tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3695911547116301280.post6587116300556489718..comments2023-11-05T04:31:37.215-07:00Comments on <center>SBVOR</center>: Let the Whitewashing BeginSBVORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02393495680438358951noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3695911547116301280.post-28406985089431202212009-03-10T09:34:00.000-06:002009-03-10T09:34:00.000-06:001,Some Wiki entries are better than others. This e...1,<BR/><BR/>Some Wiki entries are better than others. This entry on Obama is not the first case where I have detected inexcusable bias.<BR/><BR/>But, would you refuse to read the <A HREF="http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html" REL="nofollow">WSJ Opinion Journal</A> simply because they publish <A HREF="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655553728965955.html" REL="nofollow">the thoughts of Laura Tyson</A>?<BR/><BR/>P.S.) Call me PC, but I declined to publish your comment on Cherry Jones. I just didn’t find it relevant. I hope you understand.SBVORhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02393495680438358951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3695911547116301280.post-29825953875494258382009-03-10T03:49:00.000-06:002009-03-10T03:49:00.000-06:00"Wikipedia - and the cited references - is often a..."<I>Wikipedia - and the cited references - is often a good place to begin an investigation</I>"...<BR/><BR/>You know <B>SBVOR</B> I used to think myself until I was far to often <B><I>mislead</I></B> on a variety of subjects ranging from economics, to politics, to the global warming hoax... So now when I use a search engine I'm quick to add to the search terms, '<B>- wiki</B> since I don't even want to waste the time scrolling past all the wiki results that always come up...<BR/><BR/>In the for what its worth (<I>and I'm not sure its worth much considering the subject</I>) we have the following from WND that was linked on the Drudge Report: <A HREF="http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114" REL="nofollow"><STRONG>Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility</STRONG></A><BR/><BR/>The one thing about the WND article/propaganda that I did find interesting and most damning about wikipedia was the following:<BR/><BR/><B>Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio</B> <BR/><BR/>'<I>The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant</I>'...<BR/><BR/>How did wiki clowns think they were going to get huge numbers of people to forget about the following courtesy of <A HREF="http://www.popmodal.com/" REL="nofollow"><STRONG>PopModal</STRONG></A>?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.popmodal.com/video/378/GOD-DAMN-AMERICA-Rev-Jeremiah-Wright-Farrakhan--Obama" REL="nofollow"><STRONG>Rev. Wright</STRONG></A>...juandoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01656743466655157652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3695911547116301280.post-36130768080636302442009-03-09T14:17:00.000-06:002009-03-09T14:17:00.000-06:001,In general, I find Wikipedia to be quite useful....1,<BR/><BR/>In general, I find Wikipedia to be quite useful. However, no source - Wikipedia included - is immune to bias. And, no one source is the be all and end all gold standard. Wikipedia - and the cited references - is often a good place to begin an investigation.<BR/><BR/>Wikipedia requires users to cite references to substantiate their assertions. That is a good thing. However, in this case, Wikipedia has - in my opinion - betrayed their own standards.<BR/><BR/>One could - on the margins - MAYBE debate how relevant the relationship is between Ayers and Obama. Personally, I find the relationship to be very relevant. And, I find the radical nature of Obama’s first month in office - as well as what little history he brought with him - to further affirm just how relevant that relationship is.<BR/><BR/>However, any attempt to whitewash the relevance of Obama’s multi-decade relationship with Reverend Wright would be laughable if it were not so damn SCARY!SBVORhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02393495680438358951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3695911547116301280.post-92019681977698985512009-03-09T13:15:00.000-06:002009-03-09T13:15:00.000-06:00Well I've never understood why people use wikianyt...Well I've never understood why people use wiki<I>anything</I> as a supposed source of <B>credible</B> material since the main flaw is that it depends on users' honesty...<BR/><BR/>Is there such a creature as a honest liberal? <BR/><BR/>Yes, there are a few around that I would read such as <A HREF="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/default.aspx" REL="nofollow">Mickey Kaus</A> and <A HREF="http://dir.salon.com/topics/camille_paglia/" REL="nofollow">Camille Paglia</A>...<BR/><BR/>This is <B>NOT</B> to say that they don't make mistakes or that I agree with what they have to say but compared to some of the other libtards out there whining like spoiled brats, these two are the Diogenes of their world...juandoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01656743466655157652noreply@blogger.com