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

wikipedia ^ | 9.10.05 | Love Doc

[LoveDoc]

Greetings,

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

I am a conservative who's fascinated with Wikipedia. For those of you who don't know, Wikipedia is an open sourced on-line encyclopedia. In theory, anyone can contribute, add or subtract to it's contents.

I've read just about every thread I could find about Wik in Free Republic and found that most people fall into one of 3 camps:

1) Wikipedia is an excellent and useful source of information.

2) Wikipedia has potential but it is biased left and, if you want to change it, go in there and edit it yourself.

3) Wikipedia is so in bed with the left that it's unsalvageable. We need to start our own conservative edited Wikipedia.

I reside mostly in Camp 2. I do believe Wik is OVERRUN by leftists ( I know it is), but my experience has been that, if you pick and chose your fights wisely and REFUSE to back down, you can make significant changes. How long these changes will last is anybody's guess. And if all the hard work I've put in is later reversed, it will no doubt re-position me in Camp 3.

But, for the time being, I'm COMMITED to making Wik the best possible encyclopedia ever. In theory it has that potential. Let's face it, never in the history of man has such a project been even possible. I'm not willing to just leave it to left wingers to run. And starting up an alternative in my mind is kind of like starting up an alternative to Ebay. They already have first-mover status. Let's just untilt the bias. And besides, they don't blackball conservatives at Wikipedia, like they do at...oh the Associated Press for example! (or seems to.) It's just that there are more left wingers editing.

We can change that.

Now, I'm not talking about turning Wikipedia into a conservative-oriented source of information. And if you have had trouble working with Wik in the past, it may be because that was your agenda. I simply want to remove as much of the institutionalized left wing bias that currently PREDOMINATES in their articles. Particularly when the subject is a left wing villain. For a few yucks, check out the Karl Rove article. It is a CESSPOOL of liberal refuse.

I am willing to work to change Wikipedia.

I'm satisfied our work will not go for naught. If, at the end of the day, they conduct some purge or enact some policy that effectively censors conservatives, in other words, if we force them to reveal their hand, than we win by EXPOSING them for who they are. But, if we can figure out a way to influence Wik so that it no longer is just an alternative domain name for the johnkerry.com, then we win that way as well. And by 'we', I mean the general public, not just conservatives.

So, it's a win:win:win.

Therefore, if you like to write, and have some time (it can feel like a THANKLESS task) and you feel it's important to eliminate all the left wing bias in Wikipedia... please do so.

Freepmail me if you decide to edit Wik. I'd like to stay in touch and hopefully work together. I'm not interested in starting some sort of right wing cabal, but staying connected can be valuable both with respect to support and editorial insights.

[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.