Is Wikipedia Neutral?

Aramike · 03-09-09, 04:37 PM

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

I have to say, I do love the very concept of Wikipedia and find it to be a wonderful resource for casual researchers. That being said, instances outlined in the article linked above shows what I see to be a terrible bias which will ultimately undermine Wiki's credibility as a source of unfettered knowledge.

Any thoughts?

Enigma · 03-09-09, 04:52 PM

Quote:

I have to say, I do love the very concept of Wikipedia and find it to be a wonderful resource for casual researchers. That being said, instances outlined in the article linked above shows what I see to be a terrible bias which will ultimately undermine Wiki's credibility as a source of unfettered knowledge.

Any thoughts?

Well, at the end of the day it relies heavily on the users to both submit neutral information, and editors to make sure it is so. Wether or not a specific entry is neutral is relevant to the day you look at it, as it's always open to update.

Given the example you post here, I think the items in question have been pretty much debunked. You could perhaps include a passage that states that these things did garnish some absurd amount of attention from our so called liberal media, but I think you'd find that if the President's wiki page included entries that he is good friends with terrorists (debunked) that he is not an American citizen (debunked) you would find an article that would garnish unwanted attention for being bias the other way! I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

Aramike · 03-09-09, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Quote:

I have to say, I do love the very concept of Wikipedia and find it to be a wonderful resource for casual researchers. That being said, instances outlined in the article linked above shows what I see to be a terrible bias which will ultimately undermine Wiki's credibility as a source of unfettered knowledge.

Any thoughts?

Well, at the end of the day it relies heavily on the users to both submit neutral information, and editors to make sure it is so. Wether or not a specific entry is neutral is relevant to the day you look at it, as it's always open to update.

Given the example you post here, I think the items in question have been pretty much debunked. You could perhaps include a passage that states that these things did garnish some absurd amount of attention from our so called liberal media, but I think you'd find that if the President's wiki page included entries that he is good friends with terrorists (debunked) that he is not an American citizen (debunked) you would find an article that would garnish unwanted attention for being bias the other way! I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

I agree that the Birth Certificate issue was a non-starter for some extremists. The part I disagree with is that Obama's relationship with William Ayers and "Reverend" Wright has not been debunked. What those relationships mean is up for the reader to conclude. But to not allow the inclusion of the FACTS surrounding his relationship with those high-profile, controversial individuals is evidence of bias, I believe.

Zachstar · 03-09-09, 04:56 PM

Birthers causing controversy? Say it aint so!

Besides anyone relying on Wiki for anything political is out of their flipping mind!

(Note: A birther is a flaming idiot who goes around posting on media and forums some new rumor every week that the President of the United States is not eligible because he was supposedly really given X certificate in X country)

Wiki has the right and made the best call. I am not going to read the rest because its pointless.

Enigma · 03-09-09, 04:56 PM

So much conspiracy abound, they got their on Wiki page it seems...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_...iracy_theories

Enigma · 03-09-09, 05:05 PM

Quote:

I agree that the Birth Certificate issue was a non-starter for some extremists. The part I disagree with is that Obama's relationship with William Ayers and "Reverend" Wright has not been debunked. What those relationships mean is up for the reader to conclude. But to not allow the inclusion of the FACTS surrounding his relationship with those high-profile, controversial individuals is evidence of bias, I believe.

There's certainly an argument to be made there. However, I'd suggest that listing every person that is linked in any simple way to another that is deemed unsavory would have the Wiki page of every politician be a list of of unchecked facts and meaningless, irrelevant information. For example, without reading the entire thing, I wouldn't imagine George W. Bush's wiki page mentions anything about his families business connection with the Bin Laden family, although this was alleged and reported on, as well.

Zachstar · 03-09-09, 05:09 PM

Guess who picked up on the story faster than you can say "I WANT him to fail!"

Fox News!

Freiwillige · 03-09-09, 05:21 PM

I would still like to see proof of his American birth. This is America and if somethings questionable, it should be put out in the open! Only people who have something to hide will take the time to block any fact finding into the truth. My 2 cents.

Enigma · 03-09-09, 05:28 PM

Quote:

I would still like to see proof of his American birth. This is America and if somethings questionable, it should be put out in the open! Only people who have something to hide will take the time to block any fact finding into the truth. My 2 cents.

Don't you think if there was anything to this story we'd know it? Obama is only the most famous man in the world right now. You don't think the Republicans, or anyone for that matter, would have made sure the world knew it if any of it were true?

Oh, and proof of his American birth has been put out in the open. Google it. Your wishes will come true.

Aramike · 03-09-09, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Quote:

I agree that the Birth Certificate issue was a non-starter for some extremists. The part I disagree with is that Obama's relationship with William Ayers and "Reverend" Wright has not been debunked. What those relationships mean is up for the reader to conclude. But to not allow the inclusion of the FACTS surrounding his relationship with those high-profile, controversial individuals is evidence of bias, I believe.

There's certainly an argument to be made there. However, I'd suggest that listing every person that is linked in any simple way to another that is deemed unsavory would have the Wiki page of every politician be a list of of unchecked facts and meaningless, irrelevant information. For example, without reading the entire thing, I wouldn't imagine George W. Bush's wiki page mentions anything about his families business connection with the Bin Laden family, although this was alleged and reported on, as well.

True enough. However, the difference is that Obama himself had connections with these figures, and these connections aren't merely alleged.

Like I said, I agree with the Birth Certificate issue not being mentioned on a biographical page of Obama. But his admitted connections to such players as Ayers and Wright do seem relevant.

Aramike · 03-09-09, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Quote:

I would still like to see proof of his American birth. This is America and if somethings questionable, it should be put out in the open! Only people who have something to hide will take the time to block any fact finding into the truth. My 2 cents.

Don't you think if there was anything to this story we'd know it? Obama is only the most famous man in the world right now. You don't think the Republicans, or anyone for that matter, would have made sure the world knew it if any of it were true?

Oh, and proof of his American birth has been put out in the open. Google it. Your wishes will come true.

Heh, who do you think would be the FIRST person to push the issue if there really was one?

I'm betting Joe Biden.

Enigma · 03-09-09, 05:33 PM

Quote:

True enough. However, the difference is that Obama himself had connections with these figures, and these connections aren't merely alleged.

Well, same with Bush.

Bush attended an investment meeting on Sept 10th, 2001 with Shafiq bin Laden, for the Carlyle and Binladin groups. It's public knowledge that in the the following October, the Bush family and the Bin Laden family severed business ties, for obvious reasons.

Keep in mind, I don't care. I don't think it should be on Bush's wiki page. I don't think it's a dark and deceptive thing. But I feel the same way about Obama's page.

Enigma · 03-09-09, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Heh, who do you think would be the FIRST person to push the issue if there really was one?

I'm betting Joe Biden.

Limbaugh, Coulter, Subman, Steamwake....

AkbarGulag · 03-09-09, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Besides anyone relying on Wiki for anything political is out of their flipping mind!

Wiki is far from neutral. In fact, pages I have read relating to my own country are a litany of lies and selective information, designed to create division and move political power to a favoured minority at the expense of the national identity.

It's like one of my Estonian friends once told me "Never read a history book". Always view multiple sources, and try and determine the underlying facts in all of them.

XabbaRus · 03-09-09, 06:30 PM

Wikipedia is great for reference as a starting point. For WWII battles etc where there is a lot of factual reference material to back it up it is good too.

It is when you get into personalities and organisations that it gets dodgy.

03-09-09, 04:37 PM	#1
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	Is Wikipedia Neutral? http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 I have to say, I do love the very concept of Wikipedia and find it to be a wonderful resource for casual researchers. That being said, instances outlined in the article linked above shows what I see to be a terrible bias which will ultimately undermine Wiki's credibility as a source of unfettered knowledge. Any thoughts?

03-09-09, 04:56 PM	#4
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	Birthers causing controversy? Say it aint so! Besides anyone relying on Wiki for anything political is out of their flipping mind! (Note: A birther is a flaming idiot who goes around posting on media and forums some new rumor every week that the President of the United States is not eligible because he was supposedly really given X certificate in X country) Wiki has the right and made the best call. I am not going to read the rest because its pointless. __________________

03-09-09, 04:56 PM	#5
Enigma The Old Man Join Date: May 2005 Location: At comms depth, obviously. Posts: 1,476 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	So much conspiracy abound, they got their on Wiki page it seems... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_...iracy_theories __________________ "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

03-09-09, 05:09 PM	#7
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	Guess who picked up on the story faster than you can say "I WANT him to fail!" Fox News! __________________

03-09-09, 06:30 PM	#15
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Wikipedia is great for reference as a starting point. For WWII battles etc where there is a lot of factual reference material to back it up it is good too. It is when you get into personalities and organisations that it gets dodgy. __________________

03-09-09, 05:21 PM	#8
Freiwillige The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phx. Az Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	I would still like to see proof of his American birth. This is America and if somethings questionable, it should be put out in the open! Only people who have something to hide will take the time to block any fact finding into the truth. My 2 cents.