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

wikipedia ^ | 9.10.05 | Love Doc

[Gorzaloon]

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.

It is not an authoritative reference source, it is a gossip blog, or an AOL Chatroom with an index. There are too many peer-reviewed, legitimate resources on the web to waste one's time with references that cannot be cited in a serious work.

Yes, there is entertainment value in pipefitters teaching Tensor Calculus, I suppose.

[LoveDoc]

Wow! A lot of responses. It looks like MOST respondees fall into what I called 'Camp #3.' I may be there one day, but not yet. True, cursing the darkness has some emotional payoff, but not enough for my tastes.

I had to laugh at the poster who retorted that when I wrote: "I am a conservative who's fascinated with Wikipedia..." It gave them the hives. lol!

I didn't think I'd get cheap shotted at Free Republic, but I suppose anything's possible.

It's true that fighting liberals can be hard work. Some folks prefer to hide out in a conservative ghetto and just amen each other. I find that boring.

It's VERY EASY to access Wik (at least for me just using your basic cable modem) but it is true that people will try to revert you. Basically, being a conservative editor at Wik is not for WEAK PEOPLE.

So, if you're not weak...and you like that sorta thing...come and edit. I find it worthwhile, but not everybody fits into the same cookie cutter mold.

[isom35]

"but this "place" is only as god sa it's membership" I'm glad it is not based on spelling... :)

[Gorzaloon]

It's true that fighting liberals can be hard work. Some folks prefer to hide out in a conservative ghetto and just amen each other. I find that boring.

The only issue with me is its value as an authoratative reference. In my case it has nothing to do with politics, at all.

I see little difference from an open forum encyclopaedia than simply walking down the street and asking random strangers questions on Reactor Physics. I have in the past searched technical and medical subjects on it, and consider it a Bad Idea™.

People who are experts are paid for their expertise- Why would they write and submit scholarly contributions to an online encyclopaedia? I think the concept of an open source encyclopaedia is an interesting experiment, certainly, but what do I care about the political slant of a source with built-in credibility damage? Why, that just sounds like the New York Times!

[OldSmaj]

I didn't think I'd get cheap shotted at Free Republic, but I suppose anything's possible.

Cheap shot?

You think that was a cheap shot?

Keep up your defense of that liberal bastion of barking moonbat idiots, Wikipedia and you'll really get some cheap shots.

Wikipedia is a joke. A place to visit to see the current barking moonbat opinions on things of note in todays society, disguised as true (ha, ha) intellectual conceptualizing (as one barking moonbat calls horseshit).

Wikipedia is the single most useless source for anything on the 'net, due to the ability of pure idiots to modify, change, obfuscate, "attack the neutrality of", dispute and just generally fling the slobber of drooling liberals about.

Wikipedia and "legitimate source" in one sentence?

Ha!

[najida]

Yeah,
We do have a God Sa kind of membership. :)

[Fierce Allegiance]

Sorry, I'm losing my eyesight, and trying to FReep as long as I can before I go completely blind.

[Valin]

1 I use it, BUT "Trust but verify".
2 Welcome
3 Freerepublic where political debate is a contact sport. You're not a REAL freeper until you've been flamed

[LoveDoc]

You're not a REAL freeper until you've been flamed

Alrighty then...I think I just got double MOONBApTized. lol!

Take care...

[Old Professer]

Wikipedia is to the Brittanica what E-Bay is to Neiman-Marcus.

[wardaddy]

Relying on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is about as logical as relying on IMDB forums for movie reviews.

both are incredibly leftist infested swamps

[LoveDoc]

I got it...I got it. You guys are not down with Wikipedia.

But honestly, as much as I'd love to stay here and debate salvaging Wikipedia, I'd much rather focus my energies on defeating left wingers over there.

Some people see things the way they are and ask why?
Others see the way things could be and ask Why not?

[wardaddy]

I agree.

But, another freeper was right.

We could use a conservative encyclopedia online or otherwise. We have somewhat conservative history books....one even written by a freeper

I enjoy finding 30-50 year old encyclopedias just to review them sans politically correct handcuffs.

The beach home I stayed in this summer had a 1900 edition compilation of letters from soldiers in the Congo.

Incredible.

It would be hard to find something that honest today.

[Our_Man_In_Gough_Island]

Yeah, if all you want to is edit things others have posted there and remove liberal bias, you can probably do that provided you have a lot of stamina. But that's only half the job. The real job in a systematic base of information is choosing new topics and posting original work on references that have so far been overlooked. Once you do that, the shoe is on the other foot, and liberals come along and edit you to death. There is only so much you can post there before, as one blogger put it, you change from a content producer to a content defender and become involved in dozens of lock-horn standoffs.

[LoveDoc]

"There is only so much you can post there before, as one blogger put it, you change from a content producer to a content defender and become involved in dozens of lock-horn standoffs."

Exactly, thus my request for reinforcements...

[wardaddy]

See you around then.

BTW...don't think this is a backslapping old boys club.

Folks here have serious division.

In case you are unaware, you may go to ClownPosse or Liberty Post and see the fringes of FR from both extremes.

Race, immigration, dope, evolution.....all bring out the long knives here.

Both those anti-freeper sites do have some decent exiles though....I don't wish to tar them all.

BTW....arguing online rarely changes anyone's mind.

It's a mix of projection, narcissism, friendship and news gathering here. ...and a place to organize activism.

I hope you're not battling windmills. My experience on leftist sites is that they are intolerant of dissenters...even more so than here.

Have fun.

[maineman]

Welcome! I found that site very useful when I was researching TV shows of the '70s.

[Our_Man_In_Gough_Island]

Amigo, I have yet to come across one Wikipedia devotee who wasn't wailing for re-enforecements. Some of us have our own real world activities to heed and our own preferences on how to use spare time.Everyone who gets sucked into that thing eventually meets people who have a lot of time, few responsibilities, and little creativity. Throughout intellectual history there has traditionally been a way of protecting your output without involving a platoon of labor-intensive auxiliaries. It's called an editor with point of view the same as you. Find one, and you will change into a very happy writer.

[LoveDoc]

My experience on leftist sites is that they are intolerant of dissenters...even more so than here.

You're absolutely right, though they claim otherwise.

However, I do think it's useful to debate liberals on-line for a number of reasons.

First of all, you get to learn their game. They really only have a half dozen or less arrows in their quiver and, once you identify them, it's not hard to stay two jumps ahead.

The ultimate value in debating liberals on-line however is with a view towards the future - the possibility of shaping public opinion before a neutral audience.

So many conservatives I've seen on talking head shows (with the exceptions of the masters like Ann Coulter) get blindsided by ridiculous liberal attacks that they should have seen coming.

Unacceptable...

LDoc

Ps I didn't realize even FreeRepublic was so divided. Thanks for the heads up.

[LoveDoc]

My experience on leftist sites is that they are intolerant of dissenters...even more so than here.

You're absolutely right, though they claim otherwise.

However, I do think it's useful to debate liberals on-line for a number of reasons.

First of all, you get to learn their game. They really only have a half dozen or less arrows in their quiver and, once you identify them, it's not hard to stay two jumps ahead.

The ultimate value in debating liberals on-line however is with a view towards the future - the possibility of shaping public opinion before a neutral audience.

So many conservatives I've seen on talking head shows (with the exceptions of the masters like Ann Coulter) get blindsided by ridiculous liberal attacks that they should have seen coming.

Unacceptable...

LDoc

Ps I didn't realize even FreeRepublic was so divided. Thanks for the heads up.