I know everything; I'm omnivorous. (Except for fish.)
Truth be told, I've seen the term, but I hate the whole idea of there being
no information-gathering system in the entire world in which people are not
forced to hammer out some kind of consensus.
So, no: I haven't checked it out--there's something creepy to me about
giving up the ghost of a search for objective (semi-objective) truth without
even trying. One is tempted to ask, "why don't we all just crawl into our
caves and never exchange ideas at all?" But of course, many people live that
way.
On the other hand, I'd love to see an alternative to Wikipedia that doesn't
share its bias against electronic publishing in general, and blogs in
particular: most of the editors there seem to worship the printed word, as
if that guarantees accuracy of a given source . . . and, come on, now: any
magazine or newspaper is only as good as its research department in that
regard, and book publishers don't usually employ fact-checkers at all.
When I have any kind of a question, I usually consult
Free-Markety-But-Not-Randian-Nutcasy-Pro-Western-Values-Trending-Conservative-on-Economic-Issues-But-Liberal-on-Social-Concerns-Pedia.
And none other!
With all information sources, the buyer should beware. Indeed, some would
say that the buyer of political thought has a duty in that regard.
--J
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, alexm_94109 <aemelnick_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Okay, maybe everybody else has already seen this, but I've only just
> discovered conservapedia.com, a Wikipedia-esque site devoid of Wikipedia's
> "liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors." The article on
> Obama (http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama) is either sad or
> hilarious.
>
>
>
--
Joy M. McCann
Goddess of Ink and Paper
(But pixels obey me, too.)
Mistress of proofreading, fact-checking,
Line-editing, and copyediting
Copy Write Editorial Services
818/429-9806
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on 2009-04-10 19:26:19