Korean Job Discussion Forums

[some waygug-in]

Here's a site for all you wiki fans who love posting articles from the online encyclopedia as if they were somehow the "absolute truth". I have used and posted from it several times myself, so I found this site interesting, to say the least.

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

Enjoy.

[igotthisguitar]

Thanks. Most thinking people presumably recognize how WIKI serves as the unofficial Ministry of Truth.

Common knowledge the good ol' CIA e.g. is all over it.

Much in the same way their phony disinfo stories are planted in the press daily. Truth & power, eh?

Empower thyself!

Have you ever picked up on a few things for time to time that just don't jive? Choice of language, description & tone?

'Truthful' wiki-articles promoting doublethink e.g.

Well, thank God for the BIG DEBATES going on from time to time, when e.g. the neutrality or accuracy is disputed.

Just like Orwell predicted newspeak articles are always evolving, being refined & 'pruned' etc

Owner is a major Zionist as well. Hmmmmm ... name isn't Goldstein though, it's Jimmy Wales.

For now at least, it remains a good jumping off point; quick & handy reference tool all the same.

Search engines seem to work well too.

i'll have to bookmark your link. Check this one out ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wikis

Metta.

( p.s. alpha & omega: How can absolute truth can ever be ... printed?
RU not familiar with the Buddha's Flower Sermon? )
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=flower+sermon

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[mithridates]

[some waygug-in]

Another site worth mentioning:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html

a short quote from the Phillip Coppens article:

WikiScanning revelations
This has underlined some serious problems with the second pillar of WikiWorld: tolerance. But what about Sarfatti's Orwellian claims that Wikipedia is the Ministry of Truth-i.e., Lies? On 14 August 2007, Wired reported that CalTech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith had created the "Wikipedia Scanner", which "offers users a searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of Internet IP addresses".
"I came up with the idea when I heard about Congressmen getting caught for white-washing their Wikipedia pages," he says on his website (http://virgil.gr/31.html). Griffith became very intrigued when, on 17 November 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. Griffith traced those changes to an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself.
Wired concluded that when the new data-mining service was launched, it traced millions of Wikipedia entries to their sources, and for the first time put "comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations". In short, Griffith proved Sarfatti and others' conspiracy theory.
Griffith has compiled lists of different corporations and government branches that have abused the "trust" of Wikipedia essentially to edit the truth out of existence, replacing it with a PR-friendly fa�ade favourable not to the facts or any sense of neutrality but only to the interests of the parties concerned. The WikiScanner page (see http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr) lists a few "favourites" which include the CIA, the Vatican and the Church of Scientology.

[On the other hand]

[mindmetoo]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

I could find lots of articles in the main stream media to back up Wikipedia but then of course the same people who bash wikipeda will claim bias from the main stream media.

What the conspiracy people really demand is for wikipedia and the main stream media to be viewed critically while at the same time they that their alternative or conspiracy sites sources be given a free pass.

That is their idea of a level playing field. Those are the rules they call for.

[some waygug-in]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

whatreallyhappened

Rense

911turth

and what ever other nonsense.


See all posts by somewaigugin.

[faster]

No teacher in academia (even at the high school level) would accept Wikipedia as a source. I tell my students it can be a useful first step since it points to primary sources, but if I see it in a footnote or citation, points come of their score.

[some waygug-in]

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html


Wikipedia watching
On 15 December 2005, various media sources reported that the open-access encyclopaedia Wikipedia was about as accurate as the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, at least for science-based articles. This was the result of a study by the journal Nature, which chose scientific articles from both encyclopaedias across a wide range of topics and sent them for peer review. The reviewers found just eight serious errors. Of those, four came from each site. They also found a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, there were 123 such problems with Britannica and 162 with Wikipedia. That in itself is a staggering conclusion, which translates as averaging out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia, or three versus four mistakes. That, of course, is not "as accurate" as the newspapers reported-thus showing misleading statements in the newspapers' headlines.
Still, is Wikipedia's score proof positive that the Internet is indeed more than just a bundle of conspiracy theory and pornography sites, and that the combined efforts of Internet users actually work to create a knowledge base? Perhaps. Wikipedia allows anyone-anyone-to go in and add, change or delete anything in the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is therefore an exercise in trust: it hopes that its users come there with the best of intentions.
The site is funded through the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and in 2006 had an estimated budget of "about a million dollars". It was founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, the latter who left his co-creation behind in 2002 and stated in October 2006 that he was going to start a competitor that would allow for more peer-reviewed entries.
Trust cannot be guaranteed and hence, at best, Wikipedia comes with a few blemishes. George W. Bush's biography was so frequently changed-often to include name calling and "personalised opinions" on his policies-that his and a small number of other entries had to be locked and thus only authorised users were allowed to edit them. Innocent enough; perhaps even funny.
But a more suspicious case occurred in late 2005 when, for four months, Wikipedia included an anonymously written article linking former journalist John Seigenthaler to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. His Wikipedia entry stated: "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." And: "John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter." None of this was true, or even alleged, outside of WikiWorld. Seigenthaler thought that at the age of 78 he was beyond surprise or hurt, but he had obviously not counted on Wikipedia.
Worse, his case exposed a further flaw, as Wikipedia's information feeds automatically into Reference.com and Answers.com, whose computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia without any checks, thus spreading the lies further onto other sites. In this instance, "trust" failed and perhaps we should not blame Wikipedia directly.
But the ominous sign here was that Wikipedia was slow to react. Seigenthaler noticed that his "biography" was altered on 26 May 2005. On 29 May, one of the site's moderators edited it only by correcting the misspelling of the word "early" but did not check the other, much more serious, alterations. For four months, Wikipedia depicted him as a suspected assassin before this mention was erased from the website's history on 5 October-but it remained on Answers.com and Reference.com for three more weeks.

[jkelly80]

Nature magazine did a study and found that wikipedia is wrong 33% of the time, whereas E. Britannica is wrong 25% of the time. At some point, that 8% has become the tipping point for citing information.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

="some waygug-in"]


How often are conspiracy sites that you love wrong? I bet it is a lot more than 33% of the time.

[mindmetoo]