Liberal Activism

[Guest]

both ░▒▓█ and OctoberTheChain have good points in my opinion.
As for myself I avoid rating sites because of my political or religious beliefs.
In the most of cases I do not rate them at all.
I always avoided talking about politics when I was serving the Army and I see no reasons to start now.

[EDIT] on a side note: The Italian Liberal Party was a moderate conservative Party:)

[NotBuyingIt]

<quote user="snrek">WOT's constant liberal activism is showing more and more! Sites are rated according to their political views. I am almost through with WOT because their ratings can't always be trusted. Is there someone from WOT who would like to rebut or explain this?[/quote]

I guess that the site with the questionable rating is traditionalvalues.us (scorecard) based upon the OP's scorecard comment

11/14/2012 | Good site
WOT's constant liberal activism is showing more and more! Sites are rated according to their political views.

Currently, the site redirects to publicadvocateusa.org (scorecard) which is the self-promotional site of an inconsequential American politician Eugene Delgaudio (wiki). Delguadio may face serious criminal charges for misappropriation of public monies for his personal use (see The Washigton Post). I should think that such conduct would be cause for distrust by conservatives and liberals equally. Apart from the legal controversies, the "hateful or questionable content" aspect of the sites should cause them to be rated especially low, in my opinion. As the Washington Post mentioned, "The Southern Poverty Law Center says Public Advocate is the only one of more than 1,000 hate groups in the [USA] led by an elected official."

[phantazm]

but credibility and trustworthiness

[Ivan Blue]

You should be happy that we could rate websites as we like. Think about countries like North Korea and China, their citizens suffer from media censorship and their online activities are monitored by the government...

[Jazspeak]

<quote user="i.w.">
"...countries like North Korea and China...online activities are monitored by the government."
[/quote]

The so-called liberal Western governments (via their respective Security Services) also monitor online activities.

[░▒▓█]

<quote user="jazspeak">
The so-called liberal Western governments (via their respective Security Services) also monitor online activities.
[/quote]

And some 'liberal' countries also limit what can be accessed on the internet. It depends what you do mean by 'liberal', North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, it depends what you mean by 'democratic'.

[A440]

. . . and South Korea enjoys a good bit of censorship as well and they are a democracy, kind of.

[NewClear]

Remember OP, sites are rated based on 4 different criteria. Also, scorecard comments expressing opinions do not affect a site's reputation. A person who left a negative comment didn't necessarily rate the site bad. A site can be malware free and child friendly but still have negative comments.

In my humble opinion, a site deserves a bad rating when it is dishonest or abuses their users in one way for another. I find plenty of sites I disagree with but I still try to give credit where credit is due. I am against the practice of looking at a website, waiting 2 seconds, then rating it down simply because I disagree. I'm not saying I'm perfect (or anyone else for that matter) but I want to make the ratings useful for the average user and base them off my experience.

<quote user=phantazm>WOT is not about points of view

but credibility and trustworthines[/quote]<quote user="i.w.">
You should be happy that we could rate websites as we like.
[/quote]

Exactly. Everyone is free to rate how they see fit. That doesn't mean we should manipulate the system; we need to work together as community to make the web safer. Also, this self righteous attitude needs to stop. A thread like this does not justify it. Not everyone will have the same opinion, and the idea expressed by a majority doesn't automatically make it correct.