| |
| ▲ | duskwuff 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Despite anything he may say about himself, Larry Sanger is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "the founder of Wikipedia". He was a paid employee of the project in 2001; his involvement with the site ended in early 2002 when funding for the position ran out. His experience with the site nearly 25 years ago does not make him an authority on how it is run today. | | |
| ▲ | SanjayMehta 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wikipedia’s article on Sanger calls him cofounder and credits him with its name: “ Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/ ⓘ;[1] born July 16, 1968) is an American Internet project developer and philosopher who co-founded Wikipedia along with Jimmy Wales. Sanger coined Wikipedia's name, and provided initial drafts for many of its early guidelines, including the "Neutral point of view" and "Ignore all rules" policies.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger | | |
| ▲ | duskwuff 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Co-founder" is debatable, but he certainly wasn't "the founder" of the site. Regardless - whether you choose to describe Sanger's early involvement with Wikipedia as a "founder" or not, 2002 was a long time ago, especially online. The site which he was involved with was very different from the one which exists today. | | |
| ▲ | SanjayMehta 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree. Wikipedia used to be a useful starting point for almost any research. Today, not so much. I can’t remember where I read it, but there was an analysis of just one topic where it was shown that circular referencing was used to establish a narrative. Coming back to the point at hand: the US attorney targeting Wikipedia is merely restating allegations which have been made by many others on Wikipedia’s biases for and against certain topics and individuals. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Loughla 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | His argument is that Trump is being criticized more for being controversial than Obama. Honestly. Is Trump not more controversial than Obama? | | |
| ▲ | hagbard_c 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, that depends on your viewpoint. Those who come from a "democrat" background will certainly consider Trump to be more controversial than Obama while those from a Republican background will see Obama - especially second-term Obama - as far more controversial than Trump. Independents will vary on their interpretation but Obama is not likely to end up in the history books as the 'Change agent' he promised to be and will mostly likely be seen as partly responsible for the deterioration of race relations in the USA due to his use of and support for identity politics in a (successful) attempt to win a second period by cobbling together the 'coalition of the oppressed'. How Trump will end up in the history books wholly depends on whether he succeeds in his attempts to curtail globalism and save the USA from becoming insolvent due to the rising debt. If the economy fails his presidency will as well and with that he'll be remembered for all the controversy around his political career. If he succeeds he'll be seen as a 'realpolitiker' who pulled the USA out of the downward spiral it had been in since ... the late 90's? The end of the cold war? Of course there is also the chance of a large-scale conflict breaking out during his watch in which case his place in the history books also depends on how that ends. Time will tell. | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Obama is not likely to end up in the history books as the 'Change agent' he promised to be and will mostly likely be seen as partly responsible for the deterioration of race relations in the USA That's a fantasy. His mere existence in the position, contradicts the premise. Hillary hoped to be in a similar position...history would have also been kind to her, despite her vicious nature by the obvious virtuous implications (a woman can become POTUS). | |
| ▲ | habinero 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > partly responsible for the deterioration of race relations in the USA This is just a euphemism for "he was black in public and lesser white people didn't like it". | | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, that's not accurate. When people talk about the "deterioration of race relations", they're referring to a well-documented phenomenon (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx) where poll respondents say race relations are bad (and trending downwards) since 2015 while they were good from 2001 to 2013. I'm skeptical that Obama bears any responsibility for this, given that the trend didn't start until his second term, but it's a real trend and not a euphemism. | |
| ▲ | lurk2 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's hard to take you seriously when you employ 'democrat' background and Republican as contrasting terms. Referring to the Democratic party and its supporters is more easily effected by saying [the] Democrats. This sort of baity rhetoric undermines any aspirations to objectivity. | | |
| ▲ | hagbard_c 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can look through (and may already have done so) my comment history for my explanation for putting "democratic" between quotes. In short it is because the party is not democratic and thus should not be called such. Had they been democratic they'd have run Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton, they'd have had primaries where there were none, they'd have allowed people like RFK and Tulsi Gabbard to have a shot at the candidacy (and might have won the presidency that way, more fool them). The "democratic" party is run by the DNC, not by its constituents. It does not listen to those constituents, the people or 'δημος' ('dèmos', Greek for 'municipality' or 'city', i.e. the people) in 'δημοκρατία'. If and when the party becomes true to its moniker I'll call them by their chosen name, until such a time they're the "democratic" party. Truth in advertising is a good thing after all. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | techpineapple 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, as described in the blog post, I would imagine the median Fox News viewer to find Wikipedia biased. But the median Fox News viewer is not the median American, much less median world citizen. But no seriously, having finished reading it, this article is incredibly Christian-centric and Americentric. | | |
| ▲ | jimt1234 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's always Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedia.com | |
| ▲ | nailer 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Regarding the missing topics mentioned in the article (updated to quote them for convenience): The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump.
For example, the September 11 attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi objectively happened - few people on the left or right would pretend they did not happen or that were not notable events of Barack Obama’s presidency (as the article discusses).This is not a matter of whether you watch Fox News or not. | | |
| ▲ | clipsy 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Have you bothered to do any sort of comparison as to how similar attacks are reported? At a quick glance, I see nothing on George W Bush's wiki page[0] about the 2002 consulate attack in Kolkata[1], for example. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_attack_on_American_cultur... | | |
| ▲ | duskwuff 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not that it's necessarily wrong for it to not be listed there, though. The article on GWB is about him and what he did as president - it isn't meant to be a complete history of the United States between 2001 and 2009. | | |
| ▲ | clipsy 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree -- which is also why the absence of Benghazi on Obama's wiki page is not, in my view, a sign of bias. |
| |
| ▲ | nailer 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How is that remotely similar? There was not a scandal implicating George Bush regarding the Kolkhata attack. | | |
| ▲ | clipsy 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | What scandal implicated Obama in the Benghazi attack? Be precise. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | techpineapple 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh look! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack They creatively censored it under the title “2012 Banghazi Attack” | | |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The article is nonsense. It links to Obama's Wikipedia page and complains Obama's page doesn't talk about Benghazi. But Obama's Wikipedia page links to a huge article about.... Benghazi. So his complaint is what, the article about Benghazi isn't summarized on Obama's Wikipedia page? Weak sauce. | | |
| ▲ | nailer 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | > So his complaint is what, the article about Benghazi isn't summarized on Obama's Wikipedia page? No. His complaint is: > The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi Visit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Read: > Libya > Main articles: 2011 military intervention in Libya and 2012 Benghazi attack > In February 2011, protests in Libya began against long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Arab Spring. They soon turned violent. In March, as forces loyal to Gaddafi advanced on rebels across Libya, calls for a no-fly zone came from around the world, including Europe, the Arab League, and a resolution[378] passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate.[379] In response to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 on March 17, the Foreign Minister of Libya Moussa Koussa announced a ceasefire. However Gaddafi's forces continued to attack the rebels.[380] > On March 19, a multinational coalition led by France and the United Kingdom with Italian and U.S. support, approved by Obama, took part in air strikes to destroy the Libyan government's air defense capabilities to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly-zone,[381] including the use of Tomahawk missiles, B-2 Spirits, and fighter jets.[382][383][384] Six days later, on March 25, by unanimous vote of all its 28 members, NATO took over leadership of the effort, dubbed Operation Unified Protector.[385] Some members of Congress[386] questioned whether Obama had the constitutional authority to order military action in addition to questioning its cost, structure and aftermath.[387][388] In 2016 Obama said "Our coalition could have and should have done more to fill a vacuum left behind" and that it was "a mess".[389] He has stated that the lack of preparation surrounding the days following the government's overthrow was the "worst mistake" of his presidency.[390] The link is there (I don't know how long it's been there but don't care to investigate), but there is no text about the Benghazi attack on the US Embassy - just other topics. Many people can and would criticize Barack Obama and his then-Secretary of State for inaction to protect the embassy from an attack the embassy saw coming. |
| |
| ▲ | nailer 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The article above that we are discussing discusses the omission of the Benghazi attack as an aspect of Barack Obama‘s presidency. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cogogo 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I actually clicked this link in good faith. Glad to see the downvote I can’t make arrived. | | |
| ▲ | hagbard_c 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why are you glad for a downvote? Just because you don't agree with Sanger's point of view does not make it less worthwhile to read about it. Censorship is not something to be glad about and yes, downvoting opinions outside of your desired narrative until they are greyed out into oblivion or killed is a form of censorship. |
| |
| ▲ | 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | aingling 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly, he sees the problem clearly. And this article was five years ago. It's become even more entrenched now. There's basically no way of fixing this. We can see similar problems with other sites that rely on volunteer labor, like Reddit. |
|
