Posted on 12/20/2005 1:09:50 PM PST by lqclamar
WikiPedia.org: you can find links to it everywhere. Online forums, scholarly journals, blogs, high school research papers. WikiPedia is an "open source" encyclopedia with the philosophy of democratic contribution. This encyclopedia differs from other more established encyclopedias by its editors; WikiPedia is composed of anonymous people contributing, deleting, and voting on various aspects of articles. WikiPedia is the frontier of online information distribution, with over 830,000 articles in the English language. It does have many criticisms, but there is one very important question that goes ignored by the mainstream media and wikifans alike.
Who, exactly, edits WikiPedia?
It has come to the attention of the Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) that there is a underground cabal of pedophiles who edit WikiPedia, trying to make WikiPedia a distribution center for pedophile propaganda.
One user, who goes by the name of Zanthalon, writes on his profile, "Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific." He then goes on to add the standard disclaimer that is echoed by many convicted child molestors, "I would stress, however, that, I am not a child molester, having never broken the law or engaged in any intimate physical activities with any persons under the statutory age of consent".
Zanthalon is a frequent editor of the Pedophilia article, ensuring it is written from a pro-pedophile standpoint. It seems that WikiPedia's administration supports what he is doing.
One WikiPedia Admin, by the name of Ta bu shi da yu, who is a self-described liberal marxist, goes on to commend Zanthalon's contributions.
(Excerpt) Read more at poe-news.com ...
You shouldn't expect anything less though from Wikipedia, which was founded by an Internet pornography mogul and has known left-wing radicals and sexual deviants operating at the highest levels of the site's administration. Several of wikipedia's administrators are homosexual activists and one of its highest level administrators is a disgraced ex-lawyer who got disbarred by a state supreme court for soliciting prostitutes.
Any parent out there who allows their children to access Wikipedia is putting them at danger of being exposed to the very worst of internet scum.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=1999sc%5Csc0125a&invol=1
Welp, yesterday was the last day I'll use WikiWaki. Nevermore.
Wikipedia is a good source of information, but like most sources - one must be wary of embedded propaganda in politically sensitive topics.
It's no longer a matter of whether Wikipedia is factual anymore (it isn't). This is much more serious - there are some truly dangerous and disturbed people lurking around wikipedia with full sanction of the site's administration - internet predators, pornographers, prostitution-soliciters, pedophiles, marxist activists. The inmates are in charge of the asylum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile
Scumbag. Hang him in the town square.
Is there any reason conservatives cannot step in and also edit these?
Nope.
You have to look at who has the interest in keeping each article edited. Only someone deeply involved in karate will be interested in maintaining karate articles. The same for bicycles, electronics, politics, and pedophilia.
I trust a karate, bicycle or electronics expert or hobbyist to attempt to give me useful information on their hobby. I am wary of the information in political articles because of the neccessary opinion involved in political interest.
Anyone who has the time or inclination to edit a pedophilia article should immediately be distrusted.
I find it interesting that you go off on homosexuals when the pedophile discussed in the article is a "girl-lover" in his terms. Just an idle observation!
I've found it to be an EXCELLENT source of info. I use it often. I've learned to be careful, as I am with all Internet info, but I'm very sorry to hear about this. These people (pedophiles) are trying to do their best to ruin our culture so that they can run amok with their filthy pleasures.
"I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific."
Correction: I am myself a pedophile, a girl-luster, to be specific.
Yes. Wikipedia's administration and "enforcers" are almost all supportive of these sickos, and some of them are the sickos themselves.
Take a look at this link to a Colorado Supreme Court case for an example. The attorney named as the defendant there has taken up editing on Wikipedia ever since his forced "retirement" and is currently one of the 10 highest-level administrators on Wikipedia. And there are dozens like him at lower levels of the site's administration. Whenever these types are challenged by conservatives they use their powers to stamp out dissent just like liberals do everywhere they get in power.
A knowledge base should have as it resource people knowledgeable in their fields, not opinion-exchangers learning from - - - each other.
You guys think we should FReep it beyond the point of viability?
Edit every article until it becomes as useless and detrimental as the liberal horse$#!+ they are trying to feed us with?
"Is there any reason conservatives cannot step in and also edit these?"
Not according to their stated rules. However, if they're THAT Liberal, maybe our inputs wouldn't be accepted without "editing".
Why don't you try reading the full article? The sicko you refer to is only one of about half a dozen that they identify. Several of the others are homosexual "boy-lovers" - a category which tends to encompass the majority of pedophiles.
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.