Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Wikipedia - popular information service controlled by shady weirdos?
Calum:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html
you do occasionally see things like this. basically wikipedia's website is that popular that if they control the content on it, that content becomes, in many people's minds, "the truth".
what does this mean for the "real" truth and how it can survive?
--- Quote ---If you ask Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne what's going on, they'll tell you the ban is part of much larger attempt to discredit their views on naked shorting. They believe that a small group of people is using Wikipedia as means of controlling public opinion.
"When you think of how the public consciousness of an issue can develop, one of the first things that's going to happen in today
--- End quote ---
worker201:
In a way that's true. I mean, nothing can be the real truth, so of course Wikipedia can't. They do have an enormous effect on the way things are presented, though.
But is that a bad thing?
Here's the link to the Naked Shorting page at Wikipedia. It briefly mentions that Overstock was involved in a lawsuit, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the whole page. Seems okay to me. It's not like Wikipedia is somehow denying the truth by not providing a soapbox for Bagley and Byrne. It's not like Wikipedia is somehow denying the truth by not having a page dedicated to the details of that suit either.
A case can be made that the things that are being left out are either not part of the objective truth, or not important to the overall general truth. One can get a pretty good beginner's grasp of the issue without knowing what is missing. It's when you want to go deeper that the opinionated and detailed sources become important. Wikipedia is a first stop, not a one-stop. A better question would be whether it succeeds in this capacity or not. I think it does.
Calum:
hmm, that's true.
or is it?
davidnix71:
Wikipedia isn't about The Truth. That's the real problem. They try to pretend to be "open-minded" and "balanced" but that's not always good journalism.
Scientology is treated with kid gloves. Not only is the COS in the next city over from Wiki headquarters, but they tend to sue. Now either the claims of COS are true or they aren't. If they aren't, then you aren't doing anyone a favor by not pointing that out. All Hail Xenu! :|
Same problem with the Tata air car. It's pretty easy to do the math and demonstrate that it won't work as advertised unless the laws of physics change, but Wiki doesn't have the cohones to just call it for what it is.
worker201:
--- Quote from: davidnix71 on 17 June 2009, 04:24 ---Scientology is treated with kid gloves. Not only is the COS in the next city over from Wiki headquarters, but they tend to sue. Now either the claims of COS are true or they aren't. If they aren't, then you aren't doing anyone a favor by not pointing that out. All Hail Xenu!
--- End quote ---
That's not a fair example, because talking about Xenu would be similar to posting the Coca-Cola formula - it's a protected trade secret, whose secrecy has been upheld in court many times before. Wikipedia would be breaking the law to speak the truth about Scientology.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version