3
   

Who is editing wikipedia?

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 08:31 pm
old europe wrote:
I'm somewhat perplexed. I mean, this kind of mindset


Foofie wrote:
Yes, citizens are not supposed to criticize their respective governments, if the government doesn't value that criticism.


Foofie wrote:
Who says I love "freedom"? I believe freedom can also result in mob rule or total chaos.


Foofie wrote:
I think "correct regimentation" can be a good thing.


Foofie wrote:
"Don't bit the hand that feeds you," reflects the concept of gratitude.



would make you the perfect subject of any random regime you could come up with. People who believe that authority should not be criticised. People who believe that freedom is not necessarily desirable. People who believe that curtailing freedoms is a good thing. People who think that gratitude to those in power is a virtue.


It's O.K. not to understand everything and better if you admit it. That's a sign of humility.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 08:35 pm
nimh wrote:
Yes, he's a good little servant..


You talk like being a servant is negative?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 08:38 pm
blatham wrote:
Foofie wrote:
blatham wrote:


Could you then please clarify for the rest of us Foofie, just where your noble American citizenship principle comes from?


My mother. She also advised, "When in Rome do as the Romans do."

I think what you may not "get" is who I am historically. If you haven't figure it out, I like the mystery. But, I assure you, there are others who have.


I hope you are braver than this in other aspects of your life.


Don't talk as though you know me.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 11:18 pm
Foofie wrote:
blatham wrote:
Foofie wrote:
blatham wrote:


Could you then please clarify for the rest of us Foofie, just where your noble American citizenship principle comes from?


My mother. She also advised, "When in Rome do as the Romans do."

I think what you may not "get" is who I am historically. If you haven't figure it out, I like the mystery. But, I assure you, there are others who have.


I hope you are braver than this in other aspects of your life.


Don't talk as though you know me.


But we do know some things about you, foofie. That's why you are here, engaged on a public political discussion board...to share yourself, your ideas and your political principles. You brought yourself in here and said, not without pride, "This is who I am."

Nothing wrong with that, of course, it describes all of us.

But you took the coward's way out by not answering my question above. Your political 'principle' - it is a citizen's proper role and duty to never criticize one's nation or leaders - appears to stand in clear and direct opposition to American political traditions and values as demonstrated by the numerous voices I offered you from many truly great Americans. You didn't rise to the challenge. You hid.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 09:40 am
blatham wrote:
Foofie wrote:
blatham wrote:
Foofie wrote:
blatham wrote:


Could you then please clarify for the rest of us Foofie, just where your noble American citizenship principle comes from?


My mother. She also advised, "When in Rome do as the Romans do."

I think what you may not "get" is who I am historically. If you haven't figure it out, I like the mystery. But, I assure you, there are others who have.


I hope you are braver than this in other aspects of your life.


Don't talk as though you know me.


But we do know some things about you, foofie. That's why you are here, engaged on a public political discussion board...to share yourself, your ideas and your political principles. You brought yourself in here and said, not without pride, "This is who I am."

Nothing wrong with that, of course, it describes all of us.

But you took the coward's way out by not answering my question above. Your political 'principle' - it is a citizen's proper role and duty to never criticize one's nation or leaders - appears to stand in clear and direct opposition to American political traditions and values as demonstrated by the numerous voices I offered you from many truly great Americans. You didn't rise to the challenge. You hid.


I have my position and I have no desire to debate, beyond what was previously said. I don't answer your questions, because I don't want to interact with you specifically. You are being snubbed in cyberspace!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 09:55 am
And a hurtful event it is too.

Perhaps someone else, unsnubbed, will provide you the opportunity to demonstrate that something more honorable than intellectual shame and cowardice are motivating your position there, behind mom's dress.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 11:13 am
Foofie wrote:
I have my position and I have no desire to debate, beyond what was previously said.


Ah?

Okay. Bye.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 03:50 pm
Back to the original question: Who is editing Wikipedia?

No one.

To decide a bet I looked up Neil Diamond on Wikipedia. --- Check out first sentence under "Early Life and Career"

Sorry but I can't manage a link with the blackberry. It's worth a quick search though.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 08:06 pm
Neil's mom is deceased. Who else would care?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 11:39 pm
blatham wrote:
Neil's mom is deceased. Who else would care?


Who cares, indeed.

Who cares about Neil in singular or in total?

Apparently I am wrong, someone(s) does edit Wikipedia.

If you had searched Wikipedia for Neil Diamond at about 4:00 pm Central, you would have found the first sentence under "Early Life and Career" to read "Neil 'My balls are TOO tight' Diamond was born and reared in New York City...."

Since then, some Wiki editor has made the entry less humorous and less accurate.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 12:30 am
That's a little bit funny. I'd give it a much greater than 50/50 chance that whoever did the original was from the same part of the US of A as the artist himself.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 12:36 am
blatham wrote:
That's a little bit funny. I'd give it a much greater than 50/50 chance that whoever did the original was from the same part of the US of A as the artist himself.


No, it's a lot funny.

Climb down Old Son.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 02:04 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Since then, some Wiki editor has made the entry less humorous and less accurate.


"Talk" it was, the very same who did all alterrations and wrote the original article. (According to her/his IP-address from Vancouver - which doesn't mean a lot, since my address, for instance, is registered in New York ...))
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:43 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Since then, some Wiki editor has made the entry less humorous and less accurate.


"Talk" it was, the very same who did all alterrations and wrote the original article. (According to her/his IP-address from Vancouver - which doesn't mean a lot, since my address, for instance, is registered in New York ...))


Huh???

You crazy Teutons you...always seeking to obliterate the humorous or the mysterious by some sort of granular grid-work of precision. And yet it has so often led to a final ruling of mysticisim. How can this be?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:41 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Since then, some Wiki editor has made the entry less humorous and less accurate.


"Talk" it was, the very same who did all alterrations and wrote the original article. (According to her/his IP-address from Vancouver - which doesn't mean a lot, since my address, for instance, is registered in New York ...))


Huh???


The name of the editor is Talk, and you get all the other infos as well when you look it up at wikipedia.

So it's not "some editor" who has made it but just one, and the same, who wrote all that - from the very first appearance of the article online.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 07:19 am
Well.... THIS has been an interesting thread. On Sept 01 we deviated from "Who edits Winki?" to three weeks of America bashing and counter attacks thereunto pertaining, various ad hominum attacks, a lot of "my country is better than your country" (Na Na-Na Na Naaaah Naaaah!) and, of course, references to the Left vs Right conflict (apparently unresolable).

Not bad. Not bad at all. Despite a valient effort around the 21st of September to return to the subject, it soon degenerated back to the above.

Thank you, those who made reference to the subject at hand and gave me some information on the topic. The editing of Winki (ostensibly an encyclopediac sourse of information) causes the information therein to be suspect, in that one does not know the credentials of the editor.

By extension, this can be said of ANY sourse of information. That is why, in the intelligence field (my job for twenty years) one always attempts to verify everything through as many sourses as possible. (Even then, it is an educated guess. Embarrassed ) Not to mention gives one headaches from all the reading..... Laughing

The bad part is there are a lot of folks out there who never question anything in print, particularly if it coincides with their preconceived ideas of "Truth". (Or comes from their favorite political publication.) Hell, even statistics can be contorted via taken out of context and method of collection. Polls? Same thing, the mere wording of the questions can evoke different answers on the same topic.

Attacking one another is NOT the answer, nor does it solve any problems, nor does it allow potential good ideas/philosophy to filter through the rhetoric. Pointing out the problems.... anyone can do that. Pointing out the potential answers.... THAT is where we should be, if we consider ourselves reasonable, thinking beings.

Lastly, come the day that I am no longer able to criticise, or question, or even heap scorn on my country, as needed, is the day that I will request political asylum elsewhere. For that will be the day that America, as defined in the Constitution, will cease to exist.

Halfback

Fanatics of ANY sort are dangerous! (Old axiom of potential enemy identification)
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 05:47 pm
Attacking one another is NOT the answer, nor does it solve any problems, nor does it allow potential good ideas/philosophy to filter through the rhetoric.


I agree.
I have no time to consult this new padea.
Who ever correct or control this new development is liable for correction.
Commenerical inellectuals cannot replace
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 07:14 pm
Quote:
Thank you, those who made reference to the subject at hand and gave me some information on the topic. The editing of Winki (ostensibly an encyclopediac sourse of information) causes the information therein to be suspect, in that one does not know the credentials of the editor.


One thing that wiki attempts to do is make sure that the information is sourced. This gives you the opportunity to check the sources and see if they are credible.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 07:33 am
Funny story..

Quote:
Royals edited Wikipedia entry

Expatica
30 August 2007

THE HAGUE (AFP) - Controversial Dutch Princess Mabel and her husband Prince Johan Friso edited a Wikipedia entry about her to take out a reference that she had given false information to the government, the royal information service RVD confirmed Wednesday.

Several media outlets here reported that a computer with an IP address registered to the palace of Queen Beatrix amended a sentence in the entry saying that Mabel had given "incomplete and false information" to the government over her relationship with drugs lord Klaas Bruinsma.

It was changed to say she had given "incomplete information".

The RVD confirmed the changes late Wednesday and said it was the couple themselves who had changed the entry in January last year.

The entry was quickly re-edited by another Wikipedia user who pointed out that the phrase "incomplete and false information" was a direct quote from Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende.

In 2003, when Prince Johan Friso announced his engagement to Mabel, the Dutch media quickly picked up on her past relationship with Bruinsma, who was killed in 1991.

She at first said she had only known him "vaguely" but later admitted to spending several nights on his boat.

The government forced Johan Friso to choose between his rights to the throne or his fiancee. He chose to renounce his rights and they were married in 2005.

Wikipedia is an "open-source" internet encyclopaedia, which is to say anyone with access to a computer can edit it.

After an American hacker unveiled a homemade program called Wikiscanner to pinpoint origins of Wikipedia edits earlier this month, it emerged that organisations such as the CIA, the Vatican and the Australian government had all made self-serving edits on the popular website.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2008 06:10 pm
http://www.partiallyclips.com/storage/20070219_KingAndJester_lg.png
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 01:29:45