Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Panerai

I get a kick out of Wikipedia. It is a sign of our times.

Anybody can write anything, and someone will take it as fact.

If folks understand what Wikipedia is and is not, then I see no harm, no foul.

Haven't the newscasters and journalists been doing the same thing for years, telling the "part" they want to, and leaving out the rest?


7 posted on 12/05/2005 5:23:38 AM PST by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: dawn53
"Haven't the newscasters and journalists been doing the same thing for years, telling the "part" they want to, and leaving out the rest?"


Yes .. in part.

The facts are that the "newscasters and journalists" have, besides "telling the part they want to and leaving out the rest" been also using bogus information, which makes them exactly like Wikipedia.





9 posted on 12/05/2005 5:49:23 AM PST by G.Mason (Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark ... Marine Corporal Jeffrey Starr, KIA 04-30-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: dawn53
I get a kick out of Wikipedia. It is a sign of our times.
Anybody can write anything, and someone will take it as fact.

Well, I have a simple way of dealing with that.
Ignorance is rampant and too may actually believe that "instant in-depth" knowlege is actually possible.

I simply tell them to quit wasting my time... and move on.

10 posted on 12/05/2005 5:49:38 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: dawn53
Haven't the newscasters and journalists been doing the same thing for years, telling the "part" they want to, and leaving out the rest?

You hit the nail on the head!

I think most reasonable people, when they discover that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone anonymously, will instantly conclude that the accuracy and objectivity of its contents is subject to question, particularly in any area where a hidden agenda may have an influence.

And it only takes a few seconds more of critical thinking to conclude the same about the MSM. I can see why they don't like it. Competition!

12 posted on 12/05/2005 6:21:52 AM PST by VoiceOfBruck (Dave? Dave's not here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: dawn53
Anybody can write anything, and someone will take it as fact.

No kidding. "If it's on the Web, it must be true." I'll give Wikipedia this much; it does keep a history of the edits for all to see. But overall, it just doesn't have the credibility that some want to claim it has.

16 posted on 12/05/2005 7:07:15 AM PST by Ladysmith ((NRA, SAS) Support Zien's PPA/CCW bill in Wisconsin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: dawn53

I guess if wikipedia had a big disclaimer on every page you visit saying what the site is (and is not), then I guess it would be ok.

But as it is now, you can have people send you a link to wikipedia and if you don't know what wikipedia is, you'd think it was an authentic truth type website. When in fact it's mostly truth, but can be easily exploited to defame someone.

When I first came across it, I had no idea it was just open to public postings. Not until much later did I realize what it was.


18 posted on 12/05/2005 7:08:47 AM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson