Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here are some examples of wikipedia’s left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned.
Wordpress ^ | January 21, 2025 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

Posted on 01/21/2025 8:09:15 PM PST by grundle

Here are some examples of wikipedia’s left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned.

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)

January 21, 2025

https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1881912002987315297

Here are some examples of #wikipedia's left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned.https://t.co/b98lH3K7ir#MediaBias #Censorship pic.twitter.com/15ZDSpWdBx

— Daniel Alman from Squirrel Hill (@DanielAlmanPGH) January 22, 2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=321538315#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions

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?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: barackobama; bias; generalmotors; mediabias; offshoredrilling; wikipedia

1 posted on 01/21/2025 8:09:15 PM PST by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle

Interacting with WickedPedos is tantamount to intentionaly stepping into a pile of dog poop instead of stepping over it...😎


2 posted on 01/21/2025 8:16:25 PM PST by SuperLuminal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Yeah, good luck. There are numerous times I’ve tried to correct bias and just wrong information on wikipedia. The deck is stacked against most people.


3 posted on 01/21/2025 8:18:33 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Wikipedia has leaned left, no, fallen over since day-one.


4 posted on 01/21/2025 8:21:57 PM PST by Jyotishi (Seeking the truth, a fact at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

A number of years ago Wikipedia copied a history article that I had written for a website and copied and pasted it onto theirs without my permission or even crediting me as the author.


5 posted on 01/21/2025 8:24:12 PM PST by Inyo-Mono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

On the section on the Comanche Indians at the Council House Fight in 1840, it had a comment, “In his book Los Comanches, historian Stanley Noyes notes, “[a] violation of a council represented an almost unthinkable degree of perfidy. The council was sacred not only to the [Comanche] People, but [also] to all Native Americans”.”

I added a documented fact with a source that in 1836 the Comanches attacked Fort Parker. They showed up with a white flag and used a parlay as a ruse.

My documented and historically accurate comment was quickly removed. The sacred Holy Native Americans NEVER used treachery under a flag of truce to attack.... even though they FREQUENTLY did.

Wikipedia sucks.


6 posted on 01/21/2025 8:29:43 PM PST by DesertRhino (2016 Star Wars, 2020 The Empire Strikes Back, 2025... RETURN OF THE JEDI...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

I’m convinced Wikipedia is just another CIA psyop against the general public. I used to donate money, long ago, but never again. There’s already enough budget for counterintelligence operations against citizens.


7 posted on 01/21/2025 8:35:15 PM PST by coloradan (They're not the mainstream media, they're the gaslight media. It's what they do. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jyotishi

“Wikipedia has leaned left, no, fallen over since day-one.”

It’s okay for scientific stuff like looking up sphagnum moss or something. I use it for discographies and geography.


8 posted on 01/22/2025 12:54:03 AM PST by rxh4n1 ( oncern fo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: grundle

AI


9 posted on 01/22/2025 1:13:17 AM PST by Varsity Flight ( "War by 🙏 the prophesies set before you." I Timothy 1:18. Nazarite warriors. 10.5.6.5 These Days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxh4n1

It has to be killing them to have to mention the Gulf of America.


10 posted on 01/22/2025 1:56:37 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: grundle

“Relationship with Wikipedia

In 2022, in a recent “personal appeal” displayed in an advertising banner on Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, one of the founders, emphasized that “Wikipedia is not for sale.” This statement highlights the non-profit nature of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), a non-profit organization based in California that owns intellectual property assets, such as the Wikipedia name and branding. However, the WMF does not own or control the global communities that maintain the site.”

Funding:

Tides Foundation
Arcadia Fund
Google
Amazon
Facebook
George Soros
Sloan Foundation
Open Society Institute
Ford Foundation
Omidyar Network
Hewlett Foundation
Stanton Foundation
Brin Wojcicki Foundation
Charities Aid Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Stavros Niarchos Foundation
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
federal grants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation


11 posted on 01/22/2025 1:58:49 AM PST by Openurmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

“I’m convinced Wikipedia is just another CIA psyop against the general public.”

Absolutely...


12 posted on 01/22/2025 2:00:05 AM PST by Openurmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Report it to the new administration; someone might run with it so that if it gets any government benefits, that stops; it can be free leftist speech and ask for donations.

it should not get any government benefits, tax or otherwise.
13 posted on 01/22/2025 2:18:57 AM PST by af_vet_1981 ( The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Read how many people died due to Chernobyl. What a joke!


14 posted on 01/22/2025 4:05:47 AM PST by far sider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: far sider

I mean, how many according to Wikipedia.


15 posted on 01/22/2025 4:06:42 AM PST by far sider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Wikipedia is a total leftist shxthole website. Not sure why anyone would ever use it.


16 posted on 01/22/2025 4:07:42 AM PST by maddog55 (The only thing systemic in America is the left's hatred of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maddog55

It is good for non-controversial subjects, but that’s about it.


17 posted on 01/22/2025 4:43:36 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Where does Wiki get its money...?

Inquiring minds want to know.


18 posted on 01/22/2025 4:44:42 AM PST by mewzilla (Swing away, Mr. President, swing away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

I’d like to know why it is that most every time I google a subject, the first result is usually from Wikipedia?


19 posted on 01/22/2025 5:10:10 AM PST by caver ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Bizarre AUDIO edit on the Wikipedia page for the Potomac collision. It almost seems depectively editged.

Compare the Wikipoedia 62 second clip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision#Accident with the actual tower recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiOybe-NJHk


20 posted on 01/31/2025 11:08:33 PM PST by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion, or satire, or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson