Google "Al Gore". Notice the "Al Gore Controversies" WIKIpedia page? WTF is up with that?

[Harper_is_Bush]

Wikipedia editors usually don't allow such bullshit POV attacks.

It's a hit page, nothing more.

Everyone can edit wikipedia, so I encourage you to do so. Don't try and delete the entire page, it will automatically revert back. Just go in and change some of the text, and comment as you do so that the text is POV (point of view)garbage.

cheers.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. kicking

:D

you could have at least provided a link :hi:

[Harper_is_Bush]

2. You are correct, thanks. LINK HERE:

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

[Uncle Joe]

3. Self-delete. n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. Why the self-delete Uncle? I noticed your comment, all you did was

thank me for posting.

I'm curious, did someone stick a conspiracy bug in your ear? I see there's one such person making some despicable innuendo towards me.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I don't know whether you knew it or not but I agree with Pastiche

in that the Wickipedia has been a self-correcting site and personally I don't trust WAPO anymore.

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. I didn't see Pastiche make that comment. However, if you think it's benificial that Al Gore be

labelled as "controversial", to the point that he deserves a wiki site dedicated to his "controversies", then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Wiki is far from perfect, and in this case editors have dropped the ball. Corrections about persistent inaccuracies would be better placed on Al Gore's own wiki page.

As for not trusting the Washington Post, my advice is take things on their merit. You obviously didn't read the article I posted to Pastiche, so...again, agree to disagree I guess.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Well I guess this gets WAPO off the hook for slandering Al Gore for so long,

no apologies needed, lest it reinforce the original lies. Maybe I'll feel better toward them when they come out with a front page story as to what Al Gore's accomplishments actually were toward the Internet, but even then it might seem like a day late and a dollar short.

I do agree with the psychological aspect of focusing on the truth or a postive as a better means to reinforce the message in memory, than a negative, it's easier to quit smoking by saying to yourself I'm smoke free than I will not smoke, because you subconscious focus on the not word, but I knew this in the 90s.


None the less thanks for the thread, Harper_is_Bush.

[Harper_is_Bush]

14. It's an interesting article with some good information for activists/advocates

but I'd say it doesn't get them off the hook for slandering Al Gore.

[Pastiche423]

4. Why would anyone want to edit it?

It shows the inacurate claims, then proceeds to correct them.

But you knew that, din't you?

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. I think you need to read this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933.html

It demonstrates the misguidedness of your stated belief that the wikipedia article focussed on inacurate claims is somehow a net benifit, even if it does correct those claims.

But you knew that, didn't you? :wtf:

[Pastiche423]

9. No, I don't need to read that WAPO article

I read the entire Wikipedia article and there was nothing to edit. It made it clear that misconceptions have been in the news about certain statements Al Gore has made, and then it states what he actually said.

Btw, What despicable innuendo have I made towards you?

[Harper_is_Bush]

10. Unfortunately, too many people stumbling upon it will only get the idea that

there are "controversies" surrounding Al gore. They may also peruse the headings, and remember the bullshit, but not read in depth as you did.

Al Gore is so controversial, that he requires a wiki page dedicated to his "controversies", huh?

And you know perfectly well what innuendo you directed at me. It's quite obvious.

[Pastiche423]

11. I do not know what innuendo you speak of

So, please let everyone know what you meant.

As to the Wiki page, only an idiot that did not take the time to READ the page would react as you say.

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. Is that right

well, only an idiot would choose to not read an article that would address their own ignorance.

And I don't believe you for one second when you say you don't know what innuendo I speak of. It is clear to the basest of fools.

[Pastiche423]

15. Quit the bullshit

What innuendo?

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. I don't have patience

for people who don't have the courage to come out and say what they're thinking, and then play dumb when they're called on it.

[Pastiche423]

17. Called on what?

No one else, apparently, knows what the hell you are ranting about.

So, why don't you spell it out so that we all can be informed.

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. Strange how you think you can speak for "no one else"

and use the term "we".

[johnaries]

18. It's not an attack at all. It vindicates Gore in all the attacks that he has taken.

It's a well-written and accurate article. It's a good place for Gore supporters to recommend whenever some RW idiot parrots one of these old attacks. I wish it included the Love Story "controversy" as well.

[Pastiche423]

19. Exactly!

I'm glad it's there.

[Harper_is_Bush]

21. see post #10 n/t

[w4rma]

26. Yup. Don't delete this. It's useful. (nt)

[Naturyl]

22. Do they have a "George Bush Controversies" page?

Just wondering.

[lpbk2713]

25. Dumbya is a walking controversy. He's one of a kind.

Link: http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html


And hopefully there will never be another like him.

[mogster]

23. A hit job n/t

[RestoreGore]

24. It's a RW POS

I too am surprised Wikipedia is allowing it to stand.

[JAbuchan08]

27. You realize that organizing edits to wikipedia pages is justification for banning

It's not that I disagree that it's a hit page, but you can't organize an edit war.

[Harper_is_Bush]

28. I'm not organizing anything, or telling anyone to perform any specific edits.

to "encourage" and to "organize" are two decidedly different things. But thanks for the heads up, I didn't know.