If 100 people sign up and begin editing, we might be able to balance the content of Wikipedia. As is typical, consensus is supposedly the hallmark of wikipedia, but PC reigns and we will have to work together to be effective.

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.

If these neckbolts want their own 'pedia, let them have it. They can't figure out they are dying a slow death because they are so wrapped up in their hateful ways. IMO anyway.

Hehehehe, this is what they say about the practice of "Freeping" over there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic

"The influencing of online polls by Free Republic's members is a common practice. Known as "freeping" a poll, the practice is not unique to the Free Republic forums and is employed by many other activist websites of all political stripes. It involves posting a message thread directing members to vote en masse in an online poll and including a link to the poll, particularly those on television network or newspaper websites, with the intended goal of significantly affecting the final outcome. Cf. astroturfing."

Can you provide specific objections to the pages you linked?

(Also, no one can edit President Bush's entry right now... apparently someone has been vandalizing it, so it's been "locked")

Kwanzaa "article" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa )
Abortion "article" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion )
President Bush "article" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush ).

Login: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin

The Kwaanza article reads like a PR piece put out by its founder. Even the section about the disputes about its origin and its founder read like a spokesman for the its founder wrote it.

The abortion page is better, but it still slants in favor of abortion (if actually read the article).

You can edit without signing up (again, sign up is anonymous but necessary to have any impact on the site), but that is a waste of time as you will be blocked from controversial articles and won't be taen seriously on pages you do edit.

I agree with you about the end of the Kwanzaa article.

However, I really know nothing about the holiday so I wouldn't try to edit it.

It's a book of sand. A month ago I played with editing and adding content to a few pages, but I am giving now in discouragement deciding it is a waste of time.

Here is a sample of the bias. This portion of the article is supposedly addressing the concenrs many have about the holiday. However it is very slanted (and even has a crappy style).

---

Controversies

Kwanzaa is a holiday not without controversy(better: Kwanzaa is controversial), as various segments of American society challenge it on grounds of its authenticity and relevance (Better:and some question its claimed authenticity). Some criticize the appropriation of the Jewish menorah, which is renamed the Kinara in Kwanzaa. Although it has established a hold in American society, it is often attacked by proxy through its founder, a convicted felon who has a checkered past (Better: Many note that the founders is a felon, marxist and former leader of a violent black seperatist organization.). According to Camille Jackson, Staff Writer at www.Tolerance.org, this is done as a means to undermine its powerful message (bloggers are not to be quoted per wikipedia policy). Author Sara McGill sums it up most succinctly, in her book Kwanzaa (2005), when she says (This entire section is not addressing the controversy, it is praising Kwanzaa as wonderful and criticism as ignorance),

..."While the observance of Kwanzaa has spread to other countries, there are many people of African descent who do not know the purpose of Kwanzaa or how to celebrate it. Others refuse to celebrate Kwanzaa because it is not a true African tradition. Yet, for the millions who observe it, the holiday emphasizes the strength of African history and the beauty of African culture" (Jackson, p. 2).

It is a book of sand - that many young people consider as authoritative. I think it is worth freeping to ensure baalnce. If you had the support of 5 other editors, I am sure you would have been successful AND not given up!!

the 5 editors were on the other side. :)

could you please go into greater detail about your issues with the listings you suggested. Outside from grammatical mistakes, i found the entries to be fair and balanced. They addressed both sides of the issue, and did not claim to have a set agenda or certain position on any of the controversies they discussed.

I could be wrong, i have been before...but a few examples might make it easier to understand your argument.

I edited the section on Mexico that was completely biased and poorly written as well. It said in its history that the U.S. invaded Texas and then invaded Mexico and demanded all the territory that it has today. I changed it to reflect that Texas voted to be apart of the Union and Mexico subsequently attacked the United States, and after surrendering the U.S. agreed to purchase the remaining disputed territories. I made a bunch of other edits too that stayed.

Usually my edits dont stay. Although sometimes it still has an effect. It labeled Free Republic has a controversial website, so i changed it to 'popular website'. Now it just say "Free Republic is an internet forum.."

Meh

Wikis and FReeps are examples of demos in action. Democracy is the rule of fools by fools and polls are the truest form of direct democracy. Wikis and Freeps are merely subtle 'polls'.

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

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.

If wikepedia is a liberal site then why are we getting involved. We need to keep our noses out of it. Do we want liberals coming on here and making our site more liberal friendly. I wish us conservatives would worry about the issues and not stupid things like liberal websites.

Concur. There is little doubt that Lefty academic types have way more time to continually screw around with the editing, than a bunch of conservatives with real jobs.

Calling that style of writing 'crappy' is way too kind. That is some of the most atrocious writing I have read in a long time (other than DU).