Posted on 12/29/2005 11:55:25 PM PST by 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.
If you're going to stay here with your complaints please do so. I am not here to defend Wikipedia from criticism. I am trying to show how the process works, so I can get as many helpful insightful contributors from any source I can. I also will make it clear what conduct is considered innapropriate. If it doesn't apply to you, I'll let it serve as a warning to others. Polite disagrement is acceptable. Vandalism and personal attacks or not.
For the rest of you who are inclined to be curious if he is correct (with the pederasty bit amonst other accusations), you're welcome to look for yourselves.
Observation 1: You are confusing the term liberal with libertarian.
In modern parlance, yes. Liberal is typical taken to mean "political left". In a better sense Liberal is expanded to mean increase in govern,ental control of fiscal matters (larger government inteference) and minmizing of governmental control of social matters (less laws about what is done at home) However: what we now call classic liberalism:
"Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize liberty."
has spawned American Liberalism:
American liberalism (also called modern liberalism) is a political current that claims descent from classical liberalism in terms of devotion to individual liberty, but rejects the laissez faire economics of classical liberalism in favor of institutions that promote social and economic equity.
Which has since been claimed exclusive property of the politcal Left.
Conservatives, by their very nature, are rarely political activists. They tend to be parents or wage-earners with multiple jobs and extensive responsibility. For this reason, you will never be able to factually balance wikipedia. For instance, Socialist-leaning college students majoring in "soft" majors like "women's studies" have a tremendous amount of free time on their hands for the four year period of their college "education". Compare this type of students to engineering students--who are 90% conservative--struggling with 18 credits per semester of physics, differential equations and statics and dynamics. The conservative simply has no time for activism.
Observation No. 3: How do you balance the political leanings of your sysops? Have you made a conscious effort to diversify? For instance, FR could recommend some solid conservatives for your "inner circle".
"Observation No. 2: Conservatives, by their very nature, seek to preserve the English language and other traditional elements of their respective cultures.
Conservatives, by their very nature, are rarely political activists. They tend to be parents or wage-earners with multiple jobs and extensive responsibility. For this reason, you will never be able to factually balance wikipedia. For instance, Socialist-leaning college students majoring in "soft" majors like "women's studies" have a tremendous amount of free time on their hands for the four year period of their college "education". Compare this type of students to engineering students--who are 90% conservative--struggling with 18 credits per semester of physics, differential equations and statics and dynamics. The conservative simply has no time for activism.
I think people in general don't have time for activism. Thats why politicians exist. This is however is a very long term discussion outside of my immediate purpose as random Wikipedia representative. So lets move on.
Observation No. 3: How do you balance the political leanings of your sysops? Have you made a conscious effort to diversify? For instance, FR could recommend some solid conservatives for your "inner circle".
Simple answer? We don't.
Better answer? We don't ask. Wikipedia adminstrators and arbitration comitee memebers are selected based on their ability to keep their point of view from interefering from their abilitly to handle dispute resolution. I personally see this as the primary task of administrators, we tend to let editors, and admins acting as editors police themselves as far as article content goes.
Perhaps a better way to explain it is this:
We have 600000 articles. WE have less than a thousand admins. 600000/1000=600 articles per adminstrator. Not gonna happen. We can't possibly expect adminstrators to have oversight over each article's content. So we don't. Thats what editors are for.
There Is No Cabal. There is no inner circle. We judge people on their ability to navigate Wikipedia and strive for Neutral Point of View as well as accuracy, and prevent disputes, not on their political leanings one way or another.
Unless you've decided we're all sheep. In which case, it doesn't matter what I say, now does it?
Yes -moral liberals and socialists as well as those simply ignorant or duped e.g. children.
Correction to the above. We have 883000+ articles. Admins do clean up work and dispute resolution. They don't control an editorial byline
Why not double check?
What is the matter are you afraid of stalking yourself or sumthin?
Look, I've just got in and I'm pissed out of my head so I'll be nice to you. Happy New Year, Betsy Ross. I will cut myself short here so I don't say anything sarcastic.
"If 100 people sign up and begin editing, we might be able to balance the content of Wikipedia. As is typical, consensus is supposedly the hallmark of wikipedia, but PC reigns and we will have to work together to be effective."
That wouldn't be very ethical or honorable would it?
Indeed. They can see it for themselves and read about it where its been documented all over the internet. Start with http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20679
If that were true, Jayjg would not be on the arbitration committee. Jayjg has a well known reputation on wikipedia as a very opinionated editor who has strong political beliefs. If I remember right he was even given a minor reprimand recently by his own arbitration committee colleagues for the way he conducts himself in disputes.
And he's not the only one.
As I documented in an earlier post here many of the Arbitration committee members have strong and publicly stated political leanings toward the far left. And by every indication most of the administrators fit that mould as well.
Oh really?
Then why did an administrator recently make a strongly editorialized change to the NAMBLA article to hide the fact that they're a homosexual organization? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Man%2FBoy_Love_Association&diff=32673254&oldid=32671013
Yes, there are problems with a tiny percentage of controversial wikipedia entries, and I have seen some bias and vandalism from both sides. Wikipedia is a work in progress. But it is one of the truly wonderful things to come along on the internet.
There currently exists a group of people who seem to have a goal of destroying wikipedia just because they enjoy mindless destruction. Some of these people come to Freerepublic and attempt to recruit assistance without stating their true purpose.
Do you favor affirmative action? Do you believe it is necessary for employers to fill quotas if they have any hope of diversifying their work force?
As long as left-leaning administrators are recommending left-leaning administrators you will not diversify, unless y'all make a conscious effort to allocate the administrative seats in a more balanced manner.
Is it unethical to attempt to balance an information resource that claims to be nuetral?
Do you favor affirmative action? Do you believe it is necessary for employers to fill quotas if they have any hope of diversifying their work force?
-My political beliefs are seperate from my wiki-beliefs, but if you're trully intrested, I will discuss that with you via private discussion.
As long as left-leaning administrators are recommending left-leaning administrators you will not diversify, unless y'all make a conscious effort to allocate the administrative seats in a more balanced manner.
-The day we have a political test for adminship is the day I quit the project. I am a Christian-future pastor, nominated by an athiest, supported by a pair of conservative Muslims, and lots of people I don't know the persuasion of. Oh. And a very strong Catholic. This was a spectacular situation of accident. Adminstrators, while often involved in the nomination project, certainly don't have exclusive ownership. Any registered user my vote and nominate. Several do. The so called "left leaning" bias is silly. As I said, its logistically impossible to control an editorial byline on a project this big, so why would we bother? Wikipedia's adminstrators are formed via universal suffrage of community members, if any bias exist, it is systemic to the vast majority of community members caring about the neutrality, accuracy, and respectiability of the resource. This *could*, and I have not studied it myself, lead to a similar bias in Academia, which tends to elevate classic philsophical stuff such as Hobbes, Locke, Rawles.
This is not a senate. There are not a limited number of seats. We're not gonna "balance" because we don't ask. If we start a witchhunt based on political idealogy, people suddenly will either:
1. Hide their political idealogy
2. Advertise it in an effort to gain points
Neither of which help create an atmosphere dedicated to neutral accurate information.
99% of the articles on an encylopedia have only minor brushes with politics. I'm not going to sacrifice those 99 to have the appearance of american styled liberal-conservative balance for the 1.
So, if it was up to me, it would never, ever, EVER, come to a political test. If you're serious, go ahead and ask Jimbo, but I think the majority of the project, whatever their political stripe, will feel the same.
Any apperance of balot stuffing breaches wikipedia conduct rules. Creating neutral information doesn't, but how you go about doing it is very important. Wikipedia is not for grassroots political activism, its for encylopedia writing.
A fact is not a fact simply because some people believe it
or talk about. That is stupid equivocation and you should
act now to stop it if you have any integrity at all .
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.