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.
The morals she espouses are definately leftist--do whatever you want with whomever you want. Her economics are clearly not.
Lots of people have complained about Wikipedia. Its reputation for shabbily thrown together and unreliable "facts" is pretty well known by now.
I agree...anyone who thinks Ayn Rand is a leftist need only read her 1971 book "The New Left, the Anti-intellectual Revolution" [its updated version has been retitled "Return Of The Primitive, the Anti-intellectual Revolution"] to see straight from the 'horses mouth' that Objectivism certainly is NOT leftism...methinks the Philosophress must be spinning in her grave like a dynamo to hear herself described as a leftist...lol.
And btw, Ayn Rand is about as far from "the American Left" as possible.
Yep, which is the case with the Terri Schiavo, and reading the posts about the dispute, they kept the article from straying into Micheal bashing as several contributors had done and got their accounts pulled.
OMG, I hadn't heard that! Google will cease to be of use to me if they do that. Hope there'll be another search engine coming along that can fill their shoes.
well edit it yourself
Would that it were so simple. Each night the drool-donkeys of that wretched Leftist meme pile scours the new edits, -anything that doesn't carry a FULL-ON HARD-LEFT P.O.V. gets deleted.
That site is NOTORIUS for spreading Leftist B.S.
Since Wikipedia is made up of the collective knowledge of many, would it be fair to say that we have a conservative alternative to it, right here at Free Republic?
And Objectivism isn't leftism, IMO.
Wikipedia allows anyone to edit the articles, and then they edit out anything that offends their LEFTWING sensibilities. -There's not a SHRED of objectivism to be found there.
My claims are easy to back up, if you would like proof. But I'd hope you'd check into it on your own first.
They push an agebda HARD, under the pretense and appearance of a "collaborative effort" as I said, they heavily edit, anything that doesn't fit with their very OWN set of "opinions".
Yes, Wikipedia is leftist. Which is why I go on their and make editions. For example, I changed Michael Moore's description from "liberal" to "ultra-liberal."
I wonder if it's still up.
F.R. doesn't package and offer all of it's "Opinion" as "Fact"
objectivism is a godless and man-exalting ideology.
However, it is more libertarian.
My "ultra-liberal" label was taken down. Yet, they refer to Michael Savage as a "right-wing" talk show host. So, I changed Michael Moore's label to "left-wing."
That better stick, cause you can't have double standards.
Ah. Wikipedia is another venue for making out position known. Freepers should camp out there.
That's not the way the heros in her books behave. They have weird sex like rabbits. I was once an objectivist and now believe that her ethics are a dead-end. Her personal life (presumably the epitome the application of Objectivist principles) reflected the moral confusion epitomized by the heros of her novels.
She did a great job of understanding and exposing what the left is about. But she failed, in my opinion, in the additional thinking she did and she especially failed to develop a workable basis for morality. I think the essence of her problem is that she confused selfishness in the economic sphere, which, if properly harnessed in a capitalist system is a public virtue, with selfishness in the personal sphere. The end of that trail is the 60's and the inability to distinguish right from wrong--I mean, Wesley Mouch was acting selfishly (even though he rationalized it as for the common good). Thus, how can Rand really say he was wrong. Her philosophy, if applied rigorously, would say his selfish behavior was OK. But she can't go there because he was a leftist and has to be bad. She's right in that respect but for the wrong reasons.
The left rules the mass media. How is it different on sites like this?
And you're a real dumbass if you think Wikipedia sucks because its founder likes Ayn Rand. Wikipedia sucks because nobody on the right CARES enough to revise it. I've revised Reagan's page on numerous occasions, but it almost instantly reverts because the left's more tenacious about its lying than the right is about maintaining honesty.
Tom DeLay's situation demonstrates the proof of that. RINOs and Pubbies are all scurrying to leftist lies, while the left stands tall in King County and at CBS even after their lies are exposed for even the blind to see.
Is this connected with the Wiccan religion ..??
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.