« Two-timing the justice system | Main | Bonfire of the Vanities - Week 85 »

Has Snopes Jumped The Shark Too?

I was apparently the last person on the planet to notice that Wikipedia jumped the shark. I've suspected Snopes for some time but never took the time to do any reading... Ace reports that it's all over but the crying.

I knew Barbara was losing credibility when I read the AL Gore inventing the internet page:

Claim:   Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.

Status:   False.

Origins:   No, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way.

But then, quite bizarrely, she gives the exact quote from Al Gore:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

He didn't say he invented it, he said he created it... Call me 'unreasonable,' but it sounded like he claimed he invented it to me. [I once emailed Barbara and said the problem was with her "claim" part, that if you changed the claim to "Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "created" the Internet" there would be no dispute... but then she could not deny it.]

It really is sad that such a great resource is becoming tainted by her bias. Think about it... She has spent hundreds of hours on this, striving to be the most accurate source in the world -which arguably she is on nonpolitical issues- but then she gives away her credibility for a modest amount of political gain. When she is dead and buried, she'll be remembered for her work. You would think it would mean more to her than making a political statement.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Has Snopes Jumped The Shark Too?:

» Secure Liberty linked with Snopes Botches German Brothel Story

Comments (52)

There are several examples ... (Below threshold)

There are several examples of political bias in her listings - this is just one of the more silly ones.

What else do you expect fro... (Below threshold)

What else do you expect from people who lack intellectual honesty? The outcome of modern liberalism has been shown time and time againt to be a disaster. The only people left who still adhere to the tenets of the far left are those who are incapable of critical thought.

They keep trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Anyone with half a brain gives up after trying for a little while, but not these guys. They just keep at it and have now gotten to the point that they'll even claim that all holes are square, or that their peg is round, or that square and round mean the same thing. Some even claim that it is evil Republicans who are preventing the square peg and round hole from getting it on. Actually nowadays that pretty much describes all of them. What sad pathetic creatures they are, so sure they are right, yet so ill qualified to know.

So don't get too upset when they act like buffoons, just remember that but for the grace of God (and a normal quotient of common sense) there goes you.

Paul, I'm gonna have to com... (Below threshold)

Paul, I'm gonna have to come down on Snopes' side here. Let's pretend that we're talking about roads instead. If Gore had said that he took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System, would that mean that he claimed to have invented roads? Of course not. Because being a part of the creation of a government program is not the same as inventing something.

Now, as to whether Gore actually was part of that process or not is for others to figure out. I don't actually give a damn, myself.

The "Al Gore said he invented the Internet" thing really pisses me off, because he obviously never said anything like it, and the only reason ever to repeat that piece of flotsam is to try to make fun of Gore or of Democrats in general. And there are plenty of actual, non-made-up reasons to laugh at Gore and Democrats in general. We don't need to go fabricating new ones.

You said, "You would think ... (Below threshold)
Don:

You said, "You would think it would mean more to her than making a political statement."

Your error or lack of understanding is that you are attributing conservative values to a liberal. Clearly, she, and other liberals, value making the petty political statement more so than credible life's work. This is why they are such challenging opponents in the political arena. Not because of the strength of their ideas, but what and who they are willing to sacrifice in the name of their cause.

To the far-left, the cause of liberalism is all important. Fetuses are sacrifices in the name of choice, immigrant advancement are sacrificed in the name of language preservation, welfare families are ravaged, made dependent and sacrificed in the name of big government programs, studies now show that college and graduate school preferences cause more harm by putting minorities in schools where they do poorly and drop out and result in less graduates than if there had been no preferences...but the result doesn't matter, it is the liberal idealism that must be upheld no matter the harm.

Sticking to just debunking ... (Below threshold)

Sticking to just debunking urban legends would probably be the prudent course of action. Though I will say, that I do not fully trust sites like Snopes or WIkipedia as they just don't pass the smell test for an authoritative source.

I admit, when doing my urba... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I admit, when doing my urban legend fact checking I prefer to use truthorfiction.com. They actually got the Al Gore "I invented the internet" story right, where Snopes did not.

"I took the initiative in c... (Below threshold)
John:

"I took the initiative in creating the Internet"

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/

In this context, 'create' and 'invent' are essentially the same thing. I can't understand how anyone can see them to be significantly different. Claiming he created it is equally absurd as claiming he invented it for all the subtle difference it makes.

Sounds like 2000 election year spin that became religion fo many.

You're wrong about this one... (Below threshold)

You're wrong about this one, Paul. If you read Gore's statement -- the whole thing, within context -- you'll find that he was exactly right. He *was* the person, within Congress, who took the initiative in passing the legislation that created the internet.

Now, like Oliver and others did with Cheney's "the danger is that we will be hit" speech, you may choose to read this out of context, and in the most tendentious possible way. But you'd be wrong, and you'd be intellectually dishonest.

Hey, don't take my word for it:

"In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet..." -- Newt Gingrich - Sept 2000.

I think you owe Snopes a Mea Culpa.

No, he was not, Jon. The In... (Below threshold)
mcg:

No, he was not, Jon. The Internet existed long before the legislation you are referring to; indeed, long before he was even in office.

Continuing: What Al Gore di... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Continuing: What Al Gore did, to his credit, was to recognize the value of something that already existed and promote its continuance, improvement, and expansion through legislation.

There's a big difference be... (Below threshold)

There's a big difference between the almost beta-internet that existed then, and the superstructure that exists now. The Washington Post pointed it out when the legislation was being proposed, and the leaders in the technological development of the internet were quick to give him props for exactly that.

Now, with all due respect, you can parse "creation" all you want, but this is an open and shut case, and continued debate really makes the Right look as foolish as the mental midgets at DemocraticUnderground.

Gore did contribute to the ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Gore did contribute to the accessibility of the internet. However, he was going too far to claim he had 'taken the initiative to create' it. He championed the internet, he facilitated the internet, and he more likely than not coined the phrase information superhighway. Give the man some credit.

I have to say, however, after reading through the 'Bush' section of the Urban Legends site, that she is not horribly partisan, and has debunked a number of anti-Bush rumors and lies. Also, she was fair enough in the Gore/Internet page to indicate that Gore was still mis-stating the degree to which he was involved in the birth of the internet. At the end of the article she even said something to the effect that even if Gore had never seen the Senate, we'd still have the internet right now. So on a scal of 1 to 10, where 1 is completely impartial and 10 is Democratic Underground insane clown poster, I'd really have to give her about a 3. I've seen much worse. Some Wiki pages are pretty bad.

There's a big difference... (Below threshold)
mcg:

There's a big difference between the almost beta-internet that existed then, and the superstructure that exists now.

Oh please. The Internet had been in development since 1966, with the first packets sent in 1969. His legislation was in what, 1988? It is absurd to suggest that the pre-1988 Internet was "almost beta", it was proving quite useful up to that point.

Besides, it still betrays the key point: Al Gore's initiative did not create the Internet. I would have been quite content had Al Gore said "I took the key initiatives in Congress that helped make the Internet what it is today."

Let's go back to some quotes by Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn for example: " Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development." or, "Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet."

My problem is not with what Al Gore had to say, actually. I attribute it to one of those oversimplifications that, had he explained further, would not have been considered unreasonable. My disagreement here is with Barbara's silly claim that his statement could not honestly be misinterpreted. Of course it could have---because in fact the statement was technically incorrect.

I was using the internet in... (Below threshold)
John:

I was using the internet in the early 90's. It didn't have the content it has now so I was only mildly interested, but I did follow its evolution. Nothing about it's nature was affected directly by Al Gore from what I can tell. All the elements we see today, existed before Gore became involved.

The only thing I saw Gore do was hitch his wagon to a rising star. He did help bring it to the forefront as more a pitchman for internet awareness. I actually think this was a bad thing. Aside from helping to contribute to the internet bubble in the stockmarket, I was ticked because I knew the internet could have used a little more time below the radar to allow some of the standards to mature a little more.

Jeff Harrell writes:... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jeff Harrell writes: Now, as to whether Gore actually was part of that process or not is for others to figure out. I don't actually give a damn, myself.

If you can't be bothered to give a damn about accurately developing the central facts in the matter, then what good are your comments supposed to do? Gore did not intend to claim he "invented" the Internet, and it's a smear to misinterpret his words deliberately to suggest that he did. That's what you're doing with this post.

Note: Senator Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development. He was instrumental in releasing it from the control of the government agencies, like DARPA, that sponsored it. We started talking about "the Internet," as in the public Internet (with a capital 'I'), instead of various "internets" after this transition happened, with the critical assistance of Senator Gore. It took a public servant to create the public Internet. It was Senator Gore who should be credited with that achievement.

(Of course, there are good reasons why some of us techies are still pissed off at him for commercializing the Internet too soon. It wasn't fully baked, if you ask me. If we had kept it locked up in the universities and the military-industrial complex just a little longer, we could have fixed a lot of the problems in IPv4 and had a much less costly transition to IPv6. And we're paying for it today— dearly. The problem is a national security problem. Do any of you wingnuts care about national security? No, of course not. But all of that is a subject for another thread.)

Jeff and Jon, I respect you... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Jeff and Jon, I respect you both but even giving him every benefit of the doubt, there is no way that, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" is factually correct. He neither invented nor created anything.

As mcg notes, the internet existed long before he was in office... The "well it was not the internet we know today" is a canard. TCI/IP recently celebrated its 250th birthday (or something like that) it was the .com top level domain spending that "made the internet."

Saying Al Gore created the internet is a lot like saying that Joe Montana invented football.

s9 you say:"Senato... (Below threshold)
Paul:

s9 you say:

"Senator Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development."

Then how the HELL did he create it????

You are babbling.

John writes: I wa... (Below threshold)
s9:

John writes: I was using the internet in the early 90's. [...] The only thing I saw Gore do was hitch his wagon to a rising star.

p1. Al Gore hitched his wagon to that star in the 1970's when he was a Congressman.

p2. As a Senator in the 1980's, he was actively involved in promoting the development of the Internet that you didn't get around to discovering until the early 1990's.

p3. The fact that you didn't see what Gore was doing for the twenty years before you first used the Internet says more about what you don't know than about what Gore did.

I hereby yield the balance ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I hereby yield the balance of my time to mcg.

P

Paul writes: Then... (Below threshold)
s9:

Paul writes: Then how the HELL did he create it????

Did you read the article I linked? Did you understand it? Do you know who are the authors?

The article explains in precise detail what Al Gore did to create the Internet as we know it today. I will not reprint it here. Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf are unimpeachable authorities in this matter.

The Internet was developed ... (Below threshold)
Pat:

The Internet was developed by the US military. The forerunner being email in the early 80's.

Let me quote Robert Kahn an... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Let me quote Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf again: "No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President." If only Al Gore had chosen his words more carefully he could have taken the credit he deserves for his efforts without the ridicule. But make no mistake, he misspoke.

mcg writes: My di... (Below threshold)
s9:

mcg writes: My disagreement here is with Barbara's silly claim that his statement could not honestly be misinterpreted. Of course it could have---because in fact the statement was technically incorrect.

p1. Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

p2. Gore was a congressman in the 1970's.

p3. Kahn and Cerf write "When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises."

What part of "taking the initiative to create the Internet" is incompatible with these facts?

Summary: the statement is technically correct, and to challenge the accuracy of the statement is either to make an incorrect assertion out of ignorance of the facts, or to make a deliberate attempt at deception. Which is it in your case, mcg?

This whole thread seems som... (Below threshold)
mantis:

This whole thread seems somewhat pointless on one level due to the fact that Gore himself admits he mispoke (and others have pointed out what he really meant: s9, Henke). A quote not long after that interview:

" At a meeting of Democratic leaders, he said, " I was pretty tired when I made that comment because I had been up very late the night before inventing the camcorder."

Ha, ha, very funny Gore. Anyway, he knows he didn't "create" the internet. This is just another of the right's little left-bashing jokes they like to hang on to for years despite anything anyone says to the contrary, or reality for that matter.

Btw Pat thanks for that worthless bit of incorrect information about the history of the internet.

Who is deliberately attempt... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Who is deliberately attempting to deceive whom, s9? The initial version of the Internet, which was then ARPANet, was sending packets well before Gore was even in Congress. Even the quote you chose in p3 is quite carefully worded to avoid the claim that he was there at its creation.

Mantis, thanks for the post... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Mantis, thanks for the post. I absolutely agree that this quote has been way, way overplayed by the right. And frankly I was unaware of that camcorder quote. It was quite funny, and I do wish it would have been given far wider audience.

Does Snopes say anything ab... (Below threshold)

Does Snopes say anything about the song "Look for the Union Label?" Al Gore says he recalls his mother singing
him to sleep with that song, though it was not written until Gore was 27.

Drink the kool-aid, s9. It ... (Below threshold)
OneDrummer:

Drink the kool-aid, s9. It is cool and refreshing...


general question: why is it that tech types are more likely to suffer inferiority complexes than the rest of us normal joes? Almost like if you're gonna be a engineer/programmer/analyst that you should be required to have get a psych degree just to get along with other humans.....

OneDrummer,While the... (Below threshold)
mantis:

OneDrummer,
While the stereotypes about engineer/programmer types interpersonal skills are often true in my experience (I'm one of them), most people I know with psych degrees aren't exaclty models for improvement.

mcg writes: The i... (Below threshold)
s9:

mcg writes: The initial version of the Internet, which was then ARPANet, was sending packets well before Gore was even in Congress.

p1. It wasn't called "the Internet" in those days.

p2. It wasn't sending Internet Protocol packets in those days, much less TCP/IP packets, c.f. A Brief History of the Internet.

p3. The first book on the ARPANET was published the same year Gore was elected to Congress.

p4. TCP/IP wasn't adopted as a DOD standard until 1980, the year Gore was reëlected to Congress for the second time.

p5. The "flag-day" transition of the ARPANET from NCP to TCP/IP took place during Gore's third and final term in Congress.

Cerf and Kahn credit Gore with providing "intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication," which is precisely how, during his service in the U.S. Congress, he took the initiative in creating the Internet.

Gore did not claim to have invented anything, i.e. the NCP protocol, the TCP/IP protocols, and of the Internet routing protocols, none of that. He claimed to have taken the initiative in Congress in creating the public Internet. That you refuse to recognize the truth of that claim is one thing. That you demand his words be interpreted out of their context as a claim of inventing the technology, rather than a claim of initiating the public policy, is another thing. Neither of these two things are the result of honest approach to the argument at hand.

If we had a vote for who sh... (Below threshold)

If we had a vote for who should get the last word on this subject, I would nominate Mantis for this quote: "This is just another of the right's little left-bashing jokes they like to hang on to for years despite anything anyone says to the contrary, or reality for that matter."

Hear hear. This nattering is beneath us. And arguing over which two computers were first strung together and what type of chicken wire was used isn't helping things.

s9, I now wonder if you've ... (Below threshold)
mcg:

s9, I now wonder if you've been arguing with me, but against Paul's position instead of mine. If you read my posts carefully you will realize my position is not quite the same as his though sympathetic to it. I for one have never said that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. I grant you that by taking a position that somewhat agrees with Paul you might have gotten that impression. But let me be clear: I never thought he claimed to have made the technical invention. Unlike Paul I do distinguish between "create" and "invent". And I believe Al Gore did neither. Thus where we coincide is simply that I believe that Al Gore misspoke and as a result gave some serious opportunity for ridicule to his opponents.

Your points about ARPANET, TCP/IP, and so forth, are irrelevant. The evolution of ARPANET into the Internet simply reflects the natural evolution of development. Furthermore, he did NOT use the term "public Internet", as you are now using. He said the "Internet." But I do not disagree that he participated in much of the evolution of what is now called the Internet.

My school teachers are largely responsible for shaping and molding who I am today. They deserve a lot of credit for my development. But even the earliest preschool teachers cannot rightly claim to have created me. That responsibility belongs solely to my parents who were present at conception. And possibly to the makers of the car they were in at the time. (Kidding.)

Cerf and Kahn are quite clear and quite careful in their wording. They give Al Gore plenty of credit, credit he deserved. But they do not acknowledge him as a co-creator of the Internet.

No, he was not, Jon. The... (Below threshold)

No, he was not, Jon. The Internet existed long before the legislation you are referring to; indeed, long before he was even in office.

Oh, nonsense. Even the main guy behind the creation of TCP/IP (which was one of the building blocks of the ArpaNet, precursor to the more general and mor widely available Internet), a guy would could with some justification claim some role in "inventing" the Internet, Vinton Cerf, has defended Gore's comment as being reasonably true.

Cheers,

Wow a lot of Gore apologist... (Below threshold)

Wow a lot of Gore apologists, even though Gore himself claime dhe mispoke.

This is silly. ... (Below threshold)

This is silly.

Yes, Al Gore's statement was imprecise. Extemporaneous speech tends to be imprecise. But you all know full well what he was trying to communicate, and misrepresenting that by conflating the legislation he supported -- which *did* have the effect of bringing the internet leaps and bounds forward into the thing we know today -- with some ridiculous "he said he invented the internet!" allegation is just embarrassing.

At some point today, I'm guessing a liberal blog will link this discussion in order to mock those dumb right wingers who still believe long-debunked myths. And they'll be right.

If you think Al Gore didn't "invent" the internet, fine. You're right. But he didn't say that he did. What he did communicate -- imprecisely, but in a perfectly understandable manner -- was that he took the legislative lead to push the internet to the point that it is today.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with -- inter alia -- Newt Gingrich, who concurred.

Ridiculous.

" But you all know full ... (Below threshold)

" But you all know full well what he was trying to communicate"

Certainly; that he is responsible for spam.

Arne, as others have rightl... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Arne, as others have rightly pointed out, Gore himself claimed he misspoke. That someone on the "inside" like Cerf would know what he meant is immaterial. In fact, what is material is that Cerf did not defend the specifc comment Gore made as technically correct---because it wasn't---but rather to explain why Gore's statement wasn't that far off the mark.

But because his statement was technically incorrect it provided valuable fodder for the political grist mill, particularly when coupled with some of his other "Gore-isms". Not that Bush doesn't have plenty of them himself. So did Gore's Vice Presidential predecessor, and heaven knows he didn't live them down.

s9, still completely unhing... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

s9, still completely unhinged as usual. The quote "by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication" that you keep throwing around pretty much says it all. He helped create a VISION of POTENTIAL BENEFITS. So basically he went around saying the internet was a good thing. In your article you like to cite, the authors use words like "promoted" and "supported" throughout the whole thing in reference to Gore's involvement. Thats all he did, promote it. BUT, then you say, "which is precisely how, during his service in the U.S. Congress, he took the initiative in creating the Internet." and "He claimed to have taken the initiative in Congress in creating the public Internet." Well which is it s9?!? You are arguing with your own words at every turn, you say he never claimed to create the internet, and then go on to cite examples that you say are "precisely how...he took the INITIATIVE IN CREATING the Internet." HE DIDN"T CREATE ANYTHING. He wasn't there at the inception. He himself said he mis-spoke. Get a grip man.

Everyone knows that Al Gore... (Below threshold)
Troll:

Everyone knows that Al Gore is the love child of Alan Turing and John Von Neumann. With that kind of a pedigree, who can doubt that he created the internet? Not only did he create the internet, he is also responsible for both of its primary functions: spam and porn.

My conclusion and a long wh... (Below threshold)
-S-:

My conclusion and a long while ago about "Wikipedia" is that the entire premise in the very creation of the site and process itself was to rewrite reality. And so, they have been doing that and doing that since they began.

Lee Reynolds writes (^^) that very thing, about which I could not have expressed it more clearly.

The very concept of an "interactive encyclopedia" if not "dictionary" (any refernece source) is, in fact, a statement of intellectual, academic dishonesty. Don't like a fact? Rewrite it!

Worse, the site management, despite that oxymoron in and of itself, is incapable of comprehending their bias. I realize reality can be difficult to handle but in the case of Wikipedia, it's a case of a site being decidedly determined to alter reality by hit counter. Not that that's not the premise for most liberal contributory/interactive sites as a standard (another oxymoron right there).

Define a nail: metal shard intended to hold two objects together (my cursory definition without the aid of any reference text).

Wikipedia defines a nail: a piercing object designed by aggressive male capitalists for purposes of forcing soft, natural fibers to contain fascist social groups while stripping the natural resources from non traditional groups.

Apparently -S- thinks an ag... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Apparently -S- thinks an aggregate of public knowledge accessible to all is an attempt to "alter reality". Reality in his mind being whatever he happens to think is true.

Wikipedia defines a nail (actual):

"In engineering and construction, a nail is a pin-shaped, sharp object of hard metal, typically steel, used to fasten things together.

It is driven into the workpiece by a hammer or an electrically, compressed air or small explosive charge driven nail gun. A nail holds materials together by shear strength or friction. In some other cases the point of the nail may be bent over or clinched to prevent it from pulling out.

Nails are made in a great variety of forms for specialized purposes; the common everyday kind of nail is sometimes called a "wire nail" to distinguish it from nails in general. Some kinds of nails are referred to by other words, for example "pins", "tacks" or "brads"."

That's a nail. You, -S-, are a tool.

Jon Henke:No, Al G... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Jon Henke:

No, Al Gore DIDN'T SAY THAT, what you write here/there that he did.

Gore never said this or otherwise communicate this, but instead, communicated something entirely different than this:

"...he (Al Gore) didn't say that he did (invent the internet). What he did communicate -- imprecisely, but in a perfectly understandable manner -- was that he took the legislative lead to push the internet to the point that it is today."

And, I disagree that this issue of 'communication' is a foolish one by all involved, because, it represents to me a huge difference in perceptions and reality, even, between one set of political ideologues and another.

To liberals, there's a huge interpretative requirement involved in arriving at the later discussion about what any liberal says or doesn't otherwise communicate, and conservatives are routinely dissed by liberals because they "fail" to comprehend all that assumed interpretation about what liberals mean, what they "communicate" and do not.

Al Gore, whether tired or not when he said whatever, ALLUDED TO and suggested that he "created the internet" (which can easily be assumed to him saying he "invented" it, since the two words can be easily comingled as to individual author responsibility/source), and the larger question there was/is that Gore did so, tired or not (is that really an excuse or acceptable disqualification?) his relationship to a media for what I assumed to be self agrandizing reasons.

It was a statement made by Gore for purposes of Gore making himself significant or more worthy to whomever. Gore was self promoting in even discussing himself in the entire aspect that he did and THAT's the thing that people perceived in the negative about Gore, while all the technical discussions and discounting are secondary.

What Gore COMMUNICATED was, in fact, that he was self promoting, behaving recklessly in his words in relationship to significant human activities in communications as an industry, that he was, quite literally, being irrational and pompous.

So, alright, later, when pressed for reality about what he'd done, he escapes into the 'I was tired' excuse, admitting THEN that he recognized the outrageousness of what he'd originally said ("communicated").

People "communicate" a lot of things by suggesting in very tenuous terms inexact aspects and that's what Gore was doing, and the motive was the heart of why other humans criticized Gore for his blustery.

To argue out the statement itself as being something exact, that can be disproven or proven, is a waste of time because Gore communicated an inexact grandiosity...for purposes of being grandiose, being intentionally inexact, so to speak.

Which is, in fact, communicating volumes by not communicating anything specific, and that was and remains the unrespectable aspect about Al Gore's personality.

manits fails to perceive a ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

manits fails to perceive a metaphor.

The name calling thing, however, is very typical for what Wikipedia would define as being "technical." Oh, also, as "support."

So, alright, mantis, let's engage in your comparison party of cut'n'paste of what Wikipedia writes where and by whom, and...

Um, no. You either get my point from a point of allusion or you don't. But the name calling, well, that's just too Wikipedia for my tastes.

I've read more of that on Wikipedia itself, in Wikipedia responses to attempts to critically examine it's inflamed distortions of language and therefore, fact, and what it always boils down to is Wikipedia applies the flaming language to any suggestion that they flame.

Well exemplified by mantis.

mantis: fiction is by it'... (Below threshold)
-S-:

mantis: fiction is by it's own nature inherently imaginary. You follow along with the images, you arrive at a conclusion and, therefore, you've been instructed by an absolutely nonabsolute stream of information.

You missed that.

Where did I write that Wiki... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Where did I write that Wikipedia was quoted as defining a nail, and/or that I was quoting what, specifically, Wikipedia ever wrote or has written in definition to "a nail"?

Anwer, nowhere, never did I so write.

I provided a theatrical example for purposes of making a point. While I realize that Wikipedia is limited to a high school definitive process, some of us are long past that.

Wikipedia is the fishstick ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Wikipedia is the fishstick rendition of a shark at sea.

You get a coffee-table carving rendition of initials and "explanations" from Wikipedia that are laced with a high level of personal opinion masquereding as fact. It's not fact, it's just rendition. I've read more laughably inaccurate and quite dedicatedly "liberal" terminology by way of adjectives and adverbs in Wikipedia than I could ever appreciate. And don't.

Worse, when confronted by academics, Wikipedia fails and fails again to even recognize it's absurd and high degree of bias. If you need information, you would be more reliably referenced if you bought a set of Cliff Notes than if you "researched" by referring to Wikipedia. Which is akin, to my read, to reading the Cliff Note prepared performance of someone in a high school library, whose parents indoctrinated that person on a commune in Oregon while campaigning for, well, Al Gore. Who "created the internet," apparently.

Where did I write that W... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Where did I write that Wikipedia was quoted as defining a nail, and/or that I was quoting what, specifically, Wikipedia ever wrote or has written in definition to "a nail"?

Anwer, nowhere, never did I so write.

Ok, where did I write that -S- wrote that Wikipedia was quoted as defining a nail, and/or that -S- was quoting what, specifically, Wikipedia ever wrote or has written in definition to "a nail"?

Answer: nowhere. Do you talk like that too? Must be hilarious. And yes, I missed your metaphor. Where was it? Wikipedia as metaphor for Wikipedia? In order to be a metaphor one thing must represent another, not itself.

Anyway, in your post you wrote

The very concept of an "interactive encyclopedia" if not "dictionary" (any refernece source) is, in fact, a statement of intellectual, academic dishonesty. Don't like a fact? Rewrite it!

Which of course misses the whole point of Wikipedia. It is not like the website began with a set of "facts" that people could feel free to rewrite. It was built from nothing by users and is continuously maintained/corrected/amended by users. It is a fascinating experiment and a useful resource. However the folks at Wikipedia do not claim everything on the site is factual, nor do they claim it is the only resource anyone should use. I will quote their FAQ:

"As anyone can edit any article, it is of course possible for biased, out of date or incorrect information to be posted. However, because there are so many other people reading the articles and monitoring contributions using the Recent Changes page, incorrect information is usually corrected quickly. Thus, the overall accuracy of the encyclopedia is improving all the time as it attracts more and more contributors. You are encouraged to help by correcting articles and passing on your own knowledge."

Doesn't sound like a flame to me. And as for the (gasp!) namecalling, I only say you are a tool because you seem to at the service of some greater agenda which abhors the possibility of people working collaboratively for everyone's gain. Oh, and by the way, it's a medium, not "a media".

Jesus shit. I can't believ... (Below threshold)

Jesus shit. I can't believe you people are this dense.

I'm going to go wander over to DU to hear them write about some age-old myth about Republicans, so I can remember that this nonsense is spread evenly across political lines.

Christ.

D-Hoggs writes: H... (Below threshold)
s9:

D-Hoggs writes: He himself said he mis-spoke. Get a grip man.

Please. It was in the context of a self-deprecating jape. It was not a "mea culpa" of any sort. You guys invoking the "he said he misspoke" spell all know this, and yet you're pretending otherwise.

Faced with the reality that what you are doing is nothing more than a smear, your response is to make up another one and hope no one calls you on that one too. If you had any shame, there would be a limit to how far you could run with that strategy.

If you had any shame, that is...

mcg writes: Furth... (Below threshold)
s9:

mcg writes: Furthermore, he did NOT use the term "public Internet", as you are now using.

Of course, he didn't. Almost nobody does. I don't know anybody besides me who uses that compound to distinguish between private internets and the single, global public Internet, i.e. the one with the root servers for the public DNS horizon.

The IETF decided to capitalize the "I" to show this distinction, but I don't expect most people outside the technical community to know this. So, I use the prefix "public" to get that across. Senator Gore, apparently, hasn't gotten the memo from Communist Party HQ to use the new and improved lexicon.

(Side note: of course, it is somewhat amusing to hear the President talk about "rumors floating around on the internets" without naming which internets. One assumes he wasn't talking about just the public Internet. He must have been referring to some of the private ones...)

s9, we're at loggerheads, a... (Below threshold)
mcg:

s9, we're at loggerheads, and besides, this thread is about to drop off the front page. So I'll just have to pull out my secret weapon. Al Gore DID TOO misspeak, to the INFINITY!

Hah.

Now, regarding your side note: yes, I chuckled too when our likely-computer-illiterate President used the word "internets" instead of "Internet". It was almost as funny as our former Vice President, the one who claims to have taken the initiative in creating the Internet, bungling the White House web site address in clear demonstration he hadn't figured it out yet. We can forgive them both, can't we? They're too busy to worry about such things, what with countries to invade and stuff.

mcg writes: yes, ... (Below threshold)
s9:

mcg writes: yes, I chuckled too when our likely-computer-illiterate President used the word "internets" instead of "Internet"

Why do you think President Bush is a computer "illiterate?" I certainly don't have any reason to think so. He's a former fighter-jet pilot and a graduate of Yale. When he pronounces the word 'nuclear' as NOO-kyoo-lar, I have every reason to think he is doing it deliberately, for effect. Don't think I didn't notice that he always pronounces it correctly when he uses it in the phrase "nuclear family," which admittedly isn't very often. (Funny that...)




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy