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.
"No. Not really. I simply restated and elaborated upon my original complaints with this article. Right now the Wikipedia homo list asserts that several dozen historical figures are "confirmed" homosexuals. In reality there is great debate as to whether many of these figures were homosexual, and in many cases the only evidence in favor is circumstantial innuendo that is normally promoted by persons with a pro-homosexual political agenda."
"Bzzzzt! Wrong. Try again. There are very few if any mainstream scholarly biographies of Caesar out there that (1) assert that he was "anally penetrated" in graphic detail or (2) conclusively purport him to have been a homosexual. Yet Wikipedia's portrayal of Caesar says both of him."
Prove it!
Lets break down these claims so you know what I'm asking
The list has several dozen historical figures listed as confirmed: Which?
In reality there is great debate as to whether man of these figures where homosexual: Evidence?
And in many cases the only evidence in favor is circumstancial innendo: Definition of innuendo, circumstantial, and proof that this is the only evidence?
Normally promoted by persons with a pro-homosexual political agenda: again, evidence?
There are very few if any mainstream scholarly biographies of Caesar out there that (1) assert that he was "anally penetrated" in graphic detail: Still not sure how this is graphic detail, but we can quibble about that in a diffrent thread. Show me biographies which detail his sex life, accusations of about his sex life, and omit male lovers, and accusations of being on bottom. In otherwords, Evidence.
(2) conclusively purport him to have been a homosexual.: Show me books that make conclusions on his sex life period, that don't mention him being homosexual, we're compare it to the number that does, and we'll see where the consensus lies. This one I'm very prepared to be wrong about.
"Yet Wikipedia's portrayal of Caesar says both of him.": I saw a section on male lovers, and an entry on a list, I suppose this is evidence enough. I'm sure the rest is good enough homework for you though. Have fun!
FWIW, I have become a Wiki editor and edited three entries on my lunch hour today.
I will continue to do so.
These Wikipedia editors might have a problem with you saying that the Wikipedia is a liberal website....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Old_Right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Palm_dogg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sebastian_Prospero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gator1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kinneyboy90
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thomas_Aquinas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SFrank85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdavidb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Halterman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rschen7754
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Simetrical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Albrock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samuel_J._Howard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shanedidona
And thats only after ten minutes of looking.
Also, it's a good thing that websites like this are pushing for their veiws to be represted in Wikipedia but, don't just complain, make edits!
And yet you identify none of them. Typical.
And yet you identify none of them. Typical.
You're still tap dancing around the issue. These articles all show a bias of some form that tilts toward the left. While they do not encompass EVERY single article on wikipedia, it is perfectly fair to say that they represent a sample of the types of bias that can be found on similar political articles. In fact I can pull up just about any developed political article on Wikipedia and find more of the exact same left wing garbage.
Take this article about conservative radio talk show host and Freeper Michael Graham for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graham
It is obviously written by one or more persons with an axe to grind against Graham. Over half of the article is about a controversy over remarks Graham made about Islam during one of his shows, and is written in a way that portrays Graham as the villian in the incident. The opening "biographical" paragraphs aren't much better including the 2nd paragraph, which includes a lengthy guilt-by-association diatribe that implies Graham must be a racist or something since he considers early 20th Century satirist H.L. Mencken a hero, and Mencken made remarks in his own time that would be considered un-PC today.
Let's pick another political article...Nancy Pelosi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi
Pelosi's a well known liberal democrat figure and no stranger to controversy. Given her prominence you'd think there would be at least some criticism of her in the article. But it's all glowing praises about how she's "the first woman to lead a major political party in either house of Congress."
The only thing in the entire article that is even remotely critical of her is this paltry little paragraph near the bottom, which carefully guards saying anything overtly critical of her: "Republicans in some areas of the country, especially the South and Midwest, have used the label of a "San Francisco liberal" or "Bay Area liberal" as a form of political labeling, predominantly as a tool to win over voters since Pelosi would become Speaker of the House if the Democrats regain control of Congress. Even before becoming minority leader, Pelosi had one of the most liberal voting records in the House."
Now think back for a minute to the Graham article, which was almost entirely about criticisms of him. And here we have Pelosi, which is nothing but praise.
I suppose you could say that this is an isolated case selected to fit the criteria (and have no doubt you would try that line of argument as you continue your dance around Wikipedia's many flaws). But look at just about any political article and you can clearly see that it is not.
Let's try Tom Daschle, the former Democrat Senate Minority leader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daschle
Daschle's article, much like Pelosi's, is almost entirely positive. The only thing even remotely critical of him is a tiny section at the bottom about how he lost his seat, and it blames that loss on Bill Frist for "breaking an unwritten tradition that one party's leader in the Senate would not campaign directly for the other's defeat."
Compare that with the articles for the GOP Majority Leaders who served opposite of him during Daschle's period of leadership though.
The article on Bill Frist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist) describes in lengthy drawn out detail virtually every single political controversy and criticism he's ever been involved in. Trent Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott) is not much better, and over half of the article is about his controversies and insinuations of "racism."
Or how about Pelosi's counterparts? Dennis Hastert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert#Support_for_Turkey) has bizarre criticisms of him for alleged views regarding the government of Turkey and minor controversies, such as a comment he made about New Orleans. And don't even start on Tom DeLay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay) which lists virtually every single controversy and allegation ever made against him.
And as always, those are just a few samples of the severe pro-left political imbalance on wikipedia - samples that can be validated by almost any major political article on that site.
But how many of those have sysop power or authority on Wikipedia?
As I documented earlier in this thread the 10-member Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, which is the highest tier of sysops on the site short of its owner, is dominated by far left liberals. I've also identified dozens of Wikipedia Administrators from the far left who openly advertise it on their pages or who edit with a leftist bias. Included in this sysop pool are self-identified communists and people who proudly display pictures of Che on their profiles.
I don't deny there are a handful of conservative editors on wikipedia, and maybe even a few administrators. But they are vastly outnumbered by the liberal ones who also occupy the highest levels of Wikipedia's sysop structure and use that authority to control the site's political leanings.
There are about as many editors in the "socialist wikipedians" category as there are in the "conservative wikipedians" category, and the socialist category has a huge subcategory of trotskyists.
If you want a sample of the biases of Wikipedia's editors see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_politics
Almost all the categories on the left have a dozen members minimum and some have several dozen.
One of the largest is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_who_dislike_George_W._Bush
On the right, only conservative and pro-life have sizable memberships. Everything else has 2 or 3 names
Agree 100%. I do believe that it does lean to the left, but I would never use it for political research.
No thank you. I'm not here to accept homework assignments from your likes, especially when they entail proving a negative.
It has already been documented that wikipedia portrays Caesar as a "confirmed" homosexual, and contains unsourced allegations about him being "penetrated anally." Unless you can conclusively demonstrate the truth of either with credible, sourced, and undisputed information, neither belong in its content.
I can tell you that when I took American literature classes focusing on the Harlem Renaissance my first thought wasn't "let's see what information I can extract from a random sampling of liberal ignoramuses surfing the Web."
I preferred to actually go to the Schomberg and find source materials.
If other people want to rely upon a website whose validity its own creator has called into question that's their business.
The burden of proof has always been upon the complainant.
Oh yeah. Speaking of logical fallacies, you've listed a number of compalints ArbCom is all far left, ____ large sampling of politcal articles are slanted to the left, the ahem, "homo list" is innacurate, and somehow, this is all supposed to be part of the same problem? I'm not sure if thats post hoc, equivocation, false anolgoy, or something else, but it certainly isn't valid logical structure. You have a number of complaints, I've done my best to treat this fairly and take you at your word that you are serious about your concerns with Wikipedia. I am less inclined to do so now. I am not going to claim, (as I would be an idiot to) that Wikipedia is perfect. I am going to put forward that theres nothing good editing won't fix, and that ArbCom, and the vast liberal adminstrator conspiracy isn't going to stop it, even if it exists. (oh, I forgot ot mention this, Admins are promoted via community consensus, not admins.)
Happy editing to all who choose to come, and happy lives to those who don't.
It's impossible to prove a negative as you ask.
It is possible however to provide a sample of article examples that support the assertion that Wikipedia is biased to the left, and I have already done that.
I don't know why so many people here get a vicarious thrill from engaging in picayune battles over such manifestly ridiculous issues.
The intellectual vacuity of Wiki's political references speaks for itself.
To take just one example, the hagiography of Barbara Boxer.
This is a politician who is almost universally recognized as the stupidest-and arguably, most partisan-woman in the United States Senate, and yet to read the Wiki on her political career is to get the impression that she is some courageous "progressive" reformer, whose list of accomplishments is seemingly too endless to catalogue.
Arguing with people who are so thoroughly brainwashed that they believe an habitual idiot and unrelenting harpy like Barbara Boxer is a suitable representative of their interests is beyond pointless.
None of the above. It's nothing more than documented evidence of all the different ways Wikipedia is structurally slanted toward the left. Since you have trouble grasping that let me specify them for you.
1. Wikipedia's political articles tend to slant toward the political left.
PROOF: This complaint about wikipedia is supported by an inductive observation given a sample. Multiple political articles have been shown in this thread by me and by other freepers to contain a liberal bias. The articles mentioned include several major political figures and topics, suggesting they are a representative sample of Wikipedia's political articles. If the sample of bias is indeed representative (and you have provided no reason why it is not), then it may be induced that a similar bias infects the greater whole of Wikipedia's political articles.
2. Wikipedia's sysop heirarchy is dominated by liberals.
PROOF: On the top tier Wikipedia Arbitration Committee virtually all of the members with identifiable political leanings are on the far left. This has been demonstrated in numerous posts. Furthermore, many second tier Wikipedia sysops among the site's administrators self-identify on the far left. Several examples of these too have been shown on this thread.
3. Wikipedia sysops with leftist political viewpoints often guard the content of articles on political topics.
PROOF: Multiple examples have been given of political articles where one or more identified leftist sysops regularly monitor and control the article's content over periods of weeks, months, or even years.
(oh, I forgot ot mention this, Admins are promoted via community consensus, not admins.)
Two questions:
(1) Who does most of the nominating of serious new administrator candidates?
Answer: Current administrators.
(2) Who vote the most actively and consistently on new administrator nominations?
Answer: Current administrators.
The fact that the voting process is open to regular non-admin editors does not mean regular editors participate or give their "consensus." Most editors either don't even know about it or don't care. That's hardly granting their "consensus." If you go to any new administrator vote page you will find that the single largest group represented in the votes cast for any given one of them is other administrators. In a successful nomination it is commonplace that 50 or 100 or more different administrators will vote. By comparison it is doubtful that even 1 in every 10,000 regular editors votes. To portray this process, which is clearly dominated by the former, as representative of the "consensus" of the latter is thus deceptive.
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.