Slashdot Mirror
When Wikipedia Fails
PetManimal writes "Frank Ahrens of The Washington Post looks at how Wikipedia stumbles when entries for controversial people are altered by partisan observers. Case in point: Enron's Kenneth Lay, who died of natural causes last week, shortly after being sentenced to prison. His Wikipedia entry was altered repeatedly to include unfounded rumors that he had killed himself, or the stress from his trial had caused the heart attack. From the article: '... Here's the dread fear with Wikipedia: It combines the global reach and authoritative bearing of an Internet encyclopedia with the worst elements of radicalized bloggers. You step into a blog, you know what you're getting. But if you search an encyclopedia, it's fair to expect something else. Actual facts, say. At its worst, Wikipedia is an active deception, a powerful piece of agitprop, not information.'"
I am not a conspiricy theorist...
Now you are. Congratulations on the shiny new hat.
"What distinguishes FOX News is that it reports both the Left and Right sides of issues."
Yes for example it examines whether liberals hate america or whether they are merely terrorists.
I have also heard heated debate on fox news as to whether Hillary Clinton was "pure evil" or merely "very evil".
Finally I don't think anybody could argue that fox news gives both sides of the important debates on science such as "theory" of evolution vs creationism, the contrversy over global warming and such. Both sides of those issues are to be treated with the same amount of respect.
evil is as evil does
Continually modded up. Think carefully about what that means for a second.
So... you're saying that the community has an ideological bias towards complaining about Slashdot's moderation system?
Wait, no, because your comment got modded up, too. Argh! Now I'm confused, which way is the bias?!