Posted on 12/29/2005 11:55:25 PM PST by Notwithstanding
It seems to me that this is an opportunity for conservatives to help shape public opinion.... that is what FR is all about. Deal with it.
Copyright complications for real data
That is how you know the rest of it is opinion......
Most of wikipedia's administrators, bureaucrats, and arbitrators (the people with sysop powers who really run the show there and revert any content they dislike) are far left wing activists.
If you want to see some truly sickening bias on Wikipedia read the NAMBLA article (NAMBLA is the gay activist group that promotes child molesting). It is basically a mixture of pedophile propaganda and political commentary aimed at insulating other leftists from association with NAMBLA in light of its much-deserved legal troubles. If you look at NAMBLA's edit history you will see that the article is closely guarded and maintained by two types of editors, who essentially ensure its status quo and censor out anything that calls NAMBLA what it truly is. These are (1) wikipedia administrators and (2) pedophiles themselves (yes, there are pedophiles all over wikipedia who edit it to promote their sick agenda http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20679 ).
Look at the edit history and see just how sick and entrenched this problem is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association&action=history
One recent edit description from a NAMBLA supporter who actively guards this artice says "NAMBLA doesn't "advocate" pederasty or pedophilia. It advocates ending the oppression of people engaged in consensual relationships." There's another editor - an administrator named Willmcw, who appears to be some sort of homosexual activist, who actively guards this article and tries to disguise the fact that NAMBLA is homosexual - "Revision as of 09:59, 25 December 2005 Willmcw (Talk | contribs) their interest may be towards the same sex, but that doens't make them an "LGBT organization"" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Man%2FBoy_Love_Association&diff=32673254&oldid=32671013
Notwithstanding does not appear to be telling people WHAT to say on Wikipedia, but just that more conservatives need to participate in the process, akin to a "get out the vote drive".
Many of those would not have amounted to anything anyway.
Ever see the Warner Brothers cartoon where the little Dutch boy puts a finger in a dike to stop a leak, only for another to spring, so he covers that and soon as he runs out of appendages to plug the holes, the water spurts out his ears?
Instead let wiki die a very liberal death of unreliability.
The Kwanzaa article there must have changed over the past week or so. I remember looking earlier and seeing information about Everett and his torturing two young girls as well as his gang's murder of two rival gang members. Hmmmm....
Here's the homepage of another major wikipedia administrator. The very first thing on it is a giant picture of Che.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C
There are several others just like these all over wikipedia. Basically look at any article on a political subject and click on its history then look for any administrator name that appears frequently. 9 out of 10 times the administrator will be "guarding" a liberal bias.
Is this true? Is it "most" or is it a few? Who is in charge, specifically?
There is also a "talk" feature that allows you to voice your concerns without changing the article. It's a good way to keep track of who's writing the thing and what the management and contributors are up to.
There was a controversy a few weeks back about the accuracy of articles, particularly those in Bill Gates and Jane Fonda. Then there was the poster who used the article to accuse a journalist of complicity in the John Kennedy assassination.
So now in the interests of greater accuracythere may be a crackdown, and a liberal management may use the controversy to impose its own attitudes on the encyclopedia, but up to now it hasn't been a problem. The Fonda article was pretty clear evidence that up to now, conservatives have been able to contribute to wikipedia as much as liberals do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neutrality
This misnamed editor is both an administrator and arbitrator on wikipedia (arbitrators are the top tier of wikipedia's bureacracy - there are 10 who run the site). Neutrality (sic), who is also just a high school student according to his profile, advertises there that he's "A liberal, progressive, and Democrat."
Also look at the history of articles on well known conservative congressmen and senators. Take Tom Tancredo for example. Here you find two administrators working in tandem to control and censoring the content of this article to make it anti-Tancredo and remove references to Tancredo's supporters - Viriditas and Willmcw (aka the gay guy from the NAMBLA article).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Tancredo&action=history
It'd be nice if wikipedia worked its way out based on contributions, but it doesn't work that way in practice. Liberals contribute more to articles liberal topics, but when conservatives do the same thing to conservative topics they often get reverted or censored in ways that liberals do not. The thing that makes wikipedia liberal is an upper tier of liberal site administrators who have powers to revert normal editors. Most of these administrators and other sysops tilt heavily to the left and they protect their own while penalizing conservatives.
1. The head honcho of the site is Jimbo Wales, the founder. He more or less has the final word on anything when he chooses to exercise it, but he delegates much of his authority to the next tier of site bureaucrats people below him. He also seems to stay clear of most political disputes when they don't involve him. Wales himself is a rather dubious character though - before founding Wikipedia he was an internet porn magnate who ran a site called Bomis.com, which marketed pornographic images.
2. The next tier below Wales is the wikipedia Arbitration Comittee. There are 10 members that are theoretically supposed to be elected by editors, but Wales has ensured that most of them are appointed by him. The Arbitration Committee is VERY leftist. Several of its members are high school and college kids who are typical liberal anti-war activist types, and others are old guard left wingers. Here's what can be said of some of them:
User:Neutrality - a high school student who openly professes to be a liberal progressive democrat on his profile page.
User:Jdforrester - a UK college student activist who advertises that hes "a card-carrying member of the Liberal Democrats."
User:Fred Bauder - a "retired" attorney from Colorado who is a member of the uberleftist National Lawyers Guild (note: Bauder's claimed "retirement" was actually forced when the Colorado supreme court disbarred him a few years ago for soliciting prostitution - Bauder has used his arbitrator powers to penalize and ban editors who have pointed out this fact on wikipedia)
User:Raul654 - another college student. His user profile doesn't mention his politics
User:Mindspillage - a recent college grad who advertises on her profile that she's an "agnostic atheist."
User:Fennec - another college student. His user profile doesn't indicate his politics.
User:Jayjg - don't know much about him because his profile page says very little, but his edits are well known on wikipedia to be very liberal and very partisan.
The other arbitration people are listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Active
3. The third tier below arbitrators is Wikipedia's administrators. These are the day to day sysop people with revert and blocking powers. There are several dozen of them and they are picked by nominations from other administrators that are then submitted for a vote of affirmation. Most of the original administrators are very liberal and this biases the election process towards them, because they seek out other liberal editors and nominate them to be administrators.
Please don't put words in my mouth. It is incredibly dishonest and suggests you should certainly not contribute to Wikipedia.
Firsly, I would have to accept your notion that it is only Liberals who write for Wikipedia. I don't accept that. My main criticism of it is that it contains too many dull American entries.
Suggestions for dull British entries, then? ;)
Cant you answer the question with a direct answer?
Dull American entries? uh huh- and the UK is full of Eddy Izzards looking for a place to exhibit their prowess...right? ;]
LOL>
Right from the start, your loaded question asks me to accept your premise that Wikipedia is a Liberal site. I don't accept that. Your idiotic remark about Eddy Izzard suggest that you would have trouble completing a crossword, let alone rewriting history on Wiki.
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.