| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject: Wikipedia is a Socialist Scam |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
(NEW YORK)(December 17, 2009) Republican U. S. Senate candidate and insurgent "Internet Powerhouse" Andy Martin will hold a New York news conference Thursday, December 17th to announce that he has sued the "protosocialist" Wikipedia/Wikimedia operation for using tax-exempt resources to run a hate campaign against him at the behest of Wikimedia's Barack Obama supporters.
Martin is in New York for the Second national Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate and College Records.
"No one could characterize the Wikipedia entry on my extraordinary life of public service and personal sacrifice as 'neutral and impartial,'" Martin says. "It is obviously nothing more than a political smear by Barack Obama's rabid supporters. Wikimedia and Wikimedia are tax-exempt protosocialist scams that target conservatives, Republicans and opponents of Obama. I am a triple threat when it comes to being the target of Obama agents.
"I am fighting back. We need to expose Wikimedia's scams. Wikimedia/Wikipedia use tax-exempt resources to spew their venom on innocent victims Martin says. "The public is also a victim of fraud by these leftist Obamabots. I want to bring the facts and the truth about these protosocialist provocateurs to the attention of the American people; |
And for completion, here is his wikipedia entry.
What is it about his entry exactly that he considers fraud? It's got quite a few citations for how short it is; if this is fraud, the fraud extends far beyond just wikipedia. He even says in his press release that he's in New York for a conference on Obama's birth certificate, confirming at least a moderate amount of the content on his page right there.
As an aside, what is a protosocialist, exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear, at first I thought this guy was just another power hungry politician predictably playing the victim card. Then I took a look at his wiki profile and came to the conclusion that this guy is seriously out to lunch. Mr. Martin should not be running for office, he should not be making any public appearances. He should really just go home and calm down.
| Fox wrote: |
| As an aside, what is a protosocialist, exactly? |
Wouldn't that be like Karl Marx, the father of socialism? I really haven't seen anything different out of Obama. In fact, from my POV, I see him doing a lot of the same things his predecessor did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why doesn't he or his staff just edit his wikipedia entry if he doesn't like it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Why doesn't he or his staff just edit his wikipedia entry if he doesn't like it? |
They probably tried and had their attempted changes rejected by the individuals that fact check the site. More than likely, his page is reasonably reflective of the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Why doesn't he or his staff just edit his wikipedia entry if he doesn't like it? |
They probably tried and had their attempted changes rejected by the individuals that fact check the site. More than likely, his page is reasonably reflective of the truth. |
Do you seriously believe that Wikipedia has the staff to fact-check every post? Misinformation gets in ther all the time. The idea is that it will soon get edited out, but there is nothing to prevent it being entered again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Do you seriously believe that Wikipedia has the staff to fact-check every post? |
I dunno. But if you make false or even just controversial edits to an article, there is a pretty good chance that they will be gone within a few hours. I'd imagine this is done both by wiki staff and by readers who make a point to tailgate certain articles.
As well, I think I read in the Herald Tribune a few weeks back that any information added to the biography of a living person is now subject to an automatic waiting period, in which it is reviewed by staff, before being shown as part of the article.
This I found amusing from Martin's wiki article...
| Quote: |
Martin then became involved in consumer advocacy. Calling himself "the people's attorney general," he takes credit for being the first to file suit under the civil component of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as the first to file antitrust actions against the Big Three television networks for anticompetitive practices in network affiliation agreements.[11]
|
So Mr. Paranoid About Socialism is all in favor of using the anti-trust laws against privately held corporations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Why doesn't he or his staff just edit his wikipedia entry if he doesn't like it? |
They probably tried and had their attempted changes rejected by the individuals that fact check the site. More than likely, his page is reasonably reflective of the truth. |
Do you seriously believe that Wikipedia has the staff to fact-check every post? Misinformation gets in ther all the time. The idea is that it will soon get edited out, but there is nothing to prevent it being entered again. |
I said the individuals that fact check the site. I didn't necessarily say that they were wikipedia staff (though, they might have been). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have seen many articles in Wikipedia that were very innacurate and biased. Not at all written by someone with understanding on the subject or expertise. A good example compare "The Origin of Birds" in Wikipedia to say Bird Evolution in Encyclopedia Brittanica or other main stream encyclopedia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I have seen many articles in Wikipedia that were very innacurate and biased. Not at all written by someone with understanding on the subject or expertise. A good example compare "The Origin of Birds" in Wikipedia to say Bird Evolution in Encyclopedia Brittanica or other main stream encyclopedia. |
Wikipedia should never be taken as an authoritative source, especially for academic writing at any level. What it is is a good starting point for research, as well as a source of intellectual entertainment.
You could probably compare any given Wikipedia article to a conversation taking place at a party, among people with varying degrees of knowledge about the issue. You would never go into a formal situation where you were expected to defend your opinions and say "Well, according to these guys I was talking to at a house party last weekend...". But listening to the discussion can give you insight that you might not otherwise have had, and point you in the direction of more substantial information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I have seen many articles in Wikipedia that were very innacurate and biased. Not at all written by someone with understanding on the subject or expertise. A good example compare "The Origin of Birds" in Wikipedia to say Bird Evolution in Encyclopedia Brittanica or other main stream encyclopedia. |
Wikipedia should never be taken as an authoritative source, especially for academic writing at any level. What it is is a good starting point for research, as well as a source of intellectual entertainment.
You could probably compare any given Wikipedia article to a conversation taking place at a party, among people with varying degrees of knowledge about the issue. You would never go into a formal situation where you were expected to defend your opinions and say "Well, according to these guys I was talking to at a house party last weekend...". But listening to the discussion can give you insight that you might not otherwise have had, and point you in the direction of more substantial information. |
Agreed. However, I like to use it as what is sometimes referred to as a 'launching pad' to more credible sources. For example, go here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Didn't nature find wikipedia's accuracy to be comparable to encyclopedia britannica's? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Truth has a liberal bias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
| Didn't nature find wikipedia's accuracy to be comparable to encyclopedia britannica's? |
maybe even surpassed it. I know it did in some areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
That was pretty good. But in fairness to Jimmy Wales(who is portrayed as endorsing the erroneous information), he himself has gone on record as saying that he does not want Wikipedia to be used as an authoritative source of information. He did some Q & A thing in Time or Newsweek a few years back, and a high-school student e-mailed him complaining that her teacher won't allow her to cite Wiki in her research papers. Wales said he agreed with the teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
