The fight down at Wiki
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 20:30
VIEWED: 1089
PAGE 1 of 1
I mentioned in a few other threads the sudden influx of wingnuts and trolls attempting to manipulate wiki as a propaganda effort, some few of you may have caught that - well, apparently I wasn't the only one who noticed, and boy are they busted.
Related links.
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/wikiwatch/
This doesn't include various internal plants, but it's a beginning - apparently some folks wanna recreate the "Ministry of Truth" from Orwells 1984 instead of an unbiased information source.
And golly gee whiz, they seem to be almost exclusively of one political bent, hmm, what a fantastic coincidence...
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, transparency!
Nothing like a little sunshine to make the bugs scurry!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's really gotta suck for them when your own weapons backfire on 'em like that, huh?
I hate Wiki for the most part. The Hive-Mind. The fact that they've done this doesn't suprise a paranoid mind like mine one bit. I'm sure that it's been manipulated from the very first day. Always considered Wiki to be akin to the Ministry of Truth.
For you college type folk out there...
Wiki : History :: WWE : Wrestling
Ain't much different than what the Government cirriculum does to the Social Studies texts. Remember the good ol' days when Columubs was a hero?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I hate Wiki for the most part. The Hive-Mind. The fact that they've done this doesn't suprise a paranoid mind like mine one bit. I'm sure that it's been manipulated from the very first day. Always considered Wiki to be akin to the Ministry of Truth.
For you college type folk out there...
Wiki : History :: WWE : Wrestling
You DARE to speak negatively about Wikipedia?!
You DARE to criticize the ever-handy source of info for today's un-educated & illiterate youth?
You DARE to mock the primary source of info for most of the revisionist posters here?
And they say I'm the crazy, bad guy! You will bring down the wrath of the entire lost, lazy, spoiled and clueless generation on yourself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's bias everywhere, and wikipedia is no exception. But I've found it a more reliable source than most any other. Except for Fox News of course, cause they're all 'fair and balanced' and stuff.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, Wikipedia’s not reliable! Who knew?
Strangely, however the only time people ever notice this is when it suits their particular political swing, which probably means, most people would buy hook-line-and-sinker anything Wikipedia tells them, as long as it’s what they want to hear.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It never has been and it probably never will be. Anyone can edit and put anything they want in it. Now the theory is that if there are a large number of people editing it, then it will tend towards a consensus, but that doesn’t mean that at any arbitrary time it will not be manipulated, or that the consensus is necessary right.
And anyone means both the Right AND the Left wing fruitcakes. So just because Wikipedia is telling you want you want to hear one day, doesn’t mean it’s right, which makes it even more unreliable.
But Wikipedia is fairly concise, and things that don’t have a controversy associated with them are far less likely to be manipulated. I stand by what I’ve always said about Wikipedia, it’s not a good place to end an investigation of a topic, but it’s often a good place to start one, because it is fairly concise and often cited. I often use the wikipidea article of a topic to develop an impromptu curriculum for studying a new topic.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But Wikipedia is fairly concise, and things that don’t have a controversy associated with them are far less likely to be manipulated. I stand by what I’ve always said about Wikipedia, it’s not a good place to end an investigation of a topic, but it’s often a good place to start one, because it is fairly concise and often cited. I often use the wikipidea article of a topic to develop an impromptu curriculum for studying a new topic.
That sums up my estimation of wikipedia quite nicely.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wouldn't depend on it as a single source myself, but it's a concentrated and useful stock of information, so long as it's properly crosschecked.
And anything that encourages people to learn, study and THINK, is a positive force in my book, and so I feel the need to act in it's preservation.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME