WIKIPEDIA once again serving the (lying) liberal agenda

Wikipedia ^ | 1/13/11 | Wikipedia

[AnAmericanMother]

Just when you think Wikipedia might have cleaned up its act, they confirm their essentially agenda-driven, truth-challenged agenda.

Look at the former entry on "blood libel" via the WayBack Machine link posted above -- then go check out Wikipedia's current entry.

These people are absolutely shameless.

[AnAmericanMother]

The former reference to "Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Druids, neopagans, Native Americans, atheists, communists, and satanists" as victims of blood libel has been removed.

[Borges]

It just takes one person to remove it. Anbd only one to put it back.

[Sherman Logan]

Here's the current first paragraph: Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4] Other groups which have suffered blood libels throughout history include:Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Neopagans, Native Americans, atheists, communists, and satanists.[7]

[A CA Guy]

provide links to both please.

[rarestia]

WIKI is an acronym for “What I Know Is...” When you can modify entries, you can modify history. There’s no accounting to single entities anymore. We’re supposed to be a worldwide “community” now, don’tcha know?

[AnAmericanMother]

Yep, somebody just put it back.

Looks like another ongoing Wikipedia War.

[TXConservative25]

Only liberals and the unemployed really edit Wikipedia. Conservatives with jobs don’t have time for editing wars.

[AnAmericanMother]

It's gone already. Somebody jumped on it.

I noted the first change when I went to check on the list of the persecuted . . . by the time I saw your post and went back for it, it had already been changed again.

[Daveinyork]

I think the blood libel was a claim that Jews used the blood of Christian children to make Matzoh for Passover.

[TXConservative25]

Which article is this? I’ll play.

[SeeSac]

Just when you think Wikipedia might have cleaned up its act, they confirm their essentially agenda-driven, truth-challenged agenda.

It's gone already. Somebody jumped on it.

They cleaned it up?

[DJ MacWoW]

Wikipedia is a George Soros funded operation for propaganda purposes. He who controls the “truth” controls. If you go there expecting real truth you will not find it.

[AnAmericanMother]

It's useful as a starting point for research, because if it's non-controversial there's actually some good stuff on there.

I NEVER use it as anything but a starting point, because of just this problem. The moment any subject becomes controversial, the darned thing is worthless. Whoever is most persistent or yells loudest gets their version in there.

And then of course there are the true instances of corruption, like the global warming flack who got some kind of position there and changed thousands of articles.

[AnAmericanMother]

That is the most commonly known definition of "blood libel".

But it's been used throughout history to refer to any instance in which a targeted group (whether religious or political) is falsely accused of shedding innocent blood.

[MNDude]

Wikipedia’s good if you want to find out the ingredients in Diet Coke, but beyond worthless if you want to find out how many people died under Mao Tse Tung, or what the waiting period for knee surgery under the Canadian health care system is.

[AnAmericanMother]

Apparently so. We’ll see if it lasts.

[A CA Guy]

Probably will have lots of meddling there until this dies down in a couple of days.

[SeeSac]

Wikipedia is a George Soros funded operation for propaganda purposes. He who controls the “truth” controls. If you go there expecting real truth you will not find it.

Please cite some examples of untruths on wikipedia. I don't take it as my sole source but I generally find it reliable.

[manc]

the left employ people to sit at their computer all day looking to edit sites like that and to troll sites like this along with posting on various newspapers and media articles.

They really are a sick disturbed lot along with the corrupt lying media

[DJ MacWoW]

I don't use it at all. Colleges won't allow it as a source.

Would you trust someone that you know lies about important things?

Whoever is most persistent or yells loudest gets their version in there.

No. They still have fabricated stories on FR. I knew a poster that spent 3 days changing it back. They finally locked him out. It's owned by Soros. You won't win this.