"Web 2.0 (and Wikipedia) worse for right than it thinks"

[Tesha]

http://www.examiner.com/a-691054%7ERobert_Cox__Web_2_0_is_worse_for_the_right_than_it_thinks.html

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - For several years now, a common refrain
among left-wing online political activists has been “We need to
own the Internet the way the right owns talk radio.” Based on
recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, it looks
like the left has succeeded — with Democratic presidential
candidates as the primary beneficiaries.

Last fall in this space, I asked, “When will the right recognize
the cost of conceding Web 2.0?” With that cost now readily apparent
in the form of online campaign contributions for the 2008 presidential
campaign cycle, the only remaining question is whether conservatives
can do anything about it in time for the elections next fall. It
appears likely the answer will be a resounding no.

<snip>

Through its manipulation of search results, Google has anointed
Wikipedia as the preeminent source of information online which
raises the question: Who are the Wikipedians and what do they want?

Wikipedia’s own Countering System Bias Project describes the
typical Wikipedian as technically inclined, formally educated
white males between the ages of 15 and 49. A closer look reveals
a strong affinity for far-left politics. Many Wikipedians are
bloggers or regular readers of left-wing blogs.

Folks on the right would be well advised to start asking this
question. Having attended WikiMania 2006 last summer at Harvard
Law School, I can assure them they will not like what they find.

<end>

---

In fact, this author is, like most on the Reich, basically full
of shit. Wikipedia's political articles are under constant attack
by editors who have a blatant Right-Wing bias. Whether the topic is
global warming, gay rights, abortion rights, or articles about
Democrats and other liberals, they're constantly trying to counter
the serious problem (for them) that "facts have a left-wing bias".

I'd like to encourage everyone here to visit Wikipedia, register
a username, and help do your part to ensure the correctness
of the encylopedia. Don't try to impose a lefty bias, just make
sure the truth gets told and isn't sneakily edited out again.

Please note: Wiki's articles on both Democratic Underground
and Free Republic are currently on "article probation" as
a result of continual disruptive editing. You might do well
to AVOID editing those two articles.

Tesha

[Joanne98]

1. "Facts are subversive things" Ronald Raygun..

The rw will never win the internet war. They LIE too much.

[endarkenment]

2. Any media that they do not control "has a left wing bias".

When ideas are free to compete: the truth has a left wing bias, reality has a left wing bias. They cannot tolerate freedom.

[Tesha]

4. A serious problem for the Reichies is that Wikipedia is international...

A serious problem for the Reichies is that the community
of editors writing Wikipedia is a very international,
cosmopolitan community and the sort of bullshit that
Faux News spouts to such good effect here in 'Murica
simply is laughed down in Wikipedia.

But you can start to see the emergence of deliberate,
effective disinformation campaigns, some of them
just organized out of boogs and the like and others
likely attributable to big-time Right-aligned
think tanks. They can often edit in lies at a much
greater rate than their damage can be repaired.

Tesha

[City Lights]

5. That's it in a nutshell.

:thumbsup:

[LoZoccolo]

3. He's also off about Google manipulating results to favor Wikipedia.

I imagine that Wikipedia entries show up towards the top because there are a lot of links where the text of the link is the search term and the URL points to the definition of that term on Wikipedia.

[NashVegas]

6. Who Said "We Need to *Own* the Internet"?

It's the right most likely to use a phrase like that, IMO.

[ArmchairMeme]

7. Ownership

I recently read a novel that takes place in Australia during the time when England sent their prisoners there. The English were confounded by the behavior of the native Aborigines. They didn't have any interest in "owning" the land. They ate the food available to them whereever they were each day. They didn't wear clothes in the hot climate as the English did. So they slaughtered them. As if there is only one way of existing. I think also of the American Indians who lived a similar way to the Aborigines and they also were slaughtered. Also consider the lifestyle of the Arabs I believe many of them are also nomadic cultures.

I really enjoy being able to wander around the web and graze on what I find on a given day. I don't need to own it. I guess some are unable to understand that which is not exactly as they are.

[Tesha]

8. I guess I made a mistake by not making the title of this...

I guess I made a mistake by not making the title
of this

"OMG!!!! You have to read this NOW!!!"

Ahh well, live and learn.

Tesha

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. "Web 2.0" really puts me off as a phrase

but "OMG!!!" annoys me even more.

I think your point about Wikipedia being international is important - the ridiculous 'Conservopedia' had the absurd objection that there were too many 'British' spellings on Wikipedia - however many there are, I suspect that's because many of the cmome from Indians, Europeans and others who happen to use British spellings.

[NashVegas]

10. People Who Do That

Annoy the piss out of me. I rarely open a thread with a title like that.

Your worth on DU is not measured in response count.

[Jim Lane]

11. Wikipedia could and should be the perfect counter to the bias of the MSM

I spend much more time editing Wikipedia than I do posting here, where I'm preaching to the choir.

It seems that everybody's used to posting on message boards. If, instead, you decide to use the wiki software for collaborative editing, it takes some getting used to -- and even progressives can be "conservative" in their personal habits!

Still, I really wish that more DUers would make the effort. We have a lot of valuable information being posted here, being read by other progressives, and then vanishing into the archives. Meanwhile, Wikipedia, one of the 20 most-visited sites on the whole Web, is open to editing by anyone, regardless of whether you have a multimillion-dollar advertising budget.

In the MSM, the side with money has the advantage. On Wikipedia, the side with facts has the advantage. It's a great opportunity for us.

[redacted]

12. Examples?

Never thought about using WP like this before. If I'm going to donate my valuable time, I need to know I'm having an impact. Where specifically are some areas on Wikipedia that need help from DUers?

[Tesha]

13. Essentially, any article that is of interest to politicos.

> Where specifically are some areas on Wikipedia that
> need help from DUers?

Essentially, any article that is of interest to politicos.
Help add facts to the articles about Righties. Help remove
vandalistic edits from the article about lefties. Help make
sure that scientific articles stay based on science, and
not religion.

Tesha

[Jim Lane]

14. Some possibilities

You might pick one of the presidential candidates (Republican or Democratic) and monitor that one article. An advantage is that, over time, you'll see some of the same issues being raised on the article's talk page, and you can refer back to earlier discussions and decisions. Another advantage is that focusing on one article helps curtail the drain on your time. Wikipedia can be very addictive.

Among the leading candidates in both parties, Mitt Romney had the least national prominence before this year. seems to have gotten less attention than the others.

Another possibility is to look at articles on your local politicians who haven't yet made the national stage. Is there a Republican incumbent in your area who's part of the Culture of Corruption? That information may be missing. Is there a promising young progressive Democrat in the state legislature? He or she may not even have an article at all yet.

Or you can just pick one of this week's half-truths, distortions, or outright lies in the MSM. Call me crazy, but I bet you can find something. If you're willing to do a little work, and write up an explanation with a citation or two, you can tell Wikipedia readers about the facts that Katie Couric somehow didn't get to.

Any DUer who wants help with some aspect of editing Wikipedia, please feel free to PM me. One great thing about Wikipedia, though, is that you don't have to be perfect. If you add some good information but you foul up the formatting, someone else will come along and fix it. That's why Wikipedia's official guidelines urge editors to !