Google: Ministry of Propaganda
Ray
Google regarding the drop in links they generate from the keyword
"climategate".
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/google-gate/
For comparison, the score as of today, Google = 2,450,000
Bing = 50,500,000.
Google's CEO is a strong BO supporter.
I use Bing. I think it's a better search system.
Ray
Charles Bell
I'm not sure about this. Google is often better because it does
filter out redundancies and near-misses thereby giving fewer, but
better, results.
More important how about the corruption of Wikipedia?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2417604/posts
Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate
The American Spectator | 12/30/09 | Tom Bethell
Posted on Wednesday, December 30, 2009 9:31:55 AM by Titus-Maximus
Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, had an article in yesterday's
Wall Street Journal drawing attention to the rise of "online
hostility" and the "degeneration of online civility." He (and coauthor
Andrea Weckerle) suggested ways in which we can "prevent the worst
among us from silencing the best among us."
I agree with just about everything that they say. But there is one
problem that Mr. Wales does not go near. That is the use of Wikipedia
itself to inflame the political debate by permitting activists to
rewrite the contributions of others. All by itself, that surely is a
contributor to online incivility.
The issue that I am particularly thinking about is "climate change" --
or global warming as it was once called (until the globe stopped
warming, about a decade ago). Recently the Financial Post in Canada
published an article by Lawrence Solomon, with this remarkable
headline:
How Wikipedia's green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.
Solomon draws attention to the online labors of one William M.
Connolley, a Green Party activist and software engineer in Britain.
Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia
site. I continue with a two-paragraph direct quote from Mr. Solomon's
article:
[Connolley] rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the
greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the
urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14,
he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm
Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph.
He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the
scientists who were skeptical of the band [of climatologist
activists]. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most
distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets,
1Z
> Solomon draws attention to the online labors of one William M.
> Connolley, a Green Party activist
....and climate scientist
> [Connolley] rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the
> greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the
> urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14,
> he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm
> Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph.
> He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the
> scientists who were skeptical of the band [of climatologist
> activists]. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most
> distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets,
Wow? articles written by someone who knows about the subject?!
Whatever next!
I'm so glad to hear that the many other WP editors who have tried
to downplay AGW are both a) politcally independent and b) more
scientifically qualified than Connelly.
Aren't they Charlie? Aren't they?
1Z
> This blog recounts the author's attempt in getting information from
> Google regarding the drop in links they generate from the keyword
> "climategate".
Google do not in general reveal their algorithms in order
to prevent people gaming the system. Your paranoia
is showing
Ken Gardner
"Ray" wrote:
> For comparison, the score as of today, Google = 2,450,000
> Bing = 50,500,000.
> Google's CEO is a strong BO supporter.
> I use Bing. I think it's a better search system.
I switched to Bing months ago because its politics were even more obamanable
[sp?] than Microsoft's. I have since found Bing to be a better search
engine as well. Actually, my favorite search engine is Wiki, but I use it
with great caution (there are other threads here about problems with Wiki).
Matt Barrow
"Ken Gardner" <kesgar...@att.net> wrote in message
news:hhpjer$am4$1...@vulture.killfile.org...
>
>
>> Google's CEO is a strong BO supporter.
Google's management is decidely Maoist/Stalinist/Leninist...except for their
onw personal interests. IOW, they are contempable and disgusting.
>> I use Bing. I think it's a better search system.
Agreed!
> I switched to Bing months ago because its politics were even more
> obamanable [sp?] than Microsoft's.
You switched to them because their politics WERE MORE Obamanable?
Than Microsoft's?
Bing IS a Microsoft product.
> I have since found Bing to be a better search engine as well. Actually,
> my favorite search engine is Wiki, but I use it with great caution (there
> are other threads here about problems with Wiki).
Wiki is okay for generate fact-based info, but nothing more.
Matt B.
Ken Gardner
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>> I switched to Bing months ago because its politics were even more
>> obamanable [sp?] than Microsoft's.
>
> You switched to them because their politics WERE MORE Obamanable?
>
> Than Microsoft's?
>
> Bing IS a Microsoft product.
Oops, the "its" in my sentence was supposed to refer to Google, not Bing.
My bad.
>> I have since found Bing to be a better search engine as well. Actually,
>> my favorite search engine is Wiki, but I use it with great caution (there
>> are other threads here about problems with Wiki).
> Wiki is okay for generate fact-based info, but nothing more.
Exactly. And even take the fact-based info with a grain of salt, especially
if it regards a controversial political or cultural issue.
Matt Barrow
>
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>>> I switched to Bing months ago because its politics were even more
>>> obamanable [sp?] than Microsoft's.
>>
>> You switched to them because their politics WERE MORE Obamanable?
>>
>> Than Microsoft's?
>>
>> Bing IS a Microsoft product.
>
> Oops, the "its" in my sentence was supposed to refer to Google, not Bing.
> My bad.
>
It's hard to have worse politics than Mcrisoft, but Google manages to do it.
Both companies are incredibly disgusting in the lengths they'll go and the
people they'll bend over a chair...
>>> I have since found Bing to be a better search engine as well. Actually,
>>> my favorite search engine is Wiki, but I use it with great caution
>>> (there are other threads here about problems with Wiki).
My favorite is AltaVista, but it's not as comprehensive as the others. For
several years, most of my searches entailed finding county property records
and for that it did well.
>> Wiki is okay for generate fact-based info, but nothing more.
>
> Exactly. And even take the fact-based info with a grain of salt,
> especially if it regards a controversial political or cultural issue.
Especially since so many of the editors have an obvious bias and no qualms
about stifling contrary opinions or countervailing facts.
Matt