Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
popular
Line 101: Line 101:  
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
 
#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>
 
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white.  Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake.  In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources."  Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>  Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
 
# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white.  Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake.  In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources."  Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>  Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>
 +
#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over crticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref>  When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.
     
SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592

edits

Navigation menu