Posted on 04/24/2012 4:25:27 PM PDT by wagglebee
Yesterday, official discussion ended in Wikipedia’s effort to possibly redefine the abortion debate according to its contributors’ worldviews.
Wikipedia, which ranks 6th in the United States and globally as the most accessed website, is not known for its accuracy nor impartiality. From reporting people dead before their death (Ted Kennedy, Miley Cirus, Sinbad) to defaming the famous (Bill Gates, Rush Limbaugh, Fuzzy Zoeller) to contributors posing as authoritative figures and then being debunked (supposed professor of religion exposed as 24 year old college dropout) the online encyclopedia is a constant source of controversy.
Wikipedia’s bias toward abortion is nothing new. Conservapedia (which itself reveals bias and incomplete information) lists a handful of examples that only scratch the surface of Wiki’s glaringly evident pro-abortion advocacy. A more recent example of the absurdity of contributor-bias is Wikipedia’s Maafa 21 entry. It asserts that the film “has been praised by pro-life activists and condemned by historical scholars, pro-choice activists, and other writers…”
Apparently, pro-life activists are not historical scholars, or medical professionals, or professors, or other types of educators…just nebulous “activists”.
The article then avoids any of the actual substance of the thoroughly researched documentary and instead relies upon mostly unattributed assertions or feelings about Planned Parenthood. Most noticeably, however, is the ratio of Support versus Criticism in the entry with 5 sentences supporting the documentary and 20 criticizing it. Nowhere in any of the criticism is any actual assertion proven wrong in Maafa 21.
The closest the pro-abortion critics come to denying anything specific is in the false accusation that the Negro Project was cast as an abortion initiative, when clearly the documentary (if any of the contributors actually watched the film) presented the initiative as a failed birth control initiative.
Within its official “discussion”, numerous options are provided in changing the vernacular Wikipedia will pursue in addressing abortion in the United States. Its bias toward the ever genteel sounding “abortion rights” is summed up in one assertion found under “Arguments regarding Support for the Toleration of Abortion/Opposition to the Toleration of Abortion”, stating: “virtually no one is in favour of abortion per se”. Yes, Wikipedia, there are many who are in favor of abortion-on-demand for any reason and at any point in a woman’s pregnancy—Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, International Planned Parenthood Federation, ACLU et al.
Wikipedia never opted to include the labeling choice “Opposition to care for both women and (born/unborn) child” versus “Support for care for both women and (born/unborn) child”, pro-abortion and pro-life respectively. It goes to show how myopic a Wikipedia worldview of abortion is and continues to be. Liberals always define the pro-life side as “in opposition” to or “anti” something. These gatekeepers of voluminous misinformation have the audacity to point to mainstream media’s depiction of each side of the abortion debate as proof that they should follow suit.
Invoking the AP, NY Times, CBS News, NPR and other blatantly biased news networks’ use of “anti-abortion” and “abortion rights” to define each side apparently doesn’t immediately strike these self-described “neutral administrators” of the inherent bias.
Bias is the natural result of agenda-driven funding. Wikimedia Foundation’s short list of major donors includes two of the largest population control organizations: the Ford Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. Both of these organizations have poured hundreds of millions into population control efforts including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the International Planned Parenthood Federatio–the world’s largest killers of the unborn. In fact, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, is a recent Board Member of the Ford Foundation.
Funny. Like so many other crucial and relevant details, that fact isn’t mentioned on Wikipedia.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
It is ok for a quick memory check on well known factual material; i.e. George Washington was born on... On any opinion matter ignore it.
it does serve as a proof of concept; that a user-generated
site can potentially be very useful.
I am proud to say that while I was serving in Afghanistan in 2005, on my down time as anonymous editor “214.13.4.151” I managed to make the following edit stick as the opening line for the abortion article at wikipedia:
“An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its death”
This article in The Atlantic covered the kerfuffle I created:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/a-closer-look-at-the-neutral-point-of-view-npov/5120/
That same basic definition was in place for 6 years until last year pro-abort freaks simply rolled over everyone and forced a new definition into the article and eliminated any mention of death - and editors were banned if they protested in any way.
Here is what you must do if you want to FIX the definition:
Sign up for an account, and then while logged in, over a period of 10 days make 5 to 10 grammatical or formatting corrections each day to a variety of articles that are not controversial (such as your hometown, or your favorite TV show, or a landmark in your state). DO NOT EDIT THE ABORTION ARTICLE DURING THIS TIME. Then go to the talk page for the article and make suggestions - don’t give away your stance - just make suggestions for edits and give source material to back up the corrections. Sources should be non-pro-life sources so that people cannot questions the sources.
They even stalked me and tried to bully me into shutting up by discussing the fact that my IP address belonged to the military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karl_Rove/Archive_3#Anon_editor_214.13.4.151_.3D_DOD
I stopped at:
(Wikipedia) “is not known for its accuracy nor impartiality”
Bullsh*t.
I stopped reading right there.
Wikipedia is a world treasure that I quite frankly find indispensable on a daily and even hourly basis. Especially when it comes to history. It is extremely accurate and impartial. There are 7 million English language articles in Wikipedia. And once in a while the left wingers will want to twist a topic to their perspective and drive the right wingers batty. Then we get articles like this impugning the whole thing.
I have spent many hundreds of hours reading Wikipedia articles and I can only remember once reading something that I thought was twisted for political purposes. And I am a staunch conservative.
The coolest thing about Wikipedia is the accountability of its content. That is what makes it a magical website.
You dont go to Wikipedia to learn about controversial, hot button, political topics.
To say that Wikipedia is not impartial and not accurate is just one, great big, LIE!
And shame on you Jim Robinson for banning wikipedia content at Freerepublic. It would be better to be part of the fray than avoiding it.
I was thinking earlier about George Orwell and his thoughts on how the totalitarians try to control thought by changing the language, and this is a perfect example. One thing that Orwell didn’t count on, though, is that human nature is stronger than the manipulations of these schemers in some cases. So, no matter how the left tries to “frame the debate”, on certain topics, their newspeak words just end up carrying the same bad connotations as the old ones. Then, they try to start the process over, in vain.
For example, I’m sure that, at first, the word “abortion” was a euphemism that its advocates promoted in order to make it sound more palatable than infanticide. After awhile, though, the same negatives got associated with the new term, so they want to call it something else, like “reproductive freedom”. Still, once people catch on and realize what they are talking about, that phrase will be just as repulsive.
There is no accountability for the content of wikipedia; leftists control most all articles by banning and silencing those who disagree, and it is the exception rather than the rule that an article about a controversial topic accurately reflects the non-leftist view.
It’s recognized as common courtesy on FR to ping a person that you mention in a post.
Jim Robinson, you have a comment directed to you on post number 10.
As for Wikipedia, For basic info, dates etc. it’s probably okay. Other than that, I also check out other sources.
>> leftists control most all articles
Really?
Can you point out the bias in tonights featured article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Chauvel
>> about a controversial topic accurately reflects the non-leftist view.
Do you really go to Wikipedia to find out about controversial topics? Why on earth would you do this? 99% of all articles in wikipedia is about non-controversial topics. Nobody controls Wikipedia. That is why it is an indispensable treasure.
Your rhetoric is not convincing.
To begin with it is not about my habits. Just because I or you don’t go to wikipedia to learn about controversial topics does not mean that countless others don’t.
And if you think that leftist cabals don’t control certain aspects of wikipedia, then you don’t know much about wikipedia.
Wikipedia - unsurprisingly - reflects the leftist mindset of the education establishment. That this fact does not bother you is telling.
>> Wikipedia - unsurprisingly - reflects the leftist mindset of the education establishment.
Not for the articles I have written for Wikipedia.
Are you saying I have a leftist mindset and belong to the education establishment?
You end up stating a sweeping generalization that cant be proven.
Cite your source for this allegation.
that just hurt my brain
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.