Wiki is fine for learning about how aggregate is classified into silt, sand, and gravel.
But for learning about conservatives, it’s absolutely worthless. The wiki editors allow amazing slanders, distortions, and misleading entries,,,while sanitizing the pages of leftists.
Wiki is fine for learning about how aggregate is classified into silt, sand, and gravel.I think wikipedia is full of crap. But thats nothing new.
14 posted on 02/12/2014 12:00:55 AM PST by Jim Robinson
But for learning about conservatives, its absolutely worthless. The wiki editors allow amazing slanders, distortions, and misleading entries,,,while sanitizing the pages of leftists.
IOW, you read Wikipedia the same way you read The New York Times - for factual, nonpolitical information. But always with your spidey senses activated in case there are political implications which might not be obvious at first blush.
Its a simple formula: anyone who claims, not merely to try to be objective but actually to be objective, is not remotely objective about themselves. And will spew propaganda - perhaps while actually believing it.The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments