Posted on 04/16/2005 8:24:12 PM PDT by Utah Eagle
I'm sure many of you have heard of Wikipedia, the so-called "Free Encyclopedia". For those that haven't, here's a quick run-down. The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, made his fortune in the dot-com boom from his company Bomis. Bomis made its money both as a search portal, and by the sale of "erotic images". Wales is a self-admitted admirer of Ayn Rand and her Godless philosophical system called Objectivism.
Wikipedia originated from Nupedia, one of the first attempts for an internet-based free encyclopedia. Unlike Nupedia, however, which required highly qualified contributors and implemented a rigorous system of peer review, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit from the collection of over 500,000 English articles. A third-grade student from California has the same ability to edit as tenured professors from prestigous learning institutions.
If you haven't heard of Wikipedia yet, you certainly will in the future. According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the 116th most visited website on the Internet. By comparison, Encyclopedia Britannica is ranked 2,153.
The political left, as any informed American would expect, has aggressively taken to edit Wikipedia. Not only does the left form an overwhelming number of the Wikipedia editors, but they have shrewdly established themselves both in the formal and informal power structure of Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia article about Terri Schiavo demonstrates the inner workings of the leftist Wikipedia cabal. The first sentence of the article speaks volumes: "Theresa Marie Schiavo (3 December 1963 - 21 March 2005), commonly known as Terri Schiavo, was an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida who spent the last 15 years of her life in a persistent vegetative state." Note that it unambiguously declares that Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. Not once, in the first two paragraphs of the article, is the significant amount of evidence pointing towards a "minimally conscious state" mentioned (one has to scroll down 10 pages to find that).
The article is rife with ad hominem attacks against the supporters of the Schindler family. For example, Dr. William Chesire, Jr. is attacked as having "written opinion articles on stem-cell research and other scientific debates espousing a conservative Christian viewpoint," and the intellectual honesty of Dr. William Hammesfahr is challenged.
The madness continues.
The Wikipedia left dominate the process of writing such articles. Although anyone is free to edit, and introduce facts and neutrality to articles, such changes rarely last long. The liberal army of death continues to write history on Wikipedia.
Get an account and make your own additions.
Wikipedia allows anyone to edit the articles. So, I don't know if there is some VLWC going on.
And Objectivism isn't leftism, IMO.
No wonder I hate that worthless piece of trash. Google and the other search engines ought to ban it from coming up during searches.
Anyone who considers Ayn Rand or Objectivism "Leftist" is a moron.
I've noticed more and more "hijacked" Wikipedeia sites lately. Some are full of four letter words. They usually aren't around for too long.
Actually I found the Wikipedia a valuable resource for researching the Schiavo case. There wasn't a hint of bias for either side. WikiNews is a great news portal as well.
If you see a problem with the article, fix it yourself.
If you aren't willing to invest your time, then I don't how you can object that the larger number of contributors are leftist... you're part of the problem!
More weird witch-hunts against perfectly useful stuff (Snopes, Wiki) around here for some reason; apparently anything anywhere on either site that someone disagrees with is cause to condemn the entire site.
Google Corp is composed almost exclusively of liberal democrats. They made it a policy from the start to hire lefties, particularly lefties with PhDs.
Worse, they soon plan to implement a "question-answer" feature. You'll type "Population of Palestine", and get an answer... disregarding politically disputed numbers, of course.
First Post,Newbie?
I'm so glad to see someone posting that Ayn Rand's thinking wasn't leftism... Because, for a moment, I'd thought I'd been totally misled for years...
Don't forget GoogleNews. There have been various rants in the past about someone being offended by something they saw on the GoogleNews page, and things about how Google must be part of a left wing conspiracy. Disregarding the fact the Google is completely automated.
That about sums it up for this thread.
You're right. Simple enough to do, isn't it? This seems to be a fuss with a solution to fit everyman's disposition and bias.
Not very meaningful. Britannica provides only very general articles via its free pages. The in depth articles require a subscription.
I always thought it ran down the middle too.
I enjoy reading Wikipedia from time to time too. It can get pretty addictive, reading one article, then following the links to other articles. As for any perceived bias in articles, Wikipedia has a feature where if someone disagrees with the view of an article, a note is posted at the top of the article in plain view stating that the article is in dispute, and you can follow the linked note to see details.
I like Wikipedia, it's igot a lot of stuff I find interesting, being a person who loves looking stuff up. Haven't noticed any bias.
Welcome to FR.
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.