SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - 5 Terrifying Bastardizations of the Wikipedia Model

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

http://www.cracked.com/article_17341_5-terrifying-bastardizations-wikipedia-model.html

Ummm . . . uuu . . . I'm i the only one who feels a tad afraid that these Wikis even exist? I mean . . . i kind of feel . . . DIRTY now . . . and not in a good way. Shocked

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 11 2009 10:07 pm

ED picked either a perfect day or a horrible day to shut down and beg for donations...

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

UsaSatsui wrote:

ED picked either a perfect day or a horrible day to shut down and beg for donations...

I found that to be LULZY, for the irony!!!

Posted: May 11 2009 10:29 pm

Wikipedia does have a liberal bias. It is not blatant, but is there. Scandals and controversies involving liberal politicians get less coverage on Wikipedia than ones involving conservative ones.

Conservapedia is certainly not the answer though. In fact, it's fucking embarassing.

Posted: May 11 2009 10:43 pm

Those disgust me.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 11 2009 11:35 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Wikipedia does have a liberal bias. It is not blatant, but is there. Scandals and controversies involving liberal politicians get less coverage on Wikipedia than ones involving conservative ones.

Conservapedia is certainly not the answer though. In fact, it's fucking embarassing.

Wikipedia has a liberal bias because the users have a liberal bias (and in general, the internet as a whole does). The bias isn't the Wiki, it's the users.

There's also the fact that when a scandal hits a conservative, there's usually a good dose of irony in there too, since they're the ones who aren't supposed to do that stuff. Let's face it, Barney Frank soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom doesn't have the same punch.

Posted: May 12 2009 12:18 am

I like going on ED, but I would shoot myself if I ever accessed the 4 others.

Title: Alexz Aficionado Joined: May 21 2008 Posts: 2889

The funniest thing about all this, is that, at the end of the day Wikipedia is just a website.

A highly $$$$ worth website, but just net space at the end of the day.

Posted: May 12 2009 12:31 am

UsaSatsui wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

Wikipedia does have a liberal bias. It is not blatant, but is there. Scandals and controversies involving liberal politicians get less coverage on Wikipedia than ones involving conservative ones.

Conservapedia is certainly not the answer though. In fact, it's fucking embarassing.

Wikipedia has a liberal bias because the users have a liberal bias (and in general, the internet as a whole does). The bias isn't the Wiki, it's the users.

There's also the fact that when a scandal hits a conservative, there's usually a good dose of irony in there too, since they're the ones who aren't supposed to do that stuff. Let's face it, Barney Frank soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom doesn't have the same punch.

By the same token if a liberal politician was caught beating his wife or rambling about how poor black people are aweful people, that would have the same ironic effect.

Not that thats quite happened yet. Give it about eight years, for liberals to get nice and comfy like a bad roommate. The manners dissapear and all of a sudden its like every other one will be like mauling strippers and inhaling coke off of american flags.

Posted: May 12 2009 12:31 am

I was just reading that article today! Surprised

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 12 2009 01:13 am

Ghandi wrote:

The funniest thing about all this, is that, at the end of the day Wikipedia is just a website.

A highly $$$$ worth website, but just net space at the end of the day.

Also, the sky is blue and cats are assholes. What is your point?

Posted: May 12 2009 04:23 am

UsaSatsui wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

Wikipedia does have a liberal bias. It is not blatant, but is there. Scandals and controversies involving liberal politicians get less coverage on Wikipedia than ones involving conservative ones.

Conservapedia is certainly not the answer though. In fact, it's fucking embarassing.

Wikipedia has a liberal bias because the users have a liberal bias (and in general, the internet as a whole does). The bias isn't the Wiki, it's the users.

I agree. Think Wikipedia is too liberal? Quit bitching and do some edits yourself. If all conservatives complaining about the liberal bias just spent more time editing Wikipedia and less time bitching to themselves, the bias wouldn't be there. We keep you in check, you keep us in check and everybody's happy. You can also shut up and ignore Wikipedia altogether and stick to googling information or go to a library.

My usual response to conservatives bitching about the liberal bias? "Don't you have anything better to do with your time than to bitch about an online encyclopedia that is also the seventh most popular website in the world"?

Of course as a so-called liberal, I'm oblivious to the lies and trickery of Wikipedia. Please provide any evidence of the bias on Wikipedia.

Posted: May 12 2009 10:58 am

The problem is you can't. Wikipedia has a complex, ridiculous bureaucracy in place. You had admins, quasi-admins, and people who think they're important because they've got ten barn stars on their user page. Even with proper citation and neutral tone, you cannot impose your will on Wikipedia if someone who has been there longer and has thousands of edits disagrees with you. They will revert your edits and call you a troll, and if you argue with them, they'll find a way to get you either banned or temp-banned.

Also, Wikipedia isn't necessarily "too liberal". It's not like I read it and I feel like I'm suddenly listening to some douchebag Air America commentator. But it is certainly a little to the left of neutral.

Posted: May 12 2009 11:13 am

Why do people assiociate liberalism with left-wing politics? While I agree, most political parties with liberal views happen to be left-wing, but leftism (is that a term?) isn't necessarily all liberal. We do have a conservative left-wing party here in Poland - they are classified as far left because of their economic policies (which are interesting, to say at least - less urbanization, focusing on environmental issues and more funding for farms), for example.

Yet, they are against anyone who isn't a white catholic.

Posted: May 12 2009 12:03 pm

We don't really have anything like that in America. There's no political party that's for national healthcare AND closing off the Mexican border.

The extreme left in American is myopic, socialist, and spendthrift, the extreme right is racist, ignorant, and reactionary. Luckily, neither one has any real power.

Posted: May 12 2009 12:40 pm

I'm for gay marriage + adoption, no one telling anybody what to do, total separation of church from state and a society based on a simple principle: "You leave me alone and I leave you alone, but by golly your way of living is different from mine, mind explaining it to me so I can get to know you better and so I can broaden my horizons?" Where does that put me on the political spectrum?

If people were more open-minded and about stuff, it would be so much better. Too bad pretty much everyone grows up in a hostile environment we call "school".

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

You're socially liberal. You didn't mention anything about your opinion on economics, so I am unable to classify you as either a liberal/Democrat in US terms or a libertarian.

I've noticed in discussing politics with Europeans that they are confused by our use of the word "liberal". Europeans tend to think of the classic, 19th century definition, which is basically just pro-democracy. Americans use "liberal" to describe our left-wing, so that gets confusing with Europeans sometimes. Especially since both of our Democrats and Republicans are liberals according to the classic definition.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 12 2009 02:01 pm

I always thought of "liberal" as in favor of bigger government and more services.

And the Wikipedia bias isn't in the system itself...if the majority of users were conservative, or Nazi, or Eskimo, it would have that bias. It's a flaw they know about, and do try to counter (at least in theory).

And if you ever need an "in" on those arcane Wikipedia policies, ask me. I'm well entrenched there. Very Happy

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

Nekkoru wrote:

I'm for gay marriage + adoption, no one telling anybody what to do, total separation of church from state and a society based on a simple principle: "You leave me alone and I leave you alone, but by golly your way of living is different from mine, mind explaining it to me so I can get to know you better and so I can broaden my horizons?" Where does that put me on the political spectrum?

If people were more open-minded and about stuff, it would be so much better. Too bad pretty much everyone grows up in a hostile environment we call "school".

I hate to tell you this, but the way American politics are set up, it's hard for people to be open minded because we only have a 2 party system. There really is little room for anything like give a little to liberals and give a little to conservatives and everyone is happy, at the end somebody loses out. You find very few (who will admit it) leftists who have some rightest views and vis versa because it's all about the votes. America changes with the times, it's never always on the left or right and because of that the candidates of one of the two parties have to appeal to whatever the modest America is leaning towards.

It's funny how our system is less complicated when it comes to voting for officials (either democrat or republican) and yet because of this 2 party system it makes things way more complicated then you would think.

I would suggest looking into the history of american politics, on more then just wikis though. Something this complex really can't be understood over night.

Posted: May 12 2009 02:26 pm

Cattivo wrote:

You're socially liberal. You didn't mention anything about your opinion on economics, so I am unable to classify you as either a liberal/Democrat in US terms or a libertarian.

I've noticed in discussing politics with Europeans that they are confused by our use of the word "liberal". Europeans tend to think of the classic, 19th century definition, which is basically just pro-democracy. Americans use "liberal" to describe our left-wing, so that gets confusing with Europeans sometimes. Especially since both of our Democrats and Republicans are liberals according to the classic definition.

You always take a perfectly good word, then warp it to shit and expect the whole world to use it.

See: Football. Which EVERYWHERE ELSE HAPPENS TO BE KNOWN AS "Rugby played by pussies in armor". True.

Also: I am officially old.

Posted: May 12 2009 02:30 pm

Yeah, we also invented peanut butter, automobiles, Ghostbusters, and nuclear weapons.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

Posted: May 12 2009 02:54 pm

You also invented obesity in poor people.

Plus, you should be hanged for nukes.

And the first automobile was invented in the eighteenth century in France by Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot. Unless you'll blame that on liberal bias as well.

And CANADIANS invented Peanut butter. Quit stealing everyone's inventions, you bastards.

And quit with that miles, ounces and pounds bullshit.

Posted: May 12 2009 03:04 pm

George Washington Carver likely invented peanut butter first. He never bothered to patent or market most of his peanut uses.

You're right abou the car, but Henry Ford invented the affordable automobile, via the invention of assembly line mass production. And what did Europe ever do with mass production? Oh, that's right, death camps. </lowest common denominator>

The British invented that, we just keep using it. The metric system is for babies, anyway. Waaaaah, I need all my measurements in powers of ten, otherwise my feeble brain can't remember them.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 12 2009 03:04 pm

Nekkoru wrote:

And CANADIANS invented Peanut butter. Quit stealing everyone's inventions, you bastards.

Canadians are Americans with an unwarranted sense of independence.

And it beats being Russia's welcome mat.

(is the This Is A Joke

really needed? Better use it anyways)

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Nekkoru wrote:

You always take a perfectly good word, then warp it to shit and expect the whole world to use it.

Languages naturally evolve. It's a fact of life. Deal with it.

Nekkoru wrote:

See: Football. Which EVERYWHERE ELSE HAPPENS TO BE KNOWN AS "Rugby played by pussies in armor". True.

We used to play it without a lot of armor - but peoples' heads were crushed. Even with protection now, tons of QBs get debilitating concussions, and everyone is subject to the possibility of career-ending injuries. Excuse us for looking out for our players' health.

Nekkoru wrote:

You also invented obesity in poor people.

Free will is free will. The government cannot and should not prevent people from making the foolish decision to continue eating even when they're full. Or continue to buy more through their credit cards with money they don't have.

Nekkoru wrote:

Plus, you should be hanged for nukes.

They would have been invented by someone eventually, and probably by a country less liable to use them responsibly - like Nazi Germany.

Also, their use saved millions of Japanese and American lives by making a full-scale invasion of Japan unnecessary.

Nekkoru wrote:

And the first automobile was invented in the eighteenth century in France by Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot.

Almost every country has a claim to the invention of the auto.

Nekkoru wrote:

And quit with that miles, ounces and pounds bullshit.

Why do you even care how we measure our own crap?

Furthermore, what does any of this huge digression that you created have to do with wikipedia? Syd only said they have a slight liberal bias, and then you proceed to go into an anti-American tirade. Relax. Have a shot of vodka, and go to bed.