Replies

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.

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.

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".