Posted on 12/29/2005 11:55:25 PM PST by Notwithstanding
Wikipedia is a liberal "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, it is very popular and very "progressive", although its stated goal is to present factual information wit a neitral point of view. A perfect example in the Kwanzaa "article" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa), as is the "article" on abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), and the article on President Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).
Any attempt to add balance to these articles is met by severe censoring and shouting down or shutting down editors. I suggest people sign up (free and anonymous) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin) and start politely editing. Once there, to gain "credibility" I suggest you look around and then for the first few days edit only uncontroversial articles for grammar or choppiness or poor citation - you will then be seen as a neutral editor (everyone is an "editor"). I suggest using a different screen name than you do at FR.
It's not vandalism, Wikipedia is suppose to be visitor- policing. It sells itself as being correct because it allows everyone to add to, and correct any mistakes.
Yes, I have a friend who's and IT pro, He really likes the site and the concept behind it.
Not a Liberal Website. It is claiming to be objective and netural. Do you want to leave it up to liberals to determine what objective and netural is?
What would you change on the abortion article?
I do find the site a very useful tool in my line of work.
Getting 100 people to attack another website smacks to me of vandalism. Anyway, I doubt many will take him up on his offer. I've always found Wikipedia quite useful. It isn't 100 per cent accurate but nor is most of the crap you read on the Net.
The make believe holiday
No. The poster never stated that it was neutral.
We must fight our cyber/information warfare for our purpose. This is a war fought at a civilian level challenging those who are trying to bend history. There are children that may view these and be brainwashed by it. We have to protect our children from fabricated history.
Do you want your children and children around the country getting wrong facts from Wikipedia tilting them left? When they grow up, they are going to build up on it and that will tilt US in the wrong direction.
Notwithstanding has not requested "attacks" on wikipedia, as you so emotionally phrase his request: He merely suggests that 100 FReepers assist with the editing of the liberal, emotional and opinionated--not fact-based--entries.
It's hardly an unreasonable request.
Welcome to Freerepublic!
The entries in many of the articles "appear" to be fair and balanced until you attempt to insert facts.
To find out just how unbalanced an article is, trace back through its history and read all of the removed pieces of information by comparing versions.
You will be amazed at the information your fellow liberals are censoring.
The Pope Benedict articles are a great example
As long as an information tool is being disseminated within the public sector, it is our duty to contribute--where possible-- to the validity of the "facts" that are shaping future generations.
It is because FReepers and conservatives recognize this "duty" that there are so many blog wars over creation v. evolution, ecology science v. junk science, literature v. porn, atheism v. theology, philosophy v. freeform, postmodernism v. true art, socialism v. democracy, and ebonics v. grammar just to name a few.
Hopefully, the Wikipedia people will be alert to his trouble-making.
This isn't notwithstanding's first campaign against Wikipedia - see:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535547/posts
Interesting. He seems to be staging a one man vendetta against the site. Hopefully, FreeRepublic will not be blamed for his obsessive fixation with Wikipedia.
"We can do no great things, only small things with great love." :] Thanks for lookin y'all~
Surely a request for more editors is absolutely consistent with the original intent of the creators of the Wiki project?
Why doesn't he set up his own site if he hates Wiki so much? I think Wikipedia is very good, despite its limitations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant%27s_tomb
Grant's Tomb is a mausoleum containing the bodies of Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885), an American Civil War General and the 18th President of the United States, and his wife, Julia Dent Grant (1826-1902). The tomb complex is now officially known as the General Grant National Memorial and is located in Riverside Park in Manhattan, New York, New York, near the intersection of Riverside Drive and 122nd Street.
...CLIP...
A riddle relating to Grant's Tomb, popularized by Groucho Marx on his game show You Bet Your Life, is "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" Though the proper answer is "nobody"—Grant and his wife are entombed, not buried—Groucho would usually accept "Grant".
Yes, I'm a smart a$$ :)
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.