Posted on 12/30/2009 6:31:55 AM PST by Titus-Maximus
Is there a connection to it from the Obama birth page? The liberal overlords may not have made the connection yet.
BTW, look at the Obama page. Even if we accept that it is conspiracy theory, the language and tone is much more hostile to the theory than it is on other conspiracy theory pages, like for 9/11.
It isn’t nonsense, and the article proves the point. What Connolly is doing is trying to pass his propaganda as “hard science” and not a subjective science with a “he said, she said” unprovable theory motif, like sociology.
If they can lie with impunity and put down as scientific fact things that are not true - then how can you say it is a goldmine of information. Maybe to find the birthday of a celebrity - and that is still questionable. Let’s put it this way - if I were a judge and you were a prosecutor using wiki evidence - that case would be thrown out and the accused would be walking the street.
Wikipedia is adulterated, it is like Chinese pet food, some of it might be good and some of it will kill your cat. Its “facts” are the fruit of the poison tree and I would submit that wiki needs much more discipline before this is student eligible. This is why many teachers have outright banned it as a resource.
The judgment you speak of may be resident in some people but I am not confident at all that its dependence nullifies the risk of drinking at this deliberately poisoned well.
The Left knows that wiki is now the primary and sometimes only source for the public of basic information - and they have taken control of the process. This is dangerous.
Is that anything like a Freepathon? :D
Awesome post!
And this is why I only read Encyclopedia Dramatica. :lol:
Wikipedia is fine on technical or pop culture matters, and pretty good on history. In controversial matters the articles are not reliable, but even then it is a good place to find links to primary source material. For example, newspaper articles talk all the time about documents, proposed laws, photographs, etc., without actually including them, whereas on Wiki you can often find a link to the stuff so you can judge for yourself.
Lets do a little comparison:
Wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance in office, arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit. The trial proceedings were largely partisan, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 55 senators voted not guilty, and 45 voted guilty on the perjury charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of obstruction, with 50 votes cast as not guilty, and 50 votes as guilty.[1] It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.
White Hose.gov Impeachment of Bill Clinton:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/williamjclinton
In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.
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.