Skip to comments.
Growing pains for Wikipedia
Cnet ^
| 12/05/2005
| Daniel Terdiman
Posted on 12/05/2005 4:53:16 AM PST by Panerai
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
1
posted on
12/05/2005 4:53:16 AM PST
by
Panerai
To: Panerai
"First, in a Nov. 29 op-ed piece in USA Today, a former administrative assistant to Robert Kennedy lambasted the free online reference work for an article that suggested he may have been involved in the assassinations of both Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy."
So this means that the left is in favor of free speech (even when the speech is incorrect) except when it makes them look bad??? To bad the media wont play it up that way. They will make it seem that some ultra-conservitive is trying to make the Innocent demos look bad.
2
posted on
12/05/2005 5:03:47 AM PST
by
DerekinTurk
(I am not creative enough to make a tagline...sorry.)
To: Panerai
Wales, in a recent C-SPAN interview...insisted that his Web site is accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer editors...corrects mistakes within minutes," former Robert Kennedy aide John Seigenthaler wrote in USA Today. and the are reverted in seconds by liberals and protected by liberal moderators. Hey Wales, your encyclopedia is nothing but a Wikipedia with NPOV meaning liberal's point of view, and Wikipedians meaning to be a liberal. Guess how many Encyclopedia editors claim the inaccuracy of your contents full of bias. Shut your site and get lost.
3
posted on
12/05/2005 5:07:08 AM PST
by
Wiz
To: Panerai
I am no fan of Wikipedia. But.....
Siegenthaler could have simply edited out the offensive part of his article rather than sitting and stewing over it for 4 months. The page that had the offending sentence has a button on it tht says "edit this page". He should have done it rather than cry and look for someone to sue.
That said, Wikipedia is good for two things.....trivia contests.....and to keep its editors from bothering people elsewhere on the net.
4
posted on
12/05/2005 5:10:32 AM PST
by
Arkinsaw
To: Panerai
To critics of Wikipedia--which, in a spin on the open-source model, lets anyone create and edit entries--the news was further proof that the service has no accountability and no place in the world of serious information gathering.Pretty much my position since I understood the "business model".
Anyone setting up such a service based on both its usefulness and the assumption that the users/editors will be 100% honest and not exploit and abuse the system is a fool...
5
posted on
12/05/2005 5:13:33 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
To: Wiz
Guess how many Encyclopedia editors claim the inaccuracy of your contents full of bias. Shut your site and get lost.But what puzzles me is how Wikipeda (still) gets top, or near top, billing when you look up something like "Irish setters" or "Afganistan", or "Carrie Nation" or whatever on darn near any search engine.
6
posted on
12/05/2005 5:23:14 AM PST
by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: Panerai
I get a kick out of Wikipedia. It is a sign of our times.
Anybody can write anything, and someone will take it as fact.
If folks understand what Wikipedia is and is not, then I see no harm, no foul.
Haven't the newscasters and journalists been doing the same thing for years, telling the "part" they want to, and leaving out the rest?
7
posted on
12/05/2005 5:23:38 AM PST
by
dawn53
To: Publius6961
Pretty much my position since I understood the "business model".
Anyone setting up such a service based on both its usefulness and the assumption that the users/editors will be 100% honest and not exploit and abuse the system is a fool...
However, we can probably trust this encyclopedia more than any other out there. I would rather have a hard copy of this encyclopedia than
any other out there.
They have a CD form of the entire contents available (or were talking about making one). This would surely kick the ass out of Encarta, and many of the other resource material available on CD-ROM
Wikipedia,
for the articles I've needed it for, has been absolutely un-biased and
extremely informative.
To: dawn53
"
Haven't the newscasters and journalists been doing the same thing for years, telling the "part" they want to, and leaving out the rest?"
Yes .. in part.
The facts are that the "newscasters and journalists" have, besides "telling the part they want to and leaving out the rest" been also using bogus information, which makes them exactly like Wikipedia.
9
posted on
12/05/2005 5:49:23 AM PST
by
G.Mason
(Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark ... Marine Corporal Jeffrey Starr, KIA 04-30-05)
To: dawn53
I get a kick out of Wikipedia. It is a sign of our times.
Anybody can write anything, and someone will take it as fact. Well, I have a simple way of dealing with that.
Ignorance is rampant and too may actually believe that "instant in-depth" knowlege is actually possible.
I simply tell them to quit wasting my time... and move on.
10
posted on
12/05/2005 5:49:38 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
To: youngtechster
Wikipedia, for the articles I've needed it for, has been absolutely un-biased and extremely informative.Well, I am not surprised.
Your name says it all...
11
posted on
12/05/2005 6:08:48 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
To: dawn53
Haven't the newscasters and journalists been doing the same thing for years, telling the "part" they want to, and leaving out the rest?You hit the nail on the head!
I think most reasonable people, when they discover that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone anonymously, will instantly conclude that the accuracy and objectivity of its contents is subject to question, particularly in any area where a hidden agenda may have an influence.
And it only takes a few seconds more of critical thinking to conclude the same about the MSM. I can see why they don't like it. Competition!
12
posted on
12/05/2005 6:21:52 AM PST
by
VoiceOfBruck
(Dave? Dave's not here.)
To: Panerai
Wikipedia: You can count on it being correct
until just before you read it.
To: Panerai
Wiki puts up a headline that tells you the veracity is in dispute whenever there is controversy over accuracy in the attached editing discussion for an article.
A FReeper here had it right once. He saw the Wiki on FR was left-leaning. He didn't complain, he just went in there and fixed it.
To: DerekinTurk
defamatory comments aren't part of free speech. Well you can say it, but you can get sued too. Who do you sue for defamatory comments on wikopedia?
15
posted on
12/05/2005 7:02:59 AM PST
by
for-q-clinton
(If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
To: dawn53
Anybody can write anything, and someone will take it as fact.No kidding. "If it's on the Web, it must be true." I'll give Wikipedia this much; it does keep a history of the edits for all to see. But overall, it just doesn't have the credibility that some want to claim it has.
16
posted on
12/05/2005 7:07:15 AM PST
by
Ladysmith
((NRA, SAS) Support Zien's PPA/CCW bill in Wisconsin.)
To: Panerai
Growing pains for WikipediaI, too, have groin pains.
17
posted on
12/05/2005 7:07:48 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
(Proudly Lying About My Sign-Up Date Since 1998)
To: dawn53
I guess if wikipedia had a big disclaimer on every page you visit saying what the site is (and is not), then I guess it would be ok.
But as it is now, you can have people send you a link to wikipedia and if you don't know what wikipedia is, you'd think it was an authentic truth type website. When in fact it's mostly truth, but can be easily exploited to defame someone.
When I first came across it, I had no idea it was just open to public postings. Not until much later did I realize what it was.
18
posted on
12/05/2005 7:08:47 AM PST
by
for-q-clinton
(If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
To: Panerai
Wikipedia is what happens without peer review.
19
posted on
12/05/2005 7:12:13 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Panerai
I think Wikipedia is about as trustworthy as the average NYT news story or the average comment on Freerepublic. Which simply means that you understand when you read it that you are reading an introduction or one take on the issue and the writer is a human being with a viewpoint. If you are over 12 years old you have learned by now you NEVER use one source for anything; you ALWAYS read about 3 different viewpoints and mentally triangulate the truth, taking into account the perspective of all the writers you are reading, and using the neurons God gave you.
And if you aren't smart enough to deal with that, you need an information nanny. Which is what, I suppose, the Left is screaming about.
I'm endlessly amused by the MSM myth that you can read a news story and get, in that one story, THE TRUTH about something, because it was written by a (drumroll) PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST who has a (drumroll) EDITOR. As if you get in journalism school some esoteric anointing that makes you ever after able to tell truth from fiction better than the common people, who suffer the disadvantage of just being educated in an actual subject.
They either want to think that way, or the complete opposite, which is that there is no such thing as truth, and these are the two lazy approaches to thinking. It's a simpering, nannyboy approach to reality.
20
posted on
12/05/2005 7:14:26 AM PST
by
Taliesan
(The power of the State to do good is the power of the State to do evil.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson