Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wikipedia overtaking major news sites
CNN Money ^ | September 6, 2005 | Staff Writer

Posted on 09/11/2005 12:10:56 PM PDT by CreviceTool

Wikipedia overtaking major news sites Traffic to the multilingual network of sites has grown 154 percent over the past year. September 6, 2005: 5:21 PM EDT SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The Wikipedia, which has surged this year to become the most popular reference site on the Web, is fast overtaking several major news sites as the place where people swarm for context on breaking events. Traffic to the multilingual network of sites has grown 154 percent over the past year, according to research firm Hitwise. At current growth rates, it is set to overtake The New York Times on the Web, the Drudge Report and other news sites. But the rising status of the site as the Web's intellectual demilitarized zone, the favored place people look for background on an issue or to settle a polemical dispute, also poses challenges for the volunteer ethic that gave it rise. "We are growing from a cheerful small town where everyone waves off their front porch to the subway of New York City where everyone rushes by," said Jimmy Wales, the founder of the volunteer encyclopedia. "How do you preserve the culture that has worked so well?" p>

(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fr; freerepublic; frinthenews; internet; mediabias; wikipedia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last
Now that Wikipedia is the most popular reference site on the Web, shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action? I see that references to conservatives are filled with questions and allusions, while liberals are portrayed in the best possible light. Should a Rapid Response Team be assembled, if not already?
1 posted on 09/11/2005 12:10:57 PM PDT by CreviceTool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Why did you not use the real title of the article "Wikipedia overtaking major news sites" ?


2 posted on 09/11/2005 12:14:35 PM PDT by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Any 6-year-old can contribute to Wikipedia. All anyone has to do is write a page. Of course they reserve the right to "edit" anything they wish. I don't consult Wiki ... it's usually trash.


3 posted on 09/11/2005 12:14:45 PM PDT by manwiththehands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: CreviceTool

Do not change the headline from that found at the original source. Thank you.


5 posted on 09/11/2005 12:15:12 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

Such is how the left operates. Control information.

They can't win in a fair fight in the arena of ideas.


6 posted on 09/11/2005 12:16:14 PM PDT by weegee (The lesson from New Orleans? Smart Growth kills. You can't evacuate dense populations easily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: CreviceTool
Now that Wikipedia is the most popular reference site on the Web, shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action? I see that references to conservatives are filled with questions and allusions, while liberals are portrayed in the best possible light. Should a Rapid Response Team be assembled, if not already?

Of course. A argument is never won by complaining that the other side shows itself in a good light... I personally find timelines very useful ... can put the isolated events and out-of-context quotes we get fed from the MSM into a useful structure.

8 posted on 09/11/2005 12:20:15 PM PDT by podkane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

That's what I thought too. It's readers contribute. What better way for libbies to get and spread more false info.


9 posted on 09/11/2005 12:21:14 PM PDT by Last Exit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

I have found blatant bias in Wikipedia, usually over inane topics that don't matter too much, but obviously written by teenagers or political hacks.


10 posted on 09/11/2005 12:21:59 PM PDT by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action? I

I edited there a while. You cannot win a logical argument with a liberal. Because they are always so right, every time. No matter what you do, it will get reverted, and then fought over, and the argument will continue until they win or hell freezes over.

Its pointless. Just let it go completely moonbat liberal.
11 posted on 09/11/2005 12:22:14 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Really? I've never been there.


12 posted on 09/11/2005 12:23:24 PM PDT by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; CreviceTool

They did a bad job covering the Terri Schiavo case.

The liberals thinks they are so credible, which tells us something.


13 posted on 09/11/2005 12:25:33 PM PDT by Sun (Call U.S. senators toll-free, 1-877-762-8762; tell them to give Roberts an up or down vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
Wikipedia overtaking major news sites

The original title is misleading. As the article says "The Wikipedia... has ... become the most popular reference site on the Web, fast overtaking several major news sites." The article confuses information reference and news - which is a failing of the news media itself. It does not help that Wikipedia actually has news on its front page - a business it should stay strictly out of.

14 posted on 09/11/2005 12:25:33 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
Wikipedia is dubious at best on a lot of information. It is frightening that history and facts are now subject to even more revision and altering on a grand scale.
15 posted on 09/11/2005 12:28:24 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action?

Wikipedia is useless as a reference source itself. It is usefull to find links to other sites.

If you don't know, how it works, you may find it interesting to surf on over there and post an article. Within days, if not minutes, your article will be turned around, inside out, upside down, and come to postulate the the exact opposite of what ever you said about any thing you care to mention.

It is the revisionist's dream, and the historian's nightmare because anything posted is subject to revision by any know-nothing with a chip on his shoulder. It is usefull only for those things that contain no controversy at all.

That it would be more popular than CNN is not supprising.

16 posted on 09/11/2005 12:28:43 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool; manwiththehands

I read a couple weeks ago that Wikipedia is planning to take measures to improve the integrity of their pages, after someone did something unseemly (I don't remember what it was) to the entry for Pope Benedict XVI.


17 posted on 09/11/2005 12:28:54 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

Well, have you considered flagging the allegedly biased entry for "neutrality" so that it will be discussed and modified?


18 posted on 09/11/2005 12:29:56 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Isnt it open source?


19 posted on 09/11/2005 12:30:07 PM PDT by cardinal4 ("When the Levee breaks, Mama, you got to move....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
Any 6-year-old can contribute to Wikipedia. All anyone has to do is write a page. Of course they reserve the right to "edit" anything they wish. I don't consult Wiki ... it's usually trash.

Actually, the Wikipedia is usually very accurate. There are problems, and articles sometimes are biased, but the system generally works far better than your description would lead someone to believe. One reason is because bias is a multi-edged sword on a wiki: all sides get to play. Another reason is because a wiki produces good results in the same way a society does: by collaboration from all parties, each seeking its own self interest.

Disclaimer: I happen to personally know Ward Cunningham, the inventor of wiki, due to my long usage of the Smalltalk programming langauge (since 1985.) I also know or have met Dan Ingalls, Adele Goldberg, Dave Robson, Ted Kaehler, Diana Merry-Shapiro and Alan Kay (members of the Xerox PARC Smalltalk design team.)

20 posted on 09/11/2005 12:30:45 PM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
shouldn't conservatives take notice…or better yet, action?

It's not a bad idea, but the fact is liberals have nothing better to do than keep going back to pages and re-editing them. Most of the time they don't even offer a biased re-edit. They just erase your new text.

21 posted on 09/11/2005 12:31:18 PM PDT by Tim Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: satchmodog9
Wikipedia is dubious at best on a lot of information. It is frightening that history and facts are now subject to even more revision and altering on a grand scale.

I have about decided, that the best tactic, is to go there and help them make it as blatantly liberal moonbat as possible until it is so obvious that it is useless as an information source. You will have a lot more success doing that than you will inserting anything balanced in there.
22 posted on 09/11/2005 12:32:44 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
Should a Rapid Response Team be assembled, if not already?

Look up what they say about Free Republic and then think about how fair they are going to be.

23 posted on 09/11/2005 12:33:50 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

I am not skilled with their format, but I did in fact write a revision and submitted it. No clue what became of it.

(The specific entry made reference to Mass. congressman Peter Blute's radio career, in which a brief but egregious remark was made against him.)


24 posted on 09/11/2005 12:37:41 PM PDT by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Fake but accurate? ;)
25 posted on 09/11/2005 12:38:15 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

You should go and see what they did.


26 posted on 09/11/2005 12:39:30 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
Most of the time they don't even offer a biased re-edit. They just erase your new text.

You are right. Those who are in the "circle of friends" can revert, edit, do whatever without any real debate or explanation unless they are egregious. A new editor's contribution is at the whim of the powers that be.

I finally quit when I fought someone inserting an anti-Iraq war screed into the article about the long-dead J. William Fulbright, positing that he would be against it. My argument was that J. William Fulbright was DEAD long BEFORE the war and that an encyclopedia had no business channeling the dead. I got no support for that position. However, if I had channeled Thomas Jefferson and posited that he would have been for the war, it would have been reverted as foolishness without any consideration whatsoever.

It's pointless. The Wikipedia community has a view of what reality is and they are much more leery of facts that tend to oppose that view than they are of facts that tend to support it.
27 posted on 09/11/2005 12:39:45 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

if half the freepers that bashed wikipedia as a leftist site spent half as much time there as they do here it would make a huge difference. yes it is a lot of work and yes libs are going to try revising truth out of the picture but with the number of visits that occur over the the message is worth maintaining.

certainly more worthwhile than the silliness of "freeping" an online poll.

(i won't believe it is "leftist" until i start hearing loads of stories of freepers being banned from editing -- so far i don't think that is the case, it is just that the libs are more diligent)


28 posted on 09/11/2005 12:40:03 PM PDT by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead; CreviceTool
Look up what they say about Free Republic and then think about how fair they are going to be.

Better yet, go edit the Free Republic entry so that it better reflects reality as you see it.

And remember that the "they" who you fear may be unfair are simply the public at large--and the "public at large" includes all Freepers who care to serve as editors.

29 posted on 09/11/2005 12:40:18 PM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Do you think that hasn't been tried?


30 posted on 09/11/2005 12:43:22 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp
if half the freepers that bashed wikipedia as a leftist site spent half as much time there as they do here it would make a huge difference. yes it is a lot of work and yes libs are going to try revising truth out of the picture but with the number of visits that occur over the the message is worth maintaining.

You will just end up getting your IP blocked if you seriously try to veer the content back to more middle ground. You will be a "problem user".
31 posted on 09/11/2005 12:44:05 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Big-Orwellian-Mistake alert. crowd mentality mistaken for authority and every bit as reliable as the wind.


32 posted on 09/11/2005 12:45:24 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (we don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

"Any 6-year-old can contribute to Wikipedia. All anyone has to do is write a page. Of course they reserve the right to "edit" anything they wish. I don't consult Wiki ... it's usually trash."

I use it for general definitions, though I was unaware of the "news" side. The definitions I get seem pretty good, as far as I can see.


33 posted on 09/11/2005 12:47:11 PM PDT by strategofr (What did happen to those 293 boxes of secret FBI files (esp on Senators) Hillary stole?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

Once you submit revisions, they appear immediately. So long as no one else has changed it, then it's still there. You should go check and report back!


34 posted on 09/11/2005 12:47:50 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
I've been hearing a lot of yammering about Wikipedia here on Free Republic but quite honestly, I have yet to encounter a liberal bias there. True, the site is maintained by many thousands of volunteers with the authority to revise and change any article. But they police themselves pretty well. If somebody was to edit an entry with a lot of crap, it usually gets fixed within a few hours, if not minutes.

I find the site pretty amazing myself. For example, the day after the new iPod (Nano) was launched (last Thursday), the entry for iPod was already updated with the Nano fully integrated into it and by reading it, you'd think the Nano had been out for years already!

It might never be as accurate and as thorough as the Britannica or Encarta, but is sure is more up-to-the-moment.

35 posted on 09/11/2005 12:48:44 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (Mid-life crisis in progress...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

"The original title is misleading. As the article says "The Wikipedia... has ... become the most popular reference site on the Web, fast overtaking several major news sites." The article confuses information reference and news - which is a failing of the news media itself. It does not help that Wikipedia actually has news on its front page - a business it should stay strictly out of."

Thanks for the clarfifying (and good) analysis.


36 posted on 09/11/2005 12:48:56 PM PDT by strategofr (What did happen to those 293 boxes of secret FBI files (esp on Senators) Hillary stole?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead
Do you think that hasn't been tried?

I'm sure it has. But it's a numbers game. I've found that Wikipedia entries generally reflect the consensus view of society at large. What your attitude about Wikipedia says to me is that either 1) your views do not reflect the consensus of society at large, or b) those who have self-selected themselves as diligent editors of pages on subjects you care about generally disagree with your opinions. In either case, the way to fix the problem is get more people who agree with you to diligently edit the relevant entries.

Discalaimer: I use Wikipedia for research on technical issues, not for research on political issues.

37 posted on 09/11/2005 12:49:47 PM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

PS. I commonly edit Wikipedia for grammar and spelling, but I've never added anything substantive. I've thought about it though, but the topics I considered modifying would've required some research, and I was too busy. I would never modify if for ideological reasons, but that's just me. I think Wikipedia's a great concept at least in principle.


38 posted on 09/11/2005 12:50:22 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead

Wonderful... they cleaned it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAAF-FM (scroll to "John Osterlind" or "Peter Blute")


39 posted on 09/11/2005 12:51:06 PM PDT by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

Actually, for most general research, it's fairly accurate. I use it quite a bit in my classes, and the pages usually have external links for further study.


40 posted on 09/11/2005 12:51:16 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Why do you think Wikipedia is leftist?


41 posted on 09/11/2005 12:53:39 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
I've been hearing a lot of yammering about Wikipedia here on Free Republic but quite honestly, I have yet to encounter a liberal bias there.

I was there during the horrific, disgusting, debate on the "term" Santorum. The article stated that the term "Santorum" was a word that described a particularly vile sexually explicit thing. They debated this for months. Arguments were made that this term, coined by some two-bit homosexual activist in San Francisco was a valid word of significance.

Some conservative wag came along and made a similar reference about Hillary Clinton and it was deleted forthwith without argument. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Similarly, the word Islamofascism was debated for ages. Liberals screaming and yelling that it was just a FOX News creation, a non-word made up by conservatives and deserved no place in an encyclopedia despite thousands of Google hits on the word.

So "Santorum" made up by some two-bit activist is a real word of significance, but "Islamofascism" used on major news networks and by pundits and with thousands of Google hits was "not a real word".

No, no liberal bias.
42 posted on 09/11/2005 12:56:04 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool
Wilkipedia will become not just overabundant in lies, propaganda, half-truths and slanders as it is now, but rampant and overflowing with lies. The lies will overwhelm any truth in it.

There are social dynamic physics at work, and physics is physics.

43 posted on 09/11/2005 12:59:29 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CreviceTool

Wikipedia definitely shows up on the LEFT side of my screen when I access it.


44 posted on 09/11/2005 1:04:09 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
The dyanmics, the physics, are as follows, basically: Lies insist on being and loudly demand to be heard; Truth can only whisper, begging to be heard.

What kind of place is Wikipedia? The battles there are won only by those who insist on winning.

QED.

45 posted on 09/11/2005 1:04:19 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw

See my 43 and 45.


46 posted on 09/11/2005 1:06:00 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bvw
What kind of place is Wikipedia? The battles there are won only by those who insist on winning.

That's true of any society, and especially of society in general.

47 posted on 09/11/2005 1:08:22 PM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I just went over to view the Rick Santorum article on Wikipedia and it was quite well done. The article even states how he has a great deal of sincerity and charisma that makes him "less appalling" to even his harshest critics on the left.

Of course, the article touches upon his controversial remarks on same-sex marriage. Why shouldn't it? Having conservative opinions is nothing to be ashamed about and nothing to hide from.

Just to test the balance of Wikipedia, I journeyed on to the Hillary Clinton article and in that article is a fairly large section that outlines her scandals, including the cattle trades, Whitewater, her husband's infidelities, the controversy surrounding the Vince Foster death, the Ghandi comment, and so forth.

So the Wikipedia site seems quite fair and balanced to me. Seems to me that some Freepers are just bound and determined to take offense where none exists.

48 posted on 09/11/2005 1:14:38 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (Mid-life crisis in progress...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
No, it is not. In fact it is not true of any long term society. Why? Any sustaining society has to have a moral code rooted in truth. The deeper the rooting and the stronger the roots themselves the longer the society shall last.

And too, there are certain minimum laws that must be met. Among them "establishing Justice". Where is Justice on Wikipedia? Justice is not equal access or equanimity. Justice must find its footing in absolute Truths, any ruling not respecting basic Truths, is no good ruling no matter how fair and equal the process used to achieve it.

49 posted on 09/11/2005 1:19:03 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bvw
See my 43 and 45.

Thats exactly right. Dead on analysis. I do not have time to sit and babysit an online internet article day and night to make sure nobody puts twisty words into it. Maybe some conservatives who have no other life whatsoever can do that for as long as they can before they get IP banned for being a problem user.

If I try to make a logical point to defend an article, nobody wants to listen to those logical points. The loudest win, those have the most perseverance win, and those who are absorbed into the long running "community leaders" group win. It is a social group, not an encyclopedia.

I wrote quite a few articles on the Civil War. They were not biased. I wrote articles on US Colored Troops, the Little Rock Nine and the Little Rock Crisis, Tuskeegee Airmen, I wrote articles about both the Sons of Confederate Veterans and Grand Army of the Republic. When I tried to put some info on slavery into a Civil War article, my non-biased approach gave me no credit. My changes were reverted because the fact/statistic I put in the article might be seen to be supportive of the Confederate side. Never mind that it was a well established and accepted fact/statistic, it did not support the commonly accepted views.

There is an element of propping up the commonly accepted rather than presenting facts. There is also a liberal bias, not in the way articles are written necessarily, but in the way controversies are resolved and who resolves them and which side must bear the burden of proof.
50 posted on 09/11/2005 1:24:00 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson