier than conservatives. We have had to defend ourselves for so long that few of us will read one item or viewpoint and run with it. We've had things blow back on us so we are more cautious in what we will quote and what we will defend.

[Smartaleck]

It is a good source as long as you take the info with a grain of salt, trust but verify.

Yes FR is a wealth of data too, but it's not a "data base", not easy to find information on any one topic consolidated in some organized easy to extract table...and has its own bias.

Wiki is fairly large and I'm not sure you're going to find the people with the time and resources to re-invent another one, not here anyway.

Good idea though.

[Fierce Allegiance]

I love the smell of ozone in the morning.

[Susannah]

I've been on other forums where liberals and conservatives debate the issues. Liberals use wikipedia as a source, but I've also noticed that when I find something that helps me make my case and reference an entry at wikipedia...the liberals will then discount it as an unreliable source or just say that the particular item was biased.

I've also notice that when I've found useful info at wikipedia that's controversial to liberals...sometimes a "neutrality warning" label later appears at the wikipedia entry that I referenced.

I usually use the search box at the main page and search for what I'm looking for. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

There is some controversial info that liberals took issue with, for example, on entries related to "Nation of Islam" , Malcolm X, Hamas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
(read the entries from the bottom of the page and upward to get a good grasp of some really controversial stuff!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X
(the remarks Malcolm X made when he was taking pleasure over the assassination of President Kennedy were disgusting)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

[Born to Conserve]

I was looking at wikipedia and noticed an equation that was incorrect. I went in and changed it, got abused by a rogue moderator who changed it back and left insulting remarks, was not helped by the other moderators, left and never returned.

If you care about your information being correct, wikipedia is not the place for you. If you like "rule by the obnoxious" than go for it.

[Hand em their arse]

"I am a conservative who's fascinated with Wikipedia..."


Using those first four words in a first post always gives me hives....