Flymph
Life of the Party
And some day this shall be your reward!
With Our Already High Fuel Prices This Is Really Going To Hit The Pocketbook
- Thread starter Old406Kid
- Start date
- Status
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
Nothing is more important to environmental preservation in America is a thriving economy. At the moment cheap gas is vital to a thriving economy.
The last thing we need is people poaching all our wildlife in order to survive and burning all our trees to stay warm..
We need cheap gas until EVs and the infrastructure are an actual solution.
I was unaware of widespread poaching going on for survival, this is news to me.
Reading many of your ever so thoughtful posts.....it does seem you are frequently unaware.
Jk
Griswald
Steelhead
What are you doing besides complaining about it…
dflett68
Steelhead
we can stick with the facts after we get them in the first place.
1. the first study (working paper) referenced by the newsmax article is accurately but gratuitously quoted out of context by newsmax, and is not actually focused on whether wikipedia is left or right - but on whether a community format brings more bias than the britanica format (paid experts). their conclusions focus more on their success (compared to other platforms) in bringing opposing views together and increasing moderation rather than extremism. something tells me that neither the newsmax "journalist" nor mike read the study. here's a quote from the conclusion section of the study:
"Our results suggest that, in comparison to expert-based knowledge, collective
intelligence does not aggravate the bias of online content when articles are substantially
revised. This is consistent with a best-case scenario in which contributors with different
ideologies appear to engage in fruitful online conversations with each other, in contrast to
findings from offline settings (e.g., Mullainathan and Shleifer 2005). In that light, we think this
is an important and novel finding.
But, of course, collective intelligence does not always achieve its ideals. The absolute
level of bias of Wikipedia articles remains higher than that of Britannica content, and varies
considerably across content categories"
wikipedia's success is based on the principle that more contribution tends to weed out extremism and drive nuetrality, and that their shortfall is that there is not enough contribution and participation to drive out all bias on all subjects. if you believe the study (and you must because you referenced it, mike) you have to conclude that means that, rather than a bias from wikipedia, there is a lack of good-faith, moderate participation from the right on wikipedia.
2. the second study is also a working paper which is getting after the same basic themes. whereas the newsmax take is "indoctrination pushed harder by the left and leftists", the words of the researchers are a little less provocative and a lot less extreme. the word "leftist", btw, appears nowhere in either of the harvard papers:
from the abstract:
"Our findings show that shifts in the composition of participants
account for 80% to 90% of the moderation in content. Contributors tend to contribute to
articles with slants that are opposite of their own views. Evidence suggests that
encountering extreme contributors with an opposite slant plays an important role in
triggering the composition shift and changing views. These findings suggest that collective
intelligence becomes more trustworthy when mechanisms encourage confrontation
between distinct viewpoints. They also suggest, cautiously, that managers who aspire to
produce content “from all sides” should let the most biased contributors leave the collective
conversation if they can be replaced with more moderate voices"
from the conclusion:
"Wikipedia has a long record of bringing opposing opinions into the same conversation. Over time,
Wikipedia has become less biased. Our study finds that this change is partly due to an ideological shift,
where contributors contribute less slanted content over time. It is also due to a composition shift, where
extremely biased contributors contribute less content over time. Contributors interact with opposite
viewpoints and do so more frequently than participating in ECs. Extreme contributors either become more
moderate or tend to leave after interacting with an opposite-slant content or encountering pushbacks from
others."
3&4. the third and fourth, ahem, "studies" (come on mike, you're better than this) are links to entries in some guy's blog devoted entirely to attacking wikipedia. can't make this stuff up - a news organization "citing" this dude's blog as a "study" alongside papers from harvard academics. sensational. mike, i'm just going to hope you didn't bother to check these. or maybe it is your blog? you do have some history with wikipedia, if i recall. have an axe to grind too?
5. (this keeps getting more and more comical mike, honestly). the fifth "study" is a link to an article in an online magazine called "the critic". the article is written by "two american academics" writing under pseudonyms (which is what all academics trying to get their "studies" reviewed and published would do) - but here's the best part - this article actually cites another study.... well, not another exactly, cause it is, in fact, the first study from the two harvard academics referenced previously in the newsmax article. fucking fantastic!!!
so, to sum up: newsmax tells readers wikipedia is biased left (leftist, to be more precise), citing 5 studies - but actually referencing only two. from those two, it utterly rips a couple quotes out of context and ignores the purpose and conclusions of the studies so it can claim their authority for their breathless headline 3 times. mike is either complicit or never checks citations.
Well admittedly I was unaware there are multiple reasons for not wanting to be eaten alive by a bear, but frankly one reason is enough one would think.Reading many of your ever so thoughtful posts.....it does seem you are frequently unaware.
Jk
I live pretty far out in the woods, so if widespread poaching for survival and burning all the trees for heat was happening, I'm not so unaware that I woudn't notice, I mean... it's not like I was homeschooled or something like that.
A
Anonymous member 148
Guest
During the great depression many game animals were wiped out in areas due to hungry people. And we're snowballing towards some tough times at the moment. I see Robs point.I was unaware of widespread poaching going on for survival, this is news to me.
Have you got some more info? Which game animals, and where? I have been reading about this kind of stuff all my life and this is news to me.
Dustin Chromers
Legend
The buffalo and the jackalope were among the casualties of our economic policy lengthening the depression into the great depression. I believe it was FDR who said, "nobody will remember a regular depression. We gotta make this depression great."
I have a Jackalope shoulder mount, kinda feel bad about it since they are now long gone, but am comforted knowing the elephants foot trash can under my fly tying bench (where the polar bear, heron, and other endagered species parts can be collected so they don't clog the vaccuum) are still around.
Dustin Chromers
Legend
Ah yes, the other red meat.
Birds Arent Real
THE OFFICIAL SITE of the BIRDS AREN'T REAL movement. Wake yourself up from the lie. Resist the bird drones that steal your information and spy on you. Tell others about the truth that you've discovered. TOGETHER WE CAN CHANGE HISTORY AND REGAIN OUR SANITY.
birdsarentreal.com
Old406Kid
Legend
Whether you believe there is a left leaning bias on WP or not, this particular WP list lays out the communities’ position on the reliability of an entire locus of sources. Not many, if any, conservative sources make the cut, while CNN, MSNBC and many other clearly liberal leaning sources are considered reliable. What conclusion do you draw from that?
Dustin Chromers
Legend
Surely your past career as a teacher gave you many effective tools to deal with unruly students like myself as only I can hope my current career prepares me for the coming days ahead.
I've often thought a card system publicly for members of the forum would be good. You are on white card if you are behaving. Then comes the pink card. A mere warning. Then the red card, a true demerit. After that is the purple card, then the brown, and finally the black card. When a conference is in order and a members posting is restricted if not revoked. I find a public social credit system works well in a school setting and in settings beyond. China does it. We could be more like China. That shining bastion of prosperity to the east. You'll never find a cleaner main Street. We could clean up the forum. One card at a time.
- Status