Idiotic Quote of the Day

[MavericK]

http://conservapedia.com/Wikipedia_Bias

Most of the people who regularly contribute and moderate Wikipedia are biased. For relatively uncontroversial trivia (bands, films, etc.) is Wiki a source I'll find reliable, but on any political, theological, social, and scientific matters do I take its subjective opinions masquerading as objective reporting with a boulder-sized chuck of sodium chloride.

Extreme irony aside, you apparently missed my other post:

The same could be said of ANY written source of information out there. Like someone else said above, it's a wash.

 

[Hornet]

lol, MPAA and RIAA are alienating themself with all these retarded statements. Futile and pathetic.

I just wish the public knows what an asshole they are and stop supporting those companies. We'll see how fast they eat the humble pie once the money stops flowing in.

 

[Starcrossed]

Wikipedia rocks.

 

[Deadly Ramon]

Maybe because Conservapedia's so biased that you really can't call it simply a "biased source" anymore? LOL

The bias in Conservapedia, unlike that in Wikipedia, isn't hidden behind a false veneer of objectivity. It displays its partisanship quite overtly.

 

[entropy13]

The bias in Conservapedia, unlike that in Wikipedia, isn't hidden behind a false veneer of objectivity.

It has become a "false veneer of objectivity" more so because of the users inherent tendencies of subjectivity. You're saying it as if Wikipedia is the one that is inherently biased.

It displays its partisanship quite overtly.

lol "partisanship." Conservapedia's "partisanship" is as true as Obama being a "socialist."

Much like the term "socialist" doesn't really apply to Obama (being too strong a word to be even appropriate), "partisanship" doesn't really apply to Conservapedia (being too "weak" a word to be even appropriate), since "partisanship" implies that one side recognizes each other, at least. Conservapedia opts to ignore any view unaligned with their own as "lies" or "deceit."

 

[Deadly Ramon]

lol "partisanship." Conservapedia's "partisanship" is as true as Obama being a "socialist."

A definition of partisanship includes: "partiality: an inclination to favor one group or view or opinion over alternatives."

Much like the term "socialist" doesn't really apply to Obama (being too strong a word to be even appropriate), "partisanship" doesn't really apply to Conservapedia (being too "weak" a word to be even appropriate), since "partisanship" implies that one side recognizes each other, at least. Conservapedia opts to ignore any view unaligned with their own as "lies" or "deceit."

Socialism has many varieties, some weaker and some stronger, and can quite accurately describe Obama's and his Democratic Party cohorts' desire to have the government own a bigger stake in the factors of production; even Wikipedia concedes that "ocial democrats advocate redistributive taxation and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy." Total governmental ownership of said factors (communism, or a command economy) would indeed at this point be too exaggerated to accurately label Obama's approach to economics, but the same doesn't apply to socialism in at least some of its varieties. And to ignore opposing views means to pretend as if they don't exist; dismissing them as lies or deceit requires an acknowledgement of them.

My original point still stands, and it is that Wikipedia, despite its claims to the contrary, is biased and not an objective collection of axiomatic articles.

 

[BBA]

Again, they often cite sources, and if there are no sources cited it will generally say "citation needed" next to it. Are you saying the cited sources are also wrong? If so, that's not really Wikipedia's fault.

True. Cited sources often are wrong. Just because someone prints something does not make it true.

 

[BBA]

My original point still stands, and it is that Wikipedia, despite its claims to the contrary, is biased and not an objective collection of axiomatic articles.

Agreed, but then again, what in life is not biased?

 

[Manaknight]

really? this isn't a new low or anything, but it's certainly a gutter level comment.

Why haven't their been hacks wiping out their (RIAA and MPAA) personal info or releasing it across the world? I know it's sinking to their level....but i'm starting to realize it's basically whoever goes lowest first wins......

 

[Manaknight]

My original point still stands, and it is that Wikipedia, despite its claims to the contrary, is biased and not an objective collection of axiomatic articles.

i don't disagree....however have you flipped through a college textbook lately?

everything is biased, before you just had it hidden better.

Wiki actually does something that at it's core is pretty good. It more or less opens up encyclopedia articles to peer review...yes it gets some shit wrong...but i'm sorry, in many cases the experts writing books on subjects are pushing their own bias and agenda, wiki writers can push an agenda too, and other people can adjust that until you finally get something objective, or you have enough changes that you can sorta ascertain the truth in the in between.

still better than the alternative.

 

[entropy13]

Socialism has many varieties, some weaker and some stronger, and can quite accurately describe Obama's and his Democratic Party cohorts' desire to have the government own a bigger stake in the factors of production;

That's not socialism. If we go with the "original" socialist doctrines, socialism is merely a preparatory stage for communism.

If we go with the "neo-socialist" thought of recent years, it's still not socialism because there really isn't any class struggles emphasized or made apparent. And no, even the "Occupy movement" is only vaguely socialist, at best.

even Wikipedia concedes that "ocial democrats advocate redistributive taxation and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy."

Exactly. "Social democrats", not "socialists."

but the same doesn't apply to socialism in at least some of its varieties.

You clearly really have no idea of the myriad "varieties" of socialism of which you claim you are quite familiar with.

And to ignore opposing views means to pretend as if they don't exist; dismissing them as lies or deceit requires an acknowledgement of them.

Fair enough. A wrong choice of words in my part.

 

[Ruoh]

I actually needed to check WP yesterday... so I just used Google's cached view copy. Worked fine for me.

 

[Cnox]

I don't get the hate on using Wikipedia as reference material. I wouldn't say that it is appropriate to just cite Wikipedia directly, however Wikipedia is an excellent resource that can summarize/aggregate multiple sources into a coherent article. Where is the scandal? Wikipedia can help you locate adjacent resources more effectively then going directly to a library and starting with an encyclopedia. I feel encyclopedias are too narrow, and do not give broad context.

For example, if you wanted to do some research on Quantum Fluids, you pull up the Wiki page, and have a very brief summary, but with some keywords on valence electrons, fermonic condensation, zero-point energy, and others. And 'lo, references to a Rita G. Lerner and the Enclopedia of Physics. This is a good starting point!

Would I just take the definition of Quantum Fluids at face value from Wikipedia? Maybe, but I'd look at the referenced material and make a decision. But I wouldn't call it garbage.

What's the scandal?

 

[bh192012]

sundansx:

You make it sound easy but in fact it isn't. My own memories are riddled with errors and omissions. To make a reliable correction to Wikipedia would require significant research. And that is why Wikipedia is not more reliable. It really takes a lot of work to put together a little bit of highly reliable information.

So what you're saying is that you do not "know" as a matter of fact that the Wikipedia article is wrong. Either it's wrong and you can prove it, or you cannot prove that it's wrong and your head may still be riddled with errors.

 

[Outamyhead]

A WW2 veteran will tell you a story strongly influenced by emotions. Very narrow field of view.

How about a WWII veteran, with all the paperwork, conscript information, and photos of that info?