Spyware Warrior

bigos · Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: A false Wikipedia 'biography'

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." — Wikipedia
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/usatoday.html
Something smells at Wikipedia.
_________________

Life is for living not just for prolonging!
B uzzz

Oldfrog · Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject:

leader · Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject:

Oldfrog · Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject:

There is a great deal of potential in the Wiki concept, both for excellence and abuse. I take anything on Wikipedia with a grain of salt until I have independently established the credentials of the contributors. That is not an indictment of Wikipedia as much as it is a commentary on the quality of information available on the internet as a whole. Yes, so much is available, and for free, but we use it at our own risk and certainly need to veryify the veracity through multiple sources.

My personal experience with Wikipedia was very short and less than satisfactory. I found them far more interested in procedural issues and heirarchical ranks than in veracity of information.

Crap Wear Worrier · Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject:

My experience was probably similar to Oldfrog’s. Some of the info is excellent, some is complete bo**ox, written by someone who had no idea and just cribbed bits of crap from somewhere else – but it all boosts their post count.

(Yes, a bit like this post, I guess Very Happy

)

A better alternative? …hm, now, there’s a question.

Doug Taylor · Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject:

It is my experience that the web is rewriting history. I really can’t go into great detail because this isn’t the forum to do so. However, I have read about the UN security council and that China was once removed from the UN security council and thrown out of the UN completely it’s permanent seat given to Chiang Kai-shek of Taiwan (at that time.) I read this on the UN site in ’95, but can no longer find it. Nor do any web searches find mention of it. What I find vilifies Chiang Kai-shek many years ago that wasn’t the case. I am old enough to remember the UN taking the permanent membership away from Chiang Kai-shek and I remember thinking “how could we do this to our friend.” The internet is manipulating our thoughts, what we believe we need to be very mindful of it.

With our Lord’s blessings take care,

Doug

hornet777 · Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject:

Wouldn't these be examples of zealous or over-zealous individuals, rather than some cabal to overthrow what das Man tells us to "believe"? Frankly, I think indoependent thought is to be encouraged over blind belief, which leads to other sticky questions regarding "truth," ... <ahem>. You are right, DT: this isn't the place Smile

.

Doug Taylor · Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject:

That depends on how big a nutcase or conspiracy theorist one is. Smile

I’m a bigger nutcase then I am a conspiracy theorist, but . . . wait . . . hmm . . . Rolling Eyes

I do believe there are many over zealous people in the world; have they formed a cabal? The answer to that depends on what red neck or liberal you listen too.

As for independent thought I could say that is what got us into this mess, but where would we be without it . . . automatons in a garden somewhere.
With our Lord's blessings take care,

Doug

Oldfrog · Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject:

Doug Taylor · Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject:

aBenG · Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject:

Crap Wear Worrier · Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:25 am Post subject:

Can't say I noticed any plots, just badly researched info. If Wikipedia can't be consistently reasonably accurate it discredits the whole site.

hornet777 · Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject:

Well then, perhaps such things that to all appearance had been determined long ago, and are no longer worthy of question, just might be so after all... ? This will require thinking.

leader · Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject:

With all that has been said, since the articles themselves should be taken with a grain of salt can the outside links provided be trusted? Question

_________________
(' Angel

') Jeremiah 20:9, Mark 12:30, and Romans 10:9-11, 13. (' Angel

')

Crap Wear Worrier · Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:31 am Post subject:

hornet777 · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject:

I am embarrassed to admit that I only actually read the Wiki article yesterday, and that until then I had assumed a lot of things from the contexts of the replies already here.

Its really one thing to simply have a wide-ranging, yet alternative point of view, and quite another to practice libel out of sheer malice, which as the article evolved, appears to be the overall objective of it in the first place.

I myself have been on the receiving end of vicious character assassination attacks, so I am totally sympathetic with the plight of Mr Seigenthaler.

That said, I remain open on the question, and have to be for philosophical reasons. I give both sides forebearance, even though the slanderer clearly has some sort of agenda.

I have learned that if it is truth we want, in general, it makes more sense to stay on the side of questioning, for when one commits to an answer, all truth's possibilities are withdrawn.

There was one humourous moment, amidst all the seriousness: turns out that Mr Kennedy was mighty tasty. (See bottom of article: its only funny in that context, because its so unexpected.)

Oldfrog · Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:44 am Post subject: