[Publib] RE: WIKIPEDIA is now politically correct

[Fred Beisser]

Source?

Kathleen Stipek wrote:

> This is ahistorical.  The Founders were, by and large, either 
> aristocrats or men of property for whom governance  was to be confined 
> to the right sort of people, i.e., aristocrats and men of property.  
> They had no more idea that the mass of farmhands, working men, and 
> other males in the general public would ever be permitted to govern 
> than that women and slaves would ever be freed from legal and 
> political restrictions on participation in society. 
>  
>
> Kathleen Stipek, Alachua County Library District
>
> 401 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida 32601
>
> 352-334-3931 (voice) 352-334-3948 (fax)
>
> Non, merci
>
>    --Cyrano de Bergerac
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Chris Tinney [mailto:vctinney at sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 2:09 PM
> To: kgs at bluehighways.com; web4lib at webjunction.org; 
> publib at webjunction.org; Kathleen Stipek
> Subject: WIKIPEDIA is now politically correct
>
> The "political correctness" phrase was a subtle statement
> by the writer that compared the rise of Wikipedia and its
> compilation by the "unwashed" educated masses, with
> the rise of the American democratic process; the creation
> of the Constitution of the United States, wherein a society
> was ordered by former "unwashed" people, who had the
> audacity to believe that the common man could self-govern.
> UNWASHED: ignorant, plebeian
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> Who's Who in America,
> Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory
> http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
>
> "K.G. Schneider" <kgs at bluehighways.com> wrote:
>
>     > In other words, I'm not sure how much validity this study has for
>     > Wikipedia versions in other languages.
>     >
>     > Bernie Sloan
>
>     The "political correctness" phrase seems to be poor labeling, but
>     I would
>     cautiously agree that Wikipedia has much broader acceptance. 
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Publib mailing list
>Publib at webjunction.org
>http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/attachments/20071209/f715e63f/attachment.htm