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.
03-09-09, 04:55 PM
Hybrid Mode
