Action Alert: Freep Wikipedia

Wikipedia ^ | Dec 30 2005 | Self

[Notwithstanding]

Wikipedia is a liberal "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, it is very popular and very "progressive", although its stated goal is to present factual information wit a neitral point of view. A perfect example in the Kwanzaa "article" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa), as is the "article" on abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), and the article on President Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).

Any attempt to add balance to these articles is met by severe censoring and shouting down or shutting down editors. I suggest people sign up (free and anonymous) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin) and start politely editing. Once there, to gain "credibility" I suggest you look around and then for the first few days edit only uncontroversial articles for grammar or choppiness or poor citation - you will then be seen as a neutral editor (everyone is an "editor"). I suggest using a different screen name than you do at FR.

[jjbrouwer]

They have an ignore function here...? Now you tell me. That could have been so useful to know in the past. I checked your posting history merely to see how many posts you had made about Wikipedia since you joined a month ago.

My suspicions were confirmed - as nearly every thread you posted on seemed to be about the site.

I've actually never posted ANYTHING at Wikipedia but I have found it to be a useful reference tool.

It is certainly more reliable than - for instance - a Google search, which usually only demonstrates that incorrect information can be regurgitated over and over again.

[lqclamar]

FYI.

Here is the post that alerted the leftist administrator pool at wikipedia to this thread. It's very hostile to FR and accuses us of "astroturfing" articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Astroturfing_Kwanzaa_and_other_articles

The addition was made here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=33336658&oldid=33335780

It is by an administrator named Nandesuka who actively guards the Kwanzaa article.

[jjbrouwer]

Interesting link. I can see why you didn't want to repost the content as it shows the Wikipedia editors to be very fair and even-handed. On the same page, they say their worst headache is actually a Liberal Wiki member called Bumpusmills.

[higgmeister]

So much for "unbiased" editing

I never understood who the final arbiter would be on
Wikipedia. Some of their histories seem really nasty.
Now with some little insight it still seems nasty.

[lqclamar]

Tznkai - the guy who joined up and posted above - is also apparently trying to pick out freepers who edit wikipedia and is posting their names on Wikipedia's administrator noticeboard so all the leftist admins can undo every edit they make.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Namr.

This is very common administrator behavior on wikipedia. If they find an editor who doesn't support the liberal point of view the circulate that person's name to all the other administrators and begin following all of their edits and undoing anything that doesn't conform to the liberal viewpoint.

[lqclamar]

Here's another "alert" that Arbitration committee member Mindspillage posted about us on the George W. Bush article (she's the self described atheist that Fennec claims is a "libertarian" and thus implies is friendly to our views)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush#Free_Republic_.22Action_Alert.22

There are quite a few nasty and condescending comments about us by the usual wikipedia administrator hive. And yes - notice that they're all administrators.

Android79 - administrator.
Katefan0 - administrator (note: she's also one of the administrators who actively guards the NAMBLA article - likely a far left winger)

[lqclamar]

And, not surprisingly, the self described agnostic atheist Arbitrator Mindspillage also posted an anti-freeper "warning" on the Abortion page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#Free_Republic_.22Action_Alert.22

Curiously, Mindspillage is also currently trying to promote Tznkai to Wikipedia administrator now, in case anyone didn't believe me a few posts back when I said that the wikipedia administration elites are constantly promoting their own into the administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tznkai_2

[Notwithstanding]

Might you explain why Wikipedia does not truly seek neutrality and does not realize that because its editors are largely leftists, then to be neutral (as the site claims to be) the site managers will have to crack down on articles such as the hideous PR piece about Kwanzaa?

Kwanzaa remains extremely controversial - but if one reads the article at Wikipadia, one would think it was something the whole nation has willingly embraced as a great thing. That is but one of the many examples that can be cited.

[Tznkai]

"Might you explain why Wikipedia does not truly seek neutrality and does not realize that because its editors are largely leftists, then to be neutral (as the site claims to be) the site managers will have to crack down on articles such as the hideous PR piece about Kwanzaa?"
-Thats kinda like saying the US people don't seek Democracy. Its only true when you look at bits and peices. As a whole, the US is a rather big fan of democracy

Kwanzaa remains extremely controversial - but if one reads the article at Wikipadia, one would think it was something the whole nation has willingly embraced as a great thing. That is but one of the many examples that can be cited."
Kwanzaa article is a train wreck that is under heavy construction. In the past three week it has gone through atleast twenty warning templates, and there is one on there right now (verifiablitlty). Its not bias, its just bad writing.
-Tznkai

[Tznkai]

Thanks for the info

[Tznkai]

"This is very common administrator behavior on wikipedia. If they find an editor who doesn't support the liberal point of view the circulate that person's name to all the other administrators and begin following all of their edits and undoing anything that doesn't conform to the liberal viewpoint."
As I mentioned earlier. I welcome constructive positive edits, no matter what your persuasion. I don't like people vandalizing articles, reverting without discussion, or resorting to broad personal attacks. My list of problem users includes people of every stripe. The only thing they all share in common is they are:
1. Human
2. Troublemakers.

[Tznkai]

Oh, and for the record. Lets take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Namr.

As far as I'm concerned, Namr. here isn't liberal, conservative, or a chimpanzee. He's a problem, who managed to take a suggestion to join wikipedia and act polite, and manage to bungle it rather nicley. This includes vandalizing the Mexico article, incivility to other editors, and reversion without careful study. He evidently doesn't enjoy our politeness: "I made th wrong edit the first time, stop being polite to me, it makes me sick", and he's destroyed comments. Perhaps my favorite showing that it isn't political bias at work is this edit here, which was reverted by myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=33356751
You'll notice he added this rather pro-choicy flavored paragraph back:
" Moreover, a meaningful evaluation of risk must compare abortion with carrying the pregnancy to term, as opposed to against never having gotten pregnant in the first place. In the United Kingdom, about 1 out of 100,000 women who have early abortions die, as compared about 9 out of 100,000 women who carry their pregnancies to term. [http://www.womenshealthlondon.org.uk/leaflets/pregab/pregab.html] Figures for other countries are similar."

The defense rests.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

With respect NWS, I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. Those misguided few who take Wikipedia seriously are in grave need of long term counseling.

If you want to know what the left wing thinks, sure it's a decent stop on your rounds from DU to KOS and then the DNC website, but honest "neutral" information it is not and will never be.

If I were out for a pissing contest, I might consider following your suggestion, but in the end it's not going to change a single thing. Even if the high level editors left your changes in place, an idea that is frankly laughable given their obvious slant, all it would take is someone who disagrees with your edits to come along and do exactly what you suggest doing. Then you're back to square one.

There's no point in cursing the pigs when you've crawled into the hog lot. They aren't going to stop being pigs and you'll just come away soiled.

[Notwithstanding]

The cursing pigs bit is good advice to some extent. But in some way Wikipedia needs to be thoroughtly exposed not only for its inaccuracies, but also for its liberal and extreme PC bent.

[jjbrouwer]

Are you German or do you just live in Germany? I am looking forward to the World Cup when England will swipe the trophy from right under the noses of the Auld Enemy.

[TaxRelief]

I have noticed that the wiki site uses the "copyright" policy to preclude information from most corporations and organizations. Since the organization's mission statement, etc cannot be quoted, the author is forced to write their own opinion of what the group is.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

The real problem is that people use it as a serious research tool.

[TaxRelief]

If it were only so simple.

I am working on a project that educators can use in their classrooms to expose wikipedia as the leftist project that it is.

[TaxRelief]

The real problem is that people use it as a serious research tool.

Have you noticed that those most likely to quote from Wikipedia are leftists, darwinists or children?

Marxist motto: Control information at its source.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

You know , you twit- some people are merely saying that liberals are using, and contributing to wiki at a high rate and that it would be nice if Conservatives took some time to balance things out a bit, since that is how the site works.

You are hysterical with your rants and name calling and attempts to blur the issue.

Ok - you have shown us that you are an anti-american, classic troll.

AND?