Wikipedia engages in Censorship

[Dazzle1]

How many have tried to edited Wikipedia but are kicked of because they try to balance articles?

Jimmy Wales is the last person to criticize China's censorships since he is just as intolerant.

 

[Wok]

Then use Conservapedia.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Then use Conservapedia.

"I think Dazzle is hurt. RobDownSouth, Wok's trainer, right next to me, is saying it. You might hear him... Down goes Dazzle! Down goes Dazzle! Down goes Dazzle!"

 

[firenzi]

Someone doesn't know the difference between private business and government.

 

[bronzeage]

How many have tried to edited Wikipedia but are kicked of because they try to balance articles?

Jimmy Wales is the last person to criticize China's censorships since he is just as intolerant.

Show us the stuff you tried to stick on wikipedia.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Show us the stuff you tried to stick on wikipedia.

If you really want to see some political shading in action on Wikipedia, read Ronald Reagan's article and then Bill Clinton's. Reagan's article is overwhelmingly positive, almost fawning. Clinton's article give credit begrudgingly, and reads like a breathless laundry list of scandals, real and imagined.

 

[Dazzle1]

Scott Hashberger was hired by ACORN to investigate itself and found they were not guilty of any wrong doing.

Romana calls herself a Time Lady

The U.N Human Rights Council purpose is to bash Israel.

 

[bronzeage]

Scott Hashberger was hired by ACORN to investigate itself and found they were not guilty of any wrong doing.

Romana calls herself a Time Lady

The U.N Human Rights Council purpose is to bash Israel.

Is this what you submitted to Wiki?

 

[Wok]

Scott Hashberger was hired by ACORN to investigate itself and found they were not guilty of any wrong doing.

Romana calls herself a Time Lady

The U.N Human Rights Council purpose is to bash Israel.

Nobody is making you use or read Wikipedia.

 

[TexasWife25]

Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

Are you upset because you dont
like what other users are posting?

 

[RoryN]

How many have tried to edited Wikipedia but are kicked of because they try to balance articles?

Wikipedia is concerned with facts, not "balanced articles". That's why you failed.

Back to Stormfront.org you go.

 

[firenzi]

Scott Hashberger was hired by ACORN to investigate itself and found they were not guilty of any wrong doing.

Romana calls herself a Time Lady

The U.N Human Rights Council purpose is to bash Israel.

Just start a blog. Then people here can start threads and call your blog posts "articles".

 

[Dazzle1]

Wikipedia is concerned with facts, not "balanced articles". That's why you failed.

Back to Stormfront.org you go.

those are facts, Administrators don't believe in facts. Those were on the talk pages.

But all 3 are facts

Jimmy Wales is a facist

 

[Saint Peter]

It must be true.


I read it on the web.

 

[shoulderblade]

How many have tried to edited Wikipedia but are kicked of because they try to balance articles?

Quite a few I would imagine. What they have up they consider balanced and they are not likely to take well to correction.

I like to stick to the parts of Wiki that deal with facts and reality. The political parts are a quicksand pit that are best avoided.

 

[Wok]

It must be true.


I read it on the web.

You are a Great American!

 

[RobDownSouth]

Scott Hashberger was hired by ACORN to investigate itself and found they were not guilty of any wrong doing.

Not sure what you're whining about, wikipedia has the Hashberger/acorn story right here.

 

[renard_ruse]

How many have tried to edited Wikipedia but are kicked of because they try to balance articles?...

Funny, I was thinking about Wikipedia bias just this morning in the shower. It really makes me angry. They have all those articles about pornography, and never ever say anything about sexual morality controversy in relation, or controversy about cursing in movies, or those sorts of things, but anytime there is a politician or celebrity or anyone else who has said anything that isn't completely kosher liberal on "group" issues, then its reported as a "controversy" by Wikipedia (ie "racism controversy," etc). Its opinion as to what actually constitutes a "controversy" and Wikipedia claims it tries to keep opinion out of its articles. Then don't report every time there is even the remotest or tenuous "racism" controversy as worthy of inclusion but ignore completely other potential controversies. A good example is their Slayer article, which says there is a "controversy" over alleged "racism" or "hate" due to things like the song "Angel of Death" but apparently there is no "controversy" over the 99% of the rest of their lyrics which are about killing, multilating, and destroying everyone and everything or worshiping Satan or all that stuff, but any tenuous "racism" or group based "hate" accusation is a major "controversy." Its a joke. Yet, sadly, there is much good information in Wikipedia. On the whole its pretty good, but they need to clean up the bias.

 

[RoryN]

I was thinking about Wikipedia bias just this morning in the shower.

It's only January 2nd 2012, and this might end up being the most pathetic thing posted all year.

 

[Wok]

Funny, I was thinking about Wikipedia bias just this morning in the shower. It really makes me angry. They have all those articles about pornography, and never ever say anything about sexual morality controversy in relation, or controversy about cursing in movies, or those sorts of things, but anytime there is a politician or celebrity or anyone else who has said anything that isn't completely kosher liberal on "group" issues, then its reported as a "controversy" by Wikipedia (ie "racism controversy," etc). Its opinion as to what actually constitutes a "controversy" and Wikipedia claims it tries to keep opinion out of its articles. Then don't report every time there is even the remotest or tenuous "racism" controversy as worthy of inclusion but ignore completely other potential controversies. A good example is their Slayer article, which says there is a "controversy" over alleged "racism" or "hate" due to things like the song "Angel of Death" but apparently there is no "controversy" over the 99% of the rest of their lyrics which are about killing, multilating, and destroying everyone and everything or worshiping Satan or all that stuff, but any tenuous "racism" or group based "hate" accusation is a major "controversy." Its a joke. Yet, sadly, there is much good information in Wikipedia. On the whole its pretty good, but they need to clean up the bias.

And yet here you are... on Lit.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

It's only January 2nd 2012, and this might end up being the most pathetic thing posted all year.

That really cracked me up.

 

[shoulderblade]

Yet, sadly, there is much good information in Wikipedia. On the whole its pretty good, but they need to clean up the bias.

True there is a lot of great material on Wiki but the "bias" does not support the credibility of the site by any means. Rather than try to correct the bias, which is somewhere past difficult towards impossible, they would be better off just to delete that sort of material altogether.

Any neutral/fair position you choose will be attacked from all sides anyway. Shift your position and vary the angle of the attacks.

Why not just dump it and stick to facts and reality? They are always claiming to be short on resources so why should they waste it on this stuff?

 

[TexasWife25]

True there is a lot of great material on Wiki but the "bias" does not support the credibility of the site by any means. Rather than try to correct the bias, which is somewhere past difficult towards impossible, they would be better off just to delete that sort of material altogether.

Any neutral/fair position you choose will be attacked from all sides anyway. Shift your position and vary the angle of the attacks.

Why not just dump it and stick to facts and reality? They are always claiming to be short on resources so why should they waste it on this stuff?

so your suggesting that
any subject deemed controversial
wikipedia should just pretend doesnt exist?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

You guys aren't quite clear on what Wikipedia is, I'm guessing.

 

[shoulderblade]

so your suggesting that
any subject deemed controversial
wikipedia should just pretend doesnt exist?

Not in an absolute sense. I think that if a topic is controversial it should be designated as such and elaborate efforts should be made to engulf the issues involved. Unfortunately opinion is so fragmented and intense on some of these topics that almost anything you publish will draw serious hostility.

My personal experience with Wiki has been very positive but I make a point of not approaching debate material. More effectively dealt with on discussion boards actually as you can see the various positions lock horns, so to speak. I suppose Wiki is obliged to carry the torch everywhere but it some areas I think it is mock effective.