Posted on 08/02/2017 3:42:01 PM PDT by grundle
The following is one of wikipedia’s most important rules:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia’s three core content policies; the other two are “Verifiability” and “No original research”. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
I myself was permanently banned from wikipedia because I followed this rule.
Specifically, I added notable, reliably sourced content to wikipdia’s article Presidency of Barack Obama.
Here is a blog post that I wrote about it, which includes specific examples of the notable, reliably sourced content that I added. I guess you could say this is how my Obama list got started.
This is what my wikipedia page currently looks like.
And this is what my wikipedia page looked like right before I got banned.
And this is a list of all the wikipedia edits that I made before I got banned.
Here are seven questions that I asked the wikipedia moderators right before I got permanently banned. They never answered any of them:
Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions
Please answer my seven questions regarding Presidency of Barack Obama:
1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described “communist” who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?
2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama’s actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.
3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama’s actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”
4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama’s choice to head the “Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools” has an extensive history of illegal drug use?
5) If there’s going to be a section on Obama’s claims of transparency, why shouldn’t the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?
6) How is Obama’s nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama’s economic policy?
7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama’s czars by two different Senators from Obama’s own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?
In all seven of these cases, I was asking the wikipedia moderators why it was wrong for me to follow wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” policy.
They never answered any of my seven questions.
.
Do not be a Wikipedophile!
You have learned, now comes wisdom.
.
For apolitical topics, it can be a good source.
For anything even remotely political or can be slanted to favor the leftist agenda, it is a huge steaming pile.
Rarely used.
Never use Wikipedia, company policy is to fire anyone that dares use it with my company business, and at home my boys know to not use or reference it for any school or non-school activity or research. Had one run-in with an instructor that was using it in class, that got cleared up quickly and announced that Wikipedia would not be used in the future.
If you were endlessly spouting your useless crap there as you do on FreeRepublic, then (for once) I would say Wiki might have made a correct decision.
Your history is one of a self-promoting pimp.
You support legalized abortion -
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3544327/posts?page=20#20
and you proudly voted for a certifiable nutcase (Gary Johnson) for President -
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3533923/posts
And you are *proud* of these things.
So today you’re casting yourself as martyr.
“Oh - Amazon banned my book! (Well not really.)”
“Wikipedia is discriminating against me!”
Yeah - you and thousands of others. So what’s new?
It is so sad that the Left still dominates in so much information media and in academia.
During the war in El Salvador, the communist FMLN had more information offices around the world than the government of El Salvador had embassies and consulates. Nowadays, the history of the guerrilla war is weighted heavily to the comic book level and the views of the communists.
All your points are pretty tame. They’re such touchy liberals at Wikipedia!
Wikipedia a heap of dung and every bit as much Fake News as the lamestream media.
It’s why Conservapedia is so important and more of us need to support
You cannot mess with the legacy of the Magic Negro.
He is a god.
A lame one but, yeah....
According to your self generated user profile on Wiki,
you are the following:
In favor of legal recreational drug use.
In favor of UNIVERSAL Health Care.
Against he Death Penalty.
“Pro-Choice”
In favor of same sex “marriage.”
So I guess my question is, given the number of things that you favor which are in direct conflict with FreeRepublic’s stated goals and objectives...
Why are you here?
Wikipedia is pretty much banned from collegiate papers because of the glaring political spin they put on articles. They are no more reliable than CNN.
Well, I guess someone just answered my question.....
Wikipeadia by its very nature is a propaganda tool.
Please! Someone please tell me why we aren’t supposed to go to Wikipedia for information. They aren’t writing ARTICLES. They are providing information about a person/place or thing, are they not? How can a birthdate, place of birth or whatever be POLITICAL? Here again, a perfect example of someone jumping off a cliff and all who follow are going to jump off also..
“”Dana Marie Perino[1] (born May 9, 1972) is an American political commentator and author who served as the 26th White House Press Secretary, serving under President George W. Bush from September 14, 2007 to January 20, 2009. She was the second female White House Press Secretary, after Dee Dee Myers, who served during the Clinton Administration.[2] She is currently a political commentator for Fox News, while also serving as a co-host of the network’s talk show The Five, and is a book publishing executive at Random House””
Bad day for scrotum skin. Banned by two sites in one day. Probably lighting up the weed right now to fog his sorrows.
Did you notice he had gotten in trouble at Wiki for having sock puppet accounts? I wonder how many user names he has here?
Well...if someone starts suddenly posting the “Dan From Squirrel Hill” blog at 2AM Sunday mornings we’ll have a pretty good clue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.