User talk:JZambrano/WhyILeftWikipedia

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think this pretty well illustrates the bias ongoing over there though. At the end I was providing 48 sources and agreeing to have just a few sentence mentions of different controversies throughout the article. A number of editors didn't even want it discussed and were doing all they could to close the discussions. Not one ever gave a single reason why the proposed edits were inappropriate, and I quoted a number of Wikipedia guidelines in depth showing that they were supposed to be following the sources.

If I provided too few sources they'd write off the sources. If I provided numerous sources they'd say I was flooding the page with propaganda even though these were top-level sources from CNN, Newsweek, Time Magazine, the New York Times, etc. And they'd just use personal attacks, distortions, and false insinuations to avoid ever confronting the proposed content itself, just claiming they had 'consensus' for keeping valid and well-sourced material out of the page, with the end result being that they get to keep the Obama page there a campaign billboard for the Obama site.

They use musical chairs edit warring, where a gang of the same editors will take turns reverting valid content. They'll alert each other by posting warnings for one another (canvassing) on each other's talk pages or noticeboard areas. That was what I realized from looking at Arbcom history, was that the same editors had been involved in previous disputes doing the same thing over and over to get editors banned who tried to have anything controversial in Obama's presidency reported on, no matter how well-sourced it might be. Once they realize an editor there wants the page to fairly report controversies of Obama, they do all they can to knock off that editor however they can, and it gets pretty nasty over there.

I personally think a number of the editors there, including in Wikipedia's upper ranks, are employed by Obama's campaign. The bias there resulted in one of Wikipedia's founders leaving to create Citizendium. It's gotten really bad over there. Wikipedia might as well be called Liberalpedia because they're the same thing. And because Wikipedia is so liberal, I suppose wikis like Conservapedia are needed to provide balance and the opposing side. --Joshua Zambrano 19:17, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

And when I'd quote from the guidelines (NPOV, WP:BLP, Notability, Wikipedia:DRNC, Wikipedia:CCC, WP:Lead Section, Wikipedia:Fringe) to prove them wrong and show they were misinterpreting the rules, or use heavy sourcing to show indisputably the proposed material had more than enough prominence and relevance (since by Wikipedia standards you're just supposed to "follow the sources" and faithfully report what major news sources say), they'd just have the discussions closed, and then claim "edit warring" if you'd try to restore the conversations. They just claim "Consensus" for this even though examination of talk page history shows numerous people supported mention of Obama's controversies, and were silenced or ignored repeatedly in the same manner. What they do there is really dishonest. I have more respect for people if they're at least blunt and straightforward about their biases and opinions, than if they try to pretend they are objective while being hypocrites. --Joshua Zambrano 19:34, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

"Consensus"

In the last discussion in Archive 67, I pointed out that numerous users had called for mention of various controversies in the past on the Talk Obama page, and been ignored:

Source: Archive 67

"The bottom line is this:
I simply do not understand how you can objectively deny that this is either not prominent or poorly sourced. You can keep calling it rhetoric all you want, but objectively, any controversy surrounding a public figure that has this sort of evidence and sourcing ought to be referenced prominently on their main Wikipedia article. The fact that you are still so adamantly opposing it does not speak well for your impartiality. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I will however say this: I noticed the Rezko controversy is at least now mentioned in the article. I don't remember it being there before, was that added recently? I am only on archive page 10 so far, and already have found at least 20 different users who complained because for a long time it was just mentioned as a footnote (#139 as of July 2007) with all the info and sources for it hidden down in the footnote. That had a LOT of people complaining.
[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]  ::::::::Again, those are just from the first 10 archive pages, and if they're any indication, this is easily one of the most controversial pages on Wikipedia. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)"


"Well, if only to show there has been a lot of discussion on the issue of what controversies to include (despite some still continuing to claim there are no controversies), I think the discussion is useful. For example, as recently as May 2008,[31] the article did contain information about Obama's controversial present abortion votes, his Reverend Wright association, and opposition by 18 pro-life groups to his interview with Rick Warren that have now been excluded from the article. Starting in May 2008 with the removal of mention of his controversial abortion votes, and ending in mid November 2008, all evidence of these controversies had been removed.[32] I found evidence that as early as April 2008 Scjessey was attempting to remove mentions of the Wright and Rezko controversies from the page.[33][34] I also found there evidence a user named TheGoodLocust had supported a similar addition to mine about Emil Jones making Obama a U.S. senator through appointing him head over key legislation, but Ubiq wanted it watered down so it did not mention his legislative record had been built in one year. Another user, Grsz11, also denied the need for mentioning that vital fact, but at least remained relatively civil and reasonable during the conversation.[35] Scjessey again attempted removal of controversies, asserting they violated Wikipedia guidelines on BLP, WEIGHT, NPOV, and RECENT, and that he had overwhelming consensus. Here, him and user called Andyvphil and Kossack4Truthlocked horns over the subject.[36][37] As a result of Scjessey working with an admin named Josiah Rowe it appears the tables began turning in April against mention of controversies.[38] I am only looking at April 2008 and expect the further months will reveal much more about who else was involved here.
It should be pointed out that from 2004-2008, the following users had supported mention of the present votes on abortion bills in the article:
Sometime in May 2008 the edit was removed. Why I don't yet know. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)