Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| 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:
| | #REDIRECT [[Sourcewatch]] |
| | |
| ==SourceWatch Bias==
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |
| | |
| 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:
| |
| | |
| 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/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]].
| |