I hate the media. It's a bull shit machine. It amplifies rumor and paints the appearance of reality with soundbytes. I mean the whole media, FOX not excluded, in case you're wondering. Honestly, I can't tell the difference 90% of the time. The networks all cover the same stories, they just have different headlines. AP and Reuters is all we really have.
And newspapers. Like the New York Times! I feel like 85% of the time they don't know a brick from a magic brownie. What has sent me off on this latest rant? Their latest attack on something I like very much: Wikipedia.
Yes. The free online open-source encyclopedia. I would think that a website with the goal of giving free knowledge to all of mankind for everyone's benefit would be popular with everyone. If not, I would think it would be liberals who would come out in favor of it, since generally liberal ideology is more caring and results-oriented, I guess I would say. Distributing free knowledge created by our collective knowledge is more a communist idea than a capitalist one. I mean, it's FREE.
And yet the libertarian bordering on anarchist within me can't help but shake my fist at the dillusional NYTimes for their close-minded, slanted coverage and publicity about the evil article posted about one of their editors never mention that THE GUY IS 78 AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY HE HASN'T JUST GONE AND SIMPLY EDITED THE ARTICLE *HIMSELF*.
Anyone can edit wikipedia. ANYONE. This is not a story, or an event, it's just stupid idiocy! Gah!!
Sorry. Deep breath. Count to 10. Okay I'm better now. Anyway, extremely extremely interesting (and concise) article on Wikipedia and the nature of truth by cnet:
http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+and+the+nature+of+truth/2010-1025_3-5979331.html
rant complete.... for now....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
go becky!
obviously some people just dont get it. they don't even know what it is. thats how out of it they are.
wikipedia rocks! i just love the fact that if i go to the bobby mcferrin website ("don't worry be happy" guy) they link to wikipedia to define Sabbatical. check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatical
hehehe wiki wiki
hehe that is pretty good. The BEST thing about wikipedia is that you can actually READ and then UNDERSTAND the stuff they write. it's what encycopedias were meant to be! certainly its not necessarily reliable - let's not build nuclear reactors from plans posted on wikipedia - but when is ANYTHING on the internet. or anywhere for that matter.... can one really ever know the truth.... ;)
yeah wikipedia is definitely one of the best websites in the world.
despite my unapologetic liberalness (although i suppose i'm rather apologetic about it at times), the nytimes has really gotten on my nerves over the past few years as well, and that wikipedia article really epitomized why. it completely missed the whole point! if the guy was unhappy with his entry, he could have changed it! or gotten his grandson to change it! it's sort of like not voting in an election and then complaining about who got elected.
this vindicated wikipedia though, as far as i'm concerned.
wow thanks! and i don't care what they say, wikipedia is far more readable than most encyclopedia's i've read.
it occurs to me now that wikipedia may have the best of both political persuasions. free access to information for everyone--kept accurate by good old competition between authors... there may be hope for this country after all! thanks wikipedia! ;)
Post a Comment