[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Willblake,

Your analysis and criticism of Wiki is correct. It is easily manipulated to 
promulgate outright lies, a recent case being false quotes attributed to 
Rush Limbaugh and repeated by the liberal press with the sole purpose 
of demonizing a conservative voice. 

Whatever the "mainstream press" says is true the opposite is probably 
the case, a classic example being the current drumbeat about global 
warming. "Truth" is hard to come by these days.

Platt   



On 17 Oct 2009 at 23:56, markhsmit wrote:

> 
> On Oct 17, 2009, at 10:24:42 PM, "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [WillBlake]
> However, selective specific references in Wiki which is explaining the meaning
> of anti-intellectualism, as examples, has no place in an encyclopedia that is
> now being considered a quotable reference.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Can you give me an example?
> 
> Hi Arlo,
> In the encyclopedia's description of anti-intellectualism, which I thought referred  to
> dictators who remove intellects from the country because they are 
> threatening.  This would be like China after the second world war, and
> all that anti-intellectualism.
> 
> However this article takes it much further and is full of opinions, conjectures, and falsities.
> The more I read it objectively, the worse it gets.
> For example:
> 
> "In the US 2000 Presidential Election, the media (particularly late night comics)
>  portrayed Candidate Al Gore as a boring "brainiac" who spoke in a monotonous
>  voice and jabbered on about numbers and figures that no one could understand.
>  His supposed "claim to have invented the Internet"[9] was widely ridiculed. 
> It was the classic stereotype of a pompous, out-of-touch intellectual, and this 
> perception arguably hurt Gore in the election. In the years since, debate between 
> the left and right in America has often centered on the relation of the intellectual class 
> to the public as a whole.
> Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh 
> commonly argue that conservative politicians, particularly Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush,
>  and Sarah Palin have been attacked by media as being "incompetent" - this can 
> be understood as an accusation of intellectual snobbery by the media. O'Reilly in 
> particular is well known for having a hostile attitude towards what he calls the 
> "Ivy League Elite" despite being a graduate of Harvard himself. Both O'Reilly 
> and Limbaugh, as well as other conservative hosts such as Tucker Carlson 
> and Joe Scarborough, are frequently accused of having anti-intellectual atmospheres 
> on their shows, evidenced by their frequent interruption of guests who try to put 
> forward complex arguments. Scarborough once commented that, "If my guest is 
> allowed to speak uninterrupted for more than 15 seconds, then I'm not doing my job."
> 
> [wb2 again]
> If this article is supposed to give students an accurate description of what anti-intellectualism
> is, don't you think that this is a bit much?  Or are we presently suffering from a scourge of
> anti-intellectualism?  Who says that Gore lost the election because of his
> intellectualism.  Who says that the media has intellectual snobbery?  Who has
> accused O'rielly as having an anti-intellectual atmospheres?  These are not facts.
> 
> Now I know you know this, but lately, I have seen high school kids referencing
> Wikipedia as though it were a real encyclopedia!  I remember when Wikipedia
> started.  I thought, "that's an interesting idea, an encyclopedia that anybody can
> add to."  Somewhere along the line (very quickly) is became a source of truth.
> Maybe I am old fashioned, but Wikipedia is no Encyclopedia.  It's hard to know
> if what is read is established truth, or just somebody's opinion.  Anybody can edit.
> Certain people like Jimmy Wales have more power than others.
> 
> It is easy to google Wikipedia to see how much false stuff is actually put on
> it (if you trust Google).  Interestingly, Google is also open to manipulation.
> At my last job, to increase sales, we were able increase the hit ratings of that 
> company through several tricks once we understood the Google search algorithm, 
> which has been published, although it changes all the time.  Once you know
> how Google works, it is possible to place your name as the first hit.
> Jimmy Wales himself has said that any search engine is political.  I
> see the application to politics getting worse and worse.  If you control the
> media, you control the country.
> 
> Anyway, beware of the internet when looking for truth (whatever that is).
> 
> Willblake2