« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Gates was involved with Iran/Contra!
Bob Gates was involved with Iran/Contra, "sources say".
Josh, how about another update to your Bob Gates entry? Even a passing comment is better than nothing, and issues of this import need all the help they can get from "community memory"...
Some folks don't like Wikipedia. Well, sorry, but: here is link to the (footnoted) section that covers this in Bob Gates' Wikipedia entry...
Keep it between the ditches,
-Scott
Advertisement
Comments (6)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pediculous - adjective - the quality of data obtained in a controversial subject from wikipedia
Wikipedia is a good tool, providing a platform base from which to start topical research, if the matters being researched are non-controversial. Robert Gates is greatly controversial politically, and religiously, largely for the same reason: he was a principle in the Reagancomedy. It is better for anyone who is curious about Robert Gates' role in Iran/Contra to start with:
Final Report of The Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters
Volume I: Investigations and Prosecutions
Lawrence E. Walsh; Independent Counsel
August 4, 1993; Washington, D.C.
Chapter 16: Robert M. Gates
June 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never learn not to trust my handcoding html with out double-checking it for errors. Here, let me fix the typo:
wikipediculous - adjective - the quality of data obtained in a controversial subject from wikipedia
June 21, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"largely for the same reason: he was a principle in the Reagancomedy"
Pseudocy, your spell-checker, that you tend to over-rely on to cover your own ignorance missed the above: I'm sure you meant "PRINCIPAL."
As to Gates, principle of anything, I don't think so. Perhaps the principle of baiting smug ignoramuses on a Saturday afternoon trollbate.
June 21, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand properly corrected on principle, although I do not rely an spell-checkers too heavily, as they tend to complain about my anti-semantics.
June 22, 2008 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipedia's flaws and merits are identical to those of this site and to political blogs in general, and for precisely the same reasons.
Any poster who's too good for wikipedia should go and find another past time.
June 21, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's this, a wikipietistic devotee?
wikipedia:
One of the better Wikipedia Commentaries is still a Slahdot subthread from April 19 2005: "Who Decides The Truth". Make sure you read what the Wiki Admin "Snowspinner" had to say about the "Steak and Blowjob Day" stub.
There are websites that expose Wikipedia's flaws:
I have not contributed content to any of the links supplied in this post, but I have experienced on multiple occasions, asininity and dishonesty at Wikipedia, and have through use of the versioning system discovered many more instances of it.
Open-source knowledge base is an outstanding concept. Wikipedia is irreparably flawed. Note that I did not say the the Wikimedia codebase is flawed, this need be understood. There is an inherent problem of scale in open collaboration projects. There exists a point of membership critical mass, when it can no longer be properly managed, and at that point it is vulnerable to disinformation spew, and nihilistic defacing. There need be better controls, and there need be quality controllers. Wikipedia fails in both instances.
June 22, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment