Posted on 12/20/2005 1:09:50 PM PST by lqclamar
WikiPedia.org: you can find links to it everywhere. Online forums, scholarly journals, blogs, high school research papers. WikiPedia is an "open source" encyclopedia with the philosophy of democratic contribution. This encyclopedia differs from other more established encyclopedias by its editors; WikiPedia is composed of anonymous people contributing, deleting, and voting on various aspects of articles. WikiPedia is the frontier of online information distribution, with over 830,000 articles in the English language. It does have many criticisms, but there is one very important question that goes ignored by the mainstream media and wikifans alike.
Who, exactly, edits WikiPedia?
It has come to the attention of the Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) that there is a underground cabal of pedophiles who edit WikiPedia, trying to make WikiPedia a distribution center for pedophile propaganda.
One user, who goes by the name of Zanthalon, writes on his profile, "Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific." He then goes on to add the standard disclaimer that is echoed by many convicted child molestors, "I would stress, however, that, I am not a child molester, having never broken the law or engaged in any intimate physical activities with any persons under the statutory age of consent".
Zanthalon is a frequent editor of the Pedophilia article, ensuring it is written from a pro-pedophile standpoint. It seems that WikiPedia's administration supports what he is doing.
One WikiPedia Admin, by the name of Ta bu shi da yu, who is a self-described liberal marxist, goes on to commend Zanthalon's contributions.
(Excerpt) Read more at poe-news.com ...
Sorry, I like wikipedia and have fair confidence in my ability to filter out the garbage.
If nothing else, it is frequently a good place to start.
I always thought Wikipedophile was pretty lame. I never liked for people to use it as a reference link and now I know why.
Sounds good to me. Wikipedia is quickly becoming devoid of what little quality content it ever had, so there isn't anything to be lost from freeping it. Strength in numbers could also drown out the leftist stanglehold on that site, or at least provoke them into showing their true colors and discrediting themselves.
Whatever. You seem to have some issues that need worked out. In the meantime, I'll be returning to a discussion about the problems of wikipedia.
I just checked to be sure. Between 75% and 85% of pedophile victims are girls. Ergo, "girl lovers" certainly encompass the majority of pedophiles.
I have no issues to speak of that are relevant here. I just haven't the slightest interest to read about pedophilia or the exploits of pedophiles. I am interested to see it stamped out, but me reading this article is certainly not going to contribute anything toward that. LOL
bttt
Vandalism...sounds great! Hyperbole aside there are pleny of great articles at Wikipedia ranging from Music to a bunch of other topics.
"You shouldn't expect anything less though from Wikipedia, which was founded by an Internet pornography mogul "
That's a new one one me. Care to back that up. Not saying it's not true, just requesting proof.
Just to counteract, I've been known to edit some of there articles with my own "spin". :-)
WikiWaki is no where near a good bibliography but the lazy, incompetent, and/or agenda driven teachers ignore or even encourage the use of Wiki to subject people to BS.
A lot of urban legends are touted as facts there. The Pres.'s page is agonizing with snide innuendo and Bush bashing. All the memes are there "slow Katrina", "cronyism", "disputed election", "imminent danger", etc, etc. I used to think Wiki is pretty good, but the unemployed moonbats keep effing it up. Now I realize Wiki IS the moonbats.
I don't tolerate being tricked or lied to. I don't tolerate people telling me its good for me when its not. I don't tolerate being made a fool of. The last time that happened, I became a right-wing whacko, uberconservative patriot to the right of most Republicans and even the President himself. I don't think the libturds want to see my next incarnation.
WIKIPEDIA DELANDA EST!
Just for argument's sake . . . what makes us think that Zanthalon isn't a woman and, thus, homosexual? :-)
In 1996, Wales founded a search portal called Bomis which (among other projects) sold original glamour photography pictures, and included a "Bomis Babes" blog. Because of his position with Bomis, Wales has been accused of peddling pornography. Wales disputes this, however, telling Wired that "If R-rated movies are soft porn, it was porn. In other words, no, it was not." [1] Additionally, Wales has been accused of trying to obscure his relationship to Bomis[2], with detractors pointing to the parody "history" section of the site which says: "The company was bought out by a large Washington-based media corporation, which, according to the terms of a later Severance Agreement, must not be mentioned by name in connection with Bomis" [3]. When Wales was CEO, Bomis donated over a hundred thousand dollars (primarily through salaries and providing free internet access and bandwidth) into Nupedia and Wikipedia and continued supporting them into 2002.
For what it's worth.
. . . one must be wary of embedded propaganda in politically sensitive topics.
Right you are. There are very few sources that I would accept without question. Bias of some sort is pretty much unavoidable.
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.