Posted on 07/14/2020 6:52:01 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17
A former Wikipedia editor blasted Wikipedia for not being neutral, and slammed the platform for a multi-year scorched-earth campaign against popular conservative talk radio host Mark Levin.
A massive exposé accusing Wikipedia of having biased editors was put out by Breitbart News. Localemediamonitor and Snooganssnoogans, according to Breitbart, have been allowed to run rampant on conservative Wikipedia entries. That included their jihad against Levin.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Someone should already author an entire book on this lefty controlled “knowledge based” monopoly.
I usually catch at least the first 1/2 to Hr of Marks program driving to the Lake each night, he is on fire and spot on.
When I was on college ten years ago, several of my instructors banned the use of Wikipedia as a source because it is so easily edited by anonymous people without research credentials or sources for their edits.
That should be the collegiate standard.
In political campaigns while the use of Social Electronic Formats are useful in presenting political positions. Relying solely on using those venues is a mistake because of their SEF content limitations and media bias .
Consideration of the use of reprinted material including handouts and flyers such as of articles in FR and the planning of area saturation distribution known as blitzing in the targeted area is essential of one wants to win.
DO IT LIKE THIS
Get News about corruption spiked by MSM
Presented and sourced in Free Republic. com/
An all sides news collecting site by volunteers
with no ads or fees which uses donations
below just a sample Punch up link for
http://www/freerepublic.com/
Burisma Paid Joe Biden $900,000 for Lobbying Ukrainian MP
Ukraine News Agency ^ |KYIV. Oct 9 (Interfax-Ukraine) Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraines Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. payment for consultative services,;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3785536/posts
Obama gave Pearson Publishing $350 million to create Commoncore text and Pearson gave Obama a $65 million dollar book deal in return. Investment Watch ^ | 12/8/19 |The Obamas $60m book deal has broken all records. From James Patterson to JK Rowling and Pope John Paul II, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3805839/posts
Chelsea Clinton is worth big bucks Heres how she managed to make all that money Fox News ^ | 1/12/2020 | Tammy Bruce Posted on 1/12/2020, 3:33:01 PM New York Post reported back in 2015 an estimated net worth of $15 million Barrons, revealed that Chelsea Clinton has now reaped $9 million in a corporate board position. In 2011, her mother was still secretary of state, she was appointed to IAC/, an Internet investment company. receives an annual $50,000 retainer and $250,000 worth of IAC stock , according to Barrons .Politico reported she is rewarded with $600,000 a year doing occasional fluffy feature stories.. Vanity Fair found, after she parted ways with NBC News in 2014, she ended up making $26,724 per minute .http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3807636/posts
Wikipedia on the whole is becoming a left-wing site. It’s definitely not just about Levin. Leftists have realized since it is user created they can essentially push whatever propaganda they want. Conservatives could fight back, but we never seem to have the numbers. Wikipedia gets used all the time as if it is fact. I wish we’d start gathering the numbers to change things on the site (and yes, I have tried to do my part, but there’s only so much someone very much in the minority on Wikipedia can do).
#EndTheLeft
This is nothing new but just business as usual against Levin and other conservatives. They are evil bastards.
Oddly Wikipedia is pretty good on facts if it has nothing to do with politics. They are particularly good with science. As it is not peer reviewed they do have errors in their science but it is not major and not much less than the official journals of science.
With Wikipedia if it is political one must ignore what they say. It is garbage.
Wikipedia has two uses, first as a quick reference for general, non-controversial information. Second, as a start point for identifying references for further research.
You need to know about Point Roberts, WA? Wikipedia can help.
You want to understand the arguments for and against Keynesian economics? Wikipedia is a start point at best, but must be used with caution.
I'm shocked, shocked to to hear Wikipedia has biased editors. Shocked, I tell you.
“Snooganssnoogans”? Someone is a Jay and Silent Bob fan.
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.