Conservative figures are subject to both outright vandalism and the subtle hostility of activist editors with an enormous ideological agenda and no scruples. If several editors collaborate to block or stonewall an article, they can stall well-sourced information or just entirely skew the presentation. For some reason conservatives are an especially appealing target.“Is he best known as a (political) ‘commentator’ or as a ‘TV presenter’ or a ‘lying sack of sh*t?’” asks one irate editor of the Wikipedia Bill O’Reilly article.
Conservative radio personality and activist Melanie Morgan has had her Wikipedia article defaced for several years by editors who have lobbied to have false information included in her Wikipedia article, including changing her name.
Michelle Malkin’s article is typically peppered with racial epithets.
Ann Coulter’s article is on a permanent lockdown status, where only the most trustworthy editors preside over the smallest of changes that have to reach some type of peer consensus. I can’t even reproduce much of the comments and criticisms on the Coulter article.
The culture wars have found a new battlefield; it’s named Wikipedia.org."
-- Matt Sanchez, a journalist and war correspondent who is currently banned from Wikipedia, for Pajamas Media
Much ado about nothing
ReplyDeleteConservatives HAVE their own encyclopedia, its called Conservapedia.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
Popular Articles at Conservapedia
Theory of Evolution
Homosexuality
Bias in Wikipedia
Jesus Christ
Bible
Global Warming
Homeschooling
Barack Obama
Hollywood values
John McCain
Abortion
Feminism
Intelligent design
Creation Science
CE
Christianity
Atheism
Conservative
Liberal
Conservapedia terms
Faith
Conservative Links
Dinosaur
Young Earth Creationism
Deceit
Professor values
Gun control
Expelled
Ah - so you admit wikipedia is lying. Good for you.
ReplyDeleteConservatives want an encylopedia that will tell their side of the story and exclude the rest.
They hate Wikipedia because it a free-for-all and so they cant enforce a party line there.
People who do want a top-down encyclopedia that hews to popular opinion on whatever topics happen to be hot button issues for conservatives nowadays can use Conservapedia. Its that simple.
Instead of whining about the mean old nasty editors on Wikipedia, maybe you should visit Conservapedia too.
Isn't that what America is all about - freedom of choice?
What's troubling is your relativist idea that, because there's another lying resource, things are all swell.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that makes you an idiot, don't you?
I'm sorry, but not every idea has equal value.
On your planet, Jesus is Lord, Dinosaur fossils were dragons drowned in Noah's Ark, feminists are Biblical witches, Barack Obama is a Manchurian Muslim and global warming is a Satanic conspiracy.
I would never deny you the right to believe whatever nonsense your pastor tells you to believe but none of this stuff belongs on Wikipedia.
Like I said, that's what Conservapedia is for.
If people realized how overwhelming bias Wikipedia is, nobody would ever use it, especially conservatives:
ReplyDeleteWikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.
Wikipedia insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.
Wikipedia has an extensive entry on "Creation myth". Describing Creationism as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage Christians, and although the theory of evolution satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
Wikipedia has a strong bias against the Discovery Institute, a prominent proponent of Intelligent design.
Wikipedia's entry on the Prodigal Son devotes more words to obscure rock band and liberal media references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.
The Wikipedia entry for homosexuality is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of domestic violence among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community.
One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing Wikipedia statistics. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages,
Wikipedia is useless for anything other than basic geographical information. Everything that can be skewed to the socialist/communist (progressive) viewpoint is. The editorial contributors are nothing more than a circle jerk of left wing activists.
ReplyDeleteIt is a shame because it could have been a great resource.
Dan Maloney
NY State Coordinator
Gathering of Eagles