milkkbone: blog 
milkkbone's blog
wiki wars - what do you think?
Published Apr. 12, 2008
With the presidential elections luming months away, one could understand how political debates will continue to proliferate to new heights in the never-ending (and perhaps hopeless) battle to determine who America should vote as the next President. Naturally, with the prominence of technology continually rooting itself deeper into oulives it would come without surprise that proponents and critics of each candidate would resort to the world wide web to spread their knowledge, ideas, and opinions on each candidate. However, I was initially rather amused when I heard that one of the biggest current battle fronts of political debate is occurring on non other than WIKIPEDIA. This, mainly being made possible by the notion that the articles are written and verified for factual accuracy by the people, and with enough people knowledgeable on the subjects in question, that the truth will undoubtedly surface. Haha, not the case here hoever. Proponents of each candidate have been going on a rampant battle dubbed the "Wiki wars" to make their candidate look picture-perfect in their article while slandering the others:
Just to note a few highlights: 1) Obama is a member of a Muslim extremist sect 2) Hillary Clinton is a white supremacist 3) John McCain started a fire on a ship years ago that claimed the lives of 100 people (not to mention nearly killing himself)
Just wondering what everyones opinions are with respect to supporters of candidates taking measures such as these? Does it matter? Do any of you even turn to wikipedia for help on voting? My opinion? These people need to getting a frickin life.....seriously wikipedia??....oh yeah that'll really stick it to those libs/conservatives!
close
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
Is that why studies prove Wikipedia to be more factually correct than the Encyclopedia Brittanica, despite having more articles?
GOLO member since August 16, 2007
April 14, 2008 9:24 a.m.
GOLO member since March 10, 2008
April 13, 2008 6:05 p.m.
I saw someone put on there hitler was a devout Christian which is absurd. He was athiest to the core but when his fate was inevitable he starting using christians as propeganda but nobody fell for then.
Not to get off subject, Wiki makes it easy to re-write history.
GOLO member since January 20, 2008
April 13, 2008 9:20 a.m.
Even so, I would never trust Wikipedia for 'facts' other than narrow scientific or geographical articles. Some articles in organic chemistry, for example, are considered top notch by people I trust (I know little about the area).
GOLO member since January 29, 2008
April 12, 2008 8:57 p.m.
I just saw this article on CNN telling about wiki encyclopedia and the ones who have to make sure the facts are true that are put up. It was stated by the man who is in control of this wiki encyclopedia that all three of these facts are false. McCain was on the ship when it caught on fire but he was not the cause of the fire
GOLO member since July 7, 2007
April 12, 2008 8:48 p.m.
GOLO member since November 14, 2007
April 12, 2008 8:30 p.m.
GOLO member since October 18, 2007
April 12, 2008 8:14 p.m.
GOLO member since February 6, 2008
April 12, 2008 7:37 p.m.
well...the same should be said about the candidates...it seems to work for them... :)
April 12, 2008 7:28 p.m.
GOLO member since March 10, 2008
April 12, 2008 7:27 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.