Wikipedia too liberal?
There was an item on Radion 4 (uk) today where some right wing, conservative, religious nut was moaning about wikipedia being to liberal and anti-religious!
Sure is. That's why God invented ...
No concern for truth or accuracy. He just wants to get the spin right. Argh.
Yeah, yeah, that's what they ALWAYS say, to then justify their ultra-conservative looney-tune 'correction' activity.
Like the Supreme Court is too liberal, so let's appoint a lady from Texas who's WAY against Roe v. Wade.
Like all the courts are too liberal (Damn activist judges!) so let's appoint and re-re-re-appoint all those most conservative judges, who've been turned down by the congress three times already!
Mark my words, there'll be postings by Newt Gingrich next!
Yes he was promoting this new site. He complained that wikipedia suffered from 'mob rule' so the wikipedia guy pointed out that they were using the same software and would therefore suffer from the same thing.
It's funny how 'no point of view' or 'facts' seems to translate in a conservative mind into 'liberal bias' or 'gay'.
For those who find Wikipedia too conservative, the was once work on http://zpedia.org/ by Aaron "abandonware" Schwartz. I guess the z pays homage to http://zmag.org/ .
"Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception."
OH NOES!!! The dreaded CE deception! Will the madness never stop? DAMN YOU WIKIPEEEEEEEEDIAAAAAAAAA!
in HG Wells The Time Machine, travel into the future founda world where the human race had divided into the fey-workers, who are both served and preyed upon by the undergorund worker trolls.
A revised version might see those two groups replaced with those who had completely forsaken rationalism for superstition, yet hold much material power, and ... the ones who didn't.
Yeah, if you assume Wikipedia "works" all they're actually moaning about is that the (techno-literate) population is more liberal and secular than they would like.. but they really don't like that reality so they feel more comfortable blaming the technology in some way.
I suspect that people who seek fact and truth will always be more effective than people who don't.
Even if the motivation for the people who don't is that current 'fact' and current 'truth' seem to contradict their understanding of their religion.
The problem with denying some input that seems to contradict your religious understanding is that your religious understanding could NEED some correction.
Another idea -- seeking fact and truth is the only way to prevent "group think" from making your society static, brittle, and ultimately evil.
Main stream media has been moving steadily "rightwards" for the last decade and half. What would have been frothing wingnut ravings (such as savage, coultergeist and limbaug) 15 years ago is now considered "normal" and "mainstream." Anything that isn't moving as fast to the nazi side of the house is obviously perceived as "lefty" and "liberal" and should be murdered according to coulter and limbaugh.
March 8th, 2007 9:47am
Yes, and it's that "rightward movement" that got us the group-think that supported the Iraq war, huge budget deficits, and the deregulation that's got us Enron and the California Energy Crisis. And $2.50 a gallon gasoline.
I think the pendulum is starting to swing back, as the crows from that group-think are starting to come home to roost. But it's certainly still out there.
Don't forget the rightward drift also correlated to Wikipedia and Google as well. Over the last 6-7 years say.
Dedication to the truth, that's the only way to detect 'drifts', and decide if/when to correct them.
Which is why this "liberal"/"conservative" labelling is not very helpful. Either side can be blinded by their bias (though I do think a liberal "bias" is less likely to be "blinded" by sticking to orthodoxy. The very idea of a "liberal orthodoxy" being a bit of an oxymoron).
Well, people who say it and mean it.
March 8th, 2007 10:23am