Posted on 12/14/2005 1:36:37 PM PST by NormsRevenge
It's a deal!
That's such a bogus criticism, it makes me wonder if you are a troll.
C'mon, wikiopedia is free and run by volunteers. All it can do is strive to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. If you don't like an article, you can always sign up and improve it. You get more than you pay for under the present scheme.
All of this media-directed criticism of Wikipedia is rather irrelevant. At least the directors of Wikipedia are interested in improving things, unlike the vanilla MSM.
I just looked at the article on FreeRepublic, and although I might edit a word or two, it doesn't seem worth the trouble. Freepers seem to have managed to pretty well straighten it out, so it's a fairly neutral description without any real howlers.
The only term I would question is their definition of FreepLoader, someone who Freeps without contributing. Someone may have used that pun in an argument with someone else at one time or another, but it's not a term commonly used in the forum and I never heard of it before.
Wikipedia = bullshitipedia or Wikipedia = myversionipedia or Wikipedia = Wikipedia(see above)
So I am a troll becuz I take exception with how Wikipedia operates?
Nice try but no cigar.
When I read a comment by one of the editors, to paraphrase; "we take all the divergent views and try and reach a consensus that all can live with.", that is laughable imo,, and you think that makes it an authoritative site and probably indispensible as well, huh?
Come on, there are some issues that are not vanilla no matter how you try and make them so?
I don't really care to have to revisit a site like that daily just to make sure I caught the latest edit, but hey, that's just me.
A ugly streak could apply to many other forums and web communities I have been to.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd use it only for research of a non-crucial nature, on non-controversial topics. It's good that the public knows that it's biased and unreliable, people need to understand that not everything one finds online is the truth. It's more important to have a population that can engage in critical thinking skills, rather than just depend on some "great database in the sky" to do all their reasoning for them.
Wikipedia is what it is. A free, open-source knowlege bank with all the benefits and disadvantages that entails. The smear against this guy didn't slip through the cracks. It was corrected the minute it was noticed. The media borg is so self important. They think they're the only ones allowed to sloppily report information
No, we DO have an ugly streak at times, and to point it out is only fair.
---
So that makes you a qualified expert to edit info about FR?
You must have lurked here for years as your FR birth date is pretty recent compared to many.
Imo, I see an obvious agenda on your part in describing FR as you have, maybe that's just me, maybe not.
I have seen many ugly posts here as well, it hasn't made me want to go off and revise history to meet my taste for it tho.
I , for one, am not a user of wiki (have rarely been there) and likely, now won't be anytime soon.
I don't know how you can be certain that they want to "improve" things. That's what they SAY, but maybe they really just want to sidestep the normal fact-checking process and introduce a profound bias in the internet community while claiming the mantle of "authority".
Even people who started with noble intentions (like I think Google did) are now turning into evil behomoths looking to "do good" in a way that is antithetical to the conservative cause of truth and justice and liberty.
Google knows your computer, they know every query you have done, they have a database (supposedly to help them help you). They sell space to make money, so your queries don't get the most popular, they get the most expensive answers.
"So that makes you a qualified expert to edit info about FR?
You must have lurked here for years as your FR birth date is pretty recent compared to many. "
Long enough to have posted frequently and taken part in at least one Freep. My qualifications are no lesser than any other Freeper. One can be truthful and tactful; some people here haven't learned the difference yet, and I can only encourage people to be more tactful.
In the case of controversial issues, the goal of a Wikipedian is to make sure all sides are heard, with arguments and counter-arguments, not to establish one true point of view.
In other words, muddle the message.
That can be said for alot of other sites as well. And I am not just talking about political sites.
Like I said, so that makes you qualified expert to edit info about FR?
--
Have you ever asked the founder of FR if he approves of your work in progrss?
just curious.
This article reminds me of my first foray into wikipedia. I was bouncing around the links until I came to the one on Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor" of Germany. It was excellent, detailed, soberly presented information. I almost didn't notice the caption on the picture (presumably) of Bismarck as a young man: "Joe the Hobbit."
;-)
The problem with Wikipedia is the problem with everything around us these days: every damn thing has been politicized. This is probably the greatest permanent (so far) achievement of last century's Marxists, who, if I'm not mistaken, originated the idea. Ethnic studies, critical law theory, linguistics, anyone?
I am simply saying , I find it hard to believe after you made your earlier comments of how you see FR, that it is in safe hands having you edit it.
Im not gonna bother looking because it likely will change again soon anyway as I suspect it is constantly under attack as we see conservatism is all too oft here.
Knock yourself out.
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.