"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: free speech just doesn't work"

World War III (aka The Wikipedia War) will start like this.

There was the day in February when an editor replaced a photo of Hillary on her Wikipedia page with a picture of a walrus.

Oh LOL, ha ha ha! THAT'LL teach her what-for, you wacky Ron Paul supporters!

There was the day in February when an editor replaced a photo of Hillary on her Wikipedia page with a picture of a walrus.

Oh dear God, was someone trying to steal her bukket?

Leave Wikipedia alone!

An even-handed, excellent piece on a difficult subject. Superb work by the author. Flows smoothly and doesn't overwhelm the reader with detail.

Reuters would like you to have a seat right over there.

There's no hate like Wikipedian hate.

Five Minute Standup: There's no hate like Wikipedian hate.

I'd rank the Klan up there.

[citation needed]

Atvar: An even-handed, excellent piece on a difficult subject. Superb work by the author. Flows smoothly and doesn't overwhelm the reader with detail. SLUT!!!!!!

bad subby: The New Republic != The Nation.

decent article, tho.

For a good laugh, check out what Conservapedia has to say about Barack Obama. Makes anything put on Wiki look sane and rational.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

MrWhipee: For a good laugh, check out what Conservapedia has to say about Barack Obama. Makes anything put on Wiki look sane and rational.

Conservapedia doesn't make me laugh; it makes me sad.

Wikipedia seems to be useless for current political events as far as reliability goes, it attracts the morans. It's not obvious unless the protection banner is flying on the page or the exact sentences are tagged, that the information is disputed. You may have loaded the page during a batch of edits that have added a POV. It's really important on Wikipedia not to trust anything unless it's backed up by a credible source. The policies dictate that the whole encyclopedia should be based on what is written in other publications.

The best Wikipedia articles are those which are about topics that are pretty stable, where it's unlikely that there's new significant information that needs to change or be added. I'm a big Amiga user so having a place where detailed information on Amiga Games (written in a more encyclopaedic way than the Hall of Light or Lemon Amiga) is great fun.

MrWhipee 2008-03-29 08:16:25 AM
For a good laugh, check out what Conservapedia has to say about Barack Obama. Makes anything put on Wiki look sane and rational.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Does not surprise me, Seems like the left has Wiki and the right has Conserva. We can't even have a non-biased encyclopedia? The left has MSNBC/CNN the right has Fox News/talk radio our country is too divisive. I am getting sick of the "US or THEM" mentality on both sides when WE are the ones paying the price. Nothing is more embarrassing than how our politicians/political parties act. Like a bunch of spoiled kids that throw a hissy-fit if they don't get their way.

// Jumps down from soap box

floor9: There was the day in February when an editor replaced a photo of Hillary on her Wikipedia page with a picture of a walrus.

Oh LOL, ha ha ha! THAT'LL teach her what-for, you wacky Ron Paul supporters!

The edit wars between him and Hillary are legendary.

_{/wait, what?}

Bartman66: MrWhipee 2008-03-29 08:16:25 AM
For a good laugh, check out what Conservapedia has to say about Barack Obama. Makes anything put on Wiki look sane and rational.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Does not surprise me, Seems like the left has Wiki and the right has Conserva. We can't even have a non-biased encyclopedia? The left has MSNBC/CNN the right has Fox News/talk radio our country is too divisive. I am getting sick of the "US or THEM" mentality on both sides when WE are the ones paying the price. Nothing is more embarrassing than how our politicians/political parties act. Like a bunch of spoiled kids that throw a hissy-fit if they don't get their way.

// Jumps down from soap box

I don't think that's quite fair to say. It seems more like Wikipedia has mostly rational entries with a sprinkling of nutjobs and a few contested pages. Conservapedia has a much higher concentration of nutjobs with a sprinkling of rational entries.

Bartman66: MrWhipee 2008-03-29 08:16:25 AM
For a good laugh, check out what Conservapedia has to say about Barack Obama. Makes anything put on Wiki look sane and rational.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Does not surprise me, Seems like the left has Wiki and the right has Conserva. We can't even have a non-biased encyclopedia? The left has MSNBC/CNN the right has Fox News/talk radio our country is too divisive. I am getting sick of the "US or THEM" mentality on both sides when WE are the ones paying the price. Nothing is more embarrassing than how our politicians/political parties act. Like a bunch of spoiled kids that throw a hissy-fit if they don't get their way.

// Jumps down from soap box

*eyeroll*

Give me a break. I completely disagree with your observation, but comparing it to Fox vs Everyone Else is completely accurate.

Mostly because Fox News is an organization created with the intention of promoting conservative politicians and policies with accuracy taking a back seat, while CNN and others have no such overt goals.

You really have no idea what you're saying about CNN and MSNBC (which, coincidentally, has the 1 only overtly left-wing host on the two networks). Go through and count the political affiliations of all the hosts, you will find (R) and (Unaffiliated) 30x more likely than (D).

If you spend all of your time listening to Fox News, you're not calibrated correctly.

MrWhipee: For a good laugh, check out what Conservapedia has to say about Barack Obama. Makes anything put on Wiki look sane and rational.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

For Conservapedia, that's a pretty fair article. I was pretty much expecting: Barack HUSSEIN Obama, uppity.

mtman900: Give me a break. I completely disagree with your observation

uh oh, now you've done it, "conservatives" follow punditry like bimbos follow celeb gossip and they love to talk about which media outlet is more liberal. I hope you have carved out time from most of your day to debating this subject.

mtman900
If you spend all of your time listening to Fox Newsany of the biased networks or reading only biased websites, you're not calibrated correctly.

FIFY

You are displaying what the problem is.
Anyone who thinks like me is right and others are wrong mentality is killing us. Both sides have something to offer whether you want to believe that or not. Or you can just keep drinking the "kool-aide" from either side that tells you what and how to think.
Liberals think that Fox news and talk radio is nothing but biased and conservatives think that MSNBC/CNN/Hollywood are nothing but biased also and the circle is complete.
Meantime the rest of us who are middle of the road can see the leanings of both sides.
You need to quit the "them or us" mentality or we will never get anything done.
The B-B-Blame game is fun to play yet it never gets anything accomplished

Jump the shark has gone just as bad as Wikipedia when it comes to giving any moran with a computer a chance to speak their mind.

For a bigger laugh about Wiki vandalism, click here. (Not a rick roll)

Umm since when was this new information?

Bartman66: If you spend all of your time listening to Fox Newsany of the biased networks or reading only biased websites, you're not calibrated correctly.

FIFY

That is completely correct; I was just being more specific for you.

Bartman66: Anyone who thinks like me is right and others are wrong mentality is killing us. Both sides have something to offer whether you want to believe that or not. Or you can just keep drinking the "kool-aide" from either side that tells you what and how to think.

Look, that's not what's happening here. I read a lot of Fark, I also read a lot of Liberal blogs as well as conservative ones.

The problem is that you can't tell the difference between a network with a stated goal of establishing Republican and Republican policies from a whole bunch of networks with no stated goal.

I won't tell you that Atrios is less biased than John Hinderaker. I do think that Atrios tends to be right more often, but John does have his days.

Bartman66: Meantime the rest of us who are middle of the road can see the leanings of both sides.
You need to quit the "them or us" mentality or we will never get anything done.
The B-B-Blame game is fun to play yet it never gets anything accomplished

To a point, this is correct. The "Gotcha" game is one which needs not to be played, and there is something to be said to try to exercise fairness in judging things.

However, even handedness can also be used to an extreme. The problem is that Fox News is a republican station set up by republicans to establish republicans. CNN and MSNBC are non-biased stations set up by those with democratic leanings to establish the truth as they see it.

By trying to be as even as possible, you're failing yourself if you refuse to see the difference.

Headso: have carved out time from most of your day to debating this subject.

Ha ha! I will do no such thing :)

quick thing:

I was a little charitable with CNN and MSNBC. They were set up to make money by trying to present how they see reality. Therefore, the realities they present will be the ones which gain the most viewership.

However, they don't willingly don rose-colored glasses to establish one political party.

AnnoyingKidNextDoor: Jump the shark has gone just as bad as Wikipedia when it comes to giving any moran with a computer a chance to speak their mind.

Seriously. What kind of asshole want a site where any random moran can post about subjects.

I never understood the hate about Wikipedia. Of course, I never understood the fawning either. Wikipedia is kinda like Fark, but with stricter rules about what should be posted.

How can a wikipedia sheriff also be married? If you spend 13 hours a day defending Hillary's honor, how could anyone tolerate to be near you?

mtman900
I get it, I understand you HATE Fox news and think that only MSNBC and CNN are non-biased. Shocker. I am sorry if you fail to see where your obviously biased observations just go to prove what I had said.
Of course you will be able to get many people on Fark (including me) to agree that Fox is a conservative station and they praise the right more. But why you fail (either deliberately or wishfully) to see it on the others just shows ignorance. Again I understand your hatred for any and everything you deem Republican/conservative, everything that is not left/liberal is wrong or stupid etc... But you and others like you need to get past you hatred and try and see things as they are not as your party does. You can enlighten us with all the "News" outlets you get your info from or what are the "only" stations you will watch or allowed to be watched in your home and if that really were the case you would be able to see the spin being put on the news.

// by the way before you have a hissy-fit I am an independent but I am sure in your mind that will label me a NEOCON or something just as clever. Yes the THEM or US syndrome is strong with this one.

FTA ..somebody replaced Hillary's whole page with "It has been reported that Hillary Rodham Clinton has contracted genital herpes due to sexual intercourse with an orangutan."

/i lold

use wikipedia for the external links, not the info in the article.

hattarwf 2008-03-29 10:50:17 AM
FTA ..somebody replaced Hillary's whole page with "It has been reported that Hillary Rodham Clinton has contracted genital herpes due to sexual intercourse with an orangutan."

/i lold

That was by far the funniest thing in the article.lol

BilltheThrill: How can a wikipedia sheriff also be married? If you spend 13 hours a day defending Hillary's honor, how could anyone tolerate to be near you?

Every group has its people who live in their mothers basement.

Bartman66: mtman900
I get it, I understand you HATE Fox news and think that only MSNBC and CNN are non-biased. Shocker. I am sorry if you fail to see where your obviously biased observations just go to prove what I had said.
Of course you will be able to get many people on Fark (including me) to agree that Fox is a conservative station and they praise the right more. But why you fail (either deliberately or wishfully) to see it on the others just shows ignorance. Again I understand your hatred for any and everything you deem Republican/conservative, everything that is not left/liberal is wrong or stupid etc... But you and others like you need to get past you hatred and try and see things as they are not as your party does. You can enlighten us with all the "News" outlets you get your info from or what are the "only" stations you will watch or allowed to be watched in your home and if that really were the case you would be able to see the spin being put on the news.

// by the way before you have a hissy-fit I am an independent but I am sure in your mind that will label me a NEOCON or something just as clever. Yes the THEM or US syndrome is strong with this one.

my dad can beat up your dad

Bartman66: by the way before you have a hissy-fit I am an independent

Someone needs to post that "Fark Independents" image macro.

BIllygoat Gruff
my dad can beat up your dad

Oh yea!! Shut up or my dad will throw his 3 inch heels at you dad. So there! lol

PocketfullaSass: There was the day in February when an editor replaced a photo of Hillary on her Wikipedia page with a picture of a walrus.

Oh dear God, was someone trying to steal her bukket?

I haz a presidency.

No they be taken my presidency!!

What's funny is that all of this Wikipedia being corrupted started with the great Bryan Peppers!

Bartman66: I get it, I understand you HATE Fox news and think that only MSNBC and CNN are non-biased. Shocker. I am sorry if you fail to see where your obviously biased observations just go to prove what I had said.

No, you didn't get what I said. Ok, let's try it like this.

Every conscious thing in the universe has a bias. It is unavoidable. You can say, in that way, that two things have the same amount of bias. I'm not convinced that it's the truth, but I'll err on the side of that.

Fox News was purchased by Rupert Murdoch with the expressed purpose of enabling conservative politicians and policies. The mission statement of the business guides it to hire republicans, do interviews which put republicans in a good light, etc etc. In the end, this channel mostly appeals to republicans and also has a secondary bonus of putting an air of "Independent, accurate news" on the tripe it pushes (generally first found on Drudge or talk radio)

CNN and MSNBC, however, were made with the intention of just making money. It has no overt objective with regard to which party it looks to support. For instance, let's examine the Clinton years; they weren't running amok with apologists. Where the democrat viewpoints come into play is from the reporters, which are more democrat than republican (for whatever reason). Whatever stories they bring up to the editors (who are more likely to be republican, for whatever reason) tend to be tinged with their own biases. The editors and hosts decide which stories get play (not decided based upon which will do better for the democrat party, but by whether or not they will get viewership and commercial dollars).

You cannot compare these two types of media. You cannot say that a station with explicit republican interests is the same as another which is just trying to make a buck no matter who they are reporting on.

Bartman66: But you and others like you need to get past you hatred and try and see things as they are not as your party does. You can enlighten us with all the "News" outlets you get your info from or what are the "only" stations you will watch or allowed to be watched in your home and if that really were the case you would be able to see the spin being put on the news.

Also, let me address this tripe. I'm getting the impression that you didn't read and reply to my points, just to a straw man caricature of a liberal in your head.

I said earlier that I read both conservative and liberal blogs. I read science and programming blogs. I don't limit the information pathways that I pay attention to.

Granted, I read fewer conservative blogs than liberal ones. However, the liberal blogs I enjoy the most (Washington Monthly one of them) tend to be more moderate liberal than not.

I see spin all of the time from every source. But there is an error made if you try to be even handed as possible and say that CNN and Fox News are just as biased, but on the opposite side of the "0 bias" point. That is just simply not true.

MrWhipee: http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama

Its really sad that the article on Don Imus shows more respect than the one on Obama.

I know that not all conservatives are like this (I would like to say most, but that is probably me being a little too hopeful), but I really wish people like that would take their racism, anti-intellictualism, and religious zealously and form their own country.

czerno: Its really sad that the article on Don Imus shows more respect than the one on Obama.

Actually, the page linked to something interesting: Obama was actually chastized for being 'silent' on the Imus issue and DID NOT call for him to be fired. Suck it, right wing talking point.

Shaggy_C: czerno: Its really sad that the article on Don Imus shows more respect than the one on Obama.

Actually, the page linked to something interesting: Obama was actually chastized for being 'silent' on the Imus issue and DID NOT call for him to be fired. Suck it, right wing talking point.

I like how someone called you a Republican Shill last night.

Nemo's Brother: I like how someone called you a Republican Shill last night.

Shaggy was a conservative once upon a time.

He is one of the few farkers who has gained my utmost respect, and always look out for his name in comments.

I use and love wikipedia, and so do LOTS of other people, however, I think the media is turning the image of wikipedia like they do secound life. I think wikipedia is more popular then secound life (I dont even know anywho who "plays" it) but the media is turning it into somthign way more then it actully it is. 90% of Wikipedia's use is by studients' using it to write a paper.

Bartman66: Of course you will be able to get many people on Fark (including me) to agree that Fox is a conservative station and they praise the right more. But why you fail (either deliberately or wishfully) to see it on the others just shows ignorance.

Yeah, man, totally! It's impossible for there to be a media imbalance in regard to political bias! Everything the right does, the left must also do, right? Everything everyone says about the right must be met with equal assertion about the left! Like if I accuse the right of oppressing your civil liberties, you must retort with "Yeah well the left does it too", right?

Because it's not considered politically correct to accuse just one side. You might hurt someone's feelings.

/sarcasm. This whole "equilibrium politics" thing needs to DIAF.

floor9: Bartman66: Of course you will be able to get many people on Fark (including me) to agree that Fox is a conservative station and they praise the right more. But why you fail (either deliberately or wishfully) to see it on the others just shows ignorance.

Yeah, man, totally! It's impossible for there to be a media imbalance in regard to political bias! Everything the right does, the left must also do, right? Everything everyone says about the right must be met with equal assertion about the left! Like if I accuse the right of oppressing your civil liberties, you must retort with "Yeah well the left does it too", right?

Because it's not considered politically correct to accuse just one side. You might hurt someone's feelings.

/sarcasm. This whole "equilibrium politics" thing needs to DIAF.

It's this arrogance that most Farkers have, thinking their views are completely down the middle with no bias what-so-ever. Whatever gets you through the nights, I guess.