Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Wikipedia Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Wikileaks: America's secret backing of Egyptian uprising

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 19:41:04

If the US backs the uprising and wants Mubarek to step down, then why is Joe Biden saying that Mubarek isn't a dictator and shouldn't step down? :roll:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Wikileaks: America's secret backing of Egyptian uprising

Unread postby vision-master » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 19:45:56

Linky?
vision-master
 

Re: Wikileaks: America's secret backing of Egyptian uprising

Unread postby gollum » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 20:21:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'I')f the US backs the uprising and wants Mubarek to step down, then why is Joe Biden saying that Mubarek isn't a dictator and shouldn't step down? :roll:



Considering how the US government operates it makes perfect sense.
gollum
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Wyoming

Re: Wikileaks: America's secret backing of Egyptian uprising

Unread postby pup55 » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 21:29:44

Several questions:

a. Is the wikileak information correct, or is it "disinformation" deliberately launched for some reason...

b. If the US is seen as backing one side or the other is it necessarily a good thing for that side? The argument can be made that being seen as supported by the US actually is a net negative for the opposition, since a lot of their followers are radicalized and still hate us.

c. Anytime the US screws around in some little nation's internal politics there is an excellent chance that the whole thing will blow up in their face a few years down the line.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Wikileaks: America's secret backing of Egyptian uprising

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 28 Jan 2011, 21:55:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'T')he argument can be made that being seen as supported by the US actually is a net negative for the opposition, since a lot of their followers are radicalized and still hate us.

Just living under your corrupt puppet tyrants is enough to hate you. No need to be radicalized.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'A')nytime the US screws around in some little nation's internal politics there is an excellent chance that the whole thing will blow up in their face a few years down the line.

Not so good with "little nations" of 85,000,000 .
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Wikileaks: America's secret backing of Egyptian uprising

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 29 Jan 2011, 00:00:01

It appears the regime change support was a Bush program:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Obama Cut Funding To Promote Democracy In Egypt, Disappointing Human Rights Activists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/obama-cut-egypt-funding_n_815731.html
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby Rod_Cloutier » Sun 06 Nov 2011, 19:42:39

This weekend as a pet peeve, I tried (In vain) to edit and contribute material to wikipedia. Both articles I tried to submit were deleted in a matter of seconds. The first on a proported 'Non-neutrality' by an editor that went by the obviously biased avatar 'Republican-Jacobite', the second as instant deletion due to proported 'advertising', on an article I wrote about Autism awareness, (advertising is a claim I would dispute to my dying breath).

Given the almost daily usage of the wikipedia website, it did not occur to me how heavily censored it is to content, until I tried posting some. I've since been researching others who are angry about this site, (Its impossible to complain to the anomomous editors of wikipedia itself).

I hit on this webpage: http://knol.google.com/k/carl-hewitt/co ... 4rx7g1t/5# which had me even more infuriated that such a corrupt, and biased organization can present content on the web with the pretense to be an authority on anything!

Wow, am I ever mad at how I've been taken all this time. :x
Rod_Cloutier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Winnipeg, Canada

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby Bruce_S » Sun 06 Nov 2011, 21:11:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Repent', '
')I hit on this webpage: http://knol.google.com/k/carl-hewitt/co ... 4rx7g1t/5# which had me even more infuriated that such a corrupt, and biased organization can present content on the web with the pretense to be an authority on anything!

Wow, am I ever mad at how I've been taken all this time. :x


After you cool down, you should understand that such tactics are hardly unique to Wiki. I would venture that nearly every website does the same.
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
Top

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby eastbay » Sun 06 Nov 2011, 21:15:40

I had a similar experience. A friend added my peak oil novel, Shut Down, to the very short list of peak oil-related works of fiction. It was deleted. I suspect much of the editing is based of whim, politics, personal beliefs, etc.
Got Dharma?

Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
User avatar
eastbay
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: One Mile From the Columbia River

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sun 06 Nov 2011, 22:17:40

What bugs me is they claim to prefer quality sources like peer reviewed journals or graduate level textbooks. However, if there are none, they default to "usually reliable sources", which includes the MSM. So if GWB said something it would not be a source, but if an anonymous GWB flunky "leaks" the same lie to an embedded WaPo hack, it becomes a statement of fact in Wackypedia.

If they can't find an actual news story, they can use a speculative opinion piece in a newspaper Sunday supplement written by an obscure freelancer.

Last I bothered to look, the History of Israel article was sourced to the Bible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Repent', 'I') hit on this webpage: http://knol.google.com/k/carl-hewitt/co ... 4rx7g1t/5# which had me even more infuriated that such a corrupt, and biased organization can present content on the web with the pretense to be an authority on anything!
There's also The Wikipedia Review, though it's written in Wikipedia-speak.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands
Top

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Mon 07 Nov 2011, 05:10:42

Perhaps much of this censoring is used to prevent littering and vandalism.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby Bruce_S » Mon 07 Nov 2011, 09:56:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'P')erhaps much of this censoring is used to prevent littering and vandalism.


That has not been my experience with Wikipedia. For awhile I tried inserting things backed up by proper footnotes. Didn't matter. Those with an agenda would come in and presto..an hours worth of work would disagree, and some thoroughly debunked, unscientific and ridiculous claim would be right back where it was. Bio's are pretty bad as well, the actual people occasionally get testy when someone digs up an interesting tidbit from their past, mentions it plus the reference, and then sooner or later...poof....it disappears.

Wiki is fine for some things, nobody seems to argue about the equation defining an exponential function. But other stuff, really simple stuff even, if there is a chance for someone to want to spin it, spin it they will. Worse yet, then some of those articles are listed as "This article is up for Wiki Best Article" when the thing is an absolute crock.
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
Top

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Mon 07 Nov 2011, 10:44:16

I do not use Wiki much, but yes, if I do use it, it is usually about some scientific subject and mainly as a source of further references to original work in question.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Mon 07 Nov 2011, 10:51:34

A lot of wingnut mouth breathers hate wikipedia because it pretty much dismisses every aspect of their made up history. Jesus wasn't really the first president of the United States, blacks really didn't enlist in the Confederate army, Hitler really wasn't really a Marxist, FDR didn't cause the Depression. Without aggressive editing, Wikipedia would be nothing but pat of the larger hoax/urban legend/propaganda wingnut multiverse.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby AgentR11 » Mon 07 Nov 2011, 10:53:31

The Wikipedia concept and controversial or adversarial content do not play well together. It is guaranteed that the most motivated on the topic will, in the end, win the day. As this is the expected and understood outcome, the right way to use wikipedia for such topics is to go straight to the changes/edits history; which do preserve, last I checked, the information that might have been removed from the article.

There is also inherent editorial bias in any work that touches on current issues; as much as some might wish to deny it. This causes something that might look truthful or constructive to one person, to appear to be persistent vandalism with malicious intent to another. This is just the way humans are, no sense getting bent out of shape over it.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby vision-master » Mon 07 Nov 2011, 11:45:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', 'W')hat bugs me is they claim to prefer quality sources like peer reviewed journals or graduate level textbooks. However, if there are none, they default to "usually reliable sources", which includes the MSM. So if GWB said something it would not be a source, but if an anonymous GWB flunky "leaks" the same lie to an embedded WaPo hack, it becomes a statement of fact in Wackypedia.

If they can't find an actual news story, they can use a speculative opinion piece in a newspaper Sunday supplement written by an obscure freelancer.

Last I bothered to look, the History of Israel article was sourced to the Bible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Repent', 'I') hit on this webpage: http://knol.google.com/k/carl-hewitt/co ... 4rx7g1t/5# which had me even more infuriated that such a corrupt, and biased organization can present content on the web with the pretense to be an authority on anything!
There's also The Wikipedia Review, though it's written in Wikipedia-speak.


Image
Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086

The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events.

Apocalypse was written after 1486.

vision-master
 
Top

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby Pretorian » Mon 07 Nov 2011, 12:28:55

I edited one religious article on wiki (added an external link to a skeptical website). Link was removed within 5 minutes. Then I asked the editor ( a distinguished wikipediest, no less) what is wrong with the link and unedited his edit. Since he couldn't answer ( the link is #3 on google search for the name of the article) he left it be. For now anyway. And that editor is a member of the sect the article is about
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4685
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby babystrangeloop » Mon 07 Nov 2011, 23:50:48

Ad hom deleted.
babystrangeloop
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 04:34:57

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sat 19 Nov 2011, 02:49:28

Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Wikipedia is heavily censored

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 19 Nov 2011, 02:59:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'P')erhaps much of this censoring is used to prevent littering and vandalism.

Yes, that's what they claim, and perhaps even believe. I ran into this initially when I hadn't officially "signed up" (they claimed you didn't have to), and they assumed what I wrote was vandalism because I (with expertise in Chess playing programs) had the temerity not to root for the humans, given the objective fact that computers improve in Chess almost exactly proportionately to their search speed, over time.

So then I joined, pointed out I wasn't a vandal, that I did have expertise and (IMO) something to contribute. Fine. But then, nothing I posted on the subject would be accepted by other submitters who would just remove what I said because it differed from their uninformed and biased/emotional opinion.

Disappointing. Not worth my time to fight it. Sure as HELL not worth my money to donate to that result. Certainly says to view all Wiki content (as you should view EVERYTHING on the web, or any media for that matter) with healthy skepticism.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests