Posted on 09/10/2005 4:50:20 AM PDT by LoveDoc
Sorry...
You really think it's that good?
You're right and many are also snide, vicious and flat out dishonest (don't ask me how they justify that...I guess it's 'the lesser of two evils' argument.)
Because of this, it is my view that liberals should be defeated in the war of notions at every turn.
(It's almost spiritual for me!)
Now, in editing an encyclopedia, I'm just asking for fairness.
But even that it seems, is too much for my political opponents...
lDOC
I was going to say that (Are you spying on my mind?)
Admittedly I tend to use it as a reference of last resort, and only cite it when it confirm what I previously knew, but i haven't found it to be blatently false. Incomplete perhaps, and capable of being misunderstood, but not outright disinformation.
In gerneral, I disagree with your evaluation. It is perhaps a matter of what you are looking up. I personally thought that it was conservative more than liberal.
I suspect that the bias is topical.
What evaluation?
My only contribution to this thread was to say "welcome to Free Republic" to the author.
You disagree with that?
Not everyone had the same thing to say, but most claim it just isn't worth it.
I've gave much thought to your reasoning. I've decided to reject it.
In fact, the more I think about it...the more I think we can take Wikipedia.
I may never suit the tastes of some in here who insist it be converted into a conservative journal.
But it certainly can be made fair.
Stay on the sidelines and tell me it won't work, it's no use etc if you wish...
But, I'm reminded of the story of Joshua and Caleb.
There may be giants in that land...
...but surely we can take them.
L.Doc
Lets just say I have my sources, and leave it at that. :-)
Hit the wrong reply..sorry
Wikipedia seems OK to me and I use it a lot. Senators and congressmen and all other politicians never see fit to incude their party affiliation on their websites, so Wikipedia is essential for checking that. It gives dates of service and is up to the minute. I don't perceive any leftist bias, but I use it mostly for checking the basic facts.
This sounds like 1996 all over again.
Yet another new new thing, a 'new media' that will change the world . . . wubba, wadda, wubba blah.
It's Push !(tm)
It's Streaming!(tm)
XML will change the world! (tm)
As another poster on this thread points out, I prefer pier reviewed sources as apposed to the collective quislings of a thousand AOLers.
What I want and need, as a proud Conservative is what *other* proud Conservatives find intriguing, timely, and insightful to the topic at hand.
Thank God for FR.
they think today's liberalism is the classical version
in reality, conservatism more reflects that
The (open) source you love to hate, the Wide World of Wiki ping. :)
So, what can a dock tell you that a Doc cannot?
If you really want a good laugh take a look at what the atheists have done with the creation and evolution entries, not to mention the constantly changing definition of "Theory".
I guess I’m in the second camp. I also find the site... the concept... intriguing. However, it is a concept flawed in execution.
Wikipedia, or any venture of its nature, can only work well when authored without a common point of view. For matters that are technical or otherwise based on a well-defined set of rules, a common point of view is achievable. When the subject turns to politics, there is no possible way to achieve a common point of view. Recognizing this, Wikipedia offers an alternative, the “no point of view” (or NPOV in Wiki parlance.) Of course, there is no such thing—NPOV is a fallacious construct. Merely participating in the act of selecting facts demonstrates a point of view, which is then further mired with point of view when choosing words to convey those facts.
So, I find Wikipedia excels at providing technical information. It’s a lost cause for anything else.
I’ve thought long and hard about providing a similar resource for Free Republic. Jim and I have discussed various systems that would provide something similar, and we may eventually have something similar... an “encyclopedia of current events” (from a conservative point of view!) No idea how many people will have to be banned before the site will exhibit a common point of view on all things conservative—necessary to pull this off. Probably all but one. LOL. Seriously, we’d have a completely new battleground between our own factions, and somebody will start a similar discussion on how, as a paleocon, to fight the growing faction of neocons that are infesting the Freeperpedia, or substitute libertarians, or vice versa, et cetera, ad nauseam.
Long story short: ah phooey.
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.