November 2017
S M T W T F S
« May    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Recent Posts

The Opinions…

The History…

Got Music?

The Extra Doo-dads…

Add to Technorati Favorites
Locations of visitors to this page

The Subjects…

He’s not my cousin

Jimmy Wales, founder of wikipedia, is not related to me. If he is, then I would feel that I have to give him a talking to. As an educated man I can honestly say that I am fooled from time to time, but usually I know bias when I see it, and wikipedia is full of it. They call it an online encyclopedia, but it reads like a second-rate free paper. Sure it has some good information, but for real facts, it cannot be trusted implicitly. That’s why I am recommending Conservapedia.com today (link in the sidebar). I’m not going to say that there is no bias there, but at least they are willing to change it if it is there.  Unlike wikipedia’s glaring biases, Conservapedia.com is willing to give the whole story, and it doesn’t waste bandwidth on silly gossip and commentary.

Comments

Comment from M.
Time: 21 March, 2007, 11:12 am

Good post!

Comment from the Travel-junkie
Time: 21 March, 2007, 11:19 am

Thanks! Wow, that was fast. It’s as if you had an RSS reader telling you that I had just written.

Comment from steven
Time: 22 March, 2007, 6:13 am

Interesting. I would argue that the content of Wikipedia is biased because the contributors are biased–but I think the article’s point about the 615 editors (employed, apparently by Wikipedia) trumps that assertion.

Though Wikipedia appears democratic, a sort of vox populi for cyberspace, there is always a speaker of the House (if you will) who determines which commoners get to hold the speaking stick and which don’t. Not only that, Wiki closes entries to prevent bias or alleged bias. For example, the entry on Israel is closed, presumably to stop the onslaught of anti-Israel propaganda.

Still, the best point you made is simply that the whole thing is UNRELIABLE and IN-Credible. However, the same is true of Conservapedia, I assume. Nevertheless, both offer insights you may not find anywhere else, or additional points to research. (This happens in litigation all the time, for example. You have clients or even adverse parties who tell you things that are helpful but unsubstantiated. Still, once they tell you, all you have to do is go elsewhere to find a credible, admissible source.)

Kudos to Conservapedia for at least making its bias known. How often it seems only would-be conservative sources bother to admit their position. (Think of the editing issues they must face–they now have positions to protect and promote and cannot simply let people post whatever they want.)

Comment from M.
Time: 22 March, 2007, 7:30 am

The timing was an accident. I do not stalk your blog!

Write a comment