SourceWatch: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(not essential, and not an enemy, just another badly run large public wiki) |
||
| 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 | ||
Revision as of 20:25, 3 March 2004
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.