AI and Photography

boojum said:
The Daily Caller??!! A publication well known. The Daily Caller - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Out to Lunch said:
I know. It's one of those.
Click to expand...
Well, is the article in The Daily Caller correct or not? That's what matters.

Reading the text of the article, it seems like simple straightforward reporting of the judge's ruling with no kind of spin whatsoever.

I am not a reader of The Daily Caller or other political-inspired websites, but I do know Wikipedia is total garbage on certain subjects.
 
Last edited:
Pál_K said:
Well, is the article in The Daily Caller correct or not? That's what matters.

Reading the text of the article, it seems like simple straightforward reporting of the judge's ruling with no kind of spin whatsoever.

I am not a reader of The Daily Caller or other political-inspired websites, but I do know Wikipedia is total garbage as well on certain subjects.
Click to expand...

If you read the Wikepedia article on the Daily Caller you know it pointed out deliberate distortions and lies in the Caller. Many of these lies and distortions were either ignored or denied by the Caller. I know of no cases of Wikipedia deliberately publishing lies or distortions and then refusing to amend or delete them or deny these lies and distortions.

If you know of any cases please point them out. Otherwise we know where the garbage lies.

As for the truth of the Daily Caller article, I'd prefer to read coverage in a vetted, reputable, honest news source. You choose your sources as you will. The Daily Caller track record is shaky at best. But again, we all choose to read and trust what we will.

Thank you for your attention to this and clarifying what you mean.
 
boojum said:
If you read the Wikepedia article on the Daily Caller you know it pointed out deliberate distortions and lies in the Caller. Many of these lies and distortions were either ignored or denied by the Caller. I know of no cases of Wikipedia deliberately publishing lies or distortions and then refusing to amend or delete them or deny these lies and distortions.

If you know of any cases please point them out. Otherwise we know where the garbage lies.

As for the truth of the Daily Caller article, I'd prefer to read coverage in a vetted, reputable, honest news source. You choose your sources as you will. The Daily Caller track record is shaky at best. But again, we all choose to read and trust what we will.

Thank you for your attention to this and clarifying what you mean.
Click to expand...

So you decide that Wikipedia's opinion (or rather the opinion of self-appointed guardians of speech) is good enough for you to trust about what you'll read. You allow them to do the vetting for you. You won't read it yourself and make your own decision. Politically you might not like them, and that's fine. But to treat everything they write as forbidden-reading is wrong. I read a lot of things I don't like, but the correct response to words you don't like isn't to cancel that speech - the correct response is a better argument.

I read the article and it is a very simple report on what the judge ruled. It's the same as if The Daily Caller said 135-format is 24x36mm.

No, I'm not going to waste time on this forum giving countless examples of Wikipedia's garbage. You either discover these for yourself or blindly go along with what they serve you.

Lastly, if this is going to be reported and deleted, I suggest all the posts from your original attack on the article (#121) be deleted as well, because that's where things got out of line.
 
Last edited:
Pál_K said:
So you decide that Wikipedia's opinion (or rather the opinion of self-appointed guardians of speech) is good enough for you to trust about what you'll read. You allow them to do the vetting for you. You won't read it yourself and make your own decision. Politically you might not like them, and that's fine. But to treat everything they write as forbidden-reading is wrong. I read a lot of things I don't like, but the correct response to words you don't like isn't to cancel that speech - the correct response is a better argument.

I read the article and it is a very simple report on what the judge ruled. It's the same as if The Daily Caller said 135-format is 24x36mm.

No, I'm not going to waste time on this forum giving countless examples of Wikipedia's garbage. You either discover these for yourself or blindly go along with what they serve you.

Lastly, if this is going to be reported and deleted, I suggest all the posts from your original attack on the article (#121) be deleted as well, because that's where things got out of line.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing.
 
Suffice it to say that no source should be blindly trusted, and that some sources should be intensely distrusted in some, or most, areas of content. These days, a healthy skepticism is the best defense against the hysterical excesses coming at us from all sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom