Skip to comments.
Anti-Pinochet bias on en.wikipedia
25 December 2004
| Critto
Posted on 12/25/2004 10:16:07 AM PST by Critto
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
1
posted on
12/25/2004 10:16:07 AM PST
by
Critto
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: Critto
Oh, wait. I misunderstood you. Sorry, I thought you were a troll and thoughtlessly shot from the hip. I've asked that my post be removed.
4
posted on
12/25/2004 10:22:12 AM PST
by
Psycho_Bunny
(“I know a great deal about the Middle East because I’ve been raising Arabian horses" Patrick Swazey)
To: Critto
Merry Christmas and welcome to FReerepublic.
The marxists invade and detract from all good things. It's their MO.
FMCDH(BITS)
5
posted on
12/25/2004 10:25:04 AM PST
by
nothingnew
(Kerry is gone...perhaps to Lake Woebegone)
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: Powerclam
7
posted on
12/25/2004 10:29:02 AM PST
by
Drango
(Those who advocate robbing (taxing) Peter to pay Paul...will always have the support of Paul.)
To: Critto
Wikipedia is a lost cause. When I was on there, quite a few contributors were engaged in an effort to put something about Bush and Iraq in articles that didn't have the slightest connection. There were Bush/Iraq comments stuck in articles about people who have been dead 20 years and that caused no fuss.
If you have a conservative bias in an article, its removed on the spot. If you have a liberal bias in an article, then it has to be discussed, and debated, and argued about, and fought over for a year and half.
Many of the contributors want a neutral encyclopedia, but their policies are taken advantage of by the leftist partisans.
When you get into conflict, it is not about who has the logical argument, its about who is the most persistent and who yelps the loudest for the longest. Liberals have us beat from the start in situations where lengthy yelping is the determinant and logic is not.
8
posted on
12/25/2004 10:30:19 AM PST
by
Arkinsaw
To: Critto
My rants have had to do with the pro-AKC bias among the dog breed entries.
9
posted on
12/25/2004 10:30:50 AM PST
by
jdege
To: Powerclam
...Without SOME editorial process, wikis are, and can never be, no more reliable as information-sources than alt.conspiracy...Even with a so-called editorial process, bias creeps in. Just look at the US "mainstream" media.
10
posted on
12/25/2004 10:32:11 AM PST
by
FReepaholic
(Proud FReeper since 1998. Proud monthly donor.)
To: Powerclam
The problems you have pointed out are the reasons why the wikipedia (and the wiki concept in general) are irreparably flawed. Without SOME editorial process, wikis are, and can never be, no more reliable as information-sources than alt.conspiracy, Democratic Underground, or (dare I say it) FreeRepublic.
The world is too divided for there to be any neutral source. Wikipedia is a utopian dream, and like all utopian dreams, it is abused by the greedy, obnoxious, and closed-minded (human nature). The problem always is, that the utopians don't realize that their utopia is being ill-used until its too late.
The public is in a new age, they have to ingest a variety of sources and views and then judge them logically. Taking pieces here and there on their own. There is no neutral source. Wikipedia can claim to be neutral, but it is not, and cannot be. It bears the POV of its contributors no matter what its press releases say.
It is in fact, more dangerous because it claims to be neutral. I will say, that it is about as neutral as its majority liberal overseers can make it, given the fact that there are so few conservative voices there and that there are a great many liberal partisans there who don't hold "neutrality" in as high esteem as the project leaders.
11
posted on
12/25/2004 10:40:14 AM PST
by
Arkinsaw
To: Arkinsaw
The public is in a new age, they have to ingest a variety of sources and views and then judge them logically.Good reply. I have found that using prejudice (in the true meaning of the word, not the left's bastardized version) and His gift of DISCERNMENT usually helps me in the understanding of almost anything.
FMCDH(BITS)
12
posted on
12/25/2004 10:54:16 AM PST
by
nothingnew
(Kerry is gone...perhaps to Lake Woebegone)
To: nothingnew
Indeed, we are blessed with the gift of discernment of good and evil and the gift of discriminating based on those discernments. Merry Christmas.
13
posted on
12/25/2004 11:11:12 AM PST
by
dhuffman@awod.com
(The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
To: dhuffman@awod.com
...the gift of discriminating based on those discernments.Discriminate is the other key word I was trying to convey...alas, many braincells have departed since last night.
Discrimination is indeed a gift from Him. Too bad it's true meaning has been hijacksoned by those who would take away our freedoms of thought and true choice.
Merry Christmas.
FMCDH(BITS)
14
posted on
12/25/2004 11:19:19 AM PST
by
nothingnew
(Kerry is gone...perhaps to Lake Woebegone)
To: Critto
No sympathy.
Pinochet was a fascist, pure and simple, who used summary executions to try to maintain law and order in Chile.
I don't care if, because he fought leftists, you like him. He was an indefensible bastard.
Supporting him is sort of like supporting Adolf Hitler because he fought against the Communists.
15
posted on
12/25/2004 11:22:53 AM PST
by
jude24
("To go against conscience is neither right nor safe." - Martin Luther)
To: Critto
Hard to be biased against a guy who used rape as a political tool. The agrument you Pinochet groupies use is the same one the Fidelistas use to gloss over his barbarity. Both groups are despicable.
16
posted on
12/25/2004 11:28:46 AM PST
by
wtc911
("I would like at least to know his name.")
To: Critto
I'm curious aboutCritto here. what is the thought proces like:
hmmm, its Christmas...what should I do today...I know!, I'll go join freerepublic and post an article about wikipedia. does anyone find that just a bit on the weird side?
17
posted on
12/25/2004 12:50:55 PM PST
by
isom35
To: Critto
Wiki(d) (Encyclo)pedia.
Amateur hour personified. The New York Slimes is often a better source.
To: jude24
No sympathy. Pinochet was a fascist, pure and simple, who used summary executions to try to maintain law and order in Chile. I don't care if, because he fought leftists, you like him. He was an indefensible bastard. Supporting him is sort of like supporting Adolf Hitler because he fought against the Communists.
I think you are missing the point. The point is not support for Pinochet, the point is that you can't state truthful facts about Pinochet in what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia because partisans on the other side think that the truth makes Pinochet out to look better than they want.
I experienced the same thing there. You can't put in facts that detract from the underlying premises even if your intent is just to put in a fact (at least not without a huge freaking fight).
I understand that you don't like Pinochet, but I assume that you are not in favor of removing all facts regarding Pinochet that don't match your dislike. I hate Hitler, but I am not in favor of throwing his ideas on Volkswagen or autobahns down the memory hole just because they were moderately good concepts that he supported.
Encyclopedias are for facts, even if they don't support your own point of view.
19
posted on
12/25/2004 2:48:40 PM PST
by
Arkinsaw
To: wtc911
20
posted on
12/25/2004 2:49:45 PM PST
by
Arkinsaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 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