Wikipedia Disallows Any Mention of Alleged John Edwards Scandal

...while Democrat articles are matter-of-fact with respect to biographies, but ANY report of rumors or suspicions (or well-documented facts) are often quickly and swiftly removed.

I frankly find this hard to believe.

Oddly, though, I just went and looked at Teddy Kennedy's Wiki site, and the associated Chappaquiddick page, and I couldn't find ANY reference or link to the premier "Teddy's Chappaquiddick" page on the web - YTEDK.com. Neither page referenced this encyclopedic website. Simply amazing!

Oh, well - the Wikians have just prolly been too busy to get around to linking to ytedk.com or excerpting any of the information from it.

I'm sure that they'll get around to doing that next week, or the week after...

;-)

You are the equivalent of the loafer heckling men working on a manhole in this case.

I was doing my share of the heavy lifting on this website back when you didn't even know what "the Internet" was, n00b.

Though you appear to be a well-meaning and earnest Freeper, you're full of it when it comes to Wikifraudia. Don't cover for those Leftist jerks - their game is too well known around here.

If you'd have bothered to read the Lawrence Solomon piece (which I suspect you already knew about), you'd have seen that the systematic Wiki Leftist political propaganda over "global warming" has been laid bare by Solomon, a writer for the Canadian National Post.

At whiles, to entertain myself, I go over and read the Naomi Oreskes bio "history" and the James Hansen bio "history" to see what new yuks that Dabs, Raul, Billy and the the rest of the boys have concocted.

Pure unadulterated Calvinball, and certainly not science by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said, don't cover for them, and don't deign to lecture me about "heavy lifting". Some of the concrete blocks in the foundation of Dan Rather's downfall at the hands of Free Republic have got my name on them. I don't recall you handing me block OR mortar during the impeachment wars...

We're supposed to be on the same side—or is my ideology not pure enough for you?

I recall saying that "you appear to be a well-meaning and earnest Freeper". Some Freepers with less experience would have already abused you as a "troll", but I'm not cut from that cloth. I can usually tell if someone's not the genuine article.

I can see that you have some store of Wiki experience, but I've been monitoring the site as a gestalt, not as a group of anecdotal experiences. It's disturbing that determined bands of Leftists have seized key strongholds on Wikipedia, and are attempting to deceive the youth of America by using the work of honest and industrious Wikipedians like yourself.

You'll have to admit that the Coast Guard is hardly a controversial Wiki topic, yet the solid work that you do lends credibility to ne'er-do-wells like the warmist crowd or the LBGT activists, who use omission and never-ending reverts to do their dirty work.

The rotten apples at the top of the Wikipedia tree must be thrown down for the Wiki tree to regain its credibility. Like it or not, your work, too, has been compromised and stained by these miscreants.

For editing Wikipedia on political subjects, I suggest having references at the ready; the more the better. The correct way to insert a reference is using the tags in the text of the article, followed by the {{reflist}} command at the end of the article. When citing websites, include the URL and the date the Web site was accessed.

I read Solomon's pieces, and read the history pages on several of the pages where revert wars were taking place. The arrogance of the warmist players made your jaw drop, and they were obviously firmly in the saddle at higher levels in Wikipedia.

Actually, these Wiki frauds inspired one of my recent Internet social interaction theories - the "Is Not!" theory, borne of my many years on 'Net experience and cemented by these self-same charlatans:

"Anything that you say or post on the Internet, I can counter with the undeniable retort "Is Not!". In clear defiance of any fact you present, I can stand my ground and bury you in endless words, arguments and "Is Nots!". It's even more helpful if I can remove your words, and/or have you banned."

===============
An amused spectator was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of the "Is Not!" theory and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some theory, that "Is Not!" theory," an amused spectator observed.

"It's the best there is."
===============

Fortunately, we operate differently on Free Republic.

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.