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 these neckbolts want their own 'pedia, let them have it. They can't figure out they are dying a slow death because they are so wrapped up in their hateful ways. IMO anyway.
Hehehehe, this is what they say about the practice of "Freeping" over there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic
"The influencing of online polls by Free Republic's members is a common practice. Known as "freeping" a poll, the practice is not unique to the Free Republic forums and is employed by many other activist websites of all political stripes. It involves posting a message thread directing members to vote en masse in an online poll and including a link to the poll, particularly those on television network or newspaper websites, with the intended goal of significantly affecting the final outcome. Cf. astroturfing."
Can you provide specific objections to the pages you linked?
(Also, no one can edit President Bush's entry right now... apparently someone has been vandalizing it, so it's been "locked")
Kwanzaa "article" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa )
Abortion "article" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion )
President Bush "article" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush ).
Login: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin
It's a book of sand. A month ago I played with editing and adding content to a few pages, but I am giving now in discouragement deciding it is a waste of time.
I edited the section on Mexico that was completely biased and poorly written as well. It said in its history that the U.S. invaded Texas and then invaded Mexico and demanded all the territory that it has today. I changed it to reflect that Texas voted to be apart of the Union and Mexico subsequently attacked the United States, and after surrendering the U.S. agreed to purchase the remaining disputed territories. I made a bunch of other edits too that stayed.
Usually my edits dont stay. Although sometimes it still has an effect. It labeled Free Republic has a controversial website, so i changed it to 'popular website'. Now it just say "Free Republic is an internet forum.."
Meh
Does anyone take that site seriously? I wouldn't believe that site if it told me who is buried in Grants Tomb!
If you want to vandalise Wikipedia entries, perhaps you should just to it on your own terms and not tarnish the name of FreeRepublic in the process.
If wikepedia is a liberal site then why are we getting involved. We need to keep our noses out of it. Do we want liberals coming on here and making our site more liberal friendly. I wish us conservatives would worry about the issues and not stupid things like liberal websites.
What would you change on the abortion article?
I do find the site a very useful tool in my line of work.
Most of wikipedia's administrators, bureaucrats, and arbitrators (the people with sysop powers who really run the show there and revert any content they dislike) are far left wing activists.
If you want to see some truly sickening bias on Wikipedia read the NAMBLA article (NAMBLA is the gay activist group that promotes child molesting). It is basically a mixture of pedophile propaganda and political commentary aimed at insulating other leftists from association with NAMBLA in light of its much-deserved legal troubles. If you look at NAMBLA's edit history you will see that the article is closely guarded and maintained by two types of editors, who essentially ensure its status quo and censor out anything that calls NAMBLA what it truly is. These are (1) wikipedia administrators and (2) pedophiles themselves (yes, there are pedophiles all over wikipedia who edit it to promote their sick agenda http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20679 ).
Look at the edit history and see just how sick and entrenched this problem is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association&action=history
One recent edit description from a NAMBLA supporter who actively guards this artice says "NAMBLA doesn't "advocate" pederasty or pedophilia. It advocates ending the oppression of people engaged in consensual relationships." There's another editor - an administrator named Willmcw, who appears to be some sort of homosexual activist, who actively guards this article and tries to disguise the fact that NAMBLA is homosexual - "Revision as of 09:59, 25 December 2005 Willmcw (Talk | contribs) their interest may be towards the same sex, but that doens't make them an "LGBT organization"" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Man%2FBoy_Love_Association&diff=32673254&oldid=32671013
Ever see the Warner Brothers cartoon where the little Dutch boy puts a finger in a dike to stop a leak, only for another to spring, so he covers that and soon as he runs out of appendages to plug the holes, the water spurts out his ears?
Instead let wiki die a very liberal death of unreliability.
The Kwanzaa article there must have changed over the past week or so. I remember looking earlier and seeing information about Everett and his torturing two young girls as well as his gang's murder of two rival gang members. Hmmmm....
You'll find three culprits -- Germans, Japanese and the US:
Contents
[]
Wikipedia Class Action :: Lawsuit [www.wikipediaclassaction.org]
http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/