19 replies [Last post]
expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Al Franken information

You're absolutely right, JTap. In 1888 Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral college. And it's always worth noting that in 1992 more people voted AGAINST Bill Clinton than voted for him -- 14 million more, in fact.

Offline
Joined: 04/01/2009
Posts: 435
Al Franken information

The electoral college isn't only determined by population. Two extra delegates are awarded by state just like senators. In that way the college is inherently undemocratic. Also most states have a winner take all method of awarding delegates. It's thought that this unequal distribution would have benefited Obama in a closer race (unequal distribution of state delegates that is)

I wouldn't try to draw a correlation between inteligence and ability to vote. New voters have a much higher rate of ballot rejection due to technical defaults. Often registration forms are made difficult to fill out to disuade new voters from voting, and there are hidden tricks in the form to invalidate those new voters who do register, because we know which way the young vote.

There has been a 40 year effort to keep the poor, the young, and minorities from voting. It worked for quite a while.

Using Fox as a source should be done with care. Some of their stories are done by journalists, others by hacks. Fox is the only "news" that has succesfully sued in court to protect it's right to knowingly disseminate lies. They won.The FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news doesn't apply to cable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Al Franken information
pangolin wrote:
Using Fox as a source should be done with care.

...and then he posts a link to Wikipedia. Laugh Laugh Laugh

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1585
Al Franken information
expatriate wrote:
pangolin wrote:
Using Fox as a source should be done with care.

...and then he posts a link to Wikipedia. Laugh Laugh Laugh

Awesome huh? Laugh Laugh Brick Wall,)

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Al Franken information

You'll love this, JTap -- a Wikipedia article on external peer reviews of Wikipedia. None of it's good, but I like the one that says Wikipedia's 80 percent accurate.

Of course, if the Wikipedia article is only 80 percent accurate about Wikipedia being 80 percent accurate, then Wikipedia is actually only 64 percent accurate. neener!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review

Offline
Joined: 04/01/2009
Posts: 435
Al Franken information

I hope that anyone reading this follows Expatriat's link to the Wiki article. It's pretty good and gives a much more positive reveiw of Wiki than Expatriate presents.

They compare Wiki favorably to other online encyclopedias, Britanica, History of the American People, etc. I use Wiki as a quick reference assuming they have the basic facts right, and they do. Expat's 80% is in reference to things like typos, lifting passages off other sources without attribution, typos in quotes, etc.

I especially lilked the reveiws by experts in the fields. Very good reviews. I quote from the review on climate change,

Quote:
Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen
Quote:
a great primer on the subject
Quote:
pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy

I think everyone here could do with some reading of the Wiki entry on climate change.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Al Franken information

In other words, ignore the low accuracy figure because someone at Colorado State said it's nice.

Your positive quotations all come from the Denver Post story at the bottom of the article. They asked five Colorado academics to review Wiki articles. Four of the five had positive comments. The fifth slammed it.

THAT'S 80 PERCENT. neener!

Thanks for agreeing with my point.

Offline
Joined: 04/01/2009
Posts: 435
Al Franken information

Best thing to do would be for anyone to just go ahead and read the whole article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1585
Al Franken information
wiki wrote:
Findings
Summary: "The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia's accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations."

Yep I do Love it as I have been saying all along that wiki is a less than desirable source for information to be used to back up and /or form an opinion.
This is the exact copy and paste from the link expat provided.
There is noway to "misunderstand" what the findings say.
Any attempt to try and spin the findings is really just futile, especially given that everyone can read from this same link and can see what it says

And to keep this on topic, I wonder what wiki has to say about Al Franken?

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Congratulations, Senator-elect Franken!pangolin2107/08/2009 20:25 pm
Taxation Without Representation?pangolin1104/17/2009 23:59 pm
Ballistic informationhostage67505/07/2007 22:26 pm
Posting Hunting Information...7mm08403/05/2009 20:34 pm
Ft Peck Reservoir Deer Hunt Information?Clearwater_ID202/03/2004 13:36 pm