Wikipedia and Terri Schiavo: The Encyclopedia of the American Left?

[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.

[Capn TrVth]

"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!

If your opinion isn't LEFT-WING orientated it gets DELETED...... That's the whole point.. Wikipedia is "OPEN" to anyone that agrees with the "Left".

[explodingspleen]

If your opinion isn't LEFT-WING orientated it gets DELETED...... That's the whole point.. Wikipedia is "OPEN" to anyone that agrees with the "Left".

I, personally, have never had that problem, and have always found Wikipedia to be very unbiased. Have you actually contributed to Wikipedia, or are you just jumping on the story line like a good lemming?

And you know what? Anybody can delete stuff, or reinstate deleted items, just like anybody can write material. If there's contention, the article is flagged as under debate. If it's not flagged, then obviously conservatives aren't objecting, are they?

But here's a brilliant idea! Let's all us conservatives refuse to contribute whatsoever! That way, the liberals will *definitely* be in control! And of the largest encylopedia in the world, no less!

[sinkspur]

the intellectual honesty of Dr. William Hammesfahr is challenged.

It should be challenged. He was thoroughly and completely discredited professionally, as was the notion that he was a "Nobel prize nominee."

[Capn TrVth]

Your "subscribed date" is pertinent and relavent to your standing here.

I also read your posting History. I see a "theme"

I see that you come here largely to "disagree".

I haven't been harsh with you, but now that you've accused me of it, I might as well indulge myself.

I'd say your recent subscription date has to do with the fact that you are a troll and have been tossed any number of times.

I'm looking at the big picture here, Nucsubvet, you might think you're fooling *someone, but you ain't foolin me.

You got troll-funk all over you.

-That's just my opinion of course.

If I'm wrong, I apologize and you and I have no beef.
But you'll find that I'm generally right about everything.

-They don't call me Cap'n TrVth for nothin' ;>

[Capn TrVth]

But what about your posting History?

[toadthesecond]

No wonder I hate that worthless piece of trash. Google and the other search engines ought to ban it from coming up during searches.

Then the fact that Google have offered to host Wikipedia will no doubt make you incandecent with rage.

[Capn TrVth]

I, personally, have never had that problem, and have always found Wikipedia to be very unbiased. Have you actually contributed to Wikipedia, or are you just jumping on the story line like a good lemming?

That sounds a little bit overly defensive to me.

Yes, I have contributed edits and articles, I also had them pulled. And I have had them restored, and pulled at a later time. (and removed from the archive) -I have read countless other stories of the same, and I am accutely aware of *Exactly* how the site works.

And you know what? Anybody can delete stuff, or reinstate deleted items, just like anybody can write material. If there's contention, the article is flagged as under debate. If it's not flagged

Ya know what else? The creators maintain ultimate editorial power on controversial issues and they EXCERCISE that power FREQUENTLY anf they are HEAVILY biased to the left. This is a fact. But here's a brilliant idea! Let's all us conservatives refuse to contribute whatsoever!

Sorry, there'd be no point. -Wikipedia is populated only by schoolchildren from Australasia and a few deluded geeks. Wikipedia has long been relagated to the pile of "zero credibility" Kook sites.

I've explained why.

Sorry to crush all of your hearts but SHEEEEZE.
C'mon.... Wikipedia???? I'm -really- sorry that none of you have managed to figure this out on your own.

[toadthesecond]

Sorry, there'd be no point. -Wikipedia is populated only by schoolchildren from Australasia and a few deluded geeks. Wikipedia has long been relagated to the pile of "zero credibility" Kook sites.

If your amendments to Wikipedia are similar to your posting style here, it's no wonder they're are pulled. A friendly piece of advice - Wikipedia is for adults, not rants such as yours. Maybe you can give us a sample of you contributions so we can judge...

[ModelBreaker]

I read an interview recently where Nathaniel Branden says there was confusion among objectivists about sexuality.

The confusion arises from the fact that rational selfishness provides no limits or guidance to personal behavior. It says do anything you want to whomever you want as long as you think you will get away with it. As Paul said, even the heathens have a conscience. That is God speaking with us and telling us what is wrong. The principle of rational selfishness tells folks that things are OK that are not. On some level they know that. So they are confused. One look at a picture of Ayn Rand and it's obvious that she was a deeply unhappy person.

[clyde asbury]

One look at a picture of Ayn Rand and it's obvious that she was a deeply unhappy person.

Yes. One of the comments in the Branden interview link:

One of the mistakes that Rand makes all over the place is that after she condemns a belief or an action, she goes on to tell you the psychology of the person who did it, as if she knows.

Branden's idea of "selfishness" is more sophisticated than Rand's and goes beyond a strictly narrow definition. He distinguishes between short-term "selfishness" (it's been called selfing) and long-term self-interest.

That's the distinction Rand seems never to have made in her life.

There are others who have trouble with this, too.

[DBeers]

You are correct -liberal to the core. Check out the page dedicated to the normalization and glorification of homosexuality if you want a good laugh.

Wikipedia: Homosexuality

[DBeers]

C'mon.... Wikipedia???? I'm -really- sorry that none of you have managed to figure this out on your own.

Some may be ignorant and some may be libertarians who like democrats may be moral liberals and or only find worth in an opposition stance.

[Capn TrVth]

Bump DBeers.....

This whole thread was a big gigantic non-argument.

Wikipedia is as LEFT-WING as LEFTWING can be.

They have to dress it up and call it something else,
only a fool would sit here and try to defend that mess.

Look at the moonbats defending Wikipedia in this thread.
-As if there is even anything to argue about.

Wikipedia is for mixed up kids, Lefties and the agenda ridden losers that force their creeping hegemony on them.

Another thing that always amazes me, is the way certain people create F.R. identities just to log on and "Argue".

You know them when yu see them, often they are careful to not transgress enough to get booted. Well, fine.

But I'm getting the Moose Cheese out and man is my Sister pissed!

[ConsistentLibertarian]

You claim "[Google] made it a policy from the start to hire lefties". The quote from USA Today doesn't speak to that point.

If you think that's the policy, then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[halidecyphon]

Then the fact that Google have offered to host Wikipedia will no doubt make you incandecent with rage. As will the fact that Yahoo has donated them several servers.