Talk:Center for Media and Democracy

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Southern Connecticut State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

New POV Edit

User:67.168.24.27's edits are unneccessary and POV, please come someone revert to the last version by Meelar - or tell me how, so I can do it in future. If it's just by normal editing then can someone inform me of that. -Erolos 19:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That was me. I just edited it again to tone down perceived POV. My motivation for editing in the first place was because this article about Disinfopedia seemed out of character with the rest of Wikipedia in the form it was in when I came upon it. I've attemped to balance it out.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't read the second paragraph, because the first seemed just to be adding to the already unneccessarily large amount of POV criticism - thanks for removing it. The second paragraph is well-stated. -Erolos 13:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

recent editing

I made some changes to this article in order to put it in character with the rest of the Wikipedia articles, so that the article will be informative rather than one sided. I took taak and Sheldons ideas into consideration. Today I received a message from user Texture claiming to have removed my editing, dismissing it as "garbage". One might feel that there are further suggestions and criticisms for my changes that are needed, but I find Textures assertion disputable. What is the general consensus about this around here?

Weasel words...

"Opponents of both CMD and its Disinfopedia" Can we cahnge this to include specific examples? The "critics of the opponents" were clearly Stauber & co so I changed that bit. Rich Farmbrough 22:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the word "paranoid"

If any of the Villiage Voice review is authoritative on this subject, then the whole thing is authoritative. However, maybe it would maintain this article's NPOV better if this sentence were added at the end: "You're not paranoid, however, if they really are out to get you." ô¿ô 21:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

recent edits

"Critics of CMD have challenged the organization's credibility as research group. They argue that its founders, Stauber and Rampton, propagate a partisan political agenda."

"Critics of CMD" become weasel words in the context of Jstanley's recent edits. The village voice article sited does not challenge the organizations credibility as a research group. I reverted the article to the previous where Brian Cartmel is sited as a source for these accusations (Rich Farmbrough had asked for a source on the opponents). Grice 21:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who is...

..."Brian R. Cartmell, an internet entrepreneur"? As far as I can tell, neither he nor his livelihood have anything to do with the subject of this article. Is this an advertisement or something? ô¿ô 21:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well the only way Cartmell's critism can stay without breaking wikipedia guide lines is to site him as the source for the accusation and his bringing up the village voice article as evidence. Grice 21:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just go easy on the "weasel" stuff there, fella. If my edits fall short of NPOV, try something novel, like fixing them.

Regarding Cartmell: forget the guidelines. It means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to me or any other reader what this Cartmell individual thinks when ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION between Cartmell and CMD is given.

I'm not about to get into a revert war with you, bub, much less a war of wits. I don't pick on the unarmed. Especially since the entire citation from Villiage Voice is of dubious use anyway. Opponents of CMD, not critics of the founders' books, must be sourced.

If opponents who have had DIRECT DEALINGS (by being criticized, for instance) with the organization itself cannot be found, maybe I've been wrong all along, and all we've got here is a non-controversial non-partisan media research group. Heh. ô¿ô, a.k.a. "The Ferret-Like Weasel" 21:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well Cartmell has been criticized by Disinfopedia, making him more of an opponent than a critic on the sidelines. I've been reluctant to site the criticism since that could be considered an advertisement of Disinfopedia. Cartmells criticism came from his own website, though he seems to have removed it as of this writing ([[1]]). If you feel the citation of the village voice article and Cartmells connection is dubious, the whole thing might have to be removed or completely rewritten. Grice 21:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's cool. It's just that, answering your previous exhortation to me to google about Cartmell: It's not the reader's, nor my, responsibility to make Cartmell relevant to this article. You brought him up. You've got to show that he is relevant or nix the reference. I wouldn't worry about "advertising Disinfopedia" if that's where the info is, though it'd be nice to see all sides. ô¿ô 22:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about this: I'll revert to my previous edit, which nixed Cartmell, and then you can edit all my droll and so-obvious POV out of that. Whaddaya think? You got me curious now. I'm headin' for Cartmell's site. (P.S. "site"-a place. "cite"-to quote.) ô¿ô 22:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

this page is painfully slanted. it definately needs to be cleaned up by someone who knows a bit more about this organization.

i find this paragraph especially troubling

"The CMD is a left-wing political lobby group which attempts to appear as a public interest organization for fundraising purposes. The small group's purpose is to back odd causes and create crisis for the sole purpose of keeping its' executive staff in salary. It also hpes to impress liberal donor groups. More than half of its' published 2005 budget went to uncharacteristically high salaries alone. It's current target of convenience is the Public Relations industry, in which CMD attacks border on hysteria. CMD attacks take the form of unverified, unsubstantiated and difficult to believe allegations of gigantic corporate conspiracies to control media. Additional disfocused interests range from mad cows to Iraq-war conspiracy theories and routinely publishes a variety of books appealing the the far left fringe who believe everything is a conspiracy."

It reads as extremely biased.