Posted on 03/04/2007 10:00:30 PM PST by lqclamar
Under the name Essjay, the contributor edited thousands of Wikipedia articles and was once one of the few people with the authority to deal with vandalism and to arbitrate disputes between authors.
To the Wikipedia world, Essjay was a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law, according to his user profile. But in fact, Essjay is a 24-year-old named Ryan Jordan, who attended a number of colleges in Kentucky and lives outside Louisville.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
In Soviet Russia, wikipedia edits you!
Wikipedia is not even the same resource from day to day. Left and right fight back and forth over any point and create controversies where none should exist.
Of course we are talking about millions of people who actually believe Bush was "selected not elected".
Exactly!
If you have a static IP (like most cable broadband users have), use the public proxy for these sites so you can't be tracked and banned.
If you have a dynamic IP (like most DSL users have, unless specifically requesting static), then it's unlikely that they can track you and ban permanently, as your IP changes regularly depending on your disconnect/reconnect timeout period is.
He joined Wikipedia as some self proclaimed anti-vandalism patrolman and later got special status. Now someone has nominated him to be an admin.
This guy is about as far to the left as Karl Marx. Anything negative about any liberal, be it a politician, celebrity, reporter, etc. is instantly deleted and if the author protests, he is threatened with banning.
I went a few rounds with him but when I was able to provide a credible citation, he was forced to back down but he's still holding a grudge.
BTW, spellcheck passed "Wikipederasts"
I attempted to edit the unreferenced fictions dealing with Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin's "deeply Catholic faith" with a more neutral account of their legislative histories and words as compared with Catholic teaching. For that bit of free speech, I got stomped on like a narc at a biker rally. The admins have I.P. blocked me from Wikipedia ever since.
As indicated the vast majority of the admins are far left wing wackos, and many of them are also sexual deviants. At one time there were three different "transgendered" individuals serving on the Arbitration board or as its clerks...and that was out of 7 or 8 total. Add the prostitution guy I mentioned in the earlier post and literally half of the board was controlled by the very worst kind of net pervs - i.e. the reasons they invented child blocker software.
THe best and only way to fight the liberal bias on wikipedia is to discredit ALL of wikipedia itself by discrediting its personnel. This Essjay creep is a major step in that direction, but conservatives need to get the word out on more. They need to spread the word on its porno magnate founder Jimmy Wales. They need to spread the word on that Bauder guy and his prostitution solicitations. They need to spread the word on all the perverts among the high ranking wikipedia administrators. Point out that top level Wiki admins Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, Rebecca, and dozens of others are "transgendered" activists. Point out the rabid liberal political activists like Gamaliel and Will_Beback (also queer) and SlimVirgin and Raul654 and Jdforrester and FCYTravis (another queer activist). Point out the homos, and the guy with the Che Guevara posters all over his user page. Show the world what freaks these people are and wikipedia's credibility goes bye-bye real quick.
Not very far from the truth. About a year ago somebody set up an anti-wikipedia site that tracked down one of the leftist pro-homo wikipedia administrators and found him posting all over a bunch of porno website message boards. A few weeks later they uncovered that one of the top sysops - an extremely ugly lady named Kelly_Martin - was formerly a man who used to run a scientology conspiracy website. I think it was www.wikitruth.org, but it doesn't seem to be online anymore.
It is not so much the bias that concerns me - it's the people who are behind it - the enforcers of bias. They also infect more than "some" entries. You will find that there are virtually no articles on wikipedia of any substantial size that don't have a biased admin closely guarding them. If you take a little time to research exactly who those admins are you will find that they tend to be the scummiest elements of the internet.
It is not an exaggeration to say that Wikipedia is literally owned by a professional pornographer and controlled by a tight-knit group of homosexuals and perverts. If you feel that you can avoid these elements and glean something useful from wikipedia articles, then go ahead and use it as a source. My concern is for the unsuspecting parents who let their kids go onto wikipedia, completely oblivious to the fact that they're coming into contact with hundreds of internet predators and perverts who happen to also have the title "Administrator" next to their names.
It is quite funny when people become parodies of themselves.
"Can't someone else do it?" 
Wikipedia simply stinks to high heaven.
I have made it a point never to use it.
I sometimes use it for convenience. There are topics not subject to interpretation, but when it comes to questions dealing with politics or religion I avoid the site. I will use it now and then for history, but ignore everything but the basic who, what, where and date - and I sometimes double check those.
For those who are anti-wiki, can you please post on here some of those excerpts that you find objectionable?
Yeah, the Ministry of Truth.
Once you have more than one shade of opinion (eg does the color of the sky appear to be blue or another color?), it succumbs to a series of edit wars, including deletions, reversions, bannings, etc.
Eventually, disputes can lead to 'voting', which are completely subjective and prone to corruption as a result of favoritism garnered/given to various editors/groups. Even worse, there's no way to determine authority and/or expertise, so you might have a professor of climatology overridden by a pimply-faced geek.
I know quite a few wikipedians (many with thousands of edits) who have bailed on the site. What originally started out as a noble exercise in information sharing has devolved in a standard collectivist nightmare. That is, everyone is equal, except some are more equal than others.
Speaking of which, Animal Farm is the most frequently used analogy, featuring Larry Sanger as Snowball (driven off) and the worker bees as horses (like Boxer). Of course, we all know who the pigs are as they plot ever increasing & arbitrary power.
Many in the know expect Wikipedia to crash as fast as it rose.
Wikipedia, welcome to the real world where people use fake or tenuous credentials all the time, like Ward Churchill, quite a few other teachers and public servants, and most of the old creation/ID proponents.
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.