Wikipedia overtaking major news sites

CNN Money ^ | September 6, 2005 | Staff Writer

[CreviceTool]

Wikipedia overtaking major news sites Traffic to the multilingual network of sites has grown 154 percent over the past year. September 6, 2005: 5:21 PM EDT SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The Wikipedia, which has surged this year to become the most popular reference site on the Web, is fast overtaking several major news sites as the place where people swarm for context on breaking events. Traffic to the multilingual network of sites has grown 154 percent over the past year, according to research firm Hitwise. At current growth rates, it is set to overtake The New York Times on the Web, the Drudge Report and other news sites. But the rising status of the site as the Web's intellectual demilitarized zone, the favored place people look for background on an issue or to settle a polemical dispute, also poses challenges for the volunteer ethic that gave it rise. "We are growing from a cheerful small town where everyone waves off their front porch to the subway of New York City where everyone rushes by," said Jimmy Wales, the founder of the volunteer encyclopedia. "How do you preserve the culture that has worked so well?" p>

[Junior]

Why do you think Wikipedia is leftist?

[Arkinsaw]

I've been hearing a lot of yammering about Wikipedia here on Free Republic but quite honestly, I have yet to encounter a liberal bias there.

I was there during the horrific, disgusting, debate on the "term" Santorum. The article stated that the term "Santorum" was a word that described a particularly vile sexually explicit thing. They debated this for months. Arguments were made that this term, coined by some two-bit homosexual activist in San Francisco was a valid word of significance.

Some conservative wag came along and made a similar reference about Hillary Clinton and it was deleted forthwith without argument. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Similarly, the word Islamofascism was debated for ages. Liberals screaming and yelling that it was just a FOX News creation, a non-word made up by conservatives and deserved no place in an encyclopedia despite thousands of Google hits on the word.

So "Santorum" made up by some two-bit activist is a real word of significance, but "Islamofascism" used on major news networks and by pundits and with thousands of Google hits was "not a real word".

No, no liberal bias.

[bvw]

Wilkipedia will become not just overabundant in lies, propaganda, half-truths and slanders as it is now, but rampant and overflowing with lies. The lies will overwhelm any truth in it.

There are social dynamic physics at work, and physics is physics.

[LiteKeeper]

Wikipedia definitely shows up on the LEFT side of my screen when I access it.

[bvw]

The dyanmics, the physics, are as follows, basically: Lies insist on being and loudly demand to be heard; Truth can only whisper, begging to be heard.

What kind of place is Wikipedia? The battles there are won only by those who insist on winning.

QED.

[bvw]

See my 43 and 45.

[sourcery]

What kind of place is Wikipedia? The battles there are won only by those who insist on winning.

That's true of any society, and especially of society in general.

[SamAdams76]

I just went over to view the Rick Santorum article on Wikipedia and it was quite well done. The article even states how he has a great deal of sincerity and charisma that makes him "less appalling" to even his harshest critics on the left.

Of course, the article touches upon his controversial remarks on same-sex marriage. Why shouldn't it? Having conservative opinions is nothing to be ashamed about and nothing to hide from.

Just to test the balance of Wikipedia, I journeyed on to the Hillary Clinton article and in that article is a fairly large section that outlines her scandals, including the cattle trades, Whitewater, her husband's infidelities, the controversy surrounding the Vince Foster death, the Ghandi comment, and so forth.

So the Wikipedia site seems quite fair and balanced to me. Seems to me that some Freepers are just bound and determined to take offense where none exists.

[bvw]

No, it is not. In fact it is not true of any long term society. Why? Any sustaining society has to have a moral code rooted in truth. The deeper the rooting and the stronger the roots themselves the longer the society shall last.

And too, there are certain minimum laws that must be met. Among them "establishing Justice". Where is Justice on Wikipedia? Justice is not equal access or equanimity. Justice must find its footing in absolute Truths, any ruling not respecting basic Truths, is no good ruling no matter how fair and equal the process used to achieve it.

[Arkinsaw]

See my 43 and 45.

Thats exactly right. Dead on analysis. I do not have time to sit and babysit an online internet article day and night to make sure nobody puts twisty words into it. Maybe some conservatives who have no other life whatsoever can do that for as long as they can before they get IP banned for being a problem user.

If I try to make a logical point to defend an article, nobody wants to listen to those logical points. The loudest win, those have the most perseverance win, and those who are absorbed into the long running "community leaders" group win. It is a social group, not an encyclopedia.

I wrote quite a few articles on the Civil War. They were not biased. I wrote articles on US Colored Troops, the Little Rock Nine and the Little Rock Crisis, Tuskeegee Airmen, I wrote articles about both the Sons of Confederate Veterans and Grand Army of the Republic. When I tried to put some info on slavery into a Civil War article, my non-biased approach gave me no credit. My changes were reverted because the fact/statistic I put in the article might be seen to be supportive of the Confederate side. Never mind that it was a well established and accepted fact/statistic, it did not support the commonly accepted views.

There is an element of propping up the commonly accepted rather than presenting facts. There is also a liberal bias, not in the way articles are written necessarily, but in the way controversies are resolved and who resolves them and which side must bear the burden of proof.

[Arkinsaw]

I just went over to view the Rick Santorum article on Wikipedia and it was quite well done.

I was referring to the article "Santorum" which is now a disambiguation page. Go to the history and look at the original article. That article was the one debated for a hideously long time.

My point was not that the article finally turned into a disambiguation page. My point was that the comments of an unknown homosexual activist were given more weight in debate than a combination of Fox News, various pundits and columnist, and many Google hits.

You are obviously caught up in the Wiki love. I lost that a long time ago, and not for no reason. Good luck to you.

[sourcery]

Any sustaining society has to have a moral code rooted in truth. The deeper the rooting and the stronger the roots themselves the longer the society shall last.

Islamic society has lasted for about a millenium and a half. Hindu society has laster far longer than that. By your reasoning, both societies must be based on some rather potent truths. And I would have to agree, actually--although I suspect you didn't mean to include either as an example of a "moral code rooted in truth," or as examples of societies based on "absolute Truths."

[Acksiom]

Compare and contrast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

IMO, there's at least a slight bias (of omission) favoring the left.

[ZULU]

Go to any search engine, plug ni any topic, and you will find Wikipedia trashing itself all over any references with its vapid and puerile narratives.

They are trash. Its no surprise they are liberal also.

[sourcery]

IMO, there's at least a slight bias (of omission) favoring the left.

One could argue that the differences are mostly due to the fact that Free Republic is far more influential than is DU, has a longer history, more contributors, a wider audience, is far more effective, and makes and has made more news (both good and bad.) And one reason FR makes more news is that it irritates the MSM far more than does DU. And none of that has anything to do with any Wikipedia-specific bias.

[Yeti]

I use Wikipedia for research on technical issues, not for research on political issues.

Good point. I've never seen bias, but I've never looked up anything that brushed against an ideological bone of contention.

For science and engineering, medicine, technology, factual(non spinworthy) history -- things like that -- it's the best site on the web, hands down. The articles are thorough and up-to-the-minute, and the links they provide go very often to original sources, you'll usually do much better to check Wikipedia before you try to extract something content rich from Google's search results.

It does my heart good to see so many people working together for free to produce something really, really good and useful for everyone to use. I use the search tool in Firefox to get results from Wikipedia, it's very handy!

Incidentally, I just checked the FR entry in Wikipedia, and it looked factual and accurate to me. Do some of us want it to be a flattering fiction before we call it "unbiased?"

[Yeti]

Go to FreeRepublic.com if you want neoconservative spin on your ideologically controversial issue of choice.

To learn about the physics to which you allude in your post, I recommend Wikipedia as the first place you should check. Then go into greater depth by chasing the many useful links you'll find there.

[bvw]

Yes, I would include both societies as having some founding in absolute truths. I also note that Hinduism is understood by those who understand it deeper in history and spiritual depth as a religion of One G-d, that G-d having many aspects. The trouble is that many hold it or view it as having multiple gods.

[TexasKamaAina]

Wikipedia is useless as a reference source itself.

I found some good info there on the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenalin axis.

[Junior]

I'm sorry, I don't see the bias. Both are pretty straightforward and fairly objective.

But then again, I'm not predisposed to seeing bias everywhere I look. To me, that's a liberal trait.