Posted on 12/02/2011 3:04:05 PM PST by grundle
Jimbo Wales (the founder of wikipedia) criticized the Hugo Chavez article for not including criticism of Chavez's food policies. Some of the things that Jimbo criticized the article for including are the very same sources that I had added in the past, which the Chavez supporters then deleted.
My original account was Grundle2600. I was banned by User Rd232. He was one of the Chavez supporters who kept deleting that information.
Jimbo doesn't seem to know that this info has been repeatedly added and then deleted from the article.
The person who banned me from wikipedia was Rd232, one of the Chavez supporters who had kept deleting that information.
And now the very founder of wikipedia is upset that that information is not there!
Here's what Jimbo said about the Hugo Chavez article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Chavez_and_food
I am not going to have time to contribute substantially to this article, but I wanted to be clear about why I have said (up above) that this article is very very bad and a huge disappointment.
Let's just take one aspect of the world as it related to Chavez: food. Food for the Venezuelan people.
Reading the article, we see food mentioned exactly and only 4 times:
"Costing $113,000,000, Plan Bolívar 2000 involved 70,000 army officers going out into the streets of Venezuela where they would repair roads and hospitals, offer free medical care and vaccinations, and sell food at cheap prices." " The new constitution included increased protections for indigenous peoples and women, and established the rights of the public to education, housing, healthcare and food." "In 2010, Chávez supported the construction of 184 communes, housing thousands of families, with $23 million in government funding. The communes produce some of their own food, and are able to make decisions by popular assembly of what to do with government funds." In the section on human rights: "In the 1999 Venezuelan constitution, 116 of 300 articles were concerned with human rights; these included increased protections for indigenous peoples and women, and established the rights of the public to education, housing, healthcare, and food."
So everything we learn about Chavez and food from Wikipedia sounds positive and helpful to the poor. Twice we mention that the constitution gives rights to food. Once we hear that he had the military out selling food at cheap prices, wow, talk about swords into ploughshares! And we hear about his funding for communes that produce some of their own food.
What do we not hear?
Venezuelan shoppers face food shortages, BBC, January 10, 2006 "But nearly five years after the measures were implemented nationwide, farmers and agriculture experts say, Venezuela is not only far from self-sufficient in food, but also more dependent than ever on foreign countries. " Washington Post "Under state ownership, though, production has suffered. From 1999 to 2008, per capita, sugar cane was off by 8%, fruit declined by 25%, and beef production dropped by 38%, according to Carlos Machado, an expert in agriculture at the Institute of Higher Administrative Studies, a business school in Caracas. "The cooperatives have failed and our cattle ranching has been decimated," Machado says." A Food Fight for Hugo Chavez From 4 days ago: "“There’s still going to be speculation and shortages, and who will suffer the most? He who has the least..." Bloomberg News
The facts of reality are being systematically obscured here. A reader of this article would naturally be impressed with how Chavez appears to have been achieving a certain kind of socialist dream. That it is in fact, as evidence plainly in reliable sources, not quite so rosy, is something that we have kept carefully hidden.
This is just one issue, food, which I picked more or less randomly. The article is a disaster.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales is being treated to the leftist Wiki bias we’ve all complained about for years.
Well isn’t that sweet. He says the article is a disaster but he doesn’t have time to fix it. So it just stays a disaster?
Liberals. If they could think, they’d be conservatives.
[Or did he propose a secret fix not mentioned in the quoted section? If not, my comment stands. Why point out a problem, and then offer no plan for fixing it?]
I hit the Wikipedia site often for leads and they are soliciting funds...............any intelligent opinions.
Not one-hundred percent sure I understand your point. Could you kindly elaborate? Thanks.
He offered suggestions. I’m glad he did what he did.
Thanks for the info. I wonder what the revised article will look like? I hope the guy’s head explodes, who got you banned.
He should start by publishing that, and linking to it from Wikipedia entry on socialists, so people can see for themselves what they're about.
Thanks grundle. JWTF did Jimbo think would happen? Wikipedia’s in a fundraiser right now, btw. I don’t see it here, but noticed it at work when I was looking up something really important.
How is it that one of the contributors had the power to zot you? That seems odd.
I actually am impressed that the founder decided to intervene.
It also is interesting how Wiki is supposed to be the pipple’s encyclopedia but it’s obviously really a dictatorship, with Jimbo presumably getting the last word if he so chooses. A nice example of “democratic centralism”.
I use the site a lot, too. But I wouldn't give them a cent until they can figure out how to reconcile the user-contribution model with politically-biased editors.
User Rd232 must be Sean Penn.
bump
They get an ear full from me every so often, but until they change their model away from hating conservative opinions, they will never see a cent from me.
Just for your info Rd232 is not me!
When I have a question of who, what, when I look up the question on Wikipedia for general background and also check the “discussion” page. They give me a quick explanation and some references.
If that is sufficient for the “facts” I need, I move on. Using Wikipedia for analysis is like using the NY Times data base of Time Magazine databases.
It is very complicated to describe because a lot of judgement is involved. I tried other online data bases but they are not as helpful for lining up raw data. Of course the Wikipedia write-ups are then compared to other individual sites. Hope this helps. I have began a file of examples of what I consider bias in the articles, particularly where the discussion page gives the comments short shift.
Thanks for that explanation. I avoid wikipedia like the plague for anything political or liberal vs conservative. I use it for neutral things, though. It can be helpful if, as you said, ones judgement is involved.
I think the fundraising thing only shows up if you have Javascript turned on.
I doubt that Jimbo knew about my situation when he made his comments. I think he just read the article and noticed the absence of criticism.
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.