Re: WIKIPEDIA

Subject: Re: WIKIPEDIA
From: Lauren <lauren -at- writeco -dot- net>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:15:27 -0800

On 2/10/2011 2:47 PM, Al Geist wrote:
> However, it is a great information transfer medium.

It is a good resource for finding other information (when citations are
provided), but it is not a good resource for relying on information.

> "Wikipedia lacks credibility because anyone can edit it regardless of
> whether they have qualifications."
>
> Several years ago that may have been true, but Wikipedia is now moderated.
> You have to be approved before you can make edits to existing material and
> nothing gets posted without going through some form of checking. This was in
> response to political hacking a few years back where political resumes were
> embellished beyond belief, or hacked to the point of libel. Wikipedia
> changed the rules because it's credibility was at stake.

There is only *some* moderation on Wikipedia. I have contributed to
content to the pages of animal rights corporations when the content
available was not true. Animal rights corporations like PeTA, HSUS, and
ASPCA do not support animal welfare, in fact they typically oppose
animal ownership, use, and control. Corporations like the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), provide content for themselves to
represent themselves has having animal welfare interests when their
interests are primarily lobbying and marketing.

For example HSUS has collected donations for work in Haiti, Hurricane
Katrina, and Michael Vick's dogs, but they only imported two dogs from
Haiti that were not owned by their associates, they abandoned dogs from
Hurricane Katrina by leaving them in crates, and they killed Michael
Vick's dogs, including puppies born after their mothers were rescued.
When people post the truth about corporations like HSUS, such as the
current IRS investigation against HSUS for its tax fraud and some RICO
issues, then those posts are deleted by the animal rights activists who
maintain the animal rights propaganda pages.

We would have to be absolutely foolish to believe that Wikipedia is held
to the same scrutiny as a printed and published encyclopedia. Political
lobbyists, like animal rights corporations, can freely post their
propaganda on Wikipedia, even when a weighing of the facts fails to
support the animal rights agenda.




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.
http://www.doctohelp.com

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:
http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l-chat


Follow-Ups:

References:
WIKIPEDIA: From: RÃdacteur en chef
RE: WIKIPEDIA: From: Ed
RE: WIKIPEDIA: From: Porrello, Leonard
RE: WIKIPEDIA: From: Dan Goldstein
RE: WIKIPEDIA: From: Porrello, Leonard
Re: WIKIPEDIA: From: Lauren
RE: WIKIPEDIA: From: Al Geist

Previous by Author: Re: WIKIPEDIA
Next by Author: Contracts
Previous by Thread: RE: WIKIPEDIA
Next by Thread: RE: WIKIPEDIA


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads