Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Action Alert: Freep Wikipedia
Wikipedia ^ | Dec 30 2005 | Self

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: fagopedia; falsewitness; wikipedia; wikipedophilia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-257 next last
To: jjbrouwer
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.

It's not vandalism, Wikipedia is suppose to be visitor- policing. It sells itself as being correct because it allows everyone to add to, and correct any mistakes.

21 posted on 12/30/2005 4:37:10 AM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BallyBill
Does anyone take that site seriously? I wouldn't believe that site if it told me who is buried in Grants Tomb!

Yes, I have a friend who's and IT pro, He really likes the site and the concept behind it.

22 posted on 12/30/2005 4:39:35 AM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
If wikepedia is a liberal site then why are we getting involved. We need to keep our noses out of it....

Not a Liberal Website. It is claiming to be objective and netural. Do you want to leave it up to liberals to determine what objective and netural is?

23 posted on 12/30/2005 4:43:48 AM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

What would you change on the abortion article?


24 posted on 12/30/2005 4:46:07 AM PST by toadthesecond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

I do find the site a very useful tool in my line of work.


25 posted on 12/30/2005 4:48:06 AM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sci Fi Guy

Getting 100 people to attack another website smacks to me of vandalism. Anyway, I doubt many will take him up on his offer. I've always found Wikipedia quite useful. It isn't 100 per cent accurate but nor is most of the crap you read on the Net.


26 posted on 12/30/2005 4:48:25 AM PST by jjbrouwer (Falling down that hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: okstate
I really know nothing about the holiday

The make believe holiday

27 posted on 12/30/2005 5:19:49 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sci Fi Guy

No. The poster never stated that it was neutral.


28 posted on 12/30/2005 5:29:17 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bullitt

We must fight our cyber/information warfare for our purpose. This is a war fought at a civilian level challenging those who are trying to bend history. There are children that may view these and be brainwashed by it. We have to protect our children from fabricated history.


29 posted on 12/30/2005 6:55:18 AM PST by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Do you want your children and children around the country getting wrong facts from Wikipedia tilting them left? When they grow up, they are going to build up on it and that will tilt US in the wrong direction.


30 posted on 12/30/2005 6:57:53 AM PST by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jjbrouwer; Notwithstanding
Getting 100 people to attack another website smacks to me of vandalism.

Notwithstanding has not requested "attacks" on wikipedia, as you so emotionally phrase his request: He merely suggests that 100 FReepers assist with the editing of the liberal, emotional and opinionated--not fact-based--entries.

It's hardly an unreasonable request.

31 posted on 12/30/2005 7:38:21 AM PST by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: USMCfreeper
i found the entries to be fair and balanced.

Welcome to Freerepublic!

The entries in many of the articles "appear" to be fair and balanced until you attempt to insert facts.

To find out just how unbalanced an article is, trace back through its history and read all of the removed pieces of information by comparing versions.

You will be amazed at the information your fellow liberals are censoring.

The Pope Benedict articles are a great example

32 posted on 12/30/2005 7:45:05 AM PST by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Unfortunately, Wikipedia, like Google, is popular among public school teachers and some secular private school teachers. Many public school teachers REQUIRE their students to use Wikipedia and Google as reference tools.

As long as an information tool is being disseminated within the public sector, it is our duty to contribute--where possible-- to the validity of the "facts" that are shaping future generations.

It is because FReepers and conservatives recognize this "duty" that there are so many blog wars over creation v. evolution, ecology science v. junk science, literature v. porn, atheism v. theology, philosophy v. freeform, postmodernism v. true art, socialism v. democracy, and ebonics v. grammar just to name a few.

33 posted on 12/30/2005 7:54:21 AM PST by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

Hopefully, the Wikipedia people will be alert to his trouble-making.


34 posted on 12/30/2005 7:58:37 AM PST by jjbrouwer (Falling down that hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jjbrouwer; Notwithstanding

This isn't notwithstanding's first campaign against Wikipedia - see:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535547/posts


35 posted on 12/30/2005 8:04:06 AM PST by toadthesecond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: toadthesecond

Interesting. He seems to be staging a one man vendetta against the site. Hopefully, FreeRepublic will not be blamed for his obsessive fixation with Wikipedia.


36 posted on 12/30/2005 8:14:55 AM PST by jjbrouwer (Falling down that hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief; Landru; ForGod'sSake; Fawnn; Arrowhead1952; Old Sarge; ken5050; Jeff Head; The Mayor; ...
Pinging some people who, IMO, have great writing skills~ to see if any of you can help us with this project. I agree with Tax Relief, in her post #33, that we have a duty to work on this since so many teachers and people in the public sector use wikipedia as a research tool.

"We can do no great things, only small things with great love." :] Thanks for lookin y'all~

37 posted on 12/30/2005 8:31:52 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross (Embrace peace- Hug an American soldier- the real peace keepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jjbrouwer; toadthesecond
Notwithstanding does not suggest harming Wikipedia; On the contrary, he seeks to improve the site.

Surely a request for more editors is absolutely consistent with the original intent of the creators of the Wiki project?

38 posted on 12/30/2005 8:49:55 AM PST by TaxRelief ("Achieving balance through diversity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

Why doesn't he set up his own site if he hates Wiki so much? I think Wikipedia is very good, despite its limitations.


39 posted on 12/30/2005 8:56:20 AM PST by jjbrouwer (Falling down that hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BallyBill
Does anyone take that site seriously? I wouldn't believe that site if it told me who is buried in Grants Tomb!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant%27s_tomb
Grant's Tomb is a mausoleum containing the bodies of Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885), an American Civil War General and the 18th President of the United States, and his wife, Julia Dent Grant (1826-1902). The tomb complex is now officially known as the General Grant National Memorial and is located in Riverside Park in Manhattan, New York, New York, near the intersection of Riverside Drive and 122nd Street.
...CLIP...
A riddle relating to Grant's Tomb, popularized by Groucho Marx on his game show You Bet Your Life, is "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" Though the proper answer is "nobody"—Grant and his wife are entombed, not buried—Groucho would usually accept "Grant".

Yes, I'm a smart a$$ :)

40 posted on 12/30/2005 9:01:05 AM PST by usapatriot28 ( Si vis pacem para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-257 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson