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.

[Pablo64]

I can't see how this would be worth anyones time. I've been surfing the net for almost ten years and this is the first I've ever heard of this site. It can't be all that important, and it has about the dumbest name I've ever heard, sounds like an encyclopedia for witches or something (maybe it is). Seems like giving it more attention than it deserves if we all run over there and start trying to fix things. Don't most sites track their number of visits each day as a way of determining popularity? If they suddenly start getting more visits, won't that just increase the chances of people finding out about them? Maybe we should just let them continue to inbreed and die a slow, painful death.

Just my 6 cents worth (2 cents, adjusted for inflation).

[Diva Betsy Ross]

I have noticed that liberal bedwetters are the first to come to their defense.... does that count?

[veronica]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia, like Google, is popular among public school teachers and some secular private school teachers.

In the case of Wikipedia, that is really unfortunate. It's basically a kooksite run by nutters. Who would send their kid to public school these days? I wouldn't. Private or religious school is the only way to go.

[Baraonda]

"However, I really know nothing about the holiday so I wouldn't try to edit it."

I wouldn't call kwanza a holiday. There is nothing holy about it. At best it's a racial "cultural" festival.

[jjbrouwer]

Thank you for giving me that 'classic' compliment. Whom did I call a name though?

[TaxRelief]

There is a wonderful article to which I have frequently referred "List of Terrorists" currently being slated for deletion. The article is long and includes links to every bio of each individual who has used violence for political gain without the sanction of a recognized state government.

If the ancient word "terrorist" has been reclassified in many liberal minds to be subjective, what can you do to prevent the demise of such a useful information source?

Which brings us to another problem. A favorite tactic of english-speaking leftists is to redefine common english words. "Gay" used to mean happy. "Liberal" used to mean unrestricted and generous. "Terrorist" used to mean one who controls with fear. Let me demonstrate how this redefining method of controlling information will effect the legitimacy of Wikipedia.

Wiki editors are now being pressured to eliminate the List of Terrorists, because since its conception in March of 2003, the term "terrorist" has been redefined to "anyone who shoots a gun or blows up anything including a squirrel raiding the bird feeder". In 2003, no one would have seriously considered it because the discussion would merely have centered around who does and who does not belong on the list. Today, only two years later, the very idea of compiling such a list can now be labeled POV.

[Junior]

Wikipedia is a liberal "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit.

Oxymoron alert. If anyone can edit it, then it is not necessarily "liberal."

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Surely you must be able to read your own posting history- you do know how to find you own posting history, don't you?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

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

Unless you are working with a singular group of educators, the question is how many of them are not themselves to the left of the wikipedia apparatchiks?

I've not met too many teachers who were much more than rabid liberal mouthpieces themselves.

[Tznkai]

I apologize in advance, but I havn't figured out the markup "There is a wonderful article to which I have frequently referred "List of Terrorists" currently being slated for deletion. The article is long and includes links to every bio of each individual who has used violence for political gain without the sanction of a recognized state government." It looks like the matter is under activie discussion, and "list of" articles tend to be depressed in general. Now this lists rules consist of: "This page is for individuals only. For organizations, see Category:Terrorism and List of terrorist organizations. There exist many different definitions of terrorism, but the article terrorism notes the following most commonly included elements: * Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence. * Targeting civilians. * Non-state actor. (See state terrorism instead.) * Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes. * Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain). Individuals listed on this page have verifiably used or attempted to use terrorist tactics, by the above criteria. Self-identification as a "terrorist" is not required; see terrorism for a list of alternative terms, with both positive and negative connotations." Wiki editors are not sheep being pressured by the High and Mighty. In fact, said high and mighty tend to get slapped around quite a bit if they use their power to push their point of view. Its a number one no-no. Arbitration Commitee has restricted itself (last I checked) to behavioral disputes. I might remind you that ewikipedia-en has somewhere upwards of 600000 articles. I personaly only have 70 or so on my watch list. A quick run through of the math will reveal the problem we face as far as consistent tone. As for this: "A favorite tactic of english-speaking leftists is to redefine common english words." True! A favorite tactic of political activists of every stripe since, I dunno, shortly after the DAWN OF TIME is to redefine words. Modern politics is just worse, cause its more widespread. Liberal in a political theory sense refered to some very intresting people Such as say... John Locke. Hobbes. People who talked about maintaining liberty. Conservative and Liberal are misnomers in the modern sense, which sucks, but it isn't much of a plot. Sticking point, a terrorist is soemone who attempts to cause fear to control. We don't care if they succede or not. Gay was coopted by homosexual men since homosexuality was living in the DSM-III (or was it IV?). Global warming used to be Global Climate change. Democrats and Republicans switched idealistic grounds half a century ago. In time immemorial, The term "Republican" was used to make the opposition unappealing "Are you anti-republic?!" OR was that Federalist? I get confused, the english language is so entirely butchered. I think its foolhardy to call Wikipedia a liberal plot, or part of one. It is however, victim to what all good secondary academic sytled research is, we depend on non original research. Which means, if I went outside, and saw Billy Bob Thorton (I just like how the name sounds) shoot a cow, I cannot put into the article that he is a cow murderer. However, should a newspaper pick it up, or he be taken to court, and the story spread enough, we have a verifiable source to insert in the article. This causes the unfortunate problem that we reflect popular opinion and what has been said, not neccessarly what is. At any rate. Your concerns expressed here are not new, and I complain far more about the manipulation of language to serve suit political ends (I'm on my way to seminary, and you wouldn't believe how poorly the Bible has been translated and used. Look up Jehova's etyomology when you get a Chance). If you want to help, take a few days to figure out How Things Work, and then go right ahead.

[lqclamar]

Wiki editors are now being pressured to eliminate the List of Terrorists, because since its conception in March of 2003, the term "terrorist" has been redefined to "anyone who shoots a gun or blows up anything including a squirrel raiding the bird feeder"

That sort of term manipulation is exactly the problem with wikipedia, and it is thoroughly enabled by the site's current administration. And notice who is at the center of it - NSLE, an administrator.

Meanwhile look at other wikipedia "lists" that are more PC in nature and fit with the leftist agenda. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_gay_lesbian_and_bisexual_people for example, which lists not only living and admitted homosexuals but dozens of famous people who have been dead for hundreds of years who are now "claimed" as gay or lesbian by the radical homosexual activist community based on speculation, rumor, and circumstantial evidence. Crap like the stuff that appears on this list is not "scholarly" or encylopedia-like. It's shoddy political propaganda from the exact same people who push the "Abe Lincoln was gay" crap. Hey, wait a minute...Lincoln's on that list!

And who do you think is responsible for this monstrosity of a list being on wikipedia? Not the normal users. The homo list is vigorously maintained and guarded by a handful of wikipedia administrators!

Jtdirl - a far left admin who has left wing political rants all over his profile page including a picture of Bush and Cheney labled "asses of evil"
Willmcw - another leftist administrator who seems to be a homo activist (This creature always seems to be there promoting an agenda on any article about homosexual politics or pederasty).
Radiant! - another lib admin
Katefan0 - another leftist administrator and the same lady who was posting at all the "beware of the freeper invasion" notices last night.

[jjbrouwer]

If you stick < p > after each paragraph (without the spacing), it looks nicer.

[jjbrouwer]

I think I called someone 'newbie'. Hardly name-calling.

[Tznkai]

I want to make something explicitly clear here.
This is the place to rant about the evils of liberals/leftists/"homos"/and whatever the hell else you decide to be pissed off at.

Take it to wikipedia, and I will shoot you down. Personal attacks are off limits. I don't care if its baby murdering femi-nazi or old whitey who's out to supress the rights of women everywhere, make it personal, and you make yourself a problem.

By the by "
This is a partial list of confirmed and debated famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual. The historical concept and definition of sexual orientation varies and has changed greatly over time— the word "gay" wasn't used to describe sexual orientation until the mid 20th century. See homosexuality and bisexuality for more about the primary (and by far the most controversial) distinguishing criterion of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people."

Confirmed and debated. First bloody line. You said it yourself, people think that Lincon was gay. I personally couldn't care less.-- but its a verified fact that people are saying it. Thus we insert that verified fact (that some people think so)

The "beware of freeper" notice was actually just a heads up. Anytime we get an influx of new users, we tend to get an influx of vandals, an influx of misguided newbies, and an influx of potential great editors. I like catogories two and three. I see alot of thought and basic politesse here that suggests people can fit in those two catagories. You're on your way to number one with your adminstrator targeting crusade.

[jjbrouwer]

What is the deal with this guy? Did someone refuse to let him be an editor there or something?

I think you've been very patient with these people. You've explained how the thing works and it seems logical.

There's a big difference between a news site and a forum, which is what this is, where people can express opinions.

[BradyLS]

I'm surprised at the number of times people say, "I went to the Wikipedia and it says..." I've had people tell me that it's "self-correcting," too. It is a living, breathing hydra of a document that reinforces groupthink.

It would take a dedicated bloc of FReeper researchers starting small and working upward in stages to the big topics. That would be a Herculean labor of love.

[Tznkai]

One more thing. I'm not sure if this is an idiot Freeper (a specific kind of freeper, that is, an idiot who happens to be here) or just a generic idiot, but it doesn't matter. Along with personal attacks, no legal threats on Wikipedia. None. For example:

(That was your last chance. Long flight from Tokyo to US courts, bud. I am in contact with Jimbo Wales as we speak. You need to find a better hobby. YOU ARE PUBLISHING LIBELOUS INFORMATION. Fact.)

This user is on his way to a permaban.

[Notwithstanding]

I suggest we selecet an "article" and begin.

[lqclamar]

Did I post anything on wikipedia complaining about the left wing kooks that inhabit your admin pool? No.

Do I intend to post anything on wikipedia referring to them as the left wing kooks they are? No.

Have I posted anything at all on wikipedia either on or off this topic? No.

Therefore I would appreciate it if you would refrain from threatening to "shoot me down" in your domain of wikipedia given that I have not even entered that domain and have not even committed the offenses you accuse me of being "on my way" to doing.

That said, as long as left wing extremists continue to control wikipedia's content, censor and suppress conservative opposition, and use wikipedia's content to promote extremist political agendas such as fringe conspiracies on Bush, abortionist frenzies, and homosexual pedarasty (as in the CRIMINAL act of preying on innocent children, which is something that one or more of your administrators appear to be supportive of) I will not hold back from criticizing them here beyond the reach of your control and censorship abilities.

Perhaps you'd find that your beloved encyclopedia would get a better reception around here if it did a better job of addressing its own in house problems. Instead you brush them off, dismiss them, and issue silly "warnings" outside of your own domain against the people who turned the light on the cockroaches in wikipedia's closet. Cause right now it remains unrefuted that:

FACT - Wikipedia was founded by and is currently owned by an internet porno king.

FACT - Wikipedia's site administration is dominated by far left wing activists

FACT - One of the most powerful sysops on Wikipedia is an arbitrator who was disgracefully disbarred for soliciting prostitutes

FACT - There are multiple site administrators on wikipedia who take unusually high interest in potentially libelous anti-Bush conspiracy theories

FACT - There are multiple site administrators on wikipedia who take unusually high interest in homosexual pederasty (an ILLEGAL crime by the way throughout the civilized world) and develop articles that portray it favorably and promote its political advocates

In short, clean up your own house and I'll stop criticizing it.

[Tznkai]

"It would take a dedicated bloc of FReeper researchers starting small and working upward in stages to the big topics. That would be a Herculean labor of love."

Please do! We love research.