SourceWatch - Revision history

Jukeboksi: minor tweak on linking

2013-01-12T14:02:10Z

minor tweak on linking

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:02, 12 January 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Sourcewatch[http://sourcewatch.org .org]''', formerly '''Disinfopedia''', a [[large public wiki]], is ongoing effort to expose links between [[corporation\|corporate]] and [[politics\|political players]], very similar to Consumerium in structure:		'''Sourcewatch [http://sourcewatch.org (.org)]''', formerly '''Disinfopedia''', a [[large public wiki]], is ongoing effort to expose links between [[corporation\|corporate]] and [[politics\|political players]], very similar to Consumerium in structure:

	==SourceWatch Bias==		==SourceWatch Bias==

Neoconned: update

2006-10-16T00:35:39Z

update

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:35, 16 October 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Sourcewatch[http://sourcewatch.org .org]''', formerly '''Disinfopedia''', a [[large public wiki]], is ongoing effort to expose links between [[corporation\|corporate]] and [[politics\|political players]], very similar to Consumerium in structure:		'''Sourcewatch[http://sourcewatch.org .org]''', formerly '''Disinfopedia''', a [[large public wiki]], is ongoing effort to expose links between [[corporation\|corporate]] and [[politics\|political players]], very similar to Consumerium in structure:

	==~~Trollist view~~==		==SourceWatch Bias==
	~~'''Note: the following was written mainly by the lead [[trollist]], [[142.177.X.X]] and thus it propably exaggerates it's stand-point excessively as per the [[art of trolling]]'''~~

	~~Some claim that it~~ is not run very democratically:		SourceWatch is not run very democratically:

	It is effectively, a U.S. Democratic Party front, run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard". These form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended to engage them in editorial discussion.		It is effectively, a U.S. Democratic Party front, run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard". These form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended to engage them in editorial discussion.

Jukeboksi: run into edit conflict. adding a note about the article taking an extreme and excessively overstating view point on things

2005-08-27T17:07:54Z

run into edit conflict. adding a note about the article taking an extreme and excessively overstating view point on things

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 27 August 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Sourcewatch~~'''~~[http://sourcewatch.org .org], formerly '''Disinfopedia''', is ~~an attempt~~ to expose links between corporate and political players, very similar to Consumerium in structure:		'''Sourcewatch[http://sourcewatch.org .org]''', formerly '''Disinfopedia''', a [[large public wiki]], is ongoing effort to expose links between [[corporation\|corporate]] and [[politics\|political players]], very similar to Consumerium in structure:

	A [[~~large public wiki~~]] ~~which is devoted to exposing invisible links between power polayers~~. It is ~~however~~ not run very democratically:		==Trollist view==
			'''Note: the following was written mainly by the lead [[trollist]], [[142.177.X.X]] and thus it propably exaggerates it's stand-point excessively as per the [[art of trolling]]'''

			Some claim that it is not run very democratically:

	It is effectively, a U.S. Democratic Party front, run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard". These form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended to engage them in editorial discussion.		It is effectively, a U.S. Democratic Party front, run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard". These form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended to engage them in editorial discussion.

142.177.82.215: restoring edit deleted in so-called "correct" (obviously wrong) procedure

2005-08-27T16:57:29Z

restoring edit deleted in so-called "correct" (obviously wrong) procedure

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 27 August 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Disinfopedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] which is effectively a U.S. Democratic Party front~~. It is~~ run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard"~~, who~~ form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended.		'''Sourcewatch'''[http://sourcewatch.org .org], formerly '''Disinfopedia''', is an attempt to expose links between corporate and political players, very similar to Consumerium in structure:

			A [[large public wiki]] which is devoted to exposing invisible links between power polayers. It is however not run very democratically:

			It is effectively, a U.S. Democratic Party front, run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard". These form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended to engage them in editorial discussion.

	On some US-specific public policy issues, it often has good [[content wiki]] type information with good [[validation]] of sources. Put an article there not here to criticize someone or some company doing [[propaganda]] like [[greenwash]], e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]]. But expect it to be removed if it does not serve the current U. S. Democratic Party agenda, e.g. defeating Bush, denying that the [[Greens]] understand the issues and the solutions better, etc.		On some US-specific public policy issues, it often has good [[content wiki]] type information with good [[validation]] of sources. Put an article there not here to criticize someone or some company doing [[propaganda]] like [[greenwash]], e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]]. But expect it to be removed if it does not serve the current U. S. Democratic Party agenda, e.g. defeating Bush, denying that the [[Greens]] understand the issues and the solutions better, etc.
Line 5:		Line 9:
	If you can clearly link the case to some anti-Bush position, it'll probably stick. But that doesn't mean much. Partisan wikis tend to be not trusted:		If you can clearly link the case to some anti-Bush position, it'll probably stick. But that doesn't mean much. Partisan wikis tend to be not trusted:

	~~Disinfopedia~~ is by no means accepting of either [[neutral point of view]] nor [[New Troll point of view]]. It is simply a vehicle of the individuals who run it, and its pretence to openness is simply to make attribution of sources for various of its pet positions, easier. This is one approach to [[wiki management]] but it's not ideal for anyone who wishes to actually challenge [[w:propaganda~~]].~~		Sourcewatch is by no means accepting of either [[neutral point of view]] nor [[New Troll point of view]]. It is simply a vehicle of the individuals who run it, and its pretence to openness is simply to make attribution of sources for various of its pet positions, easier. This is one approach to [[wiki management]] but it's not ideal for anyone who wishes to actually challenge [[w:propaganda]].

	Censoring most of the articles on [[cognitive dissonance]], [[information warfare]], [[pro-technology propaganda]], and muting technical issues with respect to the use of propaganda itself (which might cast [[MoveOn.org]] for instance in an unfavourable light), has given Disinfopedia a poor reputation for objectivity or for academic scholarship. There is however some good coverage of some specific debates in [[energy]], [[Islam]], [[nanotechnology]] and [[emergency response]] issues, most of which seems to have been written by anonymous [[trolls]].

	~~http:~~/~~/disinfopedia~~.~~org~~		Censoring most of the articles on [[cognitive dissonance]], [[information warfare]], [[pro-technology propaganda]], and muting technical issues with respect to the use of propaganda itself (which might cast [[MoveOn.org]] for instance in an unfavourable light), has given Disinfopedia/Sourcewatch a poor reputation for objectivity or for academic scholarship. There is however some good coverage of some specific debates in [[energy]], [[Islam]], [[nanotechnology]] and [[emergency response]] issues, most of which seems to have been written by anonymous [[trolls]].

Jukeboksi: Reverted edit of 142.177.82.215, changed back to last version by Support a unified GFDL Corpus

2005-08-27T16:54:22Z

Reverted edit of 142.177.82.215, changed back to last version by Support a unified GFDL Corpus

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 27 August 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~#REDIRECT~~ [[~~Sourcewatch~~]]		'''Disinfopedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] which is effectively a U.S. Democratic Party front. It is run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard", who form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended.

			On some US-specific public policy issues, it often has good [[content wiki]] type information with good [[validation]] of sources. Put an article there not here to criticize someone or some company doing [[propaganda]] like [[greenwash]], e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]]. But expect it to be removed if it does not serve the current U. S. Democratic Party agenda, e.g. defeating Bush, denying that the [[Greens]] understand the issues and the solutions better, etc.

			If you can clearly link the case to some anti-Bush position, it'll probably stick. But that doesn't mean much. Partisan wikis tend to be not trusted:

			Disinfopedia is by no means accepting of either [[neutral point of view]] nor [[New Troll point of view]]. It is simply a vehicle of the individuals who run it, and its pretence to openness is simply to make attribution of sources for various of its pet positions, easier. This is one approach to [[wiki management]] but it's not ideal for anyone who wishes to actually challenge [[w:propaganda]].

			Censoring most of the articles on [[cognitive dissonance]], [[information warfare]], [[pro-technology propaganda]], and muting technical issues with respect to the use of propaganda itself (which might cast [[MoveOn.org]] for instance in an unfavourable light), has given Disinfopedia a poor reputation for objectivity or for academic scholarship. There is however some good coverage of some specific debates in [[energy]], [[Islam]], [[nanotechnology]] and [[emergency response]] issues, most of which seems to have been written by anonymous [[trolls]].

			http://disinfopedia.org

142.177.82.215: #redirect sourcewatch

2005-08-27T16:43:16Z

#redirect sourcewatch

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 27 August 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''Disinfopedia''' is a~~ [[~~large public wiki~~]] which is effectively a U.S. Democratic Party front. It is run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard", who form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended.		#REDIRECT [[Sourcewatch]]

	On some US-specific public policy issues, it often has good [[content wiki]] type information with good [[validation]] of sources. Put an article there not here to criticize someone or some company doing [[propaganda]] like [[greenwash]], e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]]. But expect it to be removed if it does not serve the current U. S. Democratic Party agenda, e.g. defeating Bush, denying that the [[Greens]] understand the issues and the solutions better, etc.

	~~If you can clearly link the case to some anti-Bush position, it'll probably stick. But that doesn't mean much. Partisan wikis tend to be not trusted:~~

	Disinfopedia is by no means accepting of either [[neutral point of view]] nor [[New Troll point of view]]. It is simply a vehicle of the individuals who run it, and its pretence to openness is simply to make attribution of sources for various of its pet positions, easier. This is one approach to [[wiki management]] but it's not ideal for anyone who wishes to actually challenge [[w:propaganda]].

	Censoring most of the articles on [[cognitive dissonance]], [[information warfare]], [[pro-technology propaganda]], and muting technical issues with respect to the use of propaganda itself (which might cast [[MoveOn.org]] for instance in an unfavourable light), has given Disinfopedia a poor reputation for objectivity or for academic scholarship. There is however some good coverage of some specific debates in [[energy]], [[Islam]], [[nanotechnology]] and [[emergency response]] issues, most of which seems to have been written by anonymous [[trolls]].

	~~http://disinfopedia.org~~

Support a unified GFDL Corpus at 11:28, 15 August 2004

2004-08-15T11:28:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 15 August 2004
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Disinfopedia is by no means accepting of either [[neutral point of view]] nor [[New Troll point of view]]. It is simply a vehicle of the individuals who run it, and its pretence to openness is simply to make attribution of sources for various of its pet positions, easier. This is one approach to [[wiki management]] but it's not ideal for anyone who wishes to actually challenge [[w:propaganda]].		Disinfopedia is by no means accepting of either [[neutral point of view]] nor [[New Troll point of view]]. It is simply a vehicle of the individuals who run it, and its pretence to openness is simply to make attribution of sources for various of its pet positions, easier. This is one approach to [[wiki management]] but it's not ideal for anyone who wishes to actually challenge [[w:propaganda]].

			Censoring most of the articles on [[cognitive dissonance]], [[information warfare]], [[pro-technology propaganda]], and muting technical issues with respect to the use of propaganda itself (which might cast [[MoveOn.org]] for instance in an unfavourable light), has given Disinfopedia a poor reputation for objectivity or for academic scholarship. There is however some good coverage of some specific debates in [[energy]], [[Islam]], [[nanotechnology]] and [[emergency response]] issues, most of which seems to have been written by anonymous [[trolls]].

	http://disinfopedia.org		http://disinfopedia.org

142.177.92.200 at 20:27, 3 March 2004

2004-03-03T20:27:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 3 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Disinfopedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] which is effectively a U.S. Democratic Party front. It is run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard", who form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended.		'''Disinfopedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] which is effectively a U.S. Democratic Party front. It is run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard", who form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended.

	On some US-specific public policy issues, it often has good [[content wiki]] type information with good [[validation]] of sources. Put an article there not here to criticize someone or some company doing [[propaganda]] like [[greenwash]], e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]]. But expect it to be removed if it does not serve the current U. S. Democratic Party agenda, e.g. defeating Bush.		On some US-specific public policy issues, it often has good [[content wiki]] type information with good [[validation]] of sources. Put an article there not here to criticize someone or some company doing [[propaganda]] like [[greenwash]], e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]]. But expect it to be removed if it does not serve the current U. S. Democratic Party agenda, e.g. defeating Bush, denying that the [[Greens]] understand the issues and the solutions better, etc.

	If you can clearly link the case to some anti-Bush position, it'll probably stick.		If you can clearly link the case to some anti-Bush position, it'll probably stick. But that doesn't mean much. Partisan wikis tend to be not trusted:

	It is by no means accepting of either [[neutral point of view]] nor [[New Troll point of view]]. It is simply a vehicle of the individuals who run it, and its pretence to openness is simply to make attribution of sources for various of its pet positions, easier. This is one approach to [[wiki management]] but it's not ideal for anyone who wishes to actually challenge [[w:propaganda]].		Disinfopedia is by no means accepting of either [[neutral point of view]] nor [[New Troll point of view]]. It is simply a vehicle of the individuals who run it, and its pretence to openness is simply to make attribution of sources for various of its pet positions, easier. This is one approach to [[wiki management]] but it's not ideal for anyone who wishes to actually challenge [[w:propaganda]].

	http://disinfopedia.org		http://disinfopedia.org

142.177.92.200: not essential, and not an enemy, just another badly run large public wiki

2004-03-03T20:25:45Z

not essential, and not an enemy, just another badly run large public wiki

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 3 March 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Disinfopedia''' often has good [[content wiki]] type information with good [[validation]] of sources. Put an article there not here to criticize someone or some company doing [[propaganda]] like [[greenwash]], e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]].		'''Disinfopedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] which is effectively a U.S. Democratic Party front. It is run by Sheldon Rampton and handpicked personal friends of his, such as "User:Maynard", who form a very autocratic [[sysop power structure]] with no accountability whatsoever. They simply do [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] by users they dislike, usually for knowing more about the subject than they do. It is not recommended.

			On some US-specific public policy issues, it often has good [[content wiki]] type information with good [[validation]] of sources. Put an article there not here to criticize someone or some company doing [[propaganda]] like [[greenwash]], e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]]. But expect it to be removed if it does not serve the current U. S. Democratic Party agenda, e.g. defeating Bush.

			If you can clearly link the case to some anti-Bush position, it'll probably stick.

			It is by no means accepting of either [[neutral point of view]] nor [[New Troll point of view]]. It is simply a vehicle of the individuals who run it, and its pretence to openness is simply to make attribution of sources for various of its pet positions, easier. This is one approach to [[wiki management]] but it's not ideal for anyone who wishes to actually challenge [[w:propaganda]].

	http://disinfopedia.org		http://disinfopedia.org

142.177.82.78 at 09:07, 24 November 2003

2003-11-24T09:07:06Z

New page

'''Disinfopedia''' often has good [[content wiki]] type information with good [[validation]] of sources. Put an article there not here to criticize someone or some company doing [[propaganda]] like [[greenwash]], e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]].

http://disinfopedia.org