I wasn't comparing. My interest is in Wikipedia. In
any case, such
comparisons do not make things inevitable and therefore unworthy of
thought.
The very idea of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to avoid the dominance
of any one group or person. That it does such a good job of this is
actually all the more reason to keep in mind that it is not perfect and
why.
People where saying the exact same thing a decade ago when the world wide
web was all the rage. That the "internet" would revolutionize human society,
that direct democracy would become usable and that all forms of oppression
and mass media control would magically disappear.. halleluja!
Well, it didn't and today the web is dominated by a few American giants like
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and some others. Yes you can find alternative
information on the net just like there was a lot of alternative papers that
noone read before the internet too. But the overexposure of the mainstream
(Beckhams sex life) makes it so noone but the few that actively look for
alternative stuff will ever find it.
Then if Wikipedia really is different, then why does those list report many
more Israelis killed than Palestinians when the real situation is the
complete opposite?
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail