Comments on: Wikipedia + MSNBC = Bias Squared? http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:34:39 +0000 hourly 1 By: eMuse5 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-221235 eMuse5 Fri, 04 Feb 2011 04:50:04 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-221235 That being said, I do stand by Wikipedia as a good go-to source of information. Heck, in college I used it to study for tests--which I got good grades on, in case you were wondering! Awhile back AJ Jacobs started an experiment to test Wikipedia's reliability by submitting an article that he intentionally filled with errors. Within a couple days all errors had been corrected. That being said, I do stand by Wikipedia as a good go-to source of information. Heck, in college I used it to study for tests–which I got good grades on, in case you were wondering! Awhile back AJ Jacobs started an experiment to test Wikipedia's reliability by submitting an article that he intentionally filled with errors. Within a couple days all errors had been corrected.

]]> By: eMuse5 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-221234 eMuse5 Fri, 04 Feb 2011 04:48:56 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-221234 "Wikipedia is precisely the sum of those who are willing to contribute to it. The problem is not the medium but that conservatives haven't been interested enough to balance the flow of information. It's our failing to correct that which we can counter as unfounded or incorrect." Well said, Sean. I completely agree. There is absolutely no reason that Wikipedia should contain liberally-biased information as long as conservatives can read. And there is certainly no reason to complain about it either when you can literally fix the words on the page. Unlike at, say, the Huffington Post. I myself have done my part by removing instances of biased or emotionally charged language (all you journalists know what I'm talking about) when I see it. I have found that 99 out of 100 times this is the problem, rather than facts themseves being inaccurate (feel free to correct me if you have hard evidence). "Wikipedia is precisely the sum of those who are willing to contribute to it. The problem is not the medium but that conservatives haven't been interested enough to balance the flow of information. It's our failing to correct that which we can counter as unfounded or incorrect." Well said, Sean. I completely agree. There is absolutely no reason that Wikipedia should contain liberally-biased information as long as conservatives can read. And there is certainly no reason to complain about it either when you can literally fix the words on the page. Unlike at, say, the Huffington Post.

I myself have done my part by removing instances of biased or emotionally charged language (all you journalists know what I'm talking about) when I see it. I have found that 99 out of 100 times this is the problem, rather than facts themseves being inaccurate (feel free to correct me if you have hard evidence).

]]> By: Balifv http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-87638 Balifv Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:19:59 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-87638 http://wikibias.wordpress.com examples of wiki bias, especially in being led by dominat Arab Islamic radical lobby. http://wikibias.wordpress.com examples of wiki bias, especially in being led by dominat Arab Islamic radical lobby.

]]> By: Sean http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-39843 Sean Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:20:58 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-39843 Wikipedia is precisely the sum of those who are willing to contribute to it. The problem is not the medium but that conservatives haven't been interested enough to balance the flow of information. It's our failing to correct that which we can counter as unfounded or incorrect. Neglecting Wikipedia for Conservapedia just enhances the problem of media partisanship to yet another format and increases the delusional insularity of both sides. Truth is born in the crucible of debate, not in delivering rhetoric to a mirror. We can't force MSNBC to do this, but we CAN edit wikipedia. By providing thoughtful analysis and credible evidence to discount baseless claims or counter opposition arguments we better the format that the entire -world- reads rather than preaching to a very small choir. Let's stop complaining about Wikipedia's bias and start fixing it. Wikipedia is precisely the sum of those who are willing to contribute to it. The problem is not the medium but that conservatives haven't been interested enough to balance the flow of information. It's our failing to correct that which we can counter as unfounded or incorrect. Neglecting Wikipedia for Conservapedia just enhances the problem of media partisanship to yet another format and increases the delusional insularity of both sides. Truth is born in the crucible of debate, not in delivering rhetoric to a mirror. We can't force MSNBC to do this, but we CAN edit wikipedia. By providing thoughtful analysis and credible evidence to discount baseless claims or counter opposition arguments we better the format that the entire -world- reads rather than preaching to a very small choir. Let's stop complaining about Wikipedia's bias and start fixing it.

]]> By: History Lessons for Chris Matthews and Ron Reagan Jr. « NewsReal Blog http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-9578 History Lessons for Chris Matthews and Ron Reagan Jr. « NewsReal Blog Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:04:06 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-9578 [...] your radio show for allegedly not knowing what it was. However, the Bush quotation is still up on Wikipedia; check it out before your left-wing friends change the [...] [...] your radio show for allegedly not knowing what it was. However, the Bush quotation is still up on Wikipedia; check it out before your left-wing friends change the [...]

]]> By: Rhinox http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-9577 Rhinox Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:34:04 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-9577 There's a cure for this. www.conservapedia.com It's a conservative version, but it's a hell of a lot more accurate than wiki. They have great articles too. There’s a cure for this.

http://www.conservapedia.com

It’s a conservative version, but it’s a hell of a lot more accurate than wiki. They have great articles too.

]]> By: Joseph White http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-9576 Joseph White Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:31:05 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-9576 The problem with Wikipedia is that facts can be added, deleted, or changed by just about anybody. Other than that, it's a good pedia for the regular joe. The same could be said about NBC/MSNBC They are both the mouthpieces for someone else. Objective journalism on the Big 3 is a dead art. The problem with Wikipedia is that facts can be added, deleted, or changed by just about anybody. Other than that, it’s a good pedia for the regular joe.

The same could be said about NBC/MSNBC They are both the mouthpieces for someone else.

Objective journalism on the Big 3 is a dead art.

]]> By: Brad Lytle http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-9575 Brad Lytle Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:17:01 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-9575 David Swindle - I'm not the only one to question Wikipedia as a reliable source, as you can see. David Swindle – I’m not the only one to question Wikipedia as a reliable source, as you can see.

]]> By: Evergreen78 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-9574 Evergreen78 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:43:42 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-9574 Awww! I love wikipedia! I realize that their info is not carved in stone, but it's still a good place to start. Awww! I love wikipedia! I realize that their info is not carved in stone, but it’s still a good place to start.

]]> By: In the know http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/09/15/wikipedia-msnbc-bias-squared/#comment-9573 In the know Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:28:04 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=8112#comment-9573 Wow...Shuster must be a Republican, he is white and has short hair. Wow…Shuster must be a Republican, he is white and has short hair.

]]>