Talk:Center for Media and Democracy
I question the POV of this article. -- Zoe
- Any particular suggestions? For myself, I think the liberal/conservative sentence could go away, leaving a factual (although very short) entry. Let the reader follow the external link and decide for themself. -- Jrv 19:45 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
- The Disinfopedia seems to hold liberal views, but that's only because in the United States, there has recently been much conservative-leaning propaganda -- Throwing in the "according to the website" at the end is sort of self-serving. If the article said something like (note, I say something like -- I keep getting accused of demanding things be changed when I only suggest the way they might go) -- "The Disinfopedia claims to hold liberal views in order to counter the predominance that it sees of conservative-leaning propaganda in the United States." Words to that effect. -- Zoe
Removed from the article: The Disinfopedia seems to hold liberal views, but that's only because in the United States, there has recently been much conservative-leaning propaganda, according to the website. -- Stephen Gilbert 21:36 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
I started out adding current number of articles to page, but thought it worked better with general numbers, "doubled after two weeks", etc. Moved number of articles to this talk page. Cut info:
The directory has only around 220 articles but is growing quickly. (451 articles as of 26 Mar 2003.) (1482 articles as of 23 Jul 2003.)
Also got exact start date from Disinfopedia site.
-- Jrv 01:50 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
Disinfopedia has taken wikipedia articles and expanded them usually with a back reference. Is it worthwhile to forward reference from Wikipedia to Disinfopedia? Zardoz 17:57 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- no, why would you do that? LittleDan
- Disinfopedia is highly POV. CGS 19:51 1 Jun 2003 (UTC).
- Sometimes. Treat disinfopedia articles as you would any other external source. Martin 00:42 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- After discussion on wikien-l [1], I've added a suggested attribution line to Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources. (Originally for Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where they can openly call the AdTI scoundrels, but we must be strictly fair.) - David Gerard 15:59, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
As a member of the staff of the Center for Media and Democracy, I think it would be better for people other than myself to edit this article. However, I would like to state for the record that I regard a number of statements in the recent revision to the article as inaccurate. Specifically, it is very misleading to say that we "liken the conservative Republican's domestic policy agenda to the cultural revolution in China, and to the economic plans implemented [by] the Soviet Union, both carried out by totalitarian communist regimes during the height of the Cold War. They liken the conservative Republican's foreign policy agenda to those of Napoleon and Hitler." It is also misleading to say that our "nonpartisan posture" is a sham, since we have never "postured" as nonpartisan. The Center for Media and Democracy is not affiliated with any political party, but we have never pretended to lack opinions or a point of view. Moreover, the editorial policy of the Disinfopedia is expressly different from the editorial policy of the Wikipedia. Whereas Wikipedia calls for a "neutral point of view," the Disinfopedia's editorial objective is "fairness and accuracy."
The individual who made today's edits to the Wikipedia also made a similar contribution to the Disinfopedia. I have edited his/her contribution on the Disinfopedia. If anyone here would like to review the changes I made there, the article can be found at the following URL:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Media_%26_Democracy
I also commented on this individual's contributions on the corresponding Disinfopedia Talk page, at the following URL:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Center_for_Media_%26_Democracy
--Sheldon Rampton 20:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I just zapped it suggesting full references if they want it back in - David Gerard 22:02, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Can't we all just get along?" Probably not, but maybe we can come to some semblance of a NPOV.
Does NPOV mean spayed and neutered? If every "liberal/conservative sentence" has to "go away, leaving...factual (although very short)" entries, then you've made a gelding of Wikepedia as far as I'm concerned. The way to handle controvesial articles is to present a NPOV overview of what both/all sides say.
Is my contribution NPOV? Heck no! My viewpoint is not neutral. But why don't the partisans on the other side, along with the more detached, work to IMPROVE the NPOV instead of whining and/or deleting wholesale? Go ahead, Sheldon. Contribute. Come on. Don't worry just because you're a coauthor of the cited diatribe. We'll edit you. What are you really afraid of? A meeting where you can't shout down the speaker? True wiki in full and free bloom? (Or maybe it's just that you hate seeing your prose -- denser than the hardened concrete surrounding Jimmy Hoffa's earthly remains -- edited.)
The "thinking peace" website gives this excerpt from Banana Republicans, the subtitle of which, by the way, is: How the Right Wing Is Turning America into a One-Party State:
"In a democracy, Alexander Hamilton believed: 'The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties . . . often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority.' Although these jarrings and clashings sometimes seem messy, contentious and wasteful, in fact they are one of the great strengths of democracy in both peacetime and wartime.
"If, however, a single viewpoint or party is able to drown out or suppress the views of others, a different dynamic sets in. One-party dominated states and hierarchical, command-driven social systems are notorious for their tendency to make disastrous decisions, in the areas of both domestic and foreign policy. China's cultural revolution and the Soviet Union's failed economic development plans are among the most extreme but not the only cases in point. In the field of foreign affairs, Napoleon and Hitler both disdained dissenting advice..." (emphases added)
The way I see it, in the name of NPOV, it is the facts about this organization that, for some reason, are being drowned out and supressed. I couldn't care less if Stauber and his crowd want to keep their "Disinfopedia" website a place, "Where never is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day." But this is Wikipedia, doggon it, and I care about this place.
One statement critical of Stauber and his organization (supporting the last paragraph of my contribution), from among the many that can be found, is cited at jsonline:
"'The guy's [Stauber is] a serial exaggerator,' said David Martosko, director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom in Washington, D.C. 'The guy wakes up every morning thinking how can he change Americans' behavior by frightening them.'"