Comments on: Wikipedia founder launches political site

Hopes Campaigns Wikia will help politics "start to be about substance and thought, rather than style and image."

[michaelbolzenius]

cool

thats it. hope it works well.

[michaelbolzenius]

cool

thats it. hope it works well.

[solomonrex]

classic

The founder of the website best known for libel, shiftiness and liberal politics proclaims his new political site will be non-partisan and about substance. I'm signing up now.

Because I'm sure they'll look at, among other topics, the presidency of George Bush and the Iraq war in cold, hard light of facts without emotional bias or pandering to their editorial and donor bases, just like real politicians do all the time.

I love how liberals trumpet bipartisanship (moveon.org, wikipedia, nytimes.com), but completely disregard anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

[heartsinaustin]

selective use of the facts

In your rant against "editors" you seem to not know that on wikipedia everybody can edit the articles in order for the system to work. Sure some people distort the facts. I equally despise that if it is done on purpose with no regard to intellectual honesty. However I believe most things on wikipedia to be fact, I am always doing my best to double check things I read. With that said I believe the you and others that im grouping together on the right would benefit from using a little more intellectual honesty.

[solomonrex]

classic

The founder of the website best known for libel, shiftiness and liberal politics proclaims his new political site will be non-partisan and about substance. I'm signing up now.

Because I'm sure they'll look at, among other topics, the presidency of George Bush and the Iraq war in cold, hard light of facts without emotional bias or pandering to their editorial and donor bases, just like real politicians do all the time.

I love how liberals trumpet bipartisanship (moveon.org, wikipedia, nytimes.com), but completely disregard anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

[heartsinaustin]

selective use of the facts

In your rant against "editors" you seem to not know that on wikipedia everybody can edit the articles in order for the system to work. Sure some people distort the facts. I equally despise that if it is done on purpose with no regard to intellectual honesty. However I believe most things on wikipedia to be fact, I am always doing my best to double check things I read. With that said I believe the you and others that im grouping together on the right would benefit from using a little more intellectual honesty.

[fafafooey]

Why another site - Wikipedia is already a political site

He's already let Wikipedia be taken over by liberals.

So this site is going to be "nonpartisan"?

"Nonpartisan" is a code word for "liberal".

What's he going to do to keep in "nonpartisan"?

What happens when the rabid liberal marxists/socialists, and the nuts from Kos take it over with their tinfoil hat "everything is Bush's fault" posts? Delete their posts?

[YankeePoodle]

too judgemental

>>He's already let Wikipedia be taken over by >>liberals.
Anyone can edit wikipedia, if there is sufficient citation and information they can back up what is being stated with.

>>"Nonpartisan" is a code word for "liberal".
I have to disagree with you, Nonparisan may be code word for many things, but that does not prove any point.

>>What's he going to do to keep >>in "nonpartisan"?
The lifeblood of the site is neutrality and equal oppurtunity for folks left, right and center. If the site becomes another "Fox New Fad", people would go to their own comfort sites, which dont state they are "fair and balanced".

>>when the rabid liberal marxists/socialists, >>and the nuts from Kos take it over with their >>tinfoil hat "everything is Bush's fault" >>posts? Delete their posts?
From your statements, I feel you wont be impressed unless Bill Orielly or sean hannity edits the posts and comments, but I think any thing that exceeds it "political and intellectual" limits, would be deleted, but again we have to wait and see.

To sum it up, you are rushing to judgement, and I would counsel patience and cold hard facts in any of your future posts.

adios.

[fafafooey]

Why another site - Wikipedia is already a political site

He's already let Wikipedia be taken over by liberals.

So this site is going to be "nonpartisan"?

"Nonpartisan" is a code word for "liberal".

What's he going to do to keep in "nonpartisan"?

What happens when the rabid liberal marxists/socialists, and the nuts from Kos take it over with their tinfoil hat "everything is Bush's fault" posts? Delete their posts?

[YankeePoodle]

too judgemental

>>He's already let Wikipedia be taken over by >>liberals.
Anyone can edit wikipedia, if there is sufficient citation and information they can back up what is being stated with.

>>"Nonpartisan" is a code word for "liberal".
I have to disagree with you, Nonparisan may be code word for many things, but that does not prove any point.

>>What's he going to do to keep >>in "nonpartisan"?
The lifeblood of the site is neutrality and equal oppurtunity for folks left, right and center. If the site becomes another "Fox New Fad", people would go to their own comfort sites, which dont state they are "fair and balanced".

>>when the rabid liberal marxists/socialists, >>and the nuts from Kos take it over with their >>tinfoil hat "everything is Bush's fault" >>posts? Delete their posts?
From your statements, I feel you wont be impressed unless Bill Orielly or sean hannity edits the posts and comments, but I think any thing that exceeds it "political and intellectual" limits, would be deleted, but again we have to wait and see.

To sum it up, you are rushing to judgement, and I would counsel patience and cold hard facts in any of your future posts.

adios.