Comments on: With A Grain Of Salt

By: Protecting The Crooks » Comments from Left Field

Protecting The Crooks » Comments from Left Field — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:01:32 +0000

[...] I first heard of Wikileaks late last year, I was in general pretty skeptical. I of course applaud any and all methods of leaking documents that could unearth unethical and [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:50:19 +0000

Hey, as I said in my most recent post, I’m just trying to reclaim that word “libertarian” from the damn neo-cons. There’s an entire group of people who now call themselves “neo-libertarians”, which is really just repackaged neo-conservatism without the evil connotations.

Since y’all (ok, maybe not you specifically) are pushing for the word “progressive” to describe yourselves, that leaves the word “liberal” wide open for us…. If the neo-cons are going to steal our invented word, then we’d be happy to reclaim the word that gave fruit to our origins.

As for wikipedia, it really is a libertarian institution: I don’t know about Larry Sanger, but Jimmy Wales is a die-hard Objectivist (which makes him more than a little insane even by libertarian standards) who reluctantly calls himself a libertarian (like I said Objectivists are insane). Wales has also discussed at length the influence of Hayek’s “Spontaneous Order” theory on the formation and evolution of Wikipedia.

By: Kyle E. Moore

Kyle E. Moore — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:50:38 +0000

I am so awesome, even when I screw up it turns out grand! *note to self; edit when I get a chance before anyone else catches it.*

By: mick

mick — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:08:45 +0000

their integrity intellentionally can not be verified

Um, “intellentionally”? Did you mean “intellectually” or “intentionally”? Or did you just make up a kind of cool word that means both? Like, “intentionally intellectual” or “intellectually intentional”? I think you got something there.

By: Kyle E. Moore

Kyle E. Moore — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:21:00 +0000

Yeah, I mean, yeah; I love Wikipedia, and have used it to give myself some decent historical background on a few articles just so when I started writing about the real deal, I would know what the hell I was writing about. And I’m totally with you on the pros and cons eventually and usually cancel each other out, but because I can’t verify what someone puts up there, I’m not going to bet the farm on Wiki info.

When my life calms down some, we’re going to have a liberal v. libertarian talk you and I.

By: Mark (formerly known as PE)

Mark (formerly known as PE) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:00:57 +0000

In defense of Wikipedia (though not necessarily wikileaks): even on controversial subjects, wikipedia is in some ways quite reliable on the aggregate. You have to remember that anyone with an opinion- on either side- can alter the entry. Over time, the pro-and con- forces will tend to balance each other out. Hence, the study last year that found wikipedia to be as accurate as the regular encyclopedia. Not that this makes it a particularly valid source- but it’s not usually good form to cite an encyclopedia of any sort in a serious endeavor.

As a libertarian, I feel compelled to defend this most libertarian of institutions!