A conservative's answer to Wikipedia

I think I understand Conservatives pretty well.

See, you hold erroneous beliefs. You don't. No harm, no foul:)

schnoo @ 2.3

Maybe we could all start wearing yellow stars on our coats, would that help? Or pink triangles?

Any site that allows anonymous posting gets filled with porn. That's how the internet works.

It happens to Wikipedia too.

Maybe we could all start wearing yellow stars on our coats, would that help? Or pink triangles?

I rather think the other side of that equation would be far more appropriate. Besides, those red armbands really bring out those blue eyes.

What I want to know is how the hell you managed to bring in a Nazi reference to make conservatives out to be the Jews and the Homosexuals?

You know, the oppressed underdog act of the poor Republicans getting their fee fees hurt by meanie liberals would be a lot more convincing if people like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin weren't best sellers or if Rush Limbaugh wasn't one of the top radio personalities on the right.

Just sayin'.

Maybe we could all start wearing yellow stars on our coats, would that help? Or pink triangles?

Cute since originally that was a rightwinger's idea.

I love being told (#2) I don't understand conservatives (buckoz I'm a librul) by someone who so clearly understands liberals that they just know they're the ones posting porn on Conservapedia. Just love it.

I'm sure I could come to understnd conservatives if I just had the time ... but I'm too busy posting porn everywhere! Oh God, save me!

You are right... I still haven't met a person who claims that the world is 10,000 years old... I don't know if they rightly exist or not.

Conservipedia is a very useful service, in that it provides an accurate look at conservative thought processes.

My son's university profs have specifically prohibited Wikipedia as a reference because of the open-source concept in any case - as they should IMO.

Until now I wasn't aware of a liberal bias on the site... ah well.

The articles of Wikipedia are noted and referenced and often have a "further reading" section.

There is also Wikisource, which is being built to give electronic copies of the original source material.

@schnoo - I have certainly seen a few entries that were questionable. But an overall political bias one way or the other - how would that even be attained?

@Spooky - I dont have a problem with Wikipedia in general but I believe I am a little more savvy than some internet users including the average 18-year old (although they almost certainly know their way around the messaging and social networking better than I). In particular, I think the problem is whether students would know enough to check the references or look to other sources to back them up. This is first year and I know in high school they were able to use any old blog as reference material, so restricting them a bit is probably necessary training.

Wikipedia is a non-profit; no stock option.

China has it's own slant of the facts too.

According to the English-language version of Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, he was a victorious military and political leader who founded China's modern Communist state. He was also a man many saw as "a mass murderer, holding his leadership accountable for the deaths of tens of millions of innocent Chinese."

Switch to Wikipedia in Chinese, and one discovers a very different man. There, Mao Zedong's reputation is unsullied by any mention of a death toll in the great purges of the 1950s and 1960s, or for what many historians call the greatest famine in human history.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/29/news/wiki.php

I guess they don't like the liberal bias either.

I have no doubt the articles in english have a western bias, at least in their coverage. Would it not also be reasonable that the articles in Jebrew cover things more pertinant to Israeli life? Or that the Japanese articles cover things that Japanese people are more likely to care about?

Also, wikipedia is a fantastic half-source. I use it all the time in a research paper if I have no clue where to begin. A bit of preliminary reading and I know what search terms to use on the academic databases.

Most (all?) of my professors allowed Wikipedia, but generally only so long as it was a source, and no the source, which makes sense as it has been shown to be about as accurate as....who was it now, Encylopedia Britannica? One of the big boys, anyway.

Wikipedia is a great place to start your research, but you shouldn't trust anything you read on it any further than you can check it...just like any other wideranging collection of information.

ive used wiki extensively for research papers, but i usually do NOT use the wiki itself. for the most part, i read the article and then go down to the citations that the editors used to support their writing.

those are the real gold.

my 2 cents

Many don't do that though. They assume that it is fair to use that source. That is a great idea though.

good assessment. wikipedia has its uses, and is a great citation for general information. it's perfect for linking to in articles online. for referencing people, places, etc., but i'd never use it to confirm facts or claims, without at least a cursory check of other references. the great thing about wikipedia is that it provides, in addition to the article, internal citations as well as links to other sites that contain more information about the topic.

Why anyone would trust these free online encyclopedias when the gold standard, Britannica, is available online is beyond me.

Schnoo, who the hail needs an encylopedia for that? Wiki's good on the soft stuff and some of the science stuff but when it comes to history and such it's pretty uneven.

We could have a discussion on the Nature of Truth...or at least on the Nature of Historical Truth. Or perhaps even on the basic question of "What is a Fact?"

But it usually gets down to someone calling something Blue and someone else calling it Red.

-Schnoo

It seems to me that the goal of this site is to create conflict, not clarify facts.

-Me

I'm not sure we're actually in disagreement. I'm sorry to seem to digress so far from the immediate topic; but it was necessary for the framework of my viewpoint. Similarly, were an article seeded on 'lynching techniques', I would likely step back and talk about the bigger problem at hand, not the nuance of cost effective rope purchasing.

Wikipedia has been demonstrated to be as accurate as Britannica, and anyway just because an encylopedia has a handful of hired editors rather than hundreds or thousands of volunteer ones, doesn't mean it's likely to be any more true or less biased. People should be wary of what they read, and have a questioning mind - but this should be true regardless of the source.

But often entire misleading and non-factual articles are published there that would never begin to be composed, much less see the light of day, at Britannica or other traditional encyclopedias.

Yup. That's the way this new information age thingy works. Reader beware, but in the end you will be much more informed.

Schnoo, who do you work for?

Schnoo, I served with Superman. I knew Superman. Superman was a friend of mine. Schnoo, you're no Superman.

But often entire misleading and non-factual articles are published there that would never begin to be composed, much less see the light of day, at Britannica or other traditional encyclopedias.

This may be true, but for the purposes of the study, obviously only subjects which were covered in both were considered, which outside experts then poured over and declared, essentially, equally accurate. They did not examine them "over time", but in the instant. It would be a valid concern for professors, of course, to have students rely on Wikipedia (or Conservapedia, for that matter) for the very reason you suggest: while, on the whole, articles may be accurate, in specific they may not be.

The "fact" that majority rule decides the fate of what is and is not truth is to say the very least a horrific display of democracy at work.

Much better to have an invisible authority decide what is true. That way, we never have to question it. Democracy is just too much work.

And Conservatives and Conservatism has to stop playing the victimized yet insurgent role. That's how fascism starts.

Starts?

Bill,

You are kidding yourself - you don't have the courage. If you did you would be walking your words in Iraq.

Hey, you lasted all of five minutes. Bye, bye. You were worthless on the Times site. You're worthless here.

Bill,

You have always been wrong. :-)

So nice of you to tell us the Truth about Che, Bill. Perhaps you ought to grace Wikipedia with your wisdom, as well. There's obviously no need to know so much about Che's life and history, when it can all be summed up in "grifting thug."

Ya i agree with your first point. If wikipedia is edited by everyone, fairly and equally, then isn't it more of a mirror image of consensus?

...At least a mirror image of consensus of those editing.

In using a wiki-tool, the editors are self identifying.

...uhm, huh? What I'm trying to say is that a wiki is a tool, an editing tool. Not everybody going to use the tool but everyone has access to the tool.

But if you want to have Charles Manson's edited version of the Tate murders redacted from his prison library computer....well, I guess that might be interesting after all.

I don't get it

...so anyway, a wiki that is incorrect or misleading would be corrected by the community of users.

When is it not the case? "Wikipedia:About"
It is an ever evolving tool of consensus. When there is no consensus or there is a dispute about the facts pertaining to an article or the article is a current event with changing information, it is clearly stated in the article.

Strengths, weaknesses, and article quality in Wikipedia

Wikipedia's greatest strengths, weaknesses and differences arise because it is open to anyone, has a large contributor base, and articles are written by consensus according to editorial guidelines and policies. The MediaWiki software which runs Wikipedia retains a history of all edits and changes, thus information added to Wikipedia never "vanishes", and is never "lost" or deleted.

Wikipedia is open to a large contributor base, drawing a large number of editors from diverse backgrounds. This allows Wikipedia to significantly reduce regional and cultural bias found in many other publications, and makes it very difficult for any group to censor and impose bias. A large, diverse editor base also provides access and breadth on subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented. A large number of editors contributing at any moment also means that Wikipedia can produce excellent encyclopedic articles and resources covering newsworthy events within hours or days of their occurrence.

Wikipedia articles and coverage of topics may have a tendency to reflect the cultural, age, and socio-economic demographics of its contributors. There is no systematic process to make sure that "obviously important" topics are written about, so Wikipedia may contain unexpected oversights and omissions. While most articles may be altered by anyone, in practice editing will be performed by a certain demographic (younger rather than older, male rather than female, rich enough to afford a computer rather than poor, Christian or Jewish rather than Muslim or Buddhist etc.) and will thus necessarily reflect a certain degree of implicit bias. Some more academic topics may not be covered as well on Wikipedia, while pop culture topics are covered in great depth.

Allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia means that it is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information, which requires removal. While blatant vandalism is usually easily spotted and rapidly corrected, Wikipedia is more subject to subtle vandalism and viewpoint promotion than a typical reference work. While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information. Wikipedia's radical openness also means that any given article may be, at any given moment, in a bad state, such as in the middle of a large edit, or a controversial rewrite. Many contributors do not yet comply fully with key policies, or may add information without citable sources. Wikipedia's open approach tremendously increases the chances that any particular factual error or misleading statement will be relatively promptly corrected. Numerous editors at any given time are monitoring recent changes and edits to articles on their watchlist.

Wikipedia is written by consensus – an approach that has its pros and cons. Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is difficult to achieve and almost always fails after a time. Eventually for most articles, all notable views become fairly described and a neutral point of view reached. In reality, the process of reaching consensus may be long and drawn-out, with articles more fluid or changeable for a long time compared while they find their "neutral approach" that all sides can agree on. Reaching neutrality is occasionally made harder by extreme-viewpoint contributors. Wikipedia operates a full editorial dispute resolution process, that allows time for discussion and resolution in depth, but also permits months-long disagreements before poor quality or biased edits will be removed forcibly.

Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Wikipedia is not perfect but it is timely and useful. I trust Wikipedia as an information source.

HAHA.... In other words, "Beyond our opinions, this site has some facts too." What a joke.

Kath, for a true definition of ignorance read my post above vis-a-vis Wiki's entry on Che Guevara.

Bill, I would never have suspected you of having so much self-awareness. I stand corrected.

for a true definition of ignorance read my post

...full points for honesty... just kidding.

You weren't kidding, Holy Crap! Isn't that what Conservapedia is,

Holy Crap

.

That must explain, inter alia, such bright lights as Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Silvestre "al Qaeda's a Shiite organization" Reyes, John "My Grades at Yale Were the Same as W's" Kerry, Gorgeous George Galloway, etc. Actually, as a classical liberal Mill would be appalled at much of what passes for liberalism, i.e., state coercion, today.

Bill,

One of my all time favorite Sheilaisms on a tour of NASA was "Has the Mars Pathfinder taken an image of the flag planted there by Neil Armstrong?"

Quote is not yet available on conservapedia so it may not be true ;P

Jackson Lee and Maxine are the gifts that keep on giving. But Reyes's interview with CQ was horrifying in its abject ignorance.

Yes that is terribly frightening especially for someone tapped to lead intelligence efforts.

It may be called discrimination or profiling, but I would fully support aptitude testing in an effort to "leave no politician behind."

Nothing but pure identity politics, mixed with a little catfighting in that one. Jane Harman, smart, rich and tough, should have had the job but she and Nancy Pelosi, also smart, rich and tough, don't get along.

Bill you may still have a long way to go to persuade Bob otherwise...

that most stupid people are are conservative.

but at least you brought some evidence that is is funny.

Thanks. As I stated before, Mill's classical liberal philosophy is actually about as far from modern statist liberalism as you could get. In actuality it's far closer to libertarianism.

At this juncture in our history it's silly to accuse the left of being statist when the right has spent the last seven years trying to prove how statist they can be, in American politics statism (with lip service to the individual) is assumed.

Of course that doesn't go for third parties, but there hasn't been a relevant third party since Lincoln was elected.

Jackson Lee and Maxine are the gifts that keep on giving. But Reyes's interview with CQ was horrifying in its abject ignorance.

Yes that is terribly frightening especially for someone tapped to lead intelligence efforts.

Why are you two worried about some stupid congressmen with very little power?

Have you two ever googled "Bush ignorance idiot moron"? I mean he is the Decider, The Commander in Chief. Now, that's frightening.

I mean, are you people sleep-walking thru life?

Bushisms are very evident and painfully obvious. Besides without much effort he accounts for a sizable portion of Newsvine discussion...

If there is any sleepwalking it is believing the Decider in Chief has cornered the market on stupidity. Bill has offered a few examples of how well stupidity flourishes even among lowly congressmen.

Being lumped into the "you people" demographic is another good example of just how free that market really is.

Well then, invading a country in the middle of the hateful Arab World with too few troops was a touch of genius.

The problem with that is that we aren't talking about opinions, we're talking about facts. There are not two equally legitimate sets of facts that each party takes it's respective cue from, they pretend like there are and statements like yours assume that there are, but there aren't. There are only the FACT facts and to pretend otherwise is to loose touch with reality and totally immerse oneself in the apparent psychosis of all modern American media forms.

Montyy, I understand what you're saying, but I think that there will always be someone who will debate if a FACT is indeed a FACT. My position is simply this, FACTS exist, but it doesn't hurt me to see what someone else thinks is a FACT, right? For example the world is round, yet FACT at one time was it's flat...I could have chosen to go with what was considered fact at the time, but instead I checked out a revolutionary new theory about the possibility of the world being round...which turns out to be the real FACT.

Isn't Mark Foley a Conservapedophile?

Too funny!

He was just trying to keep up with Gerry Studds.

If the page fits...