On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:41 AM, nathan tankus < [email protected]> wrote:
while every piece of writing is biased, Wikipedia seems to me to have many > advantages for weeding out opinion from fact such as forcing people to cite > their entries with outside sources Yeah, but have you seen what pass for "outside sources"? Here's the one for the particular piece of drivel I posted: http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-talibanization-of-gaza-a-liability-for-the-muslim-brotherhood and letting basically anyone challenge the current entry on nearly any topic > with opposing evidence and views (by the way, did you think of changing the > entry yourself?) If it were only a matter of logging on and doing something myself, maybe I would. (Who among us doesn't waste enough time on the Internet already?) But open, collaborative projects like Wikipedia are a numbers game. When the other side is willing to marshal its forces to influence it ( http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/wikipedia-editing-for-zionists), that leaves us the choice of either doing the same, or washing our hands of the enterprise and moving on to greener pastures. Since I posted this yesterday, I see someone has removed the offending silliness. Let's see how long it stays gone. Who knows? Maybe I'll be proven wrong ... -- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
