• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages[W:45]

APACHERAT said:
Do you think I should close my 11 year old Wikipedia account ?
Click to expand...

The implication in the OP was that you somehow had something to do with Wikipedia's announcement, which is laughable.

polgara said:
Greetings, APACHERAT. :2wave:

Even his wife Michelle said he was born in Kenya, and I believe many people have that speech saved! In fairness, BHO has never said he wasn't born in Kenya, to my knowledge, so until he does, or proof that his grandmother was wrong when she stated she witnessed his birth there, it's a topic for debate...as it certainly has been for years!
Click to expand...

Facepalm_227785.jpg
 
Un biased said:
I still would not use Wikipedia if you cant find your information on another site than chances are it is not correct . Unless your site has a edu ending most likely you need another site with verification of your statement to be believed and thought of as truthful . Safety in numbers .
Click to expand...

If you're unwilling to use Wiki, then you're wasting research time. I use Wiki daily; it's a quick shortcut when I need a baseline summary or need to learn the names that matter, and the hyperlinked references which are scholarly are what they are. (I also use Google Scholar daily, but not nearly as much as I use Google: Speed. Grab the concept and the names and links, and for ordinary people's ordinary purposes, you're done.

For example, I'm not terribly interested in management topics. If you're a 20 or 30-something and didn't live through the TQM craze but somebody's mentioned it here at DP, you Google. Study the page for a sec. Wiki will probably be the first hit, so you click. Total Quality Management...Japan...Deming...Crosby...done.
 
Kobie said:
The implication in the OP was that you somehow had something to do with Wikipedia's announcement, which is laughable.
Click to expand...

I've been active on the Wiki talk pages for over ten years now when I found incorrect information being published on certain topics/articles.

I may be the only one on the net who started putting up Wikipedia's disclaimer when I use Wikipedia on a forum.

I don't think Wikipedia appreciates that. They would rather hide the link to their disclaimer at the bottom.

Normally I wouldn't have done that but I see so many who use Wikipedia as a source to back up an argument and they actually believe if it's on Wikipedia, it must be accurate.

Wikipedia has cajones to come out yesterday and publicaly announce they have problems.
 
There could be a lesson here...;)
 
Paschendale said:
So, conservatives post fake information about the president's birthplace and call him racial slurs, while liberals use a different name for a conflict that most people have never heard of anyway.
Click to expand...

How do you know they were conservatives ? Did you read it on Wikipedia ?

At the time only Hillary's supporters were attacking Obama. The GOP was still looking for their own candidate to run for the Republican nomination for POTUS.

I seem to remember all of the race bating came from the Democrats back then.
 
APACHERAT said:
How do you know they were conservatives ? Did you read it on Wikipedia ?

At the time only Hillary's supporters were attacking Obama. The GOP was still looking for their own candidate to run for the Republican nomination for POTUS.

I seem to remember all of the race bating came from the Democrats back then.
Click to expand...
No, doubt Hillary became a really ugly Republican-a-like during the primaries with her dance into the arena of guns, god, and gays. No doubt, and no doubt her supporters used racism. Could have been either though, it's not like the base Republicans weren't freaking out about Obama's headway.
 
Kobie said:
The implication in the OP was that you somehow had something to do with Wikipedia's announcement, which is laughable.



Facepalm_227785.jpg
Click to expand...

Have you ever actually contributed anything worthwhile to the debate on any thread on the DP instead of always commenting on other DP members ?

It's called attack the message not the messenger.
 
Ben K. said:
Wikipedia has references, which makes it better than 99% of what we can link to on the internet. Check them if you doubt an articles validity.
Click to expand...

The only reason why I would use wikipedia is that it does contain references. It is a bad place to stop, but a good place to begin to learn about something.
 
APACHERAT said:
How do you know they were conservatives ? Did you read it on Wikipedia ?

At the time only Hillary's supporters were attacking Obama. The GOP was still looking for their own candidate to run for the Republican nomination for POTUS.

I seem to remember all of the race bating came from the Democrats back then.
Click to expand...

your argument that it is one side over the other is false. It is both sides. At best one could argue that one side might do it more often or distort the truth worse than the other. The finger pointing and pretending if the other side does it your is innocent is a fail argument.

The reality is the purpose of wiki makes chasing down the socks a problem they will always face. In order to have an open database of knowledge to which anyone can add to, they have to keep it open or else it becomes more like an encyclopedia which we already have a ton of.
 
Summerwind said:
No, doubt Hillary became a really ugly Republican-a-like during the primaries with her dance into the arena of guns, god, and gays. No doubt, and no doubt her supporters used racism. Could have been either though, it's not like the base Republicans weren't freaking out about Obama's headway.
Click to expand...

Back in 2007 and 2008 when Obama entered the race for the Democrat nomination, the vast majority of Americans had no idea who Obama was. He had no real traceable history, very little could be found on the internet and the only place where you could find anything about Obama was on Wikipedia.

I think back then most Republicans believed Hillary would win the nomination and ignored Obama.
When Wikipedia said Obama was born in Kenya, there were no birthers back then.
Maybe it was Wikipedia who created the birthers ?
 
APACHERAT said:
Back in 2007 and 2008 when Obama entered the race for the Democrat nomination, the vast majority of Americans had no idea who Obama was. He had no real traceable history, very little could be found on the internet and the only place where you could find anything about Obama was on Wikipedia.

I think back then most Republicans believed Hillary would win the nomination and ignored Obama.
When Wikipedia said Obama was born in Kenya, there were no birthers back then.
Maybe it was Wikipedia who created the birthers ?
Click to expand...
Not any of the Republicans I knew, and except for my daughter most that I knew were Republicans. They were already reacting quite violently (verbal, not physical) to a black man thinkin' he could be president, but hey, Idaho, what do you expect.
 
tererun said:
your argument that it is one side over the other is false. It is both sides. At best one could argue that one side might do it more often or distort the truth worse than the other. The finger pointing and pretending if the other side does it your is innocent is a fail argument.

The reality is the purpose of wiki makes chasing down the socks a problem they will always face. In order to have an open database of knowledge to which anyone can add to, they have to keep it open or else it becomes more like an encyclopedia which we already have a ton of.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz Tererun, how about I use Wikipedia as a reliable source :lamo and see what they have to say about the beginning of the "birther's."
If it's on Wikipedia it has to be true.


Origins of the claims[edit]

>" Origins of the claims[edit]During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.[22][23] ... "<

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:attn1: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information...
Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
APACHERAT said:
Gee whiz Tererun, how about I use Wikipedia as a reliable source :lamo and see what they have to say about the beginning of the "birther's."
If it's on Wikipedia it has to be true.


Origins of the claims[edit]

>" Origins of the claims[edit]During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.[22][23] ... "<

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:attn1: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
]
Click to expand...

Did anyone noticed that the author of the above Wikipedia article passed judgment and decided that the rumors were false. Not the mission of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. It's editoralizing the article.

Was the author of the Wikipedia article a constitutional lawyer also a lawyer in international law and also a specialist for law enforcement dealing with forged documents ?

I doubt it. Obvious a political bias. The author's opinion was included with in the article.

That's one of the problems Wikipedia has when it comes to political and historical topics.
 
APACHERAT said:
Gee whiz Tererun, how about I use Wikipedia as a reliable source :lamo and see what they have to say about the beginning of the "birther's."
If it's on Wikipedia it has to be true.
Click to expand...

Someone seems to have knee jerked and not read. They have a ton of resources listed in regards to the topic. Those are resources which are often reliable works. They may have some truth, but the reality is that you cannot rely on them for the truth, just for a list of resources. Now i am not sure why that simple statement was hard for you to understand and I do believe you deliberately misinterpreted it because you could not argue with what I said so you pretended I said something else, but like always i will not fall for your terrible attempt to put me on an argument I never made. You really need go back to coulter's class on how to rgue with people who arwe right when you know you are totally wrong.
 
tererun said:
Someone seems to have knee jerked and not read. They have a ton of resources listed in regards to the topic. Those are resources which are often reliable works. They may have some truth, but the reality is that you cannot rely on them for the truth, just for a list of resources. Now i am not sure why that simple statement was hard for you to understand and I do believe you deliberately misinterpreted it because you could not argue with what I said so you pretended I said something else, but like always i will not fall for your terrible attempt to put me on an argument I never made. You really need go back to coulter's class on how to rgue with people who arwe right when you know you are totally wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing.

Re: "coulter class", I never knew they had classes on the coulter. Are you a farmer ?
 
APACHERAT said:
Have you ever actually contributed anything worthwhile to the debate on any thread on the DP instead of always commenting on other DP members ?

It's called attack the message not the messenger.
Click to expand...

You want to know my contributions? Check my post history. Since i utterly destroyed you on the whole "the left supported Hitler" nonsense, I figured you just would have left well enough alone.
 
Kobie said:
You want to know my contributions? Check my post history. Since i utterly destroyed you on the whole "the left supported Hitler" nonsense, I figured you just would have left well enough alone.
Click to expand...

Sorry apacharat he gotcha a few times. Then again most people do. It is a bit of sport around here.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the personal attacks.
 
Re: Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages[W:4

As an infrequent user, Wikipedia is very useful, but the fact that it is so easy to manipulate it makes it at the same time questionable.

Nonetheless, it's good to see that they have made an attempt to clean it up a bit. :) I think it is a terrific idea, but seems ripe for abuse in this age of spin by the government and media.
 
Re: Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages[W:4

Henry David said:
As an infrequent user, Wikipedia is very useful, but the fact that it is so easy to manipulate it makes it at the same time questionable.

Nonetheless, it's good to see that they have made an attempt to clean it up a bit. :) I think it is a terrific idea, but seems ripe for abuse in this age of spin by the government and media.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia has been on the job trying to solve the problem of no-nothings writing articles or editing articles from day one. But there aren't enough people with the knowledge to review each contribution edit made. They have to rely of individuals like you and I to spot the misinformation that has been published on the Wiki.

At least today which wasn't the norm 12 years ago you are suppose to be able to go to the bottom of the article and see what were the sources with a link if it came from the Internet. But how accurate are the sources ?

One of the biggest problem Wiki has are their contributors in the political category. When you go to the talk pages where the contributors talk with each other some times it looks like Debatepolitics.com. Going as far as flaming and the vast majority of the contributors are openly liberal and extremely bias. Very few would be considered to be "politicos."

In the history category you'll find revisionist and political correctness. But that has become the norm now days, it's what taught in our schools and universities today.

But probably one of the best improvements on Wiki was the "Wiki Project Council." Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But still there's not enough experts to review even a small portion of what's on the Wiki.

A brick layer shouldn't be editing an article on electrical wiring.

When I'm lazy or in a hurry I'll use Wiki. But I never consider it to be a reliable source for accuracy.

But I believe in twenty or so years from now, it will be a reliable source.
 
Re: Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages[W:4

tererun said:
Yeah, there was that whole how to argue with liberals class i am sure you have learned from.
Click to expand...

Arguing isn't considered to be debating.
 
Re: Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages[W:4

Kobie said:
You want to know my contributions? Check my post history. Since i utterly destroyed you on the whole "the left supported Hitler" nonsense, I figured you just would have left well enough alone.
Click to expand...

Post #943 -> http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-memorial-w-793-1010-a-95.html#post1062449041

You never went to the link. If you looked at the right of the page you would have seen Germany's Nazis influence with in America's labor unions during the 1930's and 40's.

Would you have excepted Wikipedia as a reliable source ? :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom