Wikipedia Propaganda

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by shodan, Jan 7, 2010.

  1. shodan

    shodan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    1
    [quote from an article that introduced this topic]

    Thoughtcop - William Connolley

    In George Orwell’s 1984 Winston Smith and thousands of co-workers diligently work to re-write history. It has been clear to many that much the same thing has been going on over at Wikipedia. It turns out that one of the champions of the historical rewrite is a fellow by the name of William Connolley, who has taken it upon himself to re-write the thermal history of the planet at Wikipedia to juice-up global warming fears.

    Lawrence Solomon, from Canada’s National Post explains…

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx
     
  2. shodan

    shodan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thoughtcop

    From the article linked above:

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions...
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wikipedia is just that: a wiki. A wiki is a user-input site, and relies primarily on individuals contributing and correcting information. That's why it's typically not a valid source for information, unless the information includes citations. On the OP topic, the "global warming" entry is rather detailed, contains extensive citations, and includes a section on debate and skepticism (including links to other wikipedia articles on arguments against global warming). As such, it's a bit of a stretch to imply a "propaganda" on a part of wikipedia.
     
  4. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Is there anyone who thinks of Wikipedia as a reliable source?
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most high school and college instructors don't even allow the use of wikipedia as a source.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777

    Libbies.............but no one credible
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Outside of basic facts why would anyone take wikipedia seriously? Why should anyone care if they are 'biased?'
     
  8. shodan

    shodan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    1
    The incidents detailed at the above link show nothing less than a propaganda campaign by Connolley who was given administrator status by Wikipedia.

    Your examples may show that they have sought to remedy this outrage.

    I simply will not go there anymore. I have seen the same prejudice and slant in the past regarding articles on Christians and Christian organizations that are not liberal.

    Of course, those promoting the global warming agenda make many citations, the trouble is that much of the work cited is based on Climategate stuff. The media are always quoting those pushing the agenda and censoring world class climatologists who expose the falacies, like Richard Lindzen of MIT, John Christy of U. of Alabama-Huntsville, etc.
     
  9. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I don't know of anybody who uses Wikipedia without some kind of lens or tries to pass it off as a qualified source.

    Occassionally I will hit up a topic on it for some general knowledge. I never consider it completely objective or the final place for research. Often it is a good starting place.

    I don't know of any academics or serious thinkers (conservatives, moderates, liberals, and anyone else) who allow it to be used in research or presentations. It will never replace established norms for academia.
     
  10. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Conservatives are not always the most reliable sources either. Test everything to see if it is so.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  11. shodan

    shodan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    1
    So true, Jim, no group has cornered the market on sin.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's true. Just look at the average article on WorldNetDaily.
     
  13. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    because apparently many rely on them for information, never bothering to search out real facts for themselves, in this way they spread inaccuracies and untruths.
     
  14. David Michael Harris

    David Michael Harris
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not me, always with a pinch of salt. I use it though.
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's no reason for this other than sheer laziness. Every wikipedia article will have a citation. All one has to do is to look at the citation to check its validity. But some don't do that. They just take what Wikipedia (or any other wiki) says, and takes it as Gospel.

    That's somewhat human nature, though. Just look at this, or any BBS. You'll see people post links as sources as though they were authoritative, yet many of those links are commentaries or blogs.
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    While you're at it, don't forget the shill for the democrats and purveyor of revisionist news at media matters.
     
  17. shodan

    shodan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hardly anyone has the expertise to evaluate the validity of most footnotes. That requires a lot of time.

    So, in other words, all we have to do is look at the IPCC's footnotes and say, YUP, its true.
     

Share This Page

Loading...