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This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.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.
I’m looking forward to his retribution blog. I haven’t had a good chuckle in a while. He’s a poor substitute for Moldy Vulgar, but still.
I’m thinking it’s gonna be right up there with Suvroc10 (Marc Schenker) or Dr. Arbitrage.
“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?”
They are writing articles, and they leave out information they don’t like and they include information that is not based in fact. They rarely cite references that are fact based.
it is sad that we have dumbed down this nation so far that no one knows how to ascertain a fact from an Internet rumor anymore.
Marc Schenker I expect to read about in 48 point type, Page A1, above the fold in the New York Times soon. Something like “SERIAL KILLER OF 37 IDENTIFIED AS MAC SHENCHER.” (Name mispelled of course) Subhead “UNEMPLOYED BLOGGER FROM DEFUNCT EXAMIBLOGGER SITE.”
“Never use Wikipedia, company policy is to fire anyone that dares use it with my company business,”
Would you believe the Boeing/Jeppesen charting and navigation system for the Boeing aircraft programs was based on Wikipedia math examples?? It took years to tear out the bugs in that damned thing and there are still probably math bugs in it. It’s what you get when you hire computer programmers with “technology” or “IT” degrees and not engineers who have been educated in math and science.
I second that. I might add that code is hit or miss when you hire contractors from Bangalore or Delhi too. Program Management says "we're saving so much money this way," and in the next breath says "project schedule is slipping, mandatory overtime is necessary."
BTDT. “saving money” = never getting what they need at many times the time cost.
Many, many ‘moderators’ are millienials and so are not capable of intellectual engagement; thus preferring to just ban outright inconvenient people.
Now he can start a list of places he’s been kicked out of.
Sounds to me as if you’re describing snopes.....You didn’t acknowledge that we go to Wikipedia for information about places, people or things - not for news! I gave you an example of that in my reply - how can you argue with that? They’re not going to tell us the truth about where a certain place is, or where a particular person was born or the origin of a particular idiom? I don’t know a person who goes there to get their news. We google for that or as I do “bing”.....
“You didn’t acknowledge that we go to Wikipedia for information about places, people or things - not for news!”
I did, but your reading comprehension is a fairly low level.
No one mentioned news. I certainly didn’t.
“”I did, but your reading comprehension is a fairly low level. No one mentioned news. I certainly didn’t.””
Typical trick of any FReeper who can’t back up their words - resort to insults. Information we get on PEOPLE, PLACES or THINGS are inaccurate on Wikipedia? An inaccurate ARTICLE would be, for example???????? As I said - we don’t go to Wikipedia for ARTICLES - since you don’t like the word NEWS!!
I can’t believe I actually found someone dumb enough to think, “They can’t lie if it is on the Internet”.
I repeat!!!!!
“”Typical trick of any FReeper who can’t back up their words - resort to insults””
Well?!? They can't, can they?
.....wait. Well?
What?
(.....never mind.)
I didn’t resort to insults, you deserve them.
“Typical trick of any FReeper...”
You’re a typical liberal that claims victim and insults FReepers when she’s told what an idiot she is.
Wiki = Left.
Left = Liar.
Gooch could probably fill a large list of his sock puppet user names from what I read at Wiki.
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.