Posted on 12/02/2011 3:04:05 PM PST by grundle
Jimmy Wales is being treated to the leftist Wiki bias we’ve all complained about for years.
Well isn’t that sweet. He says the article is a disaster but he doesn’t have time to fix it. So it just stays a disaster?
Liberals. If they could think, they’d be conservatives.
[Or did he propose a secret fix not mentioned in the quoted section? If not, my comment stands. Why point out a problem, and then offer no plan for fixing it?]
I hit the Wikipedia site often for leads and they are soliciting funds...............any intelligent opinions.
Not one-hundred percent sure I understand your point. Could you kindly elaborate? Thanks.
He offered suggestions. I’m glad he did what he did.
Thanks for the info. I wonder what the revised article will look like? I hope the guy’s head explodes, who got you banned.
He should start by publishing that, and linking to it from Wikipedia entry on socialists, so people can see for themselves what they're about.
Thanks grundle. JWTF did Jimbo think would happen? Wikipedia’s in a fundraiser right now, btw. I don’t see it here, but noticed it at work when I was looking up something really important.
How is it that one of the contributors had the power to zot you? That seems odd.
I actually am impressed that the founder decided to intervene.
It also is interesting how Wiki is supposed to be the pipple’s encyclopedia but it’s obviously really a dictatorship, with Jimbo presumably getting the last word if he so chooses. A nice example of “democratic centralism”.
I use the site a lot, too. But I wouldn't give them a cent until they can figure out how to reconcile the user-contribution model with politically-biased editors.
User Rd232 must be Sean Penn.
bump
They get an ear full from me every so often, but until they change their model away from hating conservative opinions, they will never see a cent from me.
Just for your info Rd232 is not me!
When I have a question of who, what, when I look up the question on Wikipedia for general background and also check the “discussion” page. They give me a quick explanation and some references.
If that is sufficient for the “facts” I need, I move on. Using Wikipedia for analysis is like using the NY Times data base of Time Magazine databases.
It is very complicated to describe because a lot of judgement is involved. I tried other online data bases but they are not as helpful for lining up raw data. Of course the Wikipedia write-ups are then compared to other individual sites. Hope this helps. I have began a file of examples of what I consider bias in the articles, particularly where the discussion page gives the comments short shift.
Thanks for that explanation. I avoid wikipedia like the plague for anything political or liberal vs conservative. I use it for neutral things, though. It can be helpful if, as you said, ones judgement is involved.
I think the fundraising thing only shows up if you have Javascript turned on.
I doubt that Jimbo knew about my situation when he made his comments. I think he just read the article and noticed the absence of criticism.
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.