What is Digg?59 Comments
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Are you kidding me? This is perfect. All of the partisanship and sides that people were trying to draw on Wikipedia finally have somewhere to go. This new thing is like a Wikipedia blow-off valve!
- jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Hopefully this will cut back on the political bickering and vandalism that Wikipedia sees far too often.
- Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28Wikipedians are so self-righteous, it'll be a hit. An annoying hit.
- TheBogie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Caring for the environment isn't political. As you say, only an idiot would want to ruin the environment. It can be argued to what degree the environment is being damaged, and what priority these issues should be given. For example, what is more important: lowering the price of oil in the US by digging in Alaska, or a couple of herds of caribou?
- jferraro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@rushfan
If the article is too long to scan for information why not edit it yourself? - rushfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah. I've noticed a-lot of political articles on wikipedia are flagged as biased/an advertisement yet no reasons are ever given on the talk page and nothing is done about it. This leads to two negative conclusions, because if you flag stuff as biased but nobody takes the time to fix it, it will stay that way. And if nobody can figure out how to fix it was probably flagged by somebody who didn't like the subject matter of the article.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5because your average digg user is a complete retard.
- doyadigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I lean to the conservative side and after researching environmental issues, I feel our best solution is to increase nuclear power production. The electricity generated will power our homes and through electrolysis we can split the hydrogen atoms out of water to power our cars and buses. It will ween us off coal and foreign oil which is good for the environment and national security.
I feel that solar, wind, and hydroelectric are great ideas, but can not supply the energy demands that nuclear can and therefor can not solve the problem of foreign oil dependency.
...The flack I get from this will show how the environment is a political issue. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"For example, what is more important: lowering the price of oil in the US by digging in Alaska, or a couple of herds of caribou?"
While I fully agree with your sentiment (I'm a libertarian who's always been interested in environmental causes), it's sad to see someone who's obviously intelligent be suckered by the envirowhackos and the media.
The truth about ANWR is that, with as advanced as horizontal drilling technology is, we can sit outside of the Refuge and drill in, sideways and underneath, to get the oil and never harm a single animal inside the Refuge nor disturb their habitat. So, you see, it's not a choice between caribou and oil...we can have both. The problem with ANWR is a bunch of spineless and lobby-bought politicians, bought by extremeist enviromentalists, and the complicit media.
As for me, I'd rather have more sustainable energy sources and phase out oil as an energy source altogether. BUT, if drilling *under* ANWR is a short term solution to help facilitate transference to sustainable energy in the long run, I'm for it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ ethics
Holy *****! A liberal with their eyes open? Never thought I'd see the day. :) - GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11I honestly can't see anything good coming out of this.
- Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ah, a veritable internet battlefield. what could POSSIBLY go wrong?
- insomniak29, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Democratic Party:
http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party
Republican Party:
http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party
Notice a slight difference in content? - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3[quote]/sarcasm on
I definitely think we need more liberal blogs/sites, we just don't have enough now!
/sarcasm off[/quote]
No, we need more HONEST blogs, rather than biased partisan ones.
But perhaps maybe the real answer is that people should think for themselves, rather than have some faceless, invisible entity do all their thinking for them. Whether it is a blog or the mainstream media, or a political/religious organization. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nerdiest comment ever.
- billydisaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"For example, what is more important: lowering the price of oil in the US by digging in Alaska, or a couple of herds of caribou?"
Actually to protect the environment, you want to raise the price of oil. The fact that it will 'protect a couple of herds of caribou' at the same time is just gravy. - rushfan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well most blogs and social network sites are dominated by young people, and young people tend to be more liberal, so it's just expected that there are going to be a-lot of liberal blogs.
- Tricky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's right. That's why he made a new wiki for politics.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yes, because political articles make the best wiki entries...
- calebegg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Perhaps it will provide an outlet for wikipedians' political debate urges.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Wikipedians are so self-righteous, it'll be a hit. An annoying hit."
Pffft... You better read up on wikipedians on Wikipedia, and see how wrong you are dude!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian
;-) - jonphamta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think a wiki for politics would be very successful due to the fact that
A)Theres definately going to be a bias / NPOV on all subjects and
B)Its going to be subjected to spam - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can only assume this is meant to be a collection pool for all the pointless political "disussion" that happens on the internet. Gay marriage, illegal immigration and American Idol are only meant to distract us.
- rushfan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9When Wikipedia first came out I thought it was cool, and still has good information, but I can see it slowly falling apart. Unfortunately, teenagers still form a good portion of the moderators/editors/whatever-you-call-them and it really shows. A-lot of articles are flagged for things they shouldn't be and a-lot of articles that should be flagged aren't. The biggest annoyance I have is when I see a paragraph that takes up half the screen - that's too long and too cumbersome to be easily scanned for information.
- jdkludge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm halfway through the Mission Statement, and I love it already. I love the idea, anyway. We'll see how the implementation goes...
- hunteramor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4what kinds of articles on wikipedia are most subject to vandalism, NPOV issues, etc.? the ones that are most politically charged.
politics brings out the worst of any wiki community - this will be no exception. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm, I wonder if the vandalism on this new site will cause the Wikipedia vandals to pale in comparison... :-p
- ethics, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Con? I am a liberal, voted Democrat all my life, I believe in choice in abortion, unemployment safety nets for those hard on their luck, medical coverage for all legal citizens, etc...
What irks me about my fellow Liberals is that they are content of winning with numbers and not with quality debates or offering something to counter the Conservatives besides the usual Bush bashing and other templated attacks. It's a yawner.
I'd love to see Liberals offer something new, constructive, and thought provoking. That's the only way we will win back the government.
By offering yet another "blog" (that's editable) won't be the savior, just another number.
Here's hoping I am wrong. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Why isn't this in the polticis section?
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well if its a flash ad saying smack (political leader of your choice) and win a free ipod then there is a problem
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It could be an interesting place to expirment with social interfaces where two (or more) groups of people are antagonistic and need to be kept civil to make the site succeed.
- davidshq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While Wikipedia has its faults, I think this is still a great idea. Right now how much do we do about our politicians? Oftentimes next to nothing. This site could help reverse this trend.
- ejp1082, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> Well most blogs and social network sites are dominated by young people, and young people tend to be more liberal, so it's just expected that there are going to be a-lot of liberal blogs.
Young, *geeky* people, who tend to be liberal.
Though honestly I think that doesn't have as much to do with it as one would think. There are enough right wing geeks and right wingers on the web that we should see a greater presence than we do. I think it's more that right wing media is already well established; they spent three decades building a top down propoganda machine of talk radio hosts, Fox News, and columnists built around talking points. Right wing bloggers not only don't fit into that machine but also have to compete for that audience.
The liberal media machine is much more nascent by comparison, and arguably started with the blogosphere - the audience was untapped and the bloggers didn't need to find a place in a pre-existing framework. It's being built around blogs, rather than needing to shoehorn blogs into an already existing one. - dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hey now, I'm not self-righteous. But then again, I typically just stick to science pages on there, and I avoid all the pointless babble.
Wikipedia is useful in a certain light, much like Digg (and /. and google and Yahoo! and just about everything else). It's not all bias junk or teens messing around, especially if its something they're not going to be interested in. I watch things like Milky Way, WW2, and they tend to be a good read and decent soruces of info. Avoid anything that's a charged topic as a matter of course, the same as I avoid forums that touch on them. - jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"For example, what is more important: lowering the price of oil in the US by digging in Alaska, or a couple of herds of caribou?"
Uh...you should realllly keep up with current events. Those caribou? Yeah, turns out they are fine with the rigs that are there. In fact, they are thriving. Even the leftists had to eat crow and come up with another one on that one. Douchebag. - BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why the hell would it not be compatible with iPod and Apple computers if its compatible with PC's. An mp3 is and mp3 no matter what u use to read it. I should care because I am a PC guy myself but wtf?
- tawker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, Jimbo's pretty excited about it, the concent actually works pretty well, I had started a Canadian version of the site a few months ago and it slowly started, though when Jimbo says something the world listens. Oh well, the goodness of Jimbo, he speaks we listen :)
- n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Another problem I find with Wikipedia is that it's prone to slander. Articles about certain people tend to have references to peoople that have supposedly "refuted" their work, and it's taken as fact. Often the person in question has done legitimate research, and detractors provide poorly written or flawed criticisms.
- rushfan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Because why would I edit it when I can go somewhere else and get information from there? I still have the entire World Book in print, and I have free access to it online. I've fixed an article from time to time but for the most part I'm not going to sit around all day and make wikipedia perfect when I know someone else will come along and mess it up again.
- romulusnr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow, 5 years running Wikipedia and he hasn't had enough bitter infighting and edit warring? He must live on the stuff like Jem'Hadar on Ketracel.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2wikiwar would have been a better name
- idiggali, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia
- senorlovedaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Am I the only one who thinks this isn't a horrible idea?
Instead of people yelling at each other from across the field Crossfire style, this new site allows people to outline the logical steps to each of their arguments. This could be a very valuable thing. - ylikone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Truthfully, I don't think there are many republicans that could create a meaningful blog or site. All they know how to post is hate messages about "lieberals". People get tired of that. Most activistists and world-changers are liberals.. while the greedy, rich are republicans. Just the way it works.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Its going to be a right wing party. Wales should move on from his wiki ideas to something new.
- toekneebullard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Damn. I'm not gonna say "Dupe" but I was sure when I submitted this yesterday it would have hit the front page. Next time I'll remember to put "gay" in the description.
- splintax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wikipedia has enough trouble dealing with politically-motivated vandalism, et cetera. I fail to see how they're going to manage the problem on a wiki dedicated to 'controversial issues'. :-/
- romulusnr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yeah, but then it'd become all about who had donated the most, etc.
Then again, a little cross-party donation rivalry wouldn't be so bad. But OTOH the high-donating party wouldn't want to be paying for the crap-spewing of their small-minded opponents. (Whichever is which.) - lykathea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Who cares about the environment when we've got gays that want to get married!
- trialofmiles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Anybody have any opinion on the fact campaigns.wikia.com has ads? Personally, I don't mind, but I can imagine some people would think it should be donation supported.
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is