Posted on 02/21/2006 11:42:25 PM PST by DizzyJim
Reread it, just to be sure. Didn't see anything to change my mind about what I wrote in #13.
They said they would contact Reid's office yesterday. They also pointed out
For what its worth, I have asked a small number of highly trusted neutral (i.e., non-American) editors of Wikipedia to look at the article, and they also felt that the quality of the article was questionable. Let's use this time constructively to figure out ways to make the article as comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased as possible, so that is acceptable to everyone involved, including the editors and even including Harry Reid himself. That is what an NPOV article should be. Danny 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
So, maybe you're a day or so early in sounding an alarm, if that is what you intended to do.
What did you intend this post to do for us?
The Wikipedia discussion reads an awful lot like typical infighting to me.
Not knowing who the non-American editors are, I can't begin to venture a guess about their neutrality or the worthiness of their judgments about encyclopedia article writing.
For all I know, they may be a joke. Or, not.
We could flip a coin . . . :-)
Considering what they do, I haven't seen that much out of wack at Wikipedia.
They strike me as a virtual chautauqua.
What was Chautauqua? Theodore Roosevelt called it "the most American thing in America," Woodrow Wilson described it during World War I as an "integral part of the national defense," and William Jennings Bryan deemed it a "potent human factor in molding the mind of the nation." Conversely, Sinclair Lewis derided it as "nothing but wind and chaff and...the laughter of yokels," William James found it "depressing from its mediocrity," and critic Gregory Mason dismissed it as "infinitely easier than trying to think." However Chautauqua was characterized, it elicited strong reactions and emotions.
Yep, sounds like Chautauqua to me.
Wikipedia has turned into The Onion.
Because they won't be Democrat or Republican.
I agree with the point that it is an encyclopedia, and the extended Abramoff bit looked like current news. If this scandal gets bigger it should be put into its own Wikipedia entry with links to it from the perps.
Wikipedia = neo-Stalinists' propaganda
Yeah, I agree. Or at least, it seems that way. But I don't do a signup date-check on every thread I click on, just the suspicious looking ones, which is probably why that proportion seems so high. And yes, those are predominately done by trolls.
One other thing, and this is how it worked out for me. I lurked for quite some time, and then came across an article I really wanted to start a thread on, so I registered and then created a thread immediately after. I too got accused to being a troll, which is probably the reason I'm not as troll-trigger happy as others. =P
I disagree too! Wikipedia Is just a gossip column masquerading as an Encyclopedia. I don't trust any information on that site!!
So are you saying that Wikipedia isn't slanted to the left,
like the main stream media?
I wouldn't trust their information any more than I would trust Dan Blather to tell the truth!
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.