|
Surfin' the 'Net 4 You
Instant retorts on current events, news, politics, you name it, I've got a comment. |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 May 2008 February 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August My Links American Thinker Ask a Question here BRAD BLOG, The CREW ChamberPot C-SPAN Full Frontal Scrutiny Gun Toting Liberal, the J.A.M.E.S. NewsTrust.net - Good Journalism NewsTrust.net Blog Poker Face POGO PopUpCommontater WP SourceWatch Sunlight Foundation The Hill Blog The Metropolis Times tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: Lindy (reply) post date: 08.06.07 (10:17 am) Hola, PuC. NewsTrust presents an interesting situation. I get your reasoning for liking the site... the idea that you can give your opinion as to how biased the articles are in an effort to help others decide what to read and what not to waste their time on, etc. On the flip side, it also presents an opportunity for people to manipulate the reviews, eh. Makes me wonder how they keep an eye on the motivation behind the reviews. I trust the reviews are comprehensive enough to determine intent. Still, it's nice to have a source such as that one, when you want to avoid some of the more obvious offenders of slanted journalism. 'Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of strict referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor.' I think SourceWatch looks very promising. But I think the above statement makes them look petty. What a jab at Wikipedia, despite how increasingly comprehensive Wikipedia has become as an information source. I do like how open and uncluttered SourceWatch is - especially compared to OpenTheGovernment. Also an interesting and promising site, though the colors and the busyness get me a little crosseyed! Same with PFAW - still, I think they may be worth perusing. I've printed out the report and am eager to take it home to Devon for a little 'light reading.' It looks like it's going to have some gems in it. As for the Sunlight Foundation, wow. They fund the efforts of ordinary folks, now that's putting your money where your mouth is. Most excellent, PuC. And lastly, thanks for adding your livejournal link! I've been searching through my email, trying to find it again. Finally! And here I thought I was just really not good at spelling 'Commontater' - *wanders off muttering, 'I shudda thought about that extra T...' ;) posted by: commontater (reply) post date: 08.07.07 (1:43 am) Reply to: Lindy - Glad you liked some of the linked sites. Like you, I of Wikipedia as one entity, but it isn't. I believe SourceWatch is referring to all the other mini-wiki-like sites that use the same open source format but don't cite references. I've come across several of them in the past few weeks and you'll know what I'm talking about (as well as SourceWatch) when you come upon one :) I've written about Sunlight Foundation on PuC before as it's one of my favorite sites. Oh, and about the handle "commontatter" with 2 t's on LJ - I couldn't use 1 t because someone else has it so I settled for the 2 t's thinking it was close enough since I used PuC as the title same as here. posted by: lindy (reply) post date: 08.07.07 (9:36 am) Gotcha. I kind of like Common 'Tatter' - tatter.. natter.. bladder? Oi. You've gone from a Tatertot to a lace maker. ;) Thanks for setting me straight on the wiki bit. You are right, and I dare say that Wikipedia continues to be plagued with uncited sources. It just struck me as kind of haughty. Tis a powerful ability they have, eh? Convevying haughty via the Internet. ;) |
|
