Yeah, there is something like a porn-movie-theater-floor sticky about it, isn't there?
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 ...
I reccommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/155872009X/qid=1135115262/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8169422-6680803?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
Really opened my eyes. Especially since a lot of the info is from pro-homo sources.
Thanks, sounds like a bit of a stretch to call him a por mogul .
I hear pedophiles shop at Wal-Mart, too!
Happy to oblige. Wikipedia created by a guy named Jimbo Wales. Prior to launching wikipedia Wales owned a porno site called Bomis.com. He openly admits this on his wikipedia profile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Wales although he calls it "glamour photography" and uses other euphamisms to obscure that it was pornographic.
No worse than their vandalism of facts and truth. Although I might have been a bit hasty. I'm, not exactly thinking on full cylinders here and given how much I HATE being used, I can get EXTREMELY vindictive.
I used to use Wiki a lot. Like I said, I even used it on Sunday (correction: I confused my activities on Monday with the ones on Sunday). But finding out that Wiki isn't the victim of liberal infiltration, it is the infiltration really, REALLY, p!$$3$ me off.
We have enough lying scumbags pretending to have knowledge and objectivity, what's the addition of one more Socialist propaganda source to a world infested by them?
Yeah, there is something like a porn-movie-theater-floor sticky about it, isn't there?
The only reason I clicked on this thread is because I was wondering how on earth sex predators could find victims through Wikipedia. As I read into the article, I realized that it wasn't about that at all but rather of them modifying entries to be favorable to them.
So, my interest ended right there, except when I read the person's comments who instead of attacking pedophiles attacked homosexuals for whatever reason.
If anyone has issues to be worked on, it's him!
wiki may be interesting to some, but it's not reliable. I've been turned off by those who use it as a source and it's definitely not for kids.
There's a lot more then that. As I said it has great articles about everything from music to hyperlinked charts of various goverment office holders and Monarchs. Where else can you find a list of the claimants to the British throne up through over a 100 people?
I really need to spell check please ignore my bad typing.
Yeah, I saw that. But do we really trust the reporter to get it right? I'm suspecting that "his" is used in the gender neutral form . . . kind of like "mankind"
They might, but I doubt that:
(1) Wal-Mart's CEO is an internet porn mogul (Wikipedia's owner is)
(2) Wal-Mart's distributorship is run by a guy who got caught soliciting prostitutes (Wikipedia's arbitration committee is)
(3) Wal-Mart store managers approach the pedophiles who shop there and thank them for "cleaning up" the aisles in the toy section (Wikipedia's administrators frequently praise pedophile editors for working on articles).
The problems at wikipedia are entrenched and sanctioned at the highest levels of the site.
I often pop into political pages on Wiki. I noticed the strong bias and chocked it to "unemployed moonbat" syndrome. That's how cr@pulent left wing sites win the Weblog Awards when clearly some of the other sites that came in second or third had a HUGE following.
It turns out that they are the source of the lies, bile, and hate.
But I'll admit, I'm exhausted from the exam, angry at being lied to, and feeling quite vindictive. It is entirely possible I may have jumped the gun.
Nope. Must've been somebody else. Either way, to call what Wales did anything other than pornography is newspeak so the people trying to excuse it are only deceiving themselves.
The book did a good job of connecting baby raping (pedophilia sounds too mild, let's call it what it is) to homosexuality. One of the most frightening and enlightening thing is that much of mainstream homo stuff is intricately interwoven with baby raping. A close examination of homo literature and political advocacy, as this book did, revealed that homos are more likely to get involved in hurting children than the average hetero.
Remember the source though. That's from Wales' own bio on wikipedia - a site that can hardly be called neutral in the matter. The Times of London reported today that Wales himself had edited his own entry to remove descriptions of the site as pornographic in favor of euphamisms.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1948005,00.html
Mr Cadenhead’s blog also described how "another sore spot for Wales has been Bomis Babes, a now-closed subscription service of his company's Bomis.com search portal that offered nude pictures of women". The site was described by Wikipedia contributors as "softcore pornography" or "erotica". But Mr Wales changed a reference to "Bomis Babes softcore pornography section" to "Bomis Babes adult content section". He twice altered references to the nature of the site, replacing "Bomis Babes erotica section" with "Bomis Babes blog based on Slashdcode" and other technically-slanted descriptions
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.