Does anyone else here like the Wikipedia?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
it's no more socialist than the concept of open-source is socialist. information should be free not because of socialist ideals, but because information begets information, and only in a democratic environment--regardless of the economics--can open source truly thrive.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
wikipedia is the ulitmate triumph of open-source, information-free democracy.

In other words, socialism.

[Bereta_Eder]

doesn't sound very credible

[molly bloom]

Two thumbs up from me.

One of the few online sources that doesn't buy into the 'Dresden just made Meissen pottery' in the Nazi period propaganda.

I like the Catholic Encyclopaedia too. But for different reasons.

[DanS]

I think it's great. You would think there would be a lot of bias, but from what I've seen, it's very balanced.

[Dis]

what is it? where can I find it? I want to try it out

[joncha]

wikipedia.org

[Agathon]

Part of the miracle is that it is so unbiased. Vandalism does occur, but there are enough people who care such that it is usually fixed very quickly.

I suppose one reason it has succeeded is that information does not entail a zero sum game like so many other goods - so there is little incentive to abuse the commons.

But can anyone explain the lack of bias?

[Blake]

Prehaps the lack of bias comes from trying to be factual wherever possible (facts can't really be biased) and if it's a matter of opinion or interpretation, as many viewpoints as possible (ie, as people care to submit in a well considered manner) are included.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Dissident
what is it? where can I find it? I want to try it out

Now thats lazy, Google too complicated Diss?

[Verto]

to Wikipedia. A great site.

[OzzyKP]

Wikipedia socialist? Ha, not a chance. Its more libertarian than anything.

A top down model like a standard encyclopedia would parralell better with a planned economy. An economy where everything has to be approved by some central government bureaucracy is like a publication where everything has to be approved by a central editoral board.

Wikipedia is more libertarian in nature, a free for all. Individuals making the decisions, with no big bad authority looking over their shoulder. Individuals each doing what suits them, according to their interests. A free exchange of ideas, like the free market is a free exchange of goods and services.

Socialism is top down.
Free market/libertarianism is bottom up.

The Internet, be it eBay, Wikipedia, open source, you name it, is very libertarian in nature.

[Agathon]

Socialism is top down.
Free market/libertarianism is bottom up.

One could make the same case for the opposite. However, the latter inevitably ends in top down authoritarianism.

[OzzyKP]

The latter is as far from top down authoritarianism as one can get.

I am not blind to the dangers of corporations, I share your concern, however the dangers of government far exceed the dangers of corporations.

Assuming you don't buy the line that in a truly free market, businesses wouldn't be able to grow to the size of the mega-corporations we have now because of too much competition, which part of me believes and part of me doesn't. But even assuming that would happen, a huge corporation like McDonalds or Coca-Cola have less affect on one's life than the US Government.

A libertarian McDonalds would be far less powerful than a socialist US Government.

[notyoueither]

I like it. I was surprised by the quality of the Canadian political history.