Comments on: Fox News Caught Sabotaging Wikipedia Entries

By: gg_ryder

gg_ryder — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:39:51 +0000

The “Wiki” pages are the best thing since sliced bread. But because they’re open-ended you have to keep ANY information on them at arms length. I did find something which apeared to be an historical account of something I know didn’t happen the way it is claimed to have but didn’t feel the need to correct it because it was someone elses “interpretation” of what they thought happened and nothing else!

By: docholliday

docholliday — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:47:07 +0000

Gee! I wonder if Faux News and their stable of Rove “talker” readers are O.K. with Big Brother watching now????????

In any case, there is an underlying point here. Perhaps, the developers and sponsors of Wikipedia had it in mind all along. All authoritative information and data should be checked and reviewed by the reader for corroborating sources and for personal bias of the poster.

You can’t alway believe anything displayed in bitmapped digital displays, or ptinted on paper, or broacast.

If you could, the national debt would be rapidly shrinking, we would be celebrating the return of or troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, we would be watching Osama bin Laden and his cronies on trial at the Hague for terrorism and crimes against humanity or Bush and Rove would be handing out 24×36 full color posters of the execution. . . . unfortunately that is only occuring in the fevered day dreams and imaginations of the Ineptocrat-in Chief and his overwhelming minority of loyal Busheviks.

Wikipedia and the graduate student with the digital internet address database have exposed again a old universal truth . . . Caveat Emptor! Hopefully by the next elections , more of us will be searching skeptic of the unsubstantiated prattle of greedy politician and pundits,

By: Jack Winn

Jack Winn — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:15:34 +0000

NOOOOO! You are missing the point. Wikipedia strives to maintain its credibility as an entity that SEEKS factual information from its readership and wants its entries to be as factual as all of us can possibly make them. If you honestly can’t see the difference between the two entries in the case at hand (Franken), then your head isn’t really in the game.

By: Jack Winn

Jack Winn — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:45:40 +0000

Please tell me, Jim, what is :self aggrandizing ” in the phrase “literally laughed out of court” or the phrase “wholly without merit”?
What is the difference you ask? Well if I said that 2 plus 2 is 5 I would be wrong. If I said 2 plus 2 is 500,ooo I would be laughingly or pathetically wrong…like you are in your comments above.

By: Jim Hanzelka

Jim Hanzelka — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:32:29 +0000

So other than characterizing NPS as a liberal biased media outlet, which it is, and changing Al Franken’s highly self aggrandizing comments to a more objective statement (and not indicating they were direct quotes), What’s the issue.

By: Kellie Hastings

Kellie Hastings — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:26:37 +0000

UNBELIEVABLE! But this doesn’t surprise me. I’ve read various things about how media controls what we see or read on the news also. Scary world out there. Many untrusting writer sites also.
Check these facts about Helium

By: Jack Winn

Jack Winn — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:19:21 +0000

The reason that Farken’s comments are such pathetically banal and meaningless drivel is that he is really FRANKEN (get it) trying to be as ignorant and clueless and humorless as his critics. He is making fun of himself and his supporters by posing as a typical Fox viewing, kool aid drinking, dunderhead!

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:11:26 +0000

This only serves to further weaken the status of Wikipedia as a definitive neutral observer. In the process of smearing Wikipedia, Fox has smeared itself. I mean if you can’t rely on truthfulness, what good are these organizations at all?

By: Notsoclueness

Notsoclueness — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:50:56 +0000

Loren has uncovered a real truth here: some people will try to make their point, push their agenda, etc. ad nauseum anytime and place they can. Was Fox the first, who know? Were they the only? Not even close. So why the concern when a news agency tries to do the same thing that other new agencies like CNN, PBS, MSNBC, etc. have or other organizations like both the DNC and RDC have done? I’ll tell you why I think the concern ranks the title this blog has: I believe it’s because the originator either dislikes the perpetrator (of this instance) or likes the one(s) he/she considers to have been befouled by this or a combination. Sadly, if it’s genuine outrage – it’s naivete in the nth degree – because as others have said – it’s VERY common. Is it right? No. Is it common: yes, so unless you want to start pointing your fingers at your own pet organizations, quit acting so outraged. And while wikipedia is a decent quick source, it is but by no means a definitive one.

By: obiefrommuskogee

obiefrommuskogee — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:03:19 +0000

I see the denial folks and the “so-whatters they do it too” are out in force today. These people evidently never took a basic psychology course (of course not, it’s a social “science” and may conflict with some egocentric belief they have). The words are projection, denial, and rationalizatoin. Look them up.