digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

McCainPedia: A Democratic Party Project

mccainpedia.org — McCainpedia.org is a wiki run by the DNC's Research, Communications, and Internet teams. The goal is to centralize research material, allowing the general public to use it as they see fit. Unlike some wikis, McCainpedia is read-only and can't be edited by the public. This allows us to fully validate all of the information that appears . . .

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cg4et, on 05/19/2008, -11/+24I'm not sure I totally agree with their decision to make it a read-only wiki, but on the whole this can only be a good thing for the campaign to stop McCain. The Republicans have a long way to go to catch up to the Democrats' use of the internet for messaging, organizing, and fundraising.
    • barkingmoose, on 05/19/2008, -3/+8Can you even imagine what would happen if this was a publicly-editable wiki? I don't think the DNC had any choice but to do it this way.
      • UberNick, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6What will happen? A lot of people said it was crazy to let Wikipedia be freely and anonymously edited too. How would this be any different?
        • petrodollar, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5Every five seconds the posters from freerepublic.com would bombard it with that copies of that picture of Obama with a cigarette in his mouth.
        • Pillage, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4Just be glad they don't a have a picture of him doing coke.
      • CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1umm, wikipedia? what happened is it became a MUCH MUCH MUCH more credible source than any dictionary. In fact if you look up any of the crap from mccainpedia, on the real wikipedia, you'll get a much more unbiased view.
      • wendelgee2, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Except, those neocons manage to fill everybody's inbox with slimy forwards about Obama's muslim supposed ties.
        They know how to use the internets, let's not get smug.
      • jer2eydevil88, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2It should be open and modeated, its how wikipedia works and it works well. Otherwise this is nothing more than a biased and ***** attempt to misinform the public.

        I am voting for Obama not because he's a democrat but because he's the best candidate. The DNC trying something like this though makes me uncomfortable.
    • oldhick, on 05/19/2008, -5/+7"The Republicans have a long way to go to catch up to the Democrats' use of the internet for messaging, organizing, and fundraising." - is that right? I think old Ron Paul knows how to use the Internet just fine. I would say McCain and his neocons have a long ways to go.
      • petrodollar, on 05/19/2008, -3/+8Ron Paul's inability to win 6% of the primary vote in home state suggest otherwise.
        • oldhick, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3So using the Internet well is defined ONLY by political success?
        • petrodollar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8"So using the Internet well is defined ONLY by political success?"

          When the internet is being used to run a political campaign, yes.
        • Kingmichael, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+barack+ ...

          Ron Paul's internet campaign was just fine. The mainstream media is the problem.
        • petrodollar, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Or maybe Americans just aren't interested in electing a guy who hates the constitution so much that he wants to legislate Article III, Sec. 2 right out of it.
        • oldhick, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1I walked right into that one didn't I? Oh well. I guess I was simply trying to make the point that old Ron Paul used the internet quite effectively. Even Obama's supporters took some queues from his on-line campaign. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/in-role-r ...
          But at the end of the day, you're right. Had he been more successful he'd probably be getting the nomination. Now which part of Article III, Sect. 2 is Ron Paul against? I haven't heard this one yet and it should be good.
        • petrodollar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti ...

          "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority"

          Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

          Now here's Ron Paul explaining that the Supreme Court should no longer have jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution:

          http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul270.html

          Here's the Wikipedia entry on Ron Paul's "We The People Act," which would strip federal courts of the power to hear cases relating to "social issues."

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

          That's right, if a law concerns a "social issue," Ron Paul thinks federal courts should not have jurisdiction to review its constitutionality, even if such laws run afoul of the equal protection clause, the due process clause, or violate one's right to privacy.

          Absolutely disgusting. Ron Paul has the nerve to pound his fists and proclaim himself the guardian of the constitution, yet his contempt for that document knows no bounds.
      • BobSconce, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2McCain is *not* a neocon. If anything, he's a Burkean conservative.

        Unfortunately, that's a distinction that's getting lost in this season -- a central idea of the neocon movement is an activist conservative government. To a Burkean, "Activist" and "Conservative" are two words that don't go together.
        • d03boy, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3he's a flip flopper either way...
        • mrsteveman1, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Not a neocon huh? what about tomorrow?
        • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I heard he was for it before he was against it, but none the less would not comment on such a hypothetical situation but would also like it explained again just so everyone is clear what he is and what he is not not answering.
    • badnewshotel, on 05/19/2008, -10/+6Yeah, and I don't think the Internets could even hold all of the ***** lies that Obama and the Liberals spread each and every day.
      • mrsteveman1, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Well as you so rightly pointed out, there are multiple internets, so i think we can find room!
    • deklax, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6Another name for a read-only wiki?

      A website.

      Welcome to the internet, Democrats. Party like it was 1999!

      I think the DNC's Research, Communications, and Internet teams might have a bit of catching up to do with the 21st century.
      • Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Agreed there, democrat or republican. Dugg up for attempted journalism, but dugg right back down for read-only. Edit moderation would have been the way to go.
    • a2fan, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Interesting. I expect if a Obamapedia were created, you would support that too in all fairness? Or would your initial reaction be anger or suspicion? Honestly.
    • GreatSunJester, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Well it is a good thing this was done by liberals first. If McCain (or Ron Paul, or even Hillary) had started this to centralize research material, allowing the general public to use it as they see fit we would be seeing a MAJOR whine-fest from various outlets that get linked here alot. If this had occurred to anyone else and they discounted if due to potential backlash, they are now free to implement it. OK .. I am sure there will still be a whine-fest, but it will be an obvious whine-fest.
  • lsumed, on 05/19/2008, -13/+26Bookmarked.
    • knumbknuts, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1edited: too snarky
    • badnewshotel, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Good idea... save it right next to your bookmark 'how to trick out Mom's basement'. Dork.
      • Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4Quick lesson in Internet Slang.

        Troll (n): someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

        Troll (v): to post controversial messages in an attempt to bait other users; to behave in a way normally ascribed to trolls.

        You, sir, just trolled.
        • badnewshotel, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1What, are you following me now whack job?

          Here's a quick lesson for you:

          Loser (n): you

          Tard (n): you and your mom

          Dog (v): what you're doing to me.

          Now, go back to your toilet training little girl.
        • Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1"What, are you following me now whack job?"

          Not at all. I made two posts that were adjacent to each other in the same story in reply to your vitriol. That they were both essentially reprehensible was the only reason I responded.

          Note that I left your third and remaining comments in the same chain of replies to first-level comments be; you're not really worth the trouble of engaging.

          Seriously, I should know better than to feed trolls.
  • diggdiggdugger, on 05/19/2008, -15/+14An ambitious project, is there enough room in the tubez to track all of McCain's sleaze? Someone might need to call Senator Ted Stevens to clear any blockages with his famous Hulk smash.
  • BishkekBuddy, on 05/19/2008, -19/+13This is brilliant... will refer to it (and refer others to it!) often!!
    • badnewshotel, on 05/19/2008, -6/+6And by others, I assume you mean your imaginary friends and blow up dolls. Liberal loser.
      • Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Wait, I thought libtards were supposed to be the elite. Are his friends not then supposed to be Muffy and Buffy at the country club?

        No, you're just flinging insults in the hopes that one sticks - as can be seen by your decidedly rude messages in response to a *chain* of first-level posts.
        • badnewshotel, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Fordi - thanks for checking out my profile. I'm not going to waste my time with yours because, well, I already know you're an idiot.
        • Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Who checked your profile? I was referring to the posts surrounding this one. You're an obvious troll from a quick glance.

          Mind you, I blocked you a week ago for showing a contemptible level of political cowardice. The same political cowardice, I assume, that allows you to merely insult the candidates and latch onto vagaries to beat your dick upon, rather than talk about real issues.
  • yodacallmesome, on 05/19/2008, -5/+48At least it is clearly marked "a project of the Democratic Party".
    • badnewshotel, on 05/19/2008, -6/+13Yes, so that way we know it's total *****.
    • CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3its not really clearly marked at all.. yea it says it in size 30 font, on the top right of the page, but once the page has been scrolled down just an inch theres absolutely no sign of the democratic party. And even if it said democratic party up and down the page in the background. that wouldn't be enough for the majority of america.
    • TreatsTheBear, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5This is clearly why they have to make it a read only 'wiki' - if it's an official DNC site and somebody put something comparing McCain to Hitler on it (which according ot Godwin's Law would be virtually inevitable) then OReilly or Limbaugh would go nuts over it, claiming it was coming straight from the DNC. In fact this very comment may be the subject of a talking points memo in a week or so, selectively quoted, of course.
      • cg4et, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1You are right about that. The conservatives themselves would post hate-filled garbage and then scream bloody murder about it. That is the pathetic state of our political system.
    • tiraid, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I think it's a good idea... but could we instead get an independent one on all candidates? I don't want the DNC site about McCain or the RNC site about Obama. Both are worthless.
  • wwwil, on 05/19/2008, -17/+11Excellent resource. The keating five entry is informative. I didn't know that of the 5, McCain was the closest to Keating and the most involved. I think i'll pass this link around.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -3/+10Yes. Very interesting. Like when someone checks your profile and the only things you've ever dugg (all three of them) are anti-McCain submissions. No. It isn't obvious you're a plant. Really.
  • Phooey42, on 05/19/2008, -25/+17Great idea for a website! The Democrats are going to hit the Republican party so hard this November that they'll still be dizzy in 2012.
    • thefangedrabbit, on 05/19/2008, -8/+13I assume you mean "The Democrats are going to tear themselves apart with petty squabbling and somehow lose the election that was presumed to be handed to them on a silver platter".
    • badnewshotel, on 05/19/2008, -3/+9If the Dems win, we'll all be dizzy in 2012 from the taxes, invasion of privacy, elimination of freedom, and end of common sense.
      • kakwakas, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2And the Reps are any better?
        Face it - both parties have horrible policies and don't give a damn about the people.
        • ralphthemagi, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Both parties have policies that actually represent their constituency (ie. the people) based on what they *think* are their own self interests, and those people don't care about each other.
  • iamcjh, on 05/19/2008, -12/+11With respect to concerns regarding it being read only, I think this is important if there is an expectation that news and media organisations might at times refer to it. It needs to be assessed as credible and there needs to be citations and references so that all information provided is beyond the pale. That being the case, I think we can expect a number of media orgs using the site because its easier than doing their own fact finding research, and if it is accurate, cited and referenced then they've also covered their asses too.
    • BobSconce, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3It's read-only because they want to be able to control the spin. The last thing they want to do is put up TRUTH. If you actually believe that either party is going to tell you the truth about the other candidate, you're naive.

      Unfortunately, you're probably right about the media picking it up, though.
    • CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5How is it credible though? Its a site designed specifically to hurt McCains credibility, and slander him. Look around the site, none of McCains great accomplishments are listed, only dirt and trash. And wheres this dirt coming from? the democratic party. Maybe its just me, but its like MS making a site to slander and spread lies about Apple. Of course MS would only mention bad things about apple even if they are half-truths or straight up lies.

      Anyone who follows this site blindly without looking at things from another perspective is an idiot.

      the site is obviously biased, and the read-only aspect is to protect their bias, nothing can be edited by the public, none of the half-truths or lies can be challenged. The site is complete BS.
      • murraj2, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Isn't this how Apple's marketing works?
        • CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2yea, originally I wrote the sentence as "Its like Apple making a site to slander and spread lies about MS" But that didn't sit right for a few reasons. 1) Apple practically does this to MS (just not in webpage form) 2) Apple boys would flip their lids and dig me down sooo fast for calling Apple out that my real point would be completely buried.
  • haskinb84, on 05/19/2008, -12/+27To beat a dead horse, the fact that this is read only makes me concerned that we have to "trust" a policital party to get all the "facts" straight about their opposition's Presidential contender. If the RNC did something like this to Obama, everyone would be in arms if it was read only...
    • geddon, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2..considering the fact that this is merely a collection of all the smear tactics that DNC is planning on using in the general election.
  • wild, on 05/19/2008, -8/+51Sorry, but I will get my facts on the candidates from multiple sources that are as unbiased as possible. (I know, thats hard, but going to the DNC created website for talking points is lazy and exactly the kind of politics I am tired of.)

    • Insightful, on 05/19/2008, -14/+4You should have read the site first but making you lazy and tired opinion.

      Facts are not biased, opinion is. As far as I can tell, this DNC created McCainPedia is an attempt to collects the facts about McCain.

      For example, its entry on minimum wage (http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Minimum_Wage) spoke of the five McCain votes on minimum wage and each time cited the Senate year and vote #.

      How many sources do you need to confirm that McCain voted against the minimum wage amendment in 2006?
      • PolishLogic, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2You do know what happens every time the minimum wage goes up, right? Prices go up too. We can jack the minimum wage up to $20 if you'd like, but then you'll just be spending $10 a gallon for milk.
    • wild, on 05/19/2008, -2/+23I did read the site first. And the first thing I read was in the purple box dead center on the page:

      "John McCain has spent the last four years spouting rosy and empty rhetoric about the Iraq war. "

      Yep. That sure does feel fact based. Come on dude. I looked at the site. Its definitely interjecting its own rhetoric and interpretations among the facts listed. My opinion is neither lazy or tired. It is informed. Which is exactly why I think we need less sites like the one in question and more that come from a neutral viewpoint.
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3How hard is it to look at that page... say "Oh! This is interesting!!" or "That can't be right..." and then find sources yourself? I'm sure that, based on WHO is doing this, that they'd try to keep it as factual as they can, but they do have vested interests in this so they'd add their own spin to it or sensationalize things.
      If you're stupid enough to take facts at face value, then the source shouldn't matter.
      However if you're smart enough to realize that one source with no corroboration is never enough, then you'd already know to research on your own and wouldn't have to worry.
      • ralphie81, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2"If you're stupid enough to take facts at face value, then the source shouldn't matter."

        Brilliant
        • twiztidsinz, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Try comprehending the whole of the sentence not just parts.
    • wild, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Twizt. We still have people out there who think Obama is a Muslim. And those are people who call themselves Democrats.

      Me I am less worried about. Its those people who don't seem to be able to find second sources or seem to care enough to question face value. If this was ObamaPedia, it would already be under a DOS attack.

      Just because we politically align with something, doesn't mean we agree on every execution. (Well, it shouldn;t anyway...)
      • twiztidsinz, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1And that's my point.

        If they're the kind of people to take just one source as the absolute fact, they wont care WHAT that source is and they wont do any sort of checking to verify the claims of that one source.
      • CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1I don't think Obamapedia would get a DOS attack, but I sure as hell expected McCainpedia to be under a DOS attack and down for the count by now. No need though, the digg affect did it for us.
      • soupdawg30, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1He is a Muslim. Oh Snap!
  • DaDrake, on 05/19/2008, -12/+33"This allows us to fully validate all of the information that appears"

    LOL .... and its written by the DNC. I doubt anyone believes this will be unbias.
    • Insightful, on 05/19/2008, -12/+5Why don't you check the citation? As far as I can tell, it is very well citated using McCain 's own words and voting records. Can you demonstrate a case of bias?
  • whataboutdave, on 05/19/2008, -6/+29Lame. A read-only Wiki isn't a Wiki.
    • markgl, on 05/19/2008, -4/+8i believe that its called a website right?
  • Sovereign2142, on 05/19/2008, -6/+20I hope people can see this for the pure political propaganda that it is. Reading McCainPedia's Keating Five article makes you think that McCain was the only one involved and conveniently forgets that the other 4 senators were democrats. I'm not excusing McCain's role in the scandal, but even though this site may have more sources than most anti-McCain sites it still only cherry-picks the facts that are most damming to McCain and doesn't tell the complete story at all. All this site is good for is bolstering the anti-McCain crowd while the rest of us would probably check Wikipedia first and get a much more factual account of McCain's life and career. And, in my opinion, that is a far better option. Maybe I'm just naive but I think people should hear every side of an issue before making up their minds, not just the side that fits their current worldview.
    • drobertbfm, on 05/19/2008, -9/+3Except that in most "histories" of the Keating Five, McCain's central and self-serving role tends to be completely ignored. In the vast majority of the material I've seen, McCain is portrayed as some kind of innocent by-stander, rather than the primary instigator and the only one who had anything to gain by the actions. It was McCain who brought the others in, and it was McCain who had gotten contributions from Keating, his bestest buddy.

      That's not propaganda; it's balance. If you want the other side, you can easily find it.
      • exomni, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1It's pretty this comment is being dugg down. I guess the McCain-bots have finally caught up with the Paul and Obama bots.

        Reason and rationality be damned!
    • pillcounterd, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2There might be 4 others, but McCain is the only one still around and just happens to be running for some office. Why in the hell would we want to worry about the other 4? What are they doing now? And in the middle of this economic downturn, this is really important.
      • Lamadave222, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but of course the Congress and Justice decided 27 years ago that it wasn't worth punishment or prosecution....then again the good folks at Justice decided Billy Ayers did not have to face up to his terrorist sins either.
      • Anachronus, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Surely it is coincidence that the four of the five were Democrats.
        • pillcounterd, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Surely it is coincidence that the one of the five is running for office.
  • IKORKYI, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9should definitely be McCainipedia

    i feel like the i has to be in there to have a successful psuedonym
  • PiGuy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+15What, no "The neutrality of this article is being disputed" warnings?
  • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -12/+5What's all this concern about bias? Everything's fully cited, so if you don't trust any of the information, you can always look into it yourself and make your own conclusions. Is nobody capable of researching anything on their own, even when you're provided a direct link to the source material?
    • DaDrake, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6The problem isn't that its cited.... the problem is DNC is trying to push their views with a guise of unbias credibility. While political parties do this all the time... this specific tactic hasn't been used. Obviously, presenting this information as a website, blog, or e-mail would have a perception of less credibility.

      But I will credit them for making their association obvious with the DNC. If that wasn't mention, there would probably be an outcry. For example, many people criticize some prominent democrats (Hillary, Pelosi, etc) with a strong relationship with moveon.org. Most of the criticism has to do with it being a non-profit organization (like swiftvetsfortruth)... but the other issue is politicians are able to push out messages and disguise the true messenger.

      I suppose a radical example of this would be the Brady campaign and there numerious websites and organizations of hunters, 2nd-amendment supporters, etc. This allows Newspaper to quote the NRA and a Brady affiliated "gun-friendly" like the AHSA. What newspapers don't mention is the NRA has about 5 million members and the AHSA has fifteen thousands.

      Essentially... groups can keep creating "new advocacy groups" so they aren't affected by any backlash and so people don't associate the new group with pre-existing ones.
    • CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Just because sources are listed does not make it any less biased. Journalists/writers whatever write with bias all the time. Its very possible for the source to be biased. for example look at the "sources" for the keating five. Almost all of them are from the San Francisco Chronicle, a paper that is typically biased to be more liberal than a typical american paper.

      here's a better example

      "George Bush hates black people!"

      Source; Kanye West.

      IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
      • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1That was my point - you can check the reliability of the sources for yourself.
  • knumbknuts, on 05/19/2008, -17/+42Maybe we can get an obamapedia.

    The section on his Senate accomplishments could be banged out over lunch.
    • lsumed, on 05/19/2008, -7/+2It's better than half of the info saying 'see Billopedia.'
    • brwright, on 05/19/2008, -1/+14It is here: http://digg.com/news/2008_us_elections
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -7/+4LMAO!
    • Silentshadow900, on 05/19/2008, -6/+14God, finally somebody who isn't a ***** robot.
    • ender7074, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3Lunch? Nah, maybe between getting your drink for lunch and ordering the entree. No more time than that.
    • noelsusman, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3I'm really confused here. This guy just bashed on Obama and he's not getting dugg down? Wtf is going on? Where are the robots?!?!
  • oldhick, on 05/19/2008, -6/+15I would recommend everyone research the Keating 5. I didn't have time to read teh entire McCainPedia and all of the stories, but I did take a look at that section and had a good laugh. They paint that one slightly different than it happened... Try the actual Wikipedia for a slightly less biased account - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
    McCain is still a douche, but the BS is annoying. Why can't the debate move beyond Keating 5 and Rezko hype. I'll check up on some of the others tonight, but everyone's going to be real happy when the Neocons respond with their own..
    • ender7074, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Wont happen. If something like this was done to Obama, it would be labled racist and the entire MSM would go off on it until it was shut down. You see, no one is allowed to question the Word of Obama or his witch of a wife.
  • plizard, on 05/19/2008, -20/+19lame and some democratic biased ***** for the sheep to follow and worship their precious osamabama
    • exomni, on 05/19/2008, -7/+4Now Digg is digging up "osamabama" comments? Pathetic. This site is going down the crapper.
    • maxer64, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8Osamabama!! haha good one. Because it rhymes! I see.
  • zephyr42, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3They need a better server...
  • GrodyChamp, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5Hooray for dirty politics.
    • dig1x, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I dont know why you'd cheer McCain's dirty politics... its all pretty clear to be read right there at mccainpedia.org.

      That kind of McCain corruption shouldnt be cheered.
      • GrodyChamp, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I forgot sarcasm doesn't work well over the internet. The dirty politics is making a BS pedia about McCain, because I'm sure it's going to be super objective......
  • junkwheel, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2MIRROAR!
  • smash20, on 05/19/2008, -3/+8Awesome! A Democratic version of our favorite site, Conservapedia!
    • ender7074, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1So you admit you like your information biased to one side instead of telling the truth? No suprise there from a lib...
      • smash20, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2/sarcasm
        I don't consider myself a "conservative" or "liberal". I have my own opinions. There's some stuff I'm liberal about (End Iraq War, Net Neutrality) and some stuff I'm conservative about (Against Universal Health Care, Smaller Government).
  • exomni, on 05/19/2008, -5/+7Step one: get half decent servers for your oxymoronic "read-only Wikipedia".
  • markgl, on 05/19/2008, -0/+9This allows us to fully make up what we want and all of the information that appears . . .
  • Skywise, on 05/19/2008, -6/+18Where's the ObamaPedia? Of course if one was made by the Republican Party (and read only) it'd be blasted all over for being part of a "swiftboating" strategy...

    Just more diggpocracy (c)...
    • Pillage, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7But see, The republicans are evil ("Largest terrorist organization in America" ~Kieth Olbermann) . So obviously it would be bias but, the democrats are the saviors of this country, and therefore would only be fair and balanced to McCain. See how that works?
      • JAVandiver, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...
      • GrodyChamp, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4I bet libtards are digging you completely missing the sarcasm lol
  • Defuser, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7"UNLIKE SOME WIKIS"?? Oh, you mean all those other Wikis that AREN'T nothing but propaganda tools for a bunch of partisan hacks.
    • dig1x, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Wikipedia is pretty bad for that actually.
  • Smokersroom, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3Somebody donate them a new server...
  • bloominoctober, on 05/19/2008, -2/+11I'm sure at least some of the information on this DNC-run wiki will be favorable to McCain.

    /sarcasm
  • Ephraim2007, on 05/19/2008, -5/+2mccain supporters broke their hosting...
  • Sil369, on 05/19/2008, -9/+3Site is SLOOOOOOOOW. Repub's are prolly DDOSing it to death. hahaha
    • serif69, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2You've never actually clicked on a link from Digg, have you?
  • amightywind, on 05/19/2008, -17/+12What a great idea. Run a sleazy smear wiki for Obomber. Don't the scumbag liberals already have that in digg?
    • HappyProgrammer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3
      > What a great idea. Run a sleazy smear wiki for Obomber. Don't the scumbag liberals already have that in digg?

      If that is what Digg is to you then what the hell are you doing here?
      • amightywind, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1I am here to spread my important message to digg's ignorant community.
        • banderwocky, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Of fear, racism, hate, ignorance, intolerance and bigotry. Some closed minded American ideals that are medieval in practice.
        • amightywind, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1...of knowledge, patriotism, strength, self-reliance, vigilance, rule, order, progress, and vision - the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian ideals that make America the greatest nation in the history of the world.
        • banderwocky, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2I think that's your problem. All those ideas would be good, but you only think it applies to white Christians. So they become moot and hypocritical when they are spewed from your finger tips. I believe in all of those, but for all people, regardless of sex, ethnicity or religion.
      • ender7074, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Keeping tabs on the idiocy of the left.
  • DulcetTone, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3Buried for being failure to MOVE ON

  • The_Red_Monkey, on 05/19/2008, -9/+14If they did this about Obama is would be called racist and taken down.
  • taradisiac, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3Wikipedia is nothing but an over politicized community full of power-hungry nerds with an ego trip.
  • Simon83, on 05/19/2008, -2/+9"McCainpedia is read-only and can't be edited by the public. This allows us to fully validate all of the information that appears".......Lol, I can only guess the validity of the information already. It should say "This allows us the opportunity to make up a bunch of outrageous and ridiculous lies which no one can defend. We will stretch the truth at any chance we get to make McCain look bad, while making Obama look infallible."

    Can you really call a Wiki that no one can edit a Wiki? Kinda contradicts itself, right? Here is the definition from Wikipedia "A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language[1][2]." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
  • flipz4, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Thanks Dr. Dean
  • JK1150, on 05/19/2008, -9/+16digg complains about the MSM being biased, but then links to a DNC page smearing mccain.
    • nblsavage, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3If everything has citations, then where is the smear?
      • JK1150, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4one of their "citations:"
        ^ [Huffington Post, 4/28/08]
      • ender7074, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1I can take anything you say and smear it. Adding quotes and a citation doesn't make it true. Jesus, didnt you ever take a basic english class?
        • nblsavage, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2the point I was making you cretin was that if they provide the links to the source information and people can see for themselves if it's accurate then how can it be a "smear".
        • JK1150, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3fox news provided a video clip of reverend wright saying what he did, and obama not denouncing him. guess that wasn't a smear.
  • pillcounterd, on 05/19/2008, -0/+12If someone did this for every member of congress, that would be sweet.
  • verifex, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10You fail DNC! It's no wiki if only YOU can edit it. This coming from an Obama supporter.
  • SaladCactusKing, on 05/19/2008, -0/+15A non-open source open source smear campaign.

    What a brilliant idea!
  • Hetman, on 05/19/2008, -3/+11Is it me or am I the only one who believes if it is created by the democrats and it cannot be edited that it might be a little bias?
  • RockNRollBeaver, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6Buried...and you all know why.
  • wezman2, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8There's an entire section on negative campaigning... What the heck do they think this entire site is???
    • knumbknuts, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2No *****,

      It should just disappear in a puff of logic.
  • withears, on 05/19/2008, -4/+4Excellent resource!
  • soupdawg30, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Think it's biased?
  • Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Doesn't a McCainpedia already exist as Conservapedia?
  • skellener, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2McBushPedia
    • PolishLogic, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Oh, I see what you did there.

      ...ugh.
  • shauncorleone, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Answers.com
    Wiki-wiki is the Hawaiian word for quick.

    Wiki websites are designed to enable users to make additions or edit any page of the site. They often have a common vocabulary and consider themselves a "Wiki" community.

    Yup, this is definitely an inane use of a buzzword. Good job, libs.
  • Nidy1, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8"John McCain has spent the last four years spouting rosy and empty rhetoric about the Iraq war. " At least it's unbiased.
    • toekneebullard, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Exactly. I was going to check this site out, but when that's the first line from the featured article, I lose all interest.

      I'd be VERY interested in a true wiki about all the candidates, but this is just useless.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.