tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post5157431500934989724..comments2023-12-03T02:23:12.272-06:00Comments on BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: How Right-Wingers Took Over WikipediaMarc McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17105754072842852126noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-86261951217181444172012-08-24T05:17:49.201-05:002012-08-24T05:17:49.201-05:00The real question is why Republicans are so much b...The real question is why Republicans are so much better at organizing efforts like this than Democrats. It's working. They're winning.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-12267306852618698392012-06-09T02:00:19.239-05:002012-06-09T02:00:19.239-05:00Hi, Bob Broughton, thanks for your comment and for...Hi, Bob Broughton, thanks for your comment and for stopping by.Marc McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17105754072842852126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-31872961578446685682012-06-09T01:59:33.849-05:002012-06-09T01:59:33.849-05:00Hi Anon,
re:
>>Jimmy Wales is a renowned Ayn...Hi Anon,<br />re:<br />>>Jimmy Wales is a renowned Ayn<br />>>Rand drooler<br /><br />I must admit, I didn't know this. I used to have respect for Wales. Now, not so much.Marc McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17105754072842852126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-31278292571989685162012-06-09T01:58:06.474-05:002012-06-09T01:58:06.474-05:00Hi, Grung_e_Gene, thanks for your comment.
You kn...Hi, Grung_e_Gene, thanks for your comment.<br /><br />You know, one thing I agree with Palin on: our "Liberal" media really is lame. (But not in the way that that deluded idiot believes).Marc McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17105754072842852126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-7858384116432446362012-06-06T23:00:40.014-05:002012-06-06T23:00:40.014-05:00I am finding Search info that should come up - doe...I am finding Search info that should come up - doesn't. Plus Web of Trust is so compromised that I now am starting to use Red Listing as a sign of useful viewpoint, commentary and intel being suppressed.<br />But that business of the Deniers not mucking with Anthropogenic Global Warming makes me not know whether to scream or cry. The BBC has been pushing the proposition that co2 is linked with global warming and compromises our future for over 30 years. When did Al Gore go from being snake oil salesman running for the President's spot as VP to scientific revelation ? Propaganda depends on repetition to pound in belief - which is why Grist has a list of Talking Points with which to discredit dissent from the UN mandated revelation that they can foretell the future, with Poisoning the Well false argument that takes the normal process of review and consideration of a multiplicity of possibilities and makes it a discredited political football. Such are the tactics of Post Normal Science : paid tracts presented as news, and edicts from on high going under cover of science rather than religion.opithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01621946866211400380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-12468887650942002692012-06-03T11:36:13.558-05:002012-06-03T11:36:13.558-05:00Wikipedia went from being a source of information ...Wikipedia went from being a source of information to becoming Orwell's Bureau of Truth. <br /><br /> -WageslaveZ-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-24218968604297651442012-05-29T22:13:41.600-05:002012-05-29T22:13:41.600-05:00Jan, Jan, Jan....
I'm really hoping, for your...Jan, Jan, Jan....<br /><br />I'm really hoping, for your sake, that you were trying to write a parody. Otherwise, you just gave us a classic example of the what the article describes. You state opinion as fact, and think if you throw in words like "science" and "theory" it will appear to make sense. You use ad hominem phrases like "no sane person" and "no decent person". You even seem to confuse letters and numbers.<br /><br />Wait, I get it, you graduated from Liberty University!<br /><br />Seriously, back to the topic that *was* being discussed before Jan was allowed near a keyboard...<br /><br />I think it's simply a matter of dollars. The right has always been better funded that the left. There are dozens of well-monied conservative organizations that will pay people to debase Wikipedia. After all, they couldn't make Conservapedia (or whatever it was called) work, so the natural GOP instinct is to destroy what they can successfully copy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-21338595069697689852012-05-27T23:30:19.441-05:002012-05-27T23:30:19.441-05:00Hi Jan, thanks for the comment.
It seems to me tha...Hi Jan, thanks for the comment.<br />It seems to me that your lengthy comment is really nothing more than a reason to slam abortion.<br /><br />But to equate the progressives' support for human reproductive rights with Liberals supposed "hatred of science" is absurd and silly.<br /><br />Liberals (who don't necessarily all support abortion) know full well the science of human reproduction. The difference between many of us and the Conservatives is that we don't see the issue in simplistic black-and-white terms.<br /><br />Conservatives condemn all abortion and want to do away with it entirely (an impossibility, by the way).<br /><br />Many of us Progressives actually aren't that enthusiastic about abortion and we do have reservations. But we accept that, out here in the Real World, sometimes the procedure is necessary (such as in cases of rape, incest, and to save the mother's life).<br /><br />These important questions apparently don't trouble Conservatives at all---they don't appear to give these questions any thought, whatsoever.<br /><br />In any case, Conservatives seem to be oblivious to the reality that if you outlaw abortion, our society will simply regress to the bad old days, when back-alley abortion providers performed <br />the procedure with crude, dangerous (and often deadly) methods.<br /><br />And of course, NONE of this debate ever considers for a moment that any changes in abortion law in the U.S. will ONLY affect the working class. The wealthy have always had "problem" abortions of their own. But any U.S. prohibition won't affect them: they'll simply hop aboard their Gulfstream jets and fly to a discreet clinic in someplace like Switzerland.<br /><br />As always, Conservatives aren't really dealing with Real World realities.<br /><br />I'm even unclear as to exactly how an anti-abortion law would be enforced.<br /><br />Do you imprison the mother? The doctor? How, exactly, does it work?<br /><br />If a 12-year-old girl is raped by her father and impregnated, then do we force her to bear the child?<br /><br />Will a woman be imprisoned if she refuses to bear the child of her rapist?<br /><br />How, exactly, will all this work?<br /><br />As always, Conservatives don't really concern themselves with these troubling details. They just want to ram their twisted version of "Christianity" down the throats of the rest of us.<br /><br />Never mind that the No. 1 issue for right-wing "Christians" (abortion) is never even<br />mentioned in the Bible.Marc McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17105754072842852126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-90186036741929567462012-05-27T21:43:07.059-05:002012-05-27T21:43:07.059-05:00Articles about healthcare are also extremely biase...Articles about healthcare are also extremely biased. Although mainstream medicine is the leading cause of death in the US, Wikipedia totally supports mainstream medicine and trashes holistic alternatives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-24594055537221902672012-05-27T12:23:22.904-05:002012-05-27T12:23:22.904-05:00The tobacco industry uses "cleaners", to...The tobacco industry uses "cleaners", too. The New York law firm Paul Weiss, which does legal work for Philip Morris, has cleaners on the payroll.Bob Broughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281390652995621116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-59050891290458090332012-05-26T23:33:24.422-05:002012-05-26T23:33:24.422-05:00The fundamental problem is precisely that “anyone ...The fundamental problem is precisely that “anyone can edit any article.”<br />Yes, you are correct. Wikipedia allows a person who knows nothing about the subject to edit an article. But it’s worse. Wikipedia allows folk that known nothing about the subject to write an article in the first place. <br /> If it is unsigned, then there is no way of knowing whether the person writing the artilce knows anything about that subject. <br /><br />So why does anyone read any anonymous Wiki?<br /><br />(1) Every American is taught from birth that she was born knowing everything. Public opinion polls prove this. These frequently ask questions that required specialized knowledge few possess. If the respondents answered honestly, 95% to 99% would answer “I don’t know.” <br /><br />Hence, Americans see nothing wrong with writing articles for Wikipedia even though they know nothing about the subject. If one were to criticize their writing out of ignorance, one would be accused of some species of prejudice. <br /><br />(2) Americans believe that “everyone has a right to her own opinion.” No decent human being ever expresses an opinion. If she knows the facts, she tells the facts. When she does not know The Truth, she says, “I don’t know.” (See no. 1.)<br /><br />(3) “Fair and balanced.” 2,500 years ago, Aristotle pointed out the law of non-contradiction. Any statement that purports to be a statement of fact is either absolutely true or absolutely false. There is only black and white; there are no grays. For example, if you live with a cat, then as of May 26, 2012, either your cat is alive, or your cat is dead. <br /> A “hard” science such as history works in the following way. Someone makes an affirmative statement describing the results of an experiment ; other scientists then replicate the experiment to see if it the description of the outcome of the experiment is true or false. (This is why no sane person will read a book unless every statement is footnoted. If one cannot look up the original source, then one cannot replicate the experiment.)<br /><br />(4) Liberal hatred of science also hass contributed greatly to American toleration of ignorant statements in Wikipedia. The statement “human life begins at conception” is true. Anyone that says it is false is nuts. Everyone that today is 4 days old, 40 days old, or 40 years old is the same person that she was when her life began at conception. (A)That is, she has the same DNA from conception to death; (B) she has the same unique set of fingerprints from conception to death, (C) she has the same number of physical parts from conception to death. (I.e., if someone unfortunately is conceived with one leg shorter than the other, she will limp at the age of 4, 40, and 80. (Or until an operation of some kind is performed that leaves her with two legs of equal length.)<br /><br />The paragraph preceding contains three scientific hypotheses numbered A, B, and C. All three are The Truth. No one can present evidence that any of the three is false. <br /><br />So liberals wonder how conservative folk can believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, or the global warming is a lie and a deliberate fraud, or that Sadam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction.” Hey! You were the first to say that biological, chemistry, and physics are gabage. You express your total contempt for science every time you deny that human life begins at conception. Why are you surprised that conservatives have copied your total contempt for science? If contempt for The Truth is tolerated by Liberals, then Liberals should not be surprised when conservatives copy their contempt for The Truth <br /><br />(5) The point is this. There may be facts scattered among all the unsigned opinions on Wikipedia. But there is no way to know which one or two of all those millions or assertions is The Truth and which is not The Truth. So no sane person will consider anything that appears in any Wikipedia article to be true.Jan Rogozinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13928697255558664209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-87075770826651130562012-05-26T16:58:00.780-05:002012-05-26T16:58:00.780-05:00I've battled with right-wing and corporate edi...I've battled with right-wing and corporate editors over materials on Wikipedia, and with fundamentalists over books on Amazon. You can even find this sanitizing and scrubbing on IMDB (Internet Movie Data Base). <br /><br />If I post any material that even vaguely reflects, say on David H. and Charles de Ganahl Koch, it will quickly disappear. The Kochs have been found to employ "cleaners."<br /><br />However, I found a mention of Michael Moore on a peripheral page that referenced him in a long list of reporters and someone had anonymously posted an unsourced semi-literate comment that he was a pedophile that had stayed on the site for the better part of a year.<br /><br />Another feature of the right wingers is that they will team up to delete material that doesn't come from the echo chamber. If there are more than three deletions within a 24-hour period, the original poster or editor can be "blocked" for "edit warring." <br />I've seen evidence that the wingers will recruit like-minded (or well paid) buddies using Talk pages, to team up on a poster that who has made an edit that they disapprove of as not "politically correct" (ironically, one of the pejorative terms they chronically use against progressives) so that the unwary editor finds himself or herself blocked for a day or longer because the "team" of three editors by Wikipedia's definition constitutes a "consensus." These morons can contend the world is flat and stand a pretty good chance of keeping that contention on the page.Sherlockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17404388765955753392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-41961748274871805042012-05-26T13:00:10.997-05:002012-05-26T13:00:10.997-05:00A few years ago I tracked one person who was emplo...A few years ago I tracked one person who was employed at the American Enterprise Institute. He spent his days editing Wikipedia to put a corporate bias into articles there. (You can track anyone's contributions.)<br /><br />He did this full-time during business hours (and other hours) so was obviously employed to do this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-68496328994173770952012-05-26T11:48:54.347-05:002012-05-26T11:48:54.347-05:00Here's a couple of examples:
http://en.wikipe...Here's a couple of examples:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Obenshain<br />The only thing this woman has done that's noteworthy is appear on Faux News<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Marsden<br />A liar who was FIRED by Faux NewsBob Broughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281390652995621116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-9283445308974572432012-05-26T09:53:37.374-05:002012-05-26T09:53:37.374-05:00I think you give too much credit to Wikipedia'...I think you give too much credit to Wikipedia's own editors -- Jimmy Wales is a renowned Ayn Rand drooler, and as such the entire ideological basis of Wikipedia deserves scrutiny. More to the point, the Wikipedia notion of objectivity often appears to be that of the cowed mainstream media: present two sides, no matter how disproportionately illogical one side is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-60272904939084386482012-05-26T08:11:36.902-05:002012-05-26T08:11:36.902-05:00I’ve been aware of that for a very long time, but ...I’ve been aware of that for a very long time, but I have to wonder why it is a surprise. All authoritarian systems seek to suppress, eliminate, and control sources of information, which do not adhere to the party line, whatever that is. <br /><br />The only thing American Conservatives ™ are interested in conserving are statements not entirely flattering to themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-18572498241676850232012-05-26T07:36:27.163-05:002012-05-26T07:36:27.163-05:00How true. One can only think that these people, so...How true. One can only think that these people, so determined, have nothing but time on their hands, be it at work, being retired, or being too young. Not to rule out professional RW cult programmers. We had this in the 60's but the main stream media wasn't entirely owned and ridiculous then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-38454296861161273542012-05-25T10:02:13.142-05:002012-05-25T10:02:13.142-05:00MArc you are absolutely correct it's about wil...MArc you are absolutely correct it's about will. They've been working overtime for 30 years to create this Alternate Conservative reality. Which becomes an easy playground from which the right-wingers pull their interpretations of events, people, and incidents and bash anyone as a member of the liberal lame stream media if they disagree.<br /><br />This is of course not new. FDR and the Pearl Harbor lie were in historical books when I was in High School and keep coming up even today.<br /><br />But, now when Palin or Bachmann say something obscenely incorrect and 100% ridiculous they're supporters work overtime to change the facts.<br /><br />As to Amazon, here is a snippet of my post, <a href="http://disaffectedanditfeelssogood.blogspot.com/2011/11/bruce-fancher-battles-barbarians-of.html" rel="nofollow">Bruce Fancher Battles the Barbarians of Zuccotti Park (Rightwing Smear Campaign)</a>, one of the early efforts to smear the OWS and involving a notorious hacker Fancher.<br /><br />Seriously, "The Barbarians of Zuccotti Park" is like something out of the Robert E. Howard universe. <br /><br />A "Hobbyist Photographer" named <a href="http://www.kenkappel.com/" rel="nofollow">Bruce Fancher</a> had his <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282575/hobbyist-photographer-describes-assault-zuccotti-park-charles-c-w-cooke?page=0" rel="nofollow">story transcribed in the National Review Online</a>.<br /><br />The "No one saw anything" should be the kicker, that this didn't happen the way old Bruce Fancher (a.k.a. Dead Lord / a.k.a. Timberwolf) described. But, we are living in an age of BS conservative smears and lying rightwing hacks (or in this case hacker). The amazing thing about this story is the absolute full faith the conservatives have that Fancher's version of events is 100% true and accurate. <br /><br />I also found 3 Amazon reviews by Fancher which read like so much right-wing think tank fantasy.Grung_e_Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894879088472559055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-72890885658592606042012-05-25T07:08:42.202-05:002012-05-25T07:08:42.202-05:00Marc,
Thank you for pointing this out. I. like ano...Marc,<br />Thank you for pointing this out. I. like anonymous above, have also noticed the same tendency on Amazon. You're right: not only are these people determined and relentless; they are also very jaded, dishonest, revisionist, and extremist. We must shoq zero tolerance for such craziness!Jack Jodellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12465017098355576489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11753985.post-58645503607186728932012-05-25T05:10:17.546-05:002012-05-25T05:10:17.546-05:00I've seen a lot of right-wing slanting on Amaz...I've seen a lot of right-wing slanting on Amazon as well. There, any time a new book title by a right-winger like Glenn Beck or Mark Levin appears, it instantly gets loads of 5-star "reviews" (of the short, one-sentence "I love this book!" variety). I've even seen these wingnut reviews appear before the book in question was even released.<br />And when a book by a Liberal writer appears, there will often be many short, one-sentence reviews of the "This book sucks!" variety (obviously written by wingnuts who've not bothered to read the book).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com