It's also your very first post.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Welcome to the smartest place on earth...
I do but I don't. There's too much happening here that I don't have time for any place else.
Wikipedia? Thats in New Zealand isn't it?
There is no reason to re-invent the wheel. You'll find everything you need here.
Don't bother with Wikipedia. As soon as you change something, it will be changed or deleted. Last week I added to the Sean Penn entry how he liked to beat Madonna driving her to file divorce citing spousal abuse. The entry now reads "Sean Penn is most widely known for his stormy relationship with Madonna,"
FR already has it's own dictionary...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1481648/posts
You left out a most important element. Editing Wikipedia on subjects you are familiar with and can authoritatively back up and explain. Because of the time necessary, one has to be passionate about a subject to take enough time to correct Wikipedia.
In addition, I also use Free Republic, Answers.com, Google, Yahoo and other sources for information. To get past simple bias I spread out the search, as I presume most Freepers do.
Liberals will accept the single source party line easier than conservatives. We have had to defend ourselves for so long that few of us will read one item or viewpoint and run with it. We've had things blow back on us so we are more cautious in what we will quote and what we will defend.
Wikipedia is to the Brittanica what E-Bay is to Neiman-Marcus.
Relying on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is about as logical as relying on IMDB forums for movie reviews.
both are incredibly leftist infested swamps
Welcome! I found that site very useful when I was researching TV shows of the '70s.
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.
The (open) source you love to hate, the Wide World of Wiki ping. :)
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.
About.com has also been infiltrated whether deliberately or by outsiders.
So much time can be spent refuting so much BS.
But what do you expect from those who as a political group demonize everyone who disagrees as "racist/sexist/bigot/greedy/mean/etc.".
Political Correctness does not permit any dissent from the liberal agenda. If you disagree then you are wrong and possibly criminal. Damned intellectuals have already decided all of the issues. Just accept it. < /sarcasm >