1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Wikipedia Propaganda

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

  1. shodan

    shodan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Ratings:
    +7
    [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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Ratings:
    +7
    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 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +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 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,867
    Ratings:
    +603
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is there anyone who thinks of Wikipedia as a reliable source?
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

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

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,359
    Faith:
    Baptist

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

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    Outside of basic facts why would anyone take wikipedia seriously? Why should anyone care if they are 'biased?'
     
  8. shodan

    shodan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Ratings:
    +7
    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 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Ratings:
    +182
    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 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

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

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  11. shodan

    shodan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Ratings:
    +7
    So true, Jim, no group has cornered the market on sin.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

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

    donnA New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Ratings:
    +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 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,362
    Ratings:
    +2
    Not me, always with a pinch of salt. I use it though.
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Ratings:
    +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 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,775
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While you're at it, don't forget the shill for the democrats and purveyor of revisionist news at media matters.
     
  17. shodan

    shodan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Ratings:
    +7
    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.
     
Loading...