JonM 15:15, 21 December 2011 (EST)
GFDL issue is dubious
Out of caution, I did not remove the section outright as I planned to do, but I would like to raise this issue on the talk page.
Could someone point me to the specific provisions of the GFDL that require Wikipedia to continue making content available to the public once it has been published online? If Wikipedia deletes content or otherwise makes it unavailable, I don't see any obligation for them to continue providing texts and attributions required by distribution of that text. Further, the anti-DRM provisions are aimed at reusers who want to deny downstream persons the rights of the GFDL, and I don't think Wikipedia is opposed to sites mirroring deleted content. GregG 17:11, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
Source does not demonstrate that Wikipedia is "left-wing communist", there are right-wing editors who edit there and evidence shown on Wikipedia on mass killings by communist regimes. Why is this not being accounted for?
This link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm was used as a source to say that Wikipedia is "left-wing communist". Nowhere in the source does it say that Wikipedia is "left-wing" or "communist". There are conservative and right-wing editors who work on Wikipedia, why are the contributions of conservative and right-wing editors on Wikipedia not acknowledged here?.--TheQuestioner 11:28, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
The claim ignores material like this:, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conservative_Wikipedians or this article titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes" at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes which is obviously not pro-communist but shows that communist regimes have committed mass murder. Why is info like this not accounted for?--TheQuestioner 11:43, 3 August 2012 (EDT)