SourceWatch: Difference between revisions

171 bytes added ,  27 August 2005
run into edit conflict. adding a note about the article taking an extreme and excessively overstating view point on things
(restoring edit deleted in so-called "correct" (obviously wrong) procedure)
(run into edit conflict. adding a note about the article taking an extreme and excessively overstating view point on things)
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.
9,842

edits