Posted on 02/15/2010 3:47:35 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Wikipedia and Factcheck, false gods for internet followers.
That's as blatant a re-write of history as you're going to find. It's not even particularly skillful.
So..., are you saying that this is that "1%" of the information that I was talking about (up above) that is slanted?
And if so... then plese give me some encyclopedic source (any in print or on the web) that does what you say... here... (that you want to have said).
If it's in print, I'll gladly go down to the library and search it out. I do want to see that source of information, in some encyclopedia, that I can use for source information -- and -- I will go down to the library, check it out, and I'll report back to you on what I found.
I would like to add that encyclopedic source to my list of sources for information and searching out stuff.... :-)
Wikipedia and Factcheck, false gods for internet followers.
Stating that, unsourced..., doesn't make your statements any more reliable than Wikipedia or Conservapedia... LOL...
It just makes it an "opinion" that you can't back up. And we do see a lot of those here and elsewhere, too... At least Wikipedia and Conservapedia give "sources", you only give "opinion"... :-)
Failing to disclose the true cause of history's greatest famine in a biography of the man who engineered history's greatest famine is a wee bit more than a "1% slant". It's a grotesque distortion of monumental proportions.
Which is what Wiki specializes in. Which is why the monster Soros funds them.
Don’t forget Snopes.
Failing to disclose the true cause of history's greatest famine in a biography of the man who engineered history's greatest famine is a wee bit more than a "1% slant". It's a grotesque distortion of monumental proportions.
You say it's more than a 1% slant... and what that means to me is one of two things... (in regards to your thinking on the matter).
It's either (1) you don't realize the huge amount of information that is on Wikipedia about almost every kind of information that you could want to look for, or (2) you've "weighted" certain pieces of information as more significant than other pieces of information.
On #2, by that, I mean if you have 13,000 words in an article (that's roughly what is in that Mao article), and I find 130 words that are slanted (in some sentence or paragraph), either an "omission" or some put in that are wrong -- then I call that 1%.
But, you say those "particular" 130 words are "weighted" and are worth (to you) about 1,000% more than all the rest of the words combined (that would be about "ten times" more weighting) -- and thus it's the equivalent of about 1,300 words "normally".
However, that only amounts to -- at that point -- 10% of the article -- "by weighting" on some criteria that you think is more significant than all the other information combined. In other words, those 130 words receive more significance to you than than the other almost 13,000 words... LOL...
Still, that's only 10% of the article (by weighting, on your criteria). And many won't be ignoring it on the basis of just 10%. They'll just "handle" the 10% and go right on reading...
Thus, if you want to get it "weighted more" (to make it a "really egregious matter" doncha know...) -- you'll need weighting of about 2,500% more significant than all the other words in the article.
Then, you can make those 130 words -- be "as significant" as about 25% of the entire article (by your "weighting" of those words) -- and then you might get some more people to "pay attention" and decide to not read it -- if 25% is "in error" (in error by "weighting").
However, in reading some posting on Free Republic here, they would have to "weight" those 130 words by about 7,500% -- making those 130 words the equivalent of about 75% of the article -- then these posters say -- "If the article is wrong by 75% of it (by weighting of those 130 words at the value of 7,500%) -- then the article is useless to me... LOL...
That's what you see with some posters here...
I don't do that "weighting" stuff -- and merely say if you've got 130 words out of 13,000 words, then you've got about 1% of the article that may have some questionable information or information in error.
BUT, since I don't believe that there is any source of information that is 100% accurate in all the body of information that they present (combined) -- I don't find that to be a big problem. :-)
Thus Wikipedia is just fine as an encyclopedic source of information for me... and you'll find it's just as fine with the majority of people here on Free Republic, too.
Curious that you feel the need to speak for the majority of posters here. Do you have a source for that assertion?
Curious that you feel the need to speak for the majority of posters here. Do you have a source for that assertion?
You confuse "speaking for" -- with -- an "observation that I have"... :-)
And as we all know... one opinion is as good as the next... :-)
[unless, of course, you want to cite some sources... then we’re in a different ball-game...]
” It’s been touted here several times.”
That was a lot of effort just to reiterate that the shortcomings of Conservapedia demonstrate that Wikipedia is just fine.
Nonsense.
“I would rather be working with more complete information than a paltry little bit that I found over at Conservapedia.”
I’d rather do without the leftist slant. I don’t care how long or “complete” an article is, if a liblib had a hand in producing it, it cannot be relied upon.
“I’m using the conservative counterpart to Wikipedia, which is “Conservapedia” to show you a comparison between the conservative version of the information and the so-called (as you assert) liberal version of the information”
No amount of repetition will lend that argument any shred of validity.
1. You assume an equivalence between Wped and Cped that just doesn’t exist. Your comparison fails on those grounds alone. The only valid comparison would be between Wped and an unbiased, comprehensive source. You know, like my memory.
2. I am certainly not the only person asserting a liberal bias on Wped. Lots and lots of people agree. Trying to pretend that it’s only me is just a cheap attempt to “win” the discussion by bringing personal credibility into it.
“feel free to give me another encyclopedic source of information on the net “
You only accept sources found on the Internet? That’s a convenient way to rule out most of the material.
“they are not holding back on Mao in his gruesome details”
Sure they are. They’re about to give themselves curvature of the spine from bending over backwards to protect his image.
“...they do present more complete information on this article, they reference from sources that are listed...”
Volume, as I keep telling you, is not synonymous with accuracy. So after letting Wped blow smoke up your skirt, you can take their recommendations and go directly to other biased, dishonest propaganda pieces. Great plan.
“I find that presentation to be...”
Yeah, well, your finder needs to be calibrated. If you don’t see the leftist bias in that article, you have a severe malfunction in your libdar.
“BUT, since I don’t believe that there is any source of information that is 100% accurate in all the body of information that they present (combined)...”
Wow, you really just don’t get it.
The question is not whether any source is 100% accurate. Of course there is no such source. People make mistakes.
The question is whether a given source is even *trying* to be reasonably accurate.
You rambled on about percentages and weighting, apparently laboring under the misconception that you had a point. Here’s why you didn’t: A given 130 words, or 15 to 20 words in multiple passages, can create a justified suspicion that the writer or publisher was not even *trying* to be accurate.
An experienced reader doesn’t need a huge amount of evidence to state with confidence and accuracy that a given writer or publication is or is not trying to be as honest and truthful as possible.
To put that another way, some people are biased toward the truth, with the result that their bias only leads them to become increasingly truthful and accurate. Leftists are biased toward pushing leftism, and believe themselves completely justified and blameless WRT any lie, distortion, or omission committed in that cause.
If you can’t look at that Mao article and make that call, well, sorry about that, Sparky. You should hang around with people who can.
I just hope no Freepers are donating to this left wing intrusion into our on-line society.
I’d rather do without the leftist slant. I don’t care how long or “complete” an article is, if a liblib had a hand in producing it, it cannot be relied upon.
Well, I can deal with, very easily (without breaking a sweat) the 1% existence of any liberal philosophy inserted in a sentence or a paragraph in some articles. That's no problem for me at all.
And from what I see on Free Republic, from the various other FReepers, posting information and articles from Wikipedia on the various threads... they seem to be able to deal with it just fine.
But, by all means -- if you have difficulty sorting it out... stay away from it... LOL...
In the meantime, I'm not throwing out a source of encyclopedic information in which I can use 99% of the information for all sorts of subjects -- for any 1% of information that may have some slant...
I don't engage in the practice of "throwing the baby out with the bath water..." :-)
No amount of repetition will lend that argument any shred of validity.
And no amount of your harping over your dislike for 1% of the information on Wikipedia is going to get me to throw out the other 99% ... LOL...
You see..., I learned how to sort those things out. I would suggest you learn that skill and you'll live a more productive life... :-)
You only accept sources found on the Internet? That’s a convenient way to rule out most of the material.
Well... if you had bothered looking at Wikipedia, you would have found out that they don't even rely exclusively on information just from the net. They also rely on printed information that exists in book form, too.
You (and I mean you personally and/or you as in anyone) can put information in Wikipedia from a book from the library, and use that as a reference point for an article or a paragraph or some note.
AND... in addition, you'll also notice that I said in a post of mine up above that I don't find any source of encyclopedic information as good as Wikipedia, either in print form or on the Internet.
So..., if you've got that printed source of encyclopedic information that is more comprehensive and better than Wikipedia -- now is your chance to show it here.
I said, up above, I would be glad to add whatever source that is, to my collection of good sources of information -- just like I have Wikipedia in that list of good sources of information.
Please do enlighten me to what that printed source of encyclopedic information is.
Volume, as I keep telling you, is not synonymous with accuracy. So after letting Wped blow smoke up your skirt, you can take their recommendations and go directly to other biased, dishonest propaganda pieces. Great plan.
However, I've never said that volume is the equivalence of accuracy. Volume of information is one thing, and accuracy is another. You haven't found me saying that.
What I have said is this. You don't have a source of encyclopedic information (either printed or on the net) which is the equivalent in volume to Wikipedia. It doesn't exist that I've found. I've found Wikipedia to be absolutely invaluable in that regard. It is so wide-ranging that there is absolutely no other source of encyclopedic information that matches it.
Now, on top of that, I've also said that I don't see any more than 1% of the information that I would consider to be biased or false. And I don't "weight" the information (as I mentioned up above). So forget about any "weighting" here for the information as that's a ridiculous idea (whether you or anyone else has said it or not).
I take the entire volume of information (you can do it by word count, if you want) and you can take the word count for the specific bias that exists in a phrase, or a sentence or a paragraph -- and then you can get a percentage of it.
You can try, but I haven't seen that anyone can produce more than 1% of the total volume of information on Wikipedia to be biased in some way that is detrimental to what we're saying (and remember not all bias is bad, but some is merely a "viewpoint" too -- like, for instance, in a Christian debate for whether the Rapture is pre-, mid-, or pre-wrath, and those viewpoints would not be considered to be negative bias to me).
When I see your comments and you fail to explain why anyone should throw out 99% of the information for some limited 1% that you don't like -- that shows me that this is merely your own "idiosyncracies" at work and nothing more. You hsve no basis outside of your little idiosyncratic world in your head to deal with.
The others of us, me included, who deal with all the information in the world and can easily sort it out with normal reading skills, have absolutely no problem using Wikipedia.
Yeah, well, your finder needs to be calibrated. If you don’t see the leftist bias in that article, you have a severe malfunction in your libdar.
I find bias everywhere I look, no matter what the source of information. But, you see... I've learned to deal with it and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, a skill which you apparently lack.
And as long as you lack that skill and can't deal with the 1% of the information that may be biased, then you should probably stay away from it.
I would also advise you to stay away from public libraries, too -- as the last time I went in there, they probably have many books that contain biased information ... LOL...
The question is not whether any source is 100% accurate. Of course there is no such source. People make mistakes.
I wasn't talking about mistakes. I was talking about outright bias against a worldview that I have (or that any other FReeper has here).
Walk into a library, any public library anywhere in the country, and you will find so much bias that it will make your head spin and I'm not talking about mistakes.
As I said before, if you find it to be problematic for you to sort out these bits of information (the bias) from the othe material -- then you should stay out of libararies, too... :-)
The question is whether a given source is even *trying* to be reasonably accurate.
I find that Wikipedia is over 99% accurate and correct and without significant bias to my own positions in things that count for myself and my positions. So, I don't have a problem with Wikipedia.
I don't have problems with public libraries either, and someone can walk in there and "be infected" with so much bias, it would make one's head spin in circles... LOL...
The problem is not the repository of information that you go to... the real problem and issue to deal with is one's "skill set" in being able to deal with the information that you have at your hands. And with Wikipedia, I find less problems than I would find at my public library.
I'm not about to throw out public libraries and I'm not about to throw out Wikipedia either... :-)
You rambled on about percentages and weighting, apparently laboring under the misconception that you had a point. Here’s why you didn’t: A given 130 words, or 15 to 20 words in multiple passages, can create a justified suspicion that the writer or publisher was not even *trying* to be accurate.
An experienced reader doesn’t need a huge amount of evidence to state with confidence and accuracy that a given writer or publication is or is not trying to be as honest and truthful as possible.
To put that another way, some people are biased toward the truth, with the result that their bias only leads them to become increasingly truthful and accurate. Leftists are biased toward pushing leftism, and believe themselves completely justified and blameless WRT any lie, distortion, or omission committed in that cause.
Let me tell you one key difference in the information you may get in the library, in the form of books, versus the encyclopedic information you can get.
When you're dealing with an author of a single book, he will carry a certain "worldview" (which is his bias, good or bad) throughout the entire book. Now, a lot of the information in the book may not be affected one way or another by that bias, but some of the information there may be. So, even if that author is biased in a way that goes against your "worldview" -- there is always good information that is usable, even by that author.
But, the main point is that the bias is carried throughout that book.
Now.., in encyclopedic information, you have a large collection of authors and their biases don't carry over from one article to the next article. Those various articles in the encyclopedic information sources -- are like "mini-books" (if you will) in that they have inherent biased in thos particular articles and perhaps throughout the article -- but another article is like another [mini-] book. You get something different and someone different in that other article.
Going further with this -- with Wikipedia, not even the individual articles, themselves, are carrying a consistent "bias" throughout the article -- and that's because even the articles themselves in Wikipedia are the combination of individual words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs -- each one formulated by a different person who helps put it together.
That means that with articles on Wikipedia, that various pieces of information and words and phrases can be changed and corrected and inserted -- with the proper attribution to outside souces that back up that attribution.
So, the Wikipedia articles are like "mini-libraries" in that they carry a mixture of voices and sources and biases and information -- all inside just one article, itself.
There is no "one author" for the information contained within a single article. An article may start out that way... in that just one person starts something off, for the first piece of information inserted in Wikipedia, on a particular piece of information that is going to be assembled into an article. But, it soon is joined by others who insert and modify and adjust and add sources and more information to it. As it goes along, it becomes more and more diverse and the article ends up including various sides and views on the same issue.
It's like getting a "mini-library" of information, contained in one article, and from various sources and various authors and various viewpoints. Of course, that's a natural extension of the idea of "encyclopedic information" -- which is what Wikipedia is all about.
If you can’t look at that Mao article and make that call, well, sorry about that, Sparky. You should hang around with people who can.
As I said before, I don't lack the skill set to deal with it... LOL...
But, by all means, if you do lack the skill set to deal with it, then please... stay away from it. I wouldn't want you to ruin your life... :-)
I just hope no Freepers are donating to this left wing intrusion into our on-line society.
I'm not donating to it, but I'm using it extensively.
And just for the record... I don't "donate" to my public library, but I also use that extensively. And, you know... I've found an awful lot of leftist bias in those public libraries. But, you won't find me recommending that they close down public libraries or that we refuse to visit them.
I'm half-way expecting, one of these days, someone making the recommendation that we never set foot in a public library again, because of all the leftist bias that someone found in there... LOL...
“You see..., I learned how to sort those things out. I would suggest you learn that skill and you’ll live a more productive life...”
Decided to drop back five and punt, eh?
Before you were claiming that the bias doesn’t exist. Now you’ve dropped that and adopted an entirely new position: it’s there, but Star Traveler can deal with it.
I doubt it. You can’t even keep your own position straight.
Waste of bandwidth. Out of here.
Before you were claiming that the bias doesn’t exist. Now you’ve dropped that and adopted an entirely new position: it’s there, but Star Traveler can deal with it.
Sorry, you must be thinking about someone else. I've maintained from the beginning that there is no source for information that we use that is 100% error free.... so that's not me that you're referring to... LOL..
You better go looking for that other FReeper you're talking about and post that to him... :-)
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.