Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia

2009-11-04T18:34:36Z

Nihiltres: changed "adhoc" to the better "''ad hoc''"

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wikipedia.org Multilingual Wikipedia home page]]]

'''Wikipedia''' is a self-described online [[encyclopedia]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK)<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>, teenagers and unemployed persons.
The project was initiated by two [[atheism|atheists]]: [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001. Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Origins==

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a [[conservative bias]]. [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist Daniel Brandt, a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==

An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility, and continues to plague the project. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.
[[Image:Prouty1.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (1917 - 2001).]]
[[Chip Berlet]] built a career writing in various far-left [[revolution]]ary publications, including ''[[Guardian (NY)]]'' of New York,<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Preface & Acknowledgements. Berlet writes, "John Stockwell gave an interview even though he felt my "Guardian" article on Craig Hulet implied Stockwell was an ally of "Bo" Gritz. That was not my intent, and I regret any misunderstanding and appreciate Mr. Stockwell's patience. Dan Brandt, whose Namebase research database software remains very useful, originally attempted to keep my criticisms of his defense of Fletcher Prouty in perspective." The ''Guardian'' article is cited at PublicEye.org, "Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left," ''The Guardian'' (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]</ref> founded by [[KGB]] agent [[Cedric Belfrage]], whose writers at times included KGB operatives [[Anna Louise Strong]], [[Agnes Smedley]] and [[Wilfred Burchett]]. Burchett was a long time personal friend of [[Ho Chi Minh]],<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613596-5012694,00.html Losing it in Nam], ''The Australian'', October 20, 2007.</ref> assisted in extracting confessions from American [[POW]]s in the [[Korean War]]<ref>[http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/rebel_reporter/ A Rebel Reporter], Book Review by Bertil Lintner, Asia Pacific Media Services, August 2006.</ref> and spread [[disinformation]] about American use of [[germ warfare]] which Soviet Archives now conclusively have shown was a lie manufactured in the [[Kremlin]].<ref>Bruce B. Auster, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm ''Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax''], U. S. News & World Report (16 November 1998), p. 52.</ref>

Berlet and Daniel Brandt wrote for the ''[[Covert Action Information Bulletin]]'' in the 1970s, and Brandt wrote for ''[[CounterSpy]]'' magazine, edited by [[Philip Agee]] and [[Timothy Butz]]. Butz was also on the editorial staff of ''[[The Public Eye]]''<ref>"Public Eye Staff," The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.</ref> with Berlet as managing editor<ref>''The Public Eye'', Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).</ref> and which Berlet describes as a "spawn of the first ''Counterspy''."<ref>Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, ''Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression,'' (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Rev. 1/14/91).</ref> ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the names of several [[CIA]] agents,<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948672,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Dirty Work], ''[[Time magazine]]'', Monday, Oct. 02, 1978.</ref> including CIA Athens Station Chief [[Richard S. Welch]] who was murdered by the [[terrorist]] [[Revolutionary Organization 17 November]] in 1975<ref>''[[Washington Post]]'', [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/137503422.html?did=137503422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+29,+1975&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&desc=Richard+S.+Welch Obituary: Richard S. Welch], 29 December 1975, A16. ISBN 01908286 </ref> and gave the impetus for passage of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]].<ref>For The Record, ''Washington Post'', 27 July 1980. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20051101.asp]</ref> Berlet was also a member of Brandt’s Public Information Research board of advisers, but Berlet's extreme [[leftism]] demands ideological purity from its followers. Berlet made an ultimatum to remove another Board member.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed Berlet from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included, in Berlet's words, "LaRouche-defender Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel, was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. Berlet considered Prouty a [[fascist]]. Brandt retorted, "When it came to making a choice between Prouty and Berlet, it was a rather easy decision for me to make."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5315&pid=18679&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry18679</ref> Berlet further sought to undermine Brandt by convincing three others to quit, adding "He (Brandt) was mad"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> but admitting "On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of the LaRouchians."<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Part 033 ''The JFK Conspiracy'' - November 22, 1993. Retrieved from the Nizkor Project, October 29, 2007.</ref>

The WikiMedia Foundation retains Berlet, despite his penchant for excess,<ref>Brandt notes, "Berlet, from Political Research Associates, is always denouncing folks as right-wing, fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, cultic, or conspiracist." [http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/SQ]</ref> to deal with the ceaseless barrage of idiosyncratic musings from the followers of [[Lyndon LaRouche]].

=== Impugning critics ===

'''Neutral Point of View (NPOV)''' requires,
{{Cquote|without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles.}}
Berlet complained about criticism in his Wikipedia biographical entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and the organization he is associated with, [[Political Research Associates]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=24242896</ref> One critic was blasted in the article mainspace with an unsourced, unspecified rebuttal by Berlet as "unethical;" when an editor asked if the charge by Berlet could be substantiated the editor was rebuked and accused of "harassing a controversial expert."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_2#Laird_Wilcox</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Harassment_of_controversial_experts</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Dispute_Resolution_Process</ref> Another reliable source in the article read,
{{Cquote|one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s 'crusade' against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet 'may try to undermine your work and isolate you.' <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory], By Chris Arabia, FrontPageMagazine.com October 16, 2003.</ref>}}
Berlet stated, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and a Daniel Brandt entry on Wikipedia soon was created. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible. Brandt observed, "I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry21441</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6666&pid=23072&mode=threaded&show=&st=20&#entry23072</ref><ref>SlimVirgin stated on stated 21:57, Dec 28, 2004, "Daniel Brandt is not a reputable source." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_1 Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 1], and at 23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) "I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source"[http://www.talkaboutalternative.com/group/alt.conspiracy/messages/1164072.html]</ref>

'''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Self-published sources''' states,
[[Image:25may2006cberlet2.GIF|thumb|300px|right|Berlet inserts highly inflammatory, guilt by association material cited to himself; the slanders remained for at least 16 months.]]
{{Cquote|Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources</ref>}}
'''Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Reliable sources''' states,
{{Cquote|Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the '''No original research''' and '''Verifiability''' policies, and could lead to [[libel]] claims....Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links...Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory...<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources</ref>}}
Brandt is also a registered user at Wikipedia, hence '''No Personal Attacks''' and '''Civility''' clauses apply, in addition to '''What Wikipedia is Not''', a vehicle for propaganda, advertising or self-promotion, and '''Wikipedia is not a battleground'''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground</ref>

'''Wikipedia:No Original Research''', which has undergone several revisions, at the time stated, "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge...If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere...the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person...They must cite reliable, third-party publications... bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=50820065#The_role_of_expert_editors</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Citing_oneself</ref>
'''Wikipedia:Ownership of articles''' prohibits asserting ownership over articles, particularly where a [[conflict of interest]] may arise. Chip Berlet has been cautioned by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee on several occasions about over involvement in his Wikipedia biography.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Arbitration_report</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Cberlet_cautioned_regarding_autobiography</ref> When Berlet was unable to have criticism sourced to Brandt removed from his entry, Berlet dredged up a 16 year old highly inflammatory and vicious [[guilt by association]] smear against Brandt to elevate Berlet's own personal credibility and further undermine Brandt as a reputable critic of Chip Berlet. Berlet himself placed the slanders in Wikipedia entries about Brandt, citing himself, and using his own in-house self publishing source. Despite rigorous protestations and appeals to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the ultimate arbitrator Jimbo Wales himself, the slanders remained in for a year and half.



=== What is a reputable source? ===

[[Image:Americanextremist.JPG|thumb|300px|right|[http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America,'']John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, Chapter 9, ''[[Guardian]]'', pgs. 125-131. (ISBN 0-87975-680-2)]]
Several official Wikipedia policies were rewritten<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Workshop/Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes].</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=31675236&oldid=31668491 Wikipedia:No original research], Revision as of 00:21, 17 December 2005; SlimVirgin removes the language, "Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."</ref>and modified at various times to exempt [[Chip Berlet]] from provisions and applications. Enforcement of basic civility clauses and no personal attacks regarding Berlet's conduct are routinely ignored. Berlet considers himself an expert on the subject of anti-Semitism, but was unanimously rejected by several key and influential Wikipedia Administrators<ref>"I, '''Jayjg''', hereby award you this '''Barnstar''' for your scrupulous adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards, most recently in your brilliant use of '''reliable sources''' at '''Holocaust Denial'''. 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Goodoldpolonius2&diff=41765875&oldid=40600697], retrieved from WP/User:Goodoldpolonius2, October 14, 2007.</ref><ref>Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Revision as of 00:01, 8 August 2005. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20507026&oldid=20505285]</ref> as a reputable source<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20321342&oldid=20321025 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/Deep problems with the article], Revision as of 07:17, 5 August 2005, Goodoldpolonius2; "the whole article is essentially original research. The only source cited (besides Chip Berlet's chart, which, whatever its merits, has remarkably little to do with the roots of racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century)....The racial anti-Semitism section is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20321341#Racial_anti-Semitism not factually correct]."</ref> for the Wikipedia [[mainspace]] article, "Roots of Anti-Semitism" in 2005. As of October 2007, Wikipedia's '''Reliable sources/Extremist sources''' policy stated,
{{Cquote|Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as [[extremist]], whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Extreme sources], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 14, 2007.</ref>}}
High level Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin, in a remarkably transparent action removed herself as a defendant<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21733464 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], SlimVirgin (→Rangerdude - moved Katefan's); SlimVirgin made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21732881 '''involved third party: Katefan0'''] a full party to take her place in the case after ArbCom voted to Accept. Katefan0 it was discovered later was Kathryn Wolfe of ''Congressional Quarterly'' [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=2f1782927c11d7a9e62cf6815238337d&showtopic=7603&view=findpost&p=25526][http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=thissite_masthead] accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery. Wolfe lost her Senate press credentials when an undisclosed [[conflict of interest]] came to light regarding her activities as an anonymous Wikipedia Administrator. Wolfe was promoted to a Wikipedia Administrator after her role in the frame up of the complaining party. Wolfe initiated Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures over an article about a former employer, the ''Houston Chronicle''. The facts were made known to ArbCom. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was a policy, and not a guideline. Several parties were known to enter Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures, signing an agreement to participate in Good Faith, only to be viciously defamed in a public forum accessible to Google search engines, without recourse, and both the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and WikiMedia Foundation turned a blind eye to the situation.</ref> from Wikipedia's internal policy making and self-regulatory process governing user conduct known as Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee voted to accept a complaint filed against her<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], Revision as of 15:45, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept);[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude], Revision as of 15:46, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept and merge)".</ref> to review her conduct. SlimVirgin made the Complaining party the defendant, removed herself, and placed a third party, User:Katefan0 in her place. SlimVirgin then presented evidence in the same case which stated,
{{Cquote|'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence/Response to suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC).</ref>}}
The Complaining party stated,
{{Cquote|the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20292080&oldid=20249209 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?], Revision as of 21:49, 4 August 2005, Rangerdude.</ref>}}
Nonetheless, reprisal actions were taken against the Complaining party who exposed the duplicity of Wikipedia internal regulatory processes and favoritism granted to an extreme [[leftist]] writer.

=== Jimbo Wales chooses sides in the dispute ===

The negative publicity engendered by the Seigenthaler and Brandt cases put Wikipedia into crisis management mode. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant. He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on.<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From [[WikiTruth]], the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) this was exactly what Berlet wanted, an official statement declaring Brandt was not a reliable source of criticism on Chip Berlet; 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment within the Wikipedia Admin community; and 3) Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry, yet another systemic violation of Wikipedia's own written policies. All hope for a civil and equitable resolution to the impasse was lost, and many unwitting dupes in the Wikipedia Admin community picked up the anti-Brandt torch to retain Brandt's biography simply because Brandt wanted it deleted. As in the Seigenthaler controversy, Brandt once again demanded accountability, this time from the army of unnamed, unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert," while concealing the [[extremist]] roots of Berlet's own background which would deny him inclusion as a source on anything other than himself.

Brandt is now known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

===First casualty: a Congressional correspondent gets canned===

The first casualty in the war between Brandt and the Wikipedia Admin community<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7785&st=0&p=26282&#entry26282</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=prev&oldid=118823615</ref> was a reporter for ''Congressional Quarterly'' and accredited to the [[U.S. Senate]] Press Gallery.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&pid=7935&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry7935</ref> User:Katefan0 was a member of the Association of Immoral Wikimedians<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=243978&oldid=243977</ref> founded by [[Jimbo Wales]].<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=232409&oldid=230690</ref> Brandt stated,
[[Image:Washington 05 183.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Katefan was accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery; ArbCom knew of some her conflicts of interest.]]
{{Cquote|One thing that a professional journalist must always do is properly and completely identify themselves to those they interview, before the interview starts. I think it is safe to assume that her employer does not know that she became an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia last September. It's also safe to assume that she did not inform the standing committee that her gallery press pass application needed to be modified when she became active on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, she was making edits on articles about Congresspeople, and about Congressional politics and political issues. Wikipedia is arguably much more influential than the ''Congressional Quarterly'', even though CQ has a good reputation. Anonymous administrators at Wikipedia have tremendous power to shape the content of articles.

It is clear to me that she should have identified herself as an administrator at Wikipedia to everyone in [[Washington DC]] that she came in contact with professionally. Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious [[conflict of interest]] to the extent that it was not disclosed.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1422&view=findpost&p=7935</ref>}}

Katefan outed herself<ref>http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/KinF/messages/1416?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1</ref> but Brandt conceded the circumstances surrounding her exit from Wikipedia damaged his reputation. Meantime the issue of accountability at the forefront of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]] was all but forgotten as privacy concerns of anonymous Administrators surmounted defamations of innocent real life people whose identity was known.

Katefan initiated '''Wikipedia:Dispute resolution''' with a knowledgeable conservative editor over various controversies on the ''Houston Chronicle'' article, including references to the ''Chronicle's'' coverage of [[Republican]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom Delay]]. Katefan had in fact worked for the ''Houston Chronicle'' during many of these controversies,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14272141</ref> was using Original Research and admitted to being friends with editors and reporters on the ''Chronicle'' staff.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Archive_1#Response</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14339760</ref> Katefan removed properly sourced examples of the ''Chronicle's'' Editorial Board and her former co-workers [[hate speech]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=next&oldid=14285136</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14285136</ref> which included references to prominent Republicans as a subhuman species. Katefan's [[conflict of interest]] was made known to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_incivility_and_bullying</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14282308</ref> For her assistance in silencing, and ultimately harassing a knowledgeable conservative editor out of the project with an Arbitration ruling of "tendentious editing,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#POV_editing_by_Rangerdude</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Rangerdude_placed_on_probation</ref> Katefan was promoted to Admin.

Not long after, another professional journalist politely protested Wikipedia's exceedingly biased entries about [[Paul Weyrich]]. Patently false information about Weyrich was cited to none other than Chip Berlet, with the customary alleged "links and ties" to "fascist" [[Dominionism]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dominionism/Archive_1#latest_removal</ref> Berlet's latest ideological crusade. The user admitted to being a member of the same Melkite [[Catholic]] parish as Mr. Weyrich,<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Well_referenced_but_biased_sources Talk:Paul Weyrich#Well referenced but biased sources]</ref> and offered to volunteer his professional expertise to improve Wikipedia's Dominionism series and bring neutral balance. The editor was instructed point blank by high level Wikipedia Administrators, "people with a vested interest in the content of an article should not edit it,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pravknight#Paul_Weyrich User talk:Pravknight#Paul Weyrich]</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-January/060162.html ; Berlet circumvented official WP:Dispute Resolution by posting "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this..." at Wikien-1 and asked someone else to nominate '''Category:Soviet spies''' for deletion while the issue was being Mediated. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was policy and participants signed a Mediation pledge to participate in Good Faith [http://encyc.connectonline.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop#Good_faith]. Berlet's conflict of interest can be seen in (1) personal association with ''[[Guardian]]'' of New York, (2) personal association with [[Harry Magdoff]], (3) personal connection with ''CounterSpy'' magazine. ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the true identities of living CIA officials, and lead to creation of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]]. Berlet it appears never had a problem with exposing the real life identities of living CIA agents but has fought strenuously to keep deceased identities of [[KGB]] agents out of Wikipedia. Two years after Berlet circumvented policy, '''Category:Soviet spies''' has not been deleted.</ref> and of course, profiled as a conservative, was banned for "tendentious editing."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight#Question: Why is Leftism NPOV?] The editor stated, "why is it that only Left-wing POVs are permitted on Wikipedia? Why is it that I constantly get harassed, picked on and intimidated for trying to bring things back to the center by excising the hate-filled, bigoted rhetoric that populates the articles about Christians in politics? This is extremely personal and hate-filled, and I'm sick of this harassment."</ref>

By March 2007 Katefan's name was no longer on the Senate Press Gallery list.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7603&st=0&p=25526&#entry25526</ref>

=== Second casualty: Wikipedia "experts" called into question, the Essjay Scandal ===

On April 29-30, 2005 a conference of [[radical]] [[leftist]]s to discuss the "real agenda of the Christian right" <ref>[http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2005-June/018692.html ''Public university sponsorship of conference on "Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right"'']</ref> was held a CUNY. Berlet spoke at the forum and Doug Ireland reported,
{{Cquote|Nobody at the national level is tracking these ''[[Christer]]''<ref>[http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html Religious Right Watch''] July 10, 2005.</ref> censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. 'People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at [[Political Research Associates]] would love to do it,' says Berlet, 'but we don’t have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it ....' <ref>[http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/06/the_new_blackli.html ''The New Blacklist: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers''], Doug Ireland, June 09, 2005.</ref>}}
Wikipedia had the resources, Political Research Associates began tracking them, and the “strategies to defeat them” were carried into the battleground of Wikipedia. Berlet's massive, “Dominionism” series, a compendium of anti-Christian screeds best characterized by Stanley Kurtz of the ''[[National Review]]'', who also reported on the conference, claims the "real agenda" of the Religious Right is to,
{{Cquote|suppress other religions ...reestablish slavery. ...reduce women to near-slavery by making them property. ...execute anyone found guilty of pre-marital, extramarital, or homosexual sex and ...to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp ''Dominionist Domination, The Left runs with a wild theory.''] Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, May 02, 2005.</ref>}}

Ten days later on May 10 Essjay posted on his user page,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#Your_.22apologies.22_sound_fake</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23005</ref>
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. 

My Academic Degrees: 
* Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
* Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
* Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
* Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD) 
</blockquote>

Essjay was nominated for Admin on July 13, 2005 and in accepting he wrote, "Most of my edits have been to theology related articles; I am a theology scholar after all. I’ve added a good bit of material to articles, particularly material related to [[Roman Catholicism]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=18741394&oldid=18741092</ref>
An anonymous IP commented, "I have read several of Essjay's articles on Catholicism and I am very impressed with how thorough and clear they are. Many scholars try to be "thick" in their language, but not Dr. Essjay."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=19090368&oldid=19089436</ref> His Adminship was completed one week later with near unanimous support.

After serving in the leadership of various Wikipedian associations such as Administrator General of Esperanza and official contact for Wikimedia with Freenode, the IRC network that hosts most of Wikimedia's IRC channels, Essjay was elected a Bureaucrat on March 31, 2006.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay</ref>

==== Hoaxes perpetrated against academics and mainstream media ====

On April 7, 2006 one week after moving into his new role as a Bureaucrat Essjay sent an email to a professor in response to her comments on using Wikipedia as an academic source. The professor had told her students, "PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA is not to be considered a reliable source." The email is not of a personal nature and Essjay clearly represents himself as speaking for Wikipedia and posted a verbatim copy for others to use. The letter stated:
{{Cquote|I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology... I find it very disturbing that you included the statement "it is my understanding that anyone can put anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy." ... Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public. ...

Wikipedia has recently experienced some bad publicity over the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair (I know the issue extensively; I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, Jimmy Wales); it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity. ...'''It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia'''; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before. (''bolden added'') <ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

Of the two hundred thousand registered users, and the nearly one thousand administrators with powers to block others from editing, Essjay was one of only 14 with Checkuser rights, a responsibility which has always been the cause of grave privacy concerns and only given to those who have earned the trust of the WikiMedia Foundation. Essjay was recommended to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff of ''The New Yorker'' by a member of Wikipedia’s management team<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote Know It All], Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?, by Stacy Schiff ''The New Yorker'', July 31, 2006; Editor's Note appended.</ref> and would not identify himself other than confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>
In a piece entitled, ''Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?'', Schiff wrote,
[[Image:Schiffstacy 3l.jpg|thumb|350px|right|[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff was hoaxed by Essjay and Wikipedia's management team.[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote] ]]
{{Cquote|One regular on the site is a user known as Essjay, who holds a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law and has written or contributed to sixteen thousand entries. A tenured professor of religion at a private university...

Wales also appointed an arbitration committee to rule on disputes. Before a case reaches the arbitration committee, it often passes through a mediation committee. Essjay is serving a second term as chair of the mediation committee. He is also an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser, which means that he is one of fourteen Wikipedians authorized to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse. He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz, and he keeps an eye on twenty I.R.C. chat channels, where users often trade gossip about abuses they have witnessed...

Wales recently established an “oversight” function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there. }}

''The New Yorker'' unwittingly published the deceptive information on Essjay's credentials in its July 31, 2006 issue. The same month Brandt pointed out at Wikipedia Review,<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701</ref> a forum frequented by prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day.

In August 2006, a professional journalist who attended the same Catholic parish as [[Paul Weyrich]] of the [[Free Congress Foundation]] protested the patently false information about Weyrich. Weyrich was [[politically profiled]] as a right-wing "theocratic dominionist." Wikipedia's [[Dominionism]] entry, authored by Berlet, stated in its opening sentence, "Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominionism&diff=83649766&oldid=83640075</ref> There was one big problem, Weyrich is Catholic. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Inaccurate_information Talk:Paul Weyrich#Inaccurate information]</ref> By now Essjay was becoming established as Wikipedia's leading scholar on Catholicism.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_finding_of_fact_by_Doug_Bell User:Essjay/RFC/Outside finding of fact by Doug Bell], 2 March 2007.</ref>

====The Wikipedia Review forum====

On January 7, 2007, Essjay outed his own true life identity on his user page at Wikia.<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wmessjay.png</ref> A site administrator at Wikipedia Review posted on January 11 the Essjay user page at Wikia had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees and noted there was no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The same administrator posted further details <ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992</ref> of discrepancies between Essjay's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19, after Essjay added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

Essjay claimed on February 2 he provided all his real life information to Jimbo Wales and Angela Beasley, and then the same information to Brad Patrick, Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel before he accepted the position.<ref>Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC), [http://web.archive.org/web/20071105191108/www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html User:Essjay/Archives/52]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales_asks_Wikipedian_to_resign_"his_positions_of_trust"_over_nonexistent_degrees&oldid=382962 Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees], Wikinews.</ref><ref>http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/05/one-last-brief-comment-on-the-essjay-scandal/</ref> It was apparent Essjay had lied.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref> Brandt sought to contact Stacy Schiff with the information, and expressed disillusionment over the next several weeks at not receiving a response.

Brandt sent several letters regarding his own biography to the Foundation Legal Department and never received a response. On February 3 Florence Devouard, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation announced Brad Patrick would be resuming his role as General Counsel exclusively after serving as Interim Executive Director and to now "focus on developing the role of General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces moving forward."<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html Executive director], Florence Devouard, Feb 3 21:47:48 UTC 2007.</ref>
[[Image:Mania-logo.gif|thumb|300px|right|The 2006 ''WikiMania'' Conference was held in [[Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]], August 4-6.]]
Ken Myers, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and author of ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia''<ref>[http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2 ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia'']</ref> presented at the August 2006 Wikimania conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts<ref>http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM1</ref> is known in the community as Ksm10. Myers registered an account at Wikipedia Review on February 21, 2007<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1003</ref> and spent several hours which included a discussion with Brandt on Section 230 issues. Brandt had been arguing for months that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to the WikiMedia Foundation, due to the fact that the Foundation's entire structure is designed to moderate the content on Wikipedia and that the Foundation functions as a publisher rather than a service provider. Only internet service providers are immune from liability for libelous content under Section 230.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5641&view=findpost&p=19429</ref> Brandt's efforts to get Wikipedia to remove the libelous information about him attracted a lot of attention, and was even being studied in a Cyberlaw class at [[Harvard]].<ref>
Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus#Day_3._A_Potential_Solution:_Intermediary_Liability Day 3. A Potential Solution: Intermediary Liability] 2007 Winter Term.</ref>

Two days later one of the lesser known occurrences in the explosive maze of events of February 23 happened when Wikipedia Administrator Yanksox registered an account at Wikipedia Review.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014</ref> Curiously enough, Yanksox spent several hours perusing the site where the background material on Berlet and SlimVirgin's efforts to discredit Brandt is laid out but never posted anything in Wikipedia Review for still another two months. In a bizarre turn of events and without discussing with anyone, Yanksox suddenly executed what Brandt had been asking for 15 months: invoking '''Ignore All Rules''' ('''IAR''') policy, Yanksox deleted the Brandt biographical entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=110357260</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Evidence</ref> The page had been nominated for deletion numerous times, but always failed to win the necessary support in Wikipedia's mind-numbing bureaucratic processes. Yanksox stated his reasons as "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Yanksox&page=Daniel+Brandt</ref> then performed a "kamikaze dive" by deleting his own user page.

It was now common knowledge among critics at the Wikipedia Review forum and many of Wikipedia's so-called "inner cabal" that gross distortions and lies had been used to advance Essjay within the organization and perpetrated against a mainstream news source with a good reputation for fact checking. Many of the more mature Wiki Admins now saw the wisdom of ending the dispute with Brandt which was claiming more and more dupes with no understanding of the root of the dispute. In the midst of the firestorm over Yanksox out of process deletion that same day, Jimbo Wales announced Essjay's appointment to the Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-February/063809.html</ref>

Three days later, on February 26, Brandt received and posted a response from the Deputy Editor of ''The New Yorker'' stating a retraction would be published in the March 5 issue including the comment, "which comes out today."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23635</ref> Wikia’s public relations firm made Essjay’s response to ''The New Yorker''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111710102&oldid=111704869</ref>

====The scandal breaks====

When the scandal broke it was [[international]] in scope with ABC News,<ref name="ABC video">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2929512|title=ABC News broadcast on Essjay|accessdate=2007-03-08}}</ref> Associated Press,<ref name="Larry_Sanger_Springs_Citizendium">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia
|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2980046
|work=[[ABC News]]
|publisher=[[Associated Press]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-26
}}</ref> BBC,<ref name="BBC">{{cite news
| title = Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
| work = [[BBC News]]
| date = March 6, 2007
| accessdate = 2007-03-16
}}</ref> USA Today,<ref name="BrianBergstein">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia
|url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm
|publisher=[[USA Today]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-25
}}</ref> London Daily Telegraph,<ref name=Jardine>{{cite news
|first=Cassandra
|last=Jardine
|title=Fount of all wisdom – and foolery
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/03/08/nosplit/ftwiki108.xml
|publisher=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''
|section= Features
|date=March 8, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=21
|quote =}}</ref> London Guardian,<ref name="Guardian">Finkelstein, Seth. [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html "Read me first"], ''[[The Guardian|The London Guardian]]'', March 8, 2007.</ref> Le Monde,<ref>[http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=979865&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01 Wikipédia, à visage découvert], Olivier Dumons, LE MONDE.FR 08 Mars 2007.</ref> The Register,<ref name="Farewell, Wikipedia?">{{cite web
| url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/wikipedia_crisis/
| title = Farewell, Wikipedia?
| accessdate = 2007-03-18
| last = Orlowski
| first = Andrew
| authorlink = Andrew Orlowski
| date = March 6, 2007
| work = Music and Media
| publisher = [[The Register]]
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
}}
</ref> Newsweek,<ref name=Keen>{{cite news
|first=Steven
|last=Levy
|title=Invasion of the web amateurs
|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/36171
|publisher=[[Newsweek]]
|section=The Technologist
|date=March 26, 2007
|accessdate=
|page=16
|quote =}}</ref> BusinessWeek,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070321_174505.htm?chan=search|title=Wikipedia's Not the Net Police|author=B.L.Ochman|publisher=''[[BusinessWeek]]''|date=2007-03-22|accessdate=2007-09-29}}</ref> CNSNews,<ref name=Bozell>{{cite news
|first=L. Brent
|last=Bozell III
|title=Not Your Father's Encyclopedia
|url=http://www.cnsnews.com/bozellcolumn/archive/2007/col20070321.asp
|publisher=CNSNews.com
|section=
|date=March 21, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=
|quote =}}</ref> Boston Globe<ref name=Beam>{{cite news
|first=Alex
|last=Beam
|title=Tricky truths behind Wikipedia
|url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/03/12/tricky_truths_behind_wikipedia/
|publisher=''[[Boston Globe]]''
|section=LivingGarts
|date=March 12, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=E5
|quote =}}</ref> and Sydney Morning Herald<ref name="LarrySanger2002">{{cite news
|first =
|last =
|authorlink =
|title = More than just a war of words
|url = http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/not-just-a-war-of-words/2007/04/21/1176697134712.html
|work =
|publisher = [[The Sydney Morning Herald]]
|pages =
|date = April 21, 2007
|accessdate = 2007-04-23
}}</ref> all reporting on it. The reaction within the Wikipedia Community was largely a feeling of shock, anger, and betrayal. Many ''bona fide'' experts and academics quit in disgust.<ref>[http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2007/05/sand_castles_of_knowledge.html Sand Castles of Knowledge], Kyle Gann, May 5, 2007.</ref>

Jimbo Wales' handpicked Arbitrator of civility began name-calling and attacked "Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies;"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111701367&oldid=111700836</ref> however this excuse rings hollow since Essjay posted the bogus credentials long before the Katefan controversy, and shortly after the campaign against Brandt's credibility began months before Brandt was ever involved, or even aware of it. Essjay also blamed ''The New Yorker'' :
{{Cquote|I’m also sorry the ''New Yorker'' chose to print what they did…no respectable publication would print it.”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111847534&oldid=111838285</ref>}}''The New Yorker'' retraction quoted Jimbo saying, "I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref> Estranged co-founder [[Larry Sanger]], who is probably recognized as Wales most respected critic, confronted Wales,
{{Cquote|Look, either you hired him thinking he was a tenured professor, or you hired him knowing he was a fraud. There wasn't a third option. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#not_a_violoation_of_trust.3F.21 User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20], March 2 - 5, 2007.</ref>}}

A longtime editor from the very earliest days of the Wikipedia project, named JHK, after hearing [[Andrew Schlafly]]<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307.ram<</ref> founder of Conservapedia speak told Jimbo Wales,
{{Cquote|he is right about there being a cadre of people who tend to get their way on editorial matters. Perhaps that's part of the social engineering experiment that is part of Wikipedia. But when a member of that cadre has clearly abused his position based in part on lies he told to get that position, and the cadre circles wagons ...?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20</ref>}}

''The Chronicle of Higher Education'' noted,
{{Cquote|Like most of the controversies that swirl around Wikipedia, the incident has wider ramifications than a simple personal dispute....the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.<ref>{{cite news |title= Essjay, the Ersatz Academic|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070305162127/http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1909 |publisher= ''The Chronicle of Higher Education''|date= March 2 2007|last=Read|first=Brock}}</ref>}}

Six weeks after Foundation Chair Florence Devouard announced Brad Patrick resuming his role as General Counsel to focus on addressing "a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces," Patrick resigned.<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html Brad Patrick Resigns as General Counsel], Brad Patrick, Mar 22 19:01:14 UTC 2007</ref>

===What did Jimbo know and when did he know it? ===

On April 11, 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation published as part of its Privacy policy for Checkuser rights a requirement for disclosure of the identification of Administrator to the Foundation. At the time of Essjay's appointment to Checkuser, several prominant Wikipedians expressed concern over the trustworthiness of Checkusers. Here is how Essjay addressed the gravity of their concerns:
{{Cquote|We have users from all over the world. Not all of them live in countries where their safety is guaranteed; there are, most assuredly, editors from regimes where if their personal information was discovered, they could be imprisoned and perhaps even killed. That terrifies me, because I don't want anybody dying over Wikipedia, nor do I want them to end up in prison. If checkuser falls into the wrong hands (I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it's too hard to imagine foreign governments wanting to hunt down our contributors; after all, at least two have blocked us flat out already), the result could literally be a matter of life and death. ''Life and death.''<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/020054.html [Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?], Essjay Mon Apr 17 06:14:53 UTC 2006.</ref>}}
An editor asked, "I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and [another Admin] are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the Foundation board." The other Checkuser Admin responded,
{{Cquote|the fact that Essjay and I are well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/006776.html Foundation-l new checkuser policy] Essjay, Fri Apr 21 19:22:21 UTC 2006</ref>}}

===Cracks in the dam===

Wikipedia reached a milestone in its history on October 12, 2007, when Wikipedia "controversial and knowledgeable expert" [[Chip Berlet]] received his first block for incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet] Berlet, who had written for [[extremist]] publications<ref>[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expertly+using+"experts":+leftist+media+organs+selectively+use...-a097822451 Expertly using "experts": leftist media organs selectively use so-called experts to propagandize the masses on behalf of a statist agenda. (Expert Opinion)].</ref><ref>John George and Laird Wilcox, [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, (ISBN 0-87975-680-2), pgs. 125-131.</ref> throughout his career, had achieved a special "controversial expert" exemption from virtually all Wikipedia's written policies. This exemption from policy extended to citing self, no original research, no self promotion, incivility and personal attacks, and other policies.

In the wake of the Essjay scandal, and questions surrounding Berlet's conduct toward non-LaRouche editors, Wikipedia appears to be moving away from the "expert" designation, and now uses the term "knowledgeable editor."

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=10360&view=findpost&p=36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense [[group-think]] Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm Article: Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.

[[Category:Wikis]]

User:Nihiltres

2009-11-04T18:31:06Z

Nihiltres: Minor cleanup

Hi. I'm a Wikipedian and administrator there, a "liberal", and a somewhat agnostic person. This account is just to ask rational questions about valid issues, including potential copyright (GFDL/CC-BY-SA) violations on Conservapedia (of Wikipedia).

Regardless of Conservapedia's copyright scheme, I consider my edits on Conservapedia to be multi-licensed into the public domain.

The New York Times

2007-10-15T04:22:53Z

Nihiltres: ...has the most Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper...

The '''New York Times''' (NYT) is a [[radical]] [[leftist|liberal]] [[newspaper]] that is published in [[New York City|New York]], [[New York]] and distributed to readers worldwide.<ref>[http://www.timeswatch.org/ TimesWatch: Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the ''New York Times'']</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200407290744.asp Just Say It, Dan Okrent], National Review Online</ref> It is the third most widely circulated newspaper in the United States behind ''[[USA Today]]'' and ''[[Wall Street Journal|The Wall Street Journal]]'' <ref>Infoplease.com: [http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html Top 100 Newspapers in the United States]</ref>. The newspaper has been awarded the most [[Pulitzer Prize]]s of any newspaper, with a total of 95.
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumb|Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr.]]
The New York Times is published by 3rd generation NYT publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr, who is a radical leftist in his political opinions. New York Times publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has a "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In respect to the issue of homosexuality and the New York Times conservative organizations have offered various pieces of evidence pointing towards the New York Times promoting the [[homosexual agenda]].<ref>http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3014_0_2_0_C/</ref><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A1442_0_2_0_C/</ref> Accuracy in Media quotes a report by [[Peter LaBarbera]] stating that Richard Berke, the national political correspondent for the New York Times, made an appearance on behalf of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and revealed that three-quarters of the people who now decide what goes on the front page of the New York Times are "not so closeted homosexuals."<ref>http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3014_0_2_0_C/</ref> In addition, the [[Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation]] (GLAAD) gave the New York Times an award for "Outstanding Newspaper Overall Coverage".<ref>http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A1442_0_2_0_C/</ref> In respect to the an official of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Accuracy in Media gives an account of "an official of the group advising the press not to cover former homosexuals because it would be comparable to quoting the [[Ku Klux Klan]] about [[Civil Rights|civil rights]]."<ref>http://www.aim.org/special_report/A5366_0_8_0_C/</ref> In addition, according to Accuracy in Media the New York Times sent a recruiter to a [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] convention in order to recruit homosexuals as journalists.<ref>http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3367_0_2_0_C/</ref>

[[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

The NYT publishes 15 other newspapers, including the ''International Herald Tribune'' (based in Paris) and the ''Boston Globe.''
Examples of types of [[liberal bias]] utilized by the New York Times include:
*[[placement bias]]
*[[photo bias]]
*[[genius bias]]

==Controversies==
*''The Times'' correspondent [[Walter Duranty]] intentionally covered up the [[Soviet]] [[Holodomor|genocide]] of the [[Ukraine|Ukrainians]].<ref>[http://www.nytco.com/company/awards/statement.html New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty]</ref>

*C. L. Sulzberger in 1944 wrote a glowing review of [[Edgar Snow]]'s ''People on Our Side'' and plugged Snow's earlier 1937 work, ''Red Star Over China'' in which Snow stated, "The political ideology, tactical line and theoretical leadership of the [[Chinese Communists]] have been under the close guidance, if not positive direction, of the [[Communist International]], which during the last decade has become virtually a bureau of the [[Russian Communist Party]]. In the final analysis this means that for better or worse, the policies of the Chinese Communists, like the Communists in every other country, have had to fall in line with, and usually subordinate themselves to, the broad strategic requirements of [[Soviet Russia]], under the dictatorship of [[Stalin]]."<ref>New York Times Weekly Book Review, September 10, 1944; ''Red Star Over China'', Edgar Snow, New York, 1937, pg. 374. Quoted in ''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pgs. 73, 83] pdf.</ref> [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]], the leaders given endorsement here as "people on our side," are the two biggest [[democide|mass murderer]]s in history.

*An anonymous editor at the ''New York Times'' attacked Rep. [[Tom DeLay]] with the most vile [[hate speech]] in Delay's [[Wikipedia]] biographical entry just prior to the 2006 election.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Edit in question]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner] results for the NYT</ref>

*In 2003, ''New York Times'' reporter [[Jayson Blair]] resigned after it was found that he had engaged in repeated [[plagiarism]] and [[deceit]], copying articles from other newspapers and making up other articles out of whole cloth. Blair was promoted and problems with his reporting were ignored due to the newspaper's adherence to [[affirmative action]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_ethics/casestudy_blair.php Jayson Blair: A Case Study of What Went Wrong at The New York Times]</ref> Online NewsHour

*[[Michelle Malkin]] says the NYT has violated an agreement regarding [[Journalism|journalist]]s covering [[war|war casualties]]. <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/01/the-nytimes-unspeakable-violation/ The NYTimes’ unspeakable violation]</ref>

*The ''New York Times'' subsidized<ref>[http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp? Subsidizing Sedition], Investor's Business Daily Editorial, 9/13/2007.</ref> what Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' referred to as a "vicious" attack on the person and charter of a respected professional soldier, Gen. [[David Petraeus]].<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> The [[radical]] [[liberal]] group [[MoveOn.org]], an organization which advocated maintaining the [[corrupt]] [[United Nations]] [[Iraq#Oil_for_food_scandal|Oil For Food]] program's support for the [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] regime in [[Iraq]], ran a full page ad in the ''Times'' at roughly half the cost of regular price impugning Gen. Petraeus credibility as a traitor.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/New York Times|Articles about '''New York Times''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Newspapers|New York Times]]

GNU Free Documentation License

2007-09-26T00:29:40Z

Nihiltres: fixing references

The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is promoted by the Free Software Foundation, Inc. as a way to facilitate the free use and modification of textual information.<ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt</ref> It is modeled after the approach taken by free software developers to encourage improvements and use of free software, despite fundamental differences between editing and using text rather than software.

The license is complex and burdensome, and difficult for teachers to use. It is rare to see a book or educational material that is based on reuse of material provided under this license.

[[Conservapedia]] has rejected the GFDL as unnecessarily complex and too restrictive.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Copyright</ref>

== References ==
<references />

[[category:law]]
[[category:copyright]]

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-09-16T19:11:12Z

Nihiltres: /* Did you know ... */ uh, he's blocked.

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. [[Sodomy]] is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems like it is 10 - 0 to wikipedia. While conservapedia wrote about one paragraph wikipedia wrote a few pages. Could you repeat what you said about conservapeda being superior, Bob? You don't mind if I call you Bob, right. Smashing.

--[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 16:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:More writing does not necessarily equate to superiority. Conservapedia is new, and concise. Articles will grow, but in view of where is the conservative viewpoint allowed to be presented, which do you find to do a better job? Since we live in an open society, people don't have to choose one or the other. They can make their own decisions, but at least they have Conservapedia as a source if they desire and they have the capability to get information and perspectives that might otherwise be lacking or hard to find.

:By the way, be glad I wasn't looking where you signed on as a user as you would have been blocked up front for the name. Why not just call yourself Kali? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, a longer article is not necessarily better but in this case it is irrelevant. The conservapedia version of the articles generally was and idiot-version of the wikipedia one. To clearify, contained VERY general information whereas wikipedia had more extensive and in-depth information. Bob, you don't mind if I call you Bob, do you? Capital. You see, Bob, when you say that conservapedia is better in giving information from a conservative viewpoint this is not the case. The viewpoint is the same but wikipedia generally have more and better detailed information. You are following me? Smashing.

When Bob over there claims that conservapedia is "supreme" it was from an encyclopedia perspective. An encyclopdia's function is to contain articles within one or seveal topics. Wikipedia's articles are, in these examples, more detailed and professional. Thus conservapedia cannot be "supreme". Bob, you also claim that conservapedia is still young, etc. That I can agree with but if that is the case you people shouldn't come with absurd statements such as "you will find that conservapedia is supreme" and then pretend like it was some kind of paranthetis that you can conviniently ignore when it suits you.

And finally, Bob, considering my user name: Resorting to threats like "I could had banned you if I wanted" is REALLY mature (note, Bob, that I'm being ironical). Resorting to threats only proves that your arguments lack substance. My user name is my business as long as it doesn't contain anything illegal or offensive which it does not. Cthulhu is a fictional pre-christian entity which figured in anumber of horror stories written by H.P. Lovecraft. And my name...as a principle I don't give out my real name on the internet as a securiy measure and that is not negotiable, Bob.

//Cthulhu
:Just a point of clarification, we do reserve the right to reject user names for reasons other than being illegal or offensive. See [[special:userLogin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Verbose and choppy writing is not the hallmark of professionalism. The Wikipedia articles come across as largely disjointed and difficult to get an overall feel, as one would expect from a large number of editors often at odds and trying to push their particular writing. I prefer many of the Conservapedia articles due to their smoother flow and a greater sense of capturing the subject matter. It's similar to your writing, for instance. Filled with a variety of duplicated cut and paste insults, the overall product is to take up space without meaning. I would suggest, in life, that you consider a path where you may grow to understand that viewpoints apart from your own still have a right to be expressed. Peace to you in finding this path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

=="arcane British royalty"==
- This is just plain wrong. Henry Liddell is in no way an example of "arcane British royalty". Being an aristocrat is not the same as being Royal. Henry Liddell was not even part of the aristocracy, being that his "grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" means he was 4 generations from the title, maybe a member of the upper classes (because of his job as Vice Chancellor of Oxford University), but more likely just upper middle class! He is not a figure of huge historical note for sure, but was a scholar whose work is still in use and the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland". He certainly features, on the margins, in many histories of the period and books of Victorian biography, so is not unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. What exactly is your mention of his wikipedia article supposed to imply about wikipedia? It implies something about yourselves as he is neither arcane, "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, nor a member of the Royal family. So 1). what's your point? 2. Get it right! {{unsigned|Swdr}}

* It's pretty obscure. Why should an American care about the aristocracy of nineteenth century Britain? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::"Burn the Library of Alexandria! All we need to know is in the Koran!" [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:15, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, this is a warning: improve the quality of your edits or your account will be blocked. Sarcasm, idiocy, silliness, or simply juvenile behavior is not appropriate here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I fail to see what's juvenile about using an incident from history (even an apocryphal one) to point out the anti-intellectualism of someone's apparent claim that "it's unnecessary to know that, no one should write about it," which is how I read JonathanDrain's comment. And lest the reference to the Koran concern you, the comment is meant to point out the idiocy of thinking the Koran has all the answers and nothing else is worth reading. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:34, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The Earls of Strathmore were ancestors of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (1900-2001) and hence of our own dear Queen, so tho' HL wasn't royalty himself he did have a link to the royals, and a pretty arcane one, at that! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Agreement in tense ==

I suggest changing "...discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied" to "...had lied". --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 14:01, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Did you know ... ==

Did you know that you can buy a listing in Wikipedia on eBay? Ebay user diremine, who has a 99,9% positive feedback, provides the service of getting an article about your business inside Wikipedia, 10
interwiki links to your article and 2 external links to your website. [http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160146092291&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX&refitem=160144755846&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget] [http://myworld.ebay.com/diremine] Wikipedia suggests there are spy's and traitors who assist with this.(Wikizine - number: 79)

:Diremine is already indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for that reason, as you can see at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diremine his user page]. Wikipedia will not tolerate such abuse. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Rutgers-Ivy "hoax" ==

I'm curious as to what sources you had for the idea that the Ivy League invitation to Rutgers was a "hoax". That's all. [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 23:41, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have it backwards. A source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim that something happened to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-16T19:10:28Z

Nihiltres: /* Al Gore and Dick Cheney */ reply, and i'll let you judge the entry without further debate.

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
 
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2|Archive 2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3|Archive 3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4|Archive 4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5|Archive 5]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6|Archive 6]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive7|Archive 7]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive8|Archive 8]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive9|Archive 9]]
 

----
== The following have been corrected at Wikipedia ==

Thank God! At least that's a few less instances of bias and slander Wikipeda will try to pass off as truth. On the other hand, I suppose it's only fair to now remove them from the list...

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.
*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...
*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.
*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".
*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

Evidently examples 5, 6, 7, and 10 have been corrected some time ago, but I suppose they should be kept for posterity's sake?

Also, for example 8 and 16... it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual slant and no respect for experts (a 14-year-old dropout has as much weight on a subject, if not more, than an actual professional or researcher in the domain). But does that really constitute "[[bias]]" per se, according to Conservapedia's definition? I just wasn't quite clear on that...

Hopefully keeping up the pressure will force Wikipedia to correct the rest of these errors - or even better, convince people to come to Conservapedia instead.

[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:39, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

*We will wait and see how long they remain fixed.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll start at your beginning and if your claims of correction don't hold true for the first few, then I'm going to stop wasting time on your list:

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.

:: Deceit does not have the same meaning as lie. That redirect is improper, misleading, and illustrates the merit of the complaint.

*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...

:: The JBS reference in the Fred Schwarz has been removed, but the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons still has the JBS reference. Your statement to the contrary is false.

*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.

:: The association is not justified. It's plainly an improper attempt at guilt-by-association.

*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.

:: The Zach Johnson entry does finally admit that he credited [[Jesus Christ]], but the [[liberal]]s on [[Wikipedia]] insert a "citation needed" to try to discredit Johnson's quote. The effect remains similar to before.

*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".

:: The John Birch Society entry does continue to smear unrelated people.

*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.

::I didn't bother rechecking this, but why is Jimmy Wales given preferential treatment in an entry about Conservapedia? He has no connection with Conservapedia, and it's unclear he's even spent any time on this site.

*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

:: The rewording continues to obscure the timing of Operation Eagle Claw during unpopular Carter's difficult primary battle with [[Ted Kennedy]] for the [[Democratic]] nomination. The new explanation seems determined to confuse the political implications of the operation as the old explanation did.

:: I stopped at this point, and see no need to change the examples of bias on the above points. The changes often did not occur as stated, and where changes did occur they merely underscore the bias further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I apologize then... particularly for the JBS reference in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article, I don't know how I missed that one. As for the "deceit" example, I thought deceit and lie might be essentially synonymous, hence Conservapedia not needing an article on "lie"... but you're right, claiming they are one and the same is misleading. Sorry, I genuinely thought these might constitute valid corrections.

:::[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:02, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Planning to add a few new examples ==

It's about time to add a few new examples to the list here. Please make suggestions here. A point about the new attorney, apparently liberal, who has taken the helm is appropriate, and his callous attitude towards the smears and gossips (while editing his own entry). Another point about the anti-Christian entries is needed. An update about how the leadership of Wikipedia is trying to cash in on the traffic with their for-profit search engine may be appropriate. Other suggestions? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just about to point out link 14 above after noticing it as a major headline on a news site. The fact that US government computers have been caught editing Wikipedia articles on subjects relevant to their work (i.e. Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay) implies that they are using Wikipedia as a government propaganda tool. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: And don't forget that the Dem HQ, the New York Times were also caught. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:36, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The New York Times example is excellent. Do you have a link to prove that? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The actual tool that is being used to find the anonymous edits by various companies and governments is http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ . It is probably more useful to link the tool, allowing people to do their own research on who did what rather than linking to a secondary source. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:13, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Here is an example of a NYT edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:02, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

SPierce, that IP traces to Norfolk, VA. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:: IP location traces are not always as accurate as going in the other direction. Useing wikiscanner is better. New York Times edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=15725782] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=33031414], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85320018] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85322406] . ACLU: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=12530341]. Amnesty International: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40462106] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40461974]. Reuters: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=next&oldid=13990756]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Skip, I look at two of your examples and they consist of shockingly obscene edits to the entries. How do we know that IP addresses at the institutions like the NYT and ACLU were really responsible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:22, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::A WHOIS search checks out the IP addresses, but it doesn't check out the users of the IP address (there simply is no way to know who is physically at the keyboard). The NYTimes edits are exceedingly juvenile, as are the ACLU and Reuters edits (plus they don't benefit the respective organization -- they are just run of the mill vandalism). It's much more likely that someone had their kid in on visiting day and let them use their computer. The Amnesty International edit, however, is definitely someone from AI, or at least someone intimately involved with them. I checked some other edits they made, and almost all involved AI, whether on AI's main page or on other pages across the site. I highly doubt, however, that these edits were approved by AI, but there is no evidence to the contrary. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Please realize that the obscene edits are in no way limited to organizations with a liberal bend. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=115836000] from the Republican party of MN offices[http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=204.73.177.2]. Also realize that these edits in no way suggest a bias in Wikipedia any more than vandalism on Conservapedia suggests that it has a bias of some sort. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So the Republican Party has been infiltrated by subversives; we already know that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:12, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Even I'm amazed that computers from the [[New York Times]] were used to insert crude vandalism in Wikipedia. Are we sure about this? Let's be sure before we post this on the main page and in the content page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. The NYT acknowledged this in their own article about this. Since we've put this on the front page, we should list it here as well. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== this is probably too obvious to mention but ==

WP has an article for "evolution". We have one for "Theory of evolution." I think that says it all? [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:I agree :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 03:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:As do I. Good catch! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:38, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed on [[John Seigenthaler]] ==

We now have an article on [[John Seigenthaler]]. The mentions of his name in this list should link to it. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== GLBTs are the only group of people in which "self-identity" determines the content of their articles ==

Midge Potts is a man (no surgery or proven hormone therapy) who "self-identifies" as a woman. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states this about identity:

<blockquote>
Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.
</blockquote>

This means that since Midge calls himself a woman, only female pronouns may be used in the article. The fact that he is still physically a man is irrelevant. When it comes to GLBTs, a person's personal opinion of their "self-identity" trumps facts on a site that claims to be encyclopedic.

And it is ''only'' GLBTs to whom this rule applies. No white person can "self-identify" as black and have their articles state that they are black. No nutcase like David Koresh or Charles Manson can "self-identify" as Jesus Christ and have their articles state that they actually are Jesus. Only GLBTs can have this done to their articles. Capriciousness trumps facts. Exactly how is that either encyclopedic or unbiased? It's not. If Midge Potts were to die today, a coroner (a scientist!) examining his body would not give a rip about his "self-identity." Midge would go down on paper as being a man. Period. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The patients rule the liberal insane asylum at Wikipedia. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
::::The arguments being made seem to bear that out. I've never seen such twisted logic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, this "self-identity" thing isn't even an official Wikipedia rule. It's a "non-binding guideline." Very, very weak. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:48, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide ==

What rational person can believe that WP is "heavily promoting" suicide? In fact, the opening paragraphs of the main entry are rather like CP in that they define suicide and describe the views of suicide held by Christians and members of other religions. And how many times does the word suicide occur in CP? It would be interesting to match that figure per pages with that of WP. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, the Henry Friendly article has been changed. But in a biographical article is is scarcely "heavily promoting" suicide to mention that the subjevt took his/her own life. I ask you! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:50, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed ==

On [[John Birch Society]] and [[Jerry Costello]]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. ==

Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. Also, the Wikipedia entry is actually "Deceit (album)" . Please do not put this in our encyclopedia again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:Now hold on a minute, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. Wikipedia ''did'' briefly redirect the word "deceit" to "Conservapedia." True enough, someone changed that back to "lie." But, seeing that a redirect to "Conservapedia" is of a piece with the other examples we have seen, one must ask: was the reversion a matter of policy, or was it a cover-up of an embarrassing edit by an overzealous editor?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::We have vandals with an agenda too. Why should we not expect the same at Wikipedia. I don't think you have shown that the redirect from Deceit to conservapedia wasn't vandalism. More importantly, the Wikipedia entry is actually '''"Deceit (album)"''' . Please let's be precise and not engage in "feel goodism" in regards to Wikipedia. There is a ton of liberal bias at Wikipedia and we don't have to have poorly supported strawmen to show it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:33, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== I believe I just found some incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia ==

I think we need to put the more hard hitting material first in the article by reexamining the various examples we gave. With that in mind, I believe I just found some very incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia which I will start posting in a user workspace that I will create.

I also think we should removed some uncited material until it is ready to be cited.

Lastly, hopefully, the whole "deceit(album)" controversy can be resolved and we can move on.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

*I think you are paying too much attention to the emails you receive from known (but evidently not known to you) vandals, and too easily swayed by those who seek to discredit you, by counting on your predictable reactions. The material will stand, and I advise everyone to stop removing material unless invited to do so. I hope this warning is very clear as to its meaning, and that this line of posting is finished here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::TK, I received no email in regards to the material I deleted. I just know the material is not sufficiently cited or supported. Now some of the material I deleted may be subsequently supported via reputable citations. However, until they are I think they should be removed as a Conservapedia commandment states that everything must be true and verifiable. Do reputable news reporters have a habit of stating serious and unsupported statements and then a week or so later give the evidence? No they do not. And neither should we and the Consevapedia commandments reflects this. I think it is fair to say that I have championed true and verifiable policy at Conservapedia in the past through various efforts and I received valuable help from others in this regard so it would be a mistake to say I have been alone in this respect. Obviously, this is because I know the policy of true and verifiable is important. Yesterday, someone added a completely fictious large article at Conservapedia. It was completely uncited. Obviously, if we do not take the sourcing policy seriously a lot of bogus material will creep into Conservapedia. Now I realize that everyone make mistakes. For example, the greatest heroes of many conservatives - namely biblical heroes - are stated to have made several mistakes. However, I think it is important to be amenable to fixing our mistakes in regards to the consevapedia commandments and other matters. Lastly, I do think that I could have communicated privately at first given the high profile nature of the article in question and some of my pointed remarks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Music ==

"Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[80] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about '''music''', Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

I quite agree about the music. It should be deleted. I suggest the following articles be eliminated: Beethoven, Brahms, Vivaldi, Bach, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Muddy Waters, Chopin, Louie Armstrong, Gershwin, Liszt, The Rolling Stones, Haydn, and all the rest. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:11, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Oh right. Beethoven, Moby and thousands of obscure and vulgar rap artists are all about the same in significance. Wiki-logic at work! Hey, this wasn't a waste in responding after all. We discovered a new term: [[Wikilogic]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:23, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Exactly. They aren't the same, but where's the line? The Beatles did drugs, slept no doubt with many women, talked about "doing IT in the road" in a song, and so on, but I can't imagine any reasonable encyclopedia excluding them as unimportant can you? Where's the line? Tchaikovsky was in love with his nephew I think, should he be excluded? Should this be mentioned in a article? Where's the line? Who decides on where the line is? Thanks for responding. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sutrebla, without the Mobocracy here, the decisions are made by Administrators, applying that good old idea of ''common sense''! Like Aschlafly said, Moby is one one thing. Another thousand one-hit-wonders is another. Surely you can see that? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for being kind. Aschlafly seems to want to scare away people. Anyway, I can't say I know much about "Moby", so I'm not sure what you mean by "Mobocracy" or what Aschlafly means by "Wikilogic" for that matter. I guess a lot of one hit wonder bands would be a waste, but I still don't see where the line is drawn vis-a-vis vulgarity or relevance or whatever. I am dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and thought this might be an alternative that could actually work. Still, if the administrators decide where the line is, then almost anything I write could just be overridden, same as Wikipedia. I happen to think that Tchaikovsky being in love with his nephew (if I have that right) is pretty bad, but that doesn't mean the music is bad does it? Suppose Michael Jackson was in jail right now for pedophilia, would that mean he doesn't exist anymore? If a band had one record which was profane, would they be denied an entry here? My Dad used to say that "common sense" is not very common. Would the "common sense" of one administrator be the same as the "common sense" of another? Confused. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:14, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*If you think Aschlafly was being scary, or you worry about what common sense is, you perhaps worry about what the meaning of the word "is" is! Nothing is worth all that angst! In a family-friendly encyclopedia, how is some supposed attraction to his nephew relevant to an article about a famous composer? Does it add knowledge as to his compositions? No. That is what I mean by common sense. If we had an article about Nas, would it be family friendly to include his lyrics, and links to his profane website? No. Is it common sense to spend all this time discussing hypothetical scenarios? No! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*I appreciate your response. Where is the line? Thanks. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:38, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
** more Wikilogic which is actually just plain old logic that the sites rulers happen to disagree with. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and thus can afford the luxury of including a great many pop culture references be they good bad or indifferent. A fair comparison would be to look at X number of topics and compare the coverage or lack there of between this site and WP. ''Hint:'' this site loses. [[User:JackNoc|JackNoc]] 15:56, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*BTW, I don't actually worry about the meaning of the word "is" 8-) [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 16:05, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:Sutrebla, a "line" is not necessary to justify different treatment. I realize that [[Mindless Equality]] is a characteristic of [[liberal style]], but you've taken it to absurd extreme. How about complaining to your local library because it does accept worthless book and let us know how they respond.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:I must admit it's pretty tough to be labeled so quickly around here, just like Wikipedia. Family friendly may mean no profanity, but it certainly means you're gonna be called a liberal if you disagree with anyone! LOL. I guess I deserved the "Oh, right" after my initial entry, it was a bit sneering, but after that, I was also "worrying about what common sense is", don't know the meaning of the word "is" (ouch, now I'm Clinton!), angst ridden, unduly hypothetical, using Wikilogic (still don't get that one since I thought Conservapedia was based on Wiki technology), mindless, (double ouch), and worst of all, I am using characteristic liberal style. Well, I'm not a liberal, and AM dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and hoping to find something else. If you want to keep heaping on the labels, well, I guess conservapedia is not for me. As far as the music goes, my point was how are things determined to be unsuitable? If Wikipedia is biased by including so much music, Hollywood, etc., to what standard must music/musicians be held in order to make the cut on Conservapedia? Just saying "common sense" doesn't quite do it. And just so you know, I'm a Christian, and most definitely conservative. Feel free to use THOSE labels at your discretion. I would love to add some stuff about music, but expect it will be taken down if it includes rap, especially non-Christian rap. Thanks [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:52, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Sutrebla, we could fill a football stadium with [[liberal]]s claiming that they are [[conservative]]. Watch [[Hillary Clinton]] pretend she's a [[conservative]] too. [[Wikipedia]] will welcome your entries about rap "music". We are a serious encyclopedia and learning resource here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, now I'm a liberal claiming to be conservative. Another label, and I regret the last one I want to hear. How do I PROVE I'm conservative? Please review Matthew 7:1. And rap "music" in quotes? Nasty. What about Christian rap, I saw some on EWTN just the other day. A lot of people would put Arnold Schoenberg's music in quotes I think, but it is music nonetheless. Please do whatever you have to do to delete my account. You guys play rougher than Wikipedia. You will push a lot of sincere people away I fear. I wanted to upgrade your Roald Amundsen article too. Rats. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:16, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::: And now we see a classic example of [[Liberal style]], with liberals trying to claim to be victims after they caught lying. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 13:24, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:Just wanted to say goodbye. May God be with you. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:43, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== # 18 ==

The current complaint #18 significantly misrepresents the contents from the Wikipedia project page for the Countering systemic bias project.

The first incorrect assertion is that the meta page "complains" that Wikipedians tend to come from Christian countries. The page was actually commenting on a survey of the demographics of Wikipedians: Some articles, sections, or subjects related to other religions or cultures may naturally be neglected because fewer Wikipedians are part of those religions or cultures.

The second misquoted section is really warning that articles pulled from '''all''' old and/or non-neutral sources may need to be checked for bias. The policy is not against Judeo-Christian values, merely to check that imported material is not biased. Material from The Atheist's Encyclopedia would get the same treatment.

The third assertion of #18 refers to a section that really warns that large scale disasters in the developed world are naturally seen by the Wikipedian demographic as less significant than insanely large scale disasters in the developing world. The example given is the coverage Al-Qaeda bombings, which is so detailed that it includes a medium length article on a specific search and rescue dog involved in 9/11. That's more than for many major leaders in the third-world Darfur conflict, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

I request that #18 be removed. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:04, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

: I reread #18 (now #20) and updated the minor revision in the "misquoted" section in the footnote. Wikipedia changed "predominantly Christian" to "nominally Christian." Whoopee. The rest of your criticisms of #18 (now #20) have even less merit. The Wikipedia meta page does complain about Christian "bias" in older sources. Too bad that [[liberal]]s can't realize the difference between identity, perspective and bias. #18 (now #20) is correct but you have given me another point to add to [[liberal style]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== Admission of Liberal Bias ==

No complaints this time, I just thought I may have found a suitable addition to the list. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Liberal_bias Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales actually admits Wikipedia has a liberal bias] (original source [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html here]). According to Jimmy Wales, "the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average." ''Slightly?'' Try '''six times''' more liberal.

Add or reject as you see fit. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:06, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide entry (#5) not cited on key claim and here is some material which may help the entry. Also, know someone in the press who might be interested ==

Currently the #5 entry for Examples of Bias in Wikipedia claims there are 21,544 entries at Wikipedia that mention suicide. However, there is no citation for this claim. The Conservapedia commandments state you must give your sources. Is it not cited because you can only run the stats from a Wikipedia account? If so, how do you run that stats at Wikipedia? We should at the very least have a footnote which tells the reader how to run this stat at Wikipedia. I don't think we should take the 21,544 on faith. To do so would wreak havoc at Conservapedia because anyone could claim anything. For example, does Wikipedia merely use the work suicide 21,544 times including the talk pages? Does Wikipedia use the word suicide 21,544 times in its articles but not necessarily in 21,544 entries. With that being said, I am going to temporarily take the 21,544 claim on faith merely for the sake of discussion here but I do believe that unless the entry is cited or at least some method is available to verify it that it should be removed as soon as possible.

With that being said, I believe I might have some useful information in relation to suicide and Wikipedia in relation to its claimed inordinate preoccupation with suicide. Conservapedia mentions that Wikipedia has about 20,000 articles that mention suicide. If Wikipedia has about 2,000,000 articles that means that 1% of its articles mention suicide if the 21,544 claim is true which is a lot. Currently, we do not bring that out and 1% is a high percentage. Again, can someone tell me how you got the 21,544 figure of the number of articles that mentions suicide and can we cite this in our article so people can see it for themselves?

Next, I have a theory on why Wikipedia may have so many references to suicide. Please take a look at this article: Heavy Metal Music And Adolescent Suicidality: An Empirical Investigation - Statistical Data Included at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_134_34/ai_55884913 Also, please see this article: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, The Influence Of Music And Music Videos at: http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/the_influence_of_music_and_music_videos Wikipedia is known for having a lot of emphasis on teen oriented music so maybe this primarily explains the apparent high percentage of articles on suicide.

Also, suicide is associated with physician assisted suicide which is legal in some liberal areas like Oregon and the Netherlands (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p040201b.html ). So this might also play a factor but I am guessing it is negligable.

My guess is that the teen music is the most likely explanation if the claim of 21,544 is true Lastly, can we look at enough of the articles which mention suicide to see in what context in which suicide was mentioned? Also, do we believe the above material or similar material would be appropriate to mention in the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article for the entry dealing with suicide and do we want to develop this more. '''I ask this because I know someone in the conservative press who might be very interested in this claim if it is true. His organization reaches millions and it has an international reader base. We are currently working on a story together and he might be interested in this one too if I can verify the claim.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:43, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

: A search of Conservapedia shows that it has 0.87% of its articles mentioning suicide (144/16536). Those numbers are remarkably similar given the size of each collection. If this is a critique of one, it is likewise a critique of the other... unless Conservapedia is to remove instances of the word from its articles too (but then it would either be using euphemisms which reduces the impact of the word or avoiding history that is likely importance at showing the distasteful nature of it). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:54, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Rutm, Please tell me how you did the above stat. And does it count talk pages as well?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Type 'suicide' in the search box and hit search. As noted in the 'search results' page that comes up, this is searching only the main space - not talk pages. On the 'View' click '500'. Right now, that shows 143 pages - apparently one has been changed since my previous posting. If one is to click the rest of the name spaces, that gives 190 pages. The 16536 comes from the Statistics link on the side, listing only the ones that have content. Right now, that is 16,544. Divide 143 into 16544 and you get 0.008643... or 0.86% (slight change due to number of articles - its easier to change this number with a smaller article base). Compare this to the quoted number of 21,544 articles and the corresponding stats on Wikipedia of 2,009,073 pages and you get 0.0107... or 1.07%. Coparably similar numbers. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, your comparison is meaningless. The percentage of entries about suicide should decrease as the overall number of entries increase, if there is no bias. Instead, that percentage increases at Wikipedia. Moreover, the content of those entries is very different on Wikipedia than here, further illustrating the bias. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, I am not saying there is not a systemic bias in regards to the Wikipedian population being inordinately preoccupied with suicide or even promoting suicide (inordinately preoccupied and promoting are two different things obviously). However, I will make 3 points. First, PROMOTES is a strong word and unfortunately at this point you do not show a single case of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide. You did mention Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry but does that that sentence does not promote suicide. It is merely inappropriate to mention it so soon. Given that teenagers at Wikipedia (and there are a lot of them) may not be as socially astute this could easily be an explanation. In regards to Wikipedia's entry about Zerah Colburn ending with a claim that his distant nephew committed suicide this could merely be the type of rampant gossip and preoccupation with trivia regarding the rich and famous. Now I am I being picayune here? I can assure you that will not be like a unreasonable liberal who will nitpick to death and unreasonably ignore any future examples you give. I merely assert (and I believe reasonably) that you haven't yet provided a clear example of Wikipedia promoting suicide. Second, I do agree with RUTM that the percentages are similar although you might be right that Conservapedia's percentage may decline over time. However, while I think this may very well happen it is not a particularly strong argument at this point and promoting the strong claim that Wikipedia promotes suicide reasonably obligates you to provide reasonably clear evidence. Here are some suggestions. Give some strong examples of Wikipedia promoting suicide and/or wait until Conservapedia percentage of entries decreases in terms of the suicide percentage. I do think the important part is providing some clear examples of Wikipedia promoting suicide. In the absence of clear examples though in regards to Wikipedia promoting suicide I think you should wait until the Conservapedia percentage drops and then merely state that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the subject of suicide. I think it is better for a encyclopedia to make conservative claims and meet its evidential obligations rather than make claims that go beyond the evidence it provides. '''By the way, once the suicide matter is resolved I do believe we can easily leverage the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article to provide us 25% to 33% more internet traffic by doing something very simple and I believe I am being conservative. It will also take about 15 minutes to do.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:22, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'm confident that with more research I could find more examples. However, the examples given are striking enough, and I see that Wikipedia changed them quickly in response to the criticism here. I've move on to other issues for now but please feel free to research further to improve our entry. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, one entry mentioning that a distant nephew committed suicide is a striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? Mentioning that a man committed suicide in the beginning of the article is striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? How do those entries heavily sell people on the idea of committing suicide? As far as saying you could find more examples that could be used as an argument to defend anything. I think you will agree that many times the evolutionists say with more time spent evidence will likely show up. It is really not a compelling argument. I certainly expect better from you than I could find more evidence if I tried. Please instead of merely moving on to other articles please let us delete this entry if you are not going to adequately support it. I certainly don't expect you to drop everything and adequately support this entry. However, if you are not willing to support the entry then simply erase it. If you find time later to support it you can always put it back. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Andy, thank you for removing the word heavily in regards to "heavily promotes". I really am not trying to be difficult and given that a Conservapedia editor whom I respect is agreeing with me on this issue via private letter I don't believe I am acting out of line. With that being said PROMOTE is still a strong word. I realize it would be a lot of work to dig through the garbage dump of Wikipedia in order to find sufficient examples to demonstrate that there are indeed examples of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide since promote is a strong word. And who really knows if there are any examples? I certainly don't but I would not be surprised if there were. However, I think your time could be better spent than digging through the garbage dump of Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest you wait until Conservapedia gets larger and revisit the issue. You can then compare statistics and then reasonably make the claim that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the issue of suicide if their percentage of mentioning the word is much higher than ours. Fair enough? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." ==

Here is what our [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article states: "Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, describes deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."

With the above being stated it is clear that Wikipedia does '''NOT''' describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." like our article claims. The Wikipedia article in question is for an entry called '''"deceit(album)"''' that is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29 Here is what the article on "deceit (album)" actually states: "The '''Trouser Press Record Guide''' called the album "austere, brilliant and indescribable." So Wikipedia clearly said Trouser Press called the album in question "austere, brilliant, and indescribable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29] Wikipedia is different from Trouser Press. Trouser Press described the album as "austere, brilliant,, and indescribable." Wikipedia did not. Why do we have to have an unclear statement in our encyclopedia? Would Britannica (which I don't even consider to be a great encyclopedia) keep something like this in their encyclopedia that is unclear and not true. I don't think so. Why do people have to go to Wikipedia to see that Trouser Press describes the album this way?

It is my hope given that I showed conclusive proof that our entry is wrong and since the conservapedia commandments state that everything you post in a article must be verifiable and true that this sentence would be removed. Clearly, there is no reason to keep it as is. The statement is both unclear and untrue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I clarified my previous post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::Uh, deception is the act of deceiving, and a search for deceit at wikipedia now redirects to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit deception], an article which has been around since 2002. This article does give a definition of what deceit is and gives examples of deceit in various circumstances. It seems that all along there has been a page covering deceit, and it was simply a mistake of an editor in redirecting the exact word to the wrong page. Furthermore, WP only says that deceit is an album in the same way someone could say that Evolution is a 2002 movie, and it is impossible for anyone looking for information on deceit to come across it, and even if they did there is now a link to the correct article at the top of the page. Hopefully this entry can be corrected [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:25, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Um, you describe a change in Wikipedia's redirect ''in reaction to the criticism raised here''. Before we raised the point, Wikipedia redirected "deceit" to a different term having a different meaning. Credit us for the change at Wikipedia, if you're going to be fair. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:25, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Still a couple of issues with the entry:

* The bit on deceit (album) doesn't demonstrate an example of bias, given that it is pretty much impossible for someone searching for the other definition of deceit to stumble across it (the only backlinks are from project or music related pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Deceit_%28album%29] and a search for deceit is a redirect). This entry is on par with saying WP has an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28movie%29 Evolution (film)] which describes it as "reminiscent of Reitman's Ghostbusters" or an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_%28album%29 Conspiracy Theory (album)], which states it has sold 20,000 copies to date. Neither of these would have any bearing on critism of the Evolution or Conspiracy Theory articles on WP just the same as the article on the album deceit has no bearing on wikipedia's choice to redirect the word to a separate article
* To say wikipedia does not have an entry on the exact word "deceit" is the same as criticising conservapedia for not having an entry on [[deception]] (note the redirect to deceit). The two words are interchangable and have pretty much the same meaning (deception is the act of deceit)
* The redirect was changed 7 times in two days, however three of these were acts of vandalism and three more were reversions of this vandalism. Only one actually served to redirect the page to the correct site. Also, saying that it was done by a WP in response to CP's criticisms can give the image of lower standards on this site, because as clearly stated in #1 anyone can edit wikipedia, and CP editors could (if they wanted to) have changed the redirect to the proper word
* The first line of the WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true". The first line of the CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another." Both of these provide a clear definition, it's just a question of whether one is biased or not
* Everyone is welcome to add to WP, if you don't feel that the entry on deceit contains enough examples then try adding some, just remember quality over quantity and that an encyclopedia article does not need every single case of deceit to explain it (it may contain a few examples to clarify the definition, and if necessary a historic recount of deception. The proper entry would be "List of Acts of Deceit")
[[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia encourages silly entries on obscure and [[liberal]] albums to build traffic. Yes, this does reflect its bias. Wikipedia encourages edits by anonymous IP addresses that lead to pervasive [[liberal]] vandalism. Yes, this does reflect bias. Wikipedia changed its redirect for [[deceit]] only after we complained here. Case closed.

: The excuses made for Wikipedia are getting tiresome, but have led to an addition of another point in [[liberal style]]: [[liberals]] don't believe in accountability. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:: With all due respect your post failed to address many of my points. In short:
::* A new entry should be created on "silly entries on obscure and liberal albums" and the deceit (album) moved to there, at the moment it does nothing to contribute where it is
::* WP does not have an entry on the deceit just as CP does not have an entry on deception. The two words are interchangable and mean pretty much the same thing
::* The article does have a clear definition, it should be more a question of whether this definition is biased or not
::* The article does not have many example as it is not a "List of acts of deception". Examples are used only to clarify the point, quality over quantity
:: Please do not mistake this for making excuses on WP's behalf, I am merely trying to clarify this entry on the list and prevent any accusations of bias again CP [[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:::*''WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true".
:::*''CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another."
::::This is exactly the point. WP fails to highlight the moral aspects of deceit (or deception if you wish), or make a judgement worthy of condemnation. WP's entry on Murder for example says, "Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the '''elements of malice aforethought''''" CP's entry on deceit uses '''"deliberate."''' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: Rob is exactly right. Wikipedia conceals the intentional wrongdoing and immoral conduct at the center of [[deceit]]. Note also that Wikipedia changed its redirect for the term deceit in response to the criticism here in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia needs to change further its entry for deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::Is there some alternate wording (which you would allow me to insert to Wikipedia as GFDL) which might solve this problem? One major semantic problem I see with changing the current wording is that it is possible to deceive by accident without moral slight - the Wikipedia entry's alleged lack of morality is partly based on this. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 17:33, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that Wikipedia's definition of deception stinks. "not necessarily true"? Show me a dictionary or encyclopedia that states the "not necessarily true" idea associated with Wikipedia's lousy definition of deception. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

=="philanthropist"==
[[Image:Elizabethannduke.JPG|thumb|300px|right|A Wikipedia "philanthropist." [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/dt/duke_ea.htm]]]
Wikipedia calls terrorists "philanthropists." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&diff=prev&oldid=83051994] This has been in there since the article was created in May 2006. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&oldid=55173134]

:Uhm... Whats the point? She might have been an philanthropists allso. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:00, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::Wouldn't "alleged philanthropist" be appropriate; after all, just cause the FBI calls someone a spy or terrorist doesn't mean they're a spy or terrorist. We all know how incompetent FBI field investigators are, and I know firsthand how you cannot cite the FBI verbatim in Wikipedia, even when the FBI declares it has verifiable facts. Wikipedia still requires "alleged to's" and "supposedly's". [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:15, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Im still not quite sure what you are after, is the problem that she is called allso an philanthropist or that she isn't called a terrorist, alltho the article lists half a page her crimes? If thats the case, I can't see whats the obsession for naming people terrorists, she might be just that, but everyone can see that by just looking what she is accused from. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is no support for the far-fetched claim that she is a "philanthropist". Without support for such an incredible claim, why is it there??? Well, obviously, there are political reasons for sugar-coating violent liberal extremism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
While the claim of her being an philanthropist could certainly use an citation, im not so sure if the reason for it being there is an communist conspiracy of first making her look good and then spending rest of the article listing her crimes, and uhm... Liberal extremism??? Mayby you are bit jumping to conclusions here... [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::The "May 19" group (so named for it being Mao's and Malcolm Little's birthday), advocated the violent overthrow of the United States. While she '''is''' a terrorist, she's a low key and minor one. More concerned with how to stay out of jail than with coming to power, she is by no means a philanthropist. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 18:03, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:This is what appears to be the case: Duke cited somewhere her occupation as "philanthropist;" Duke was arrested & indicted on several conspiracy charges connected with terrorist attacks, one including a terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol building; Duke jumped bail; FBI issued a poster with all information gathered on her previous occupations, and cited her as "philanthropist" which as an "occupation" could only be traced back to herself as the source. Why Wikipedia would refer to her as a "philanthropist" is a mystery, but the theory Andy expressed carries some weight, given that [[Harry Dexter White]], a dead person who never stood trial, is referred to in both FBI reports and NSA documents as "KGB Agent Harry Dexter White;" nonetheless, I had much trouble even presenting just that evidence.
:John Wilkes Booth never stood trial; Lee Harvey Oswald never stood trial. Both are dead, and both have been determined to be guilty of the crime of murder by various U.S. Government Commissions. Wikipedia does not refer to Booth or Oswald as the "alleged assassin," yet with a mass of evidence of complicity in all sorts of criminal activity on the part of hundreds of radical/liberal/communist/leftwing/subversive/activists, Wikipedia adamantly disregards the FBI as a credible source for factual information. And when the FBI declares in its files it has known facts, WP Admins ''still'' require "alleged to's". The argument here is, without trial & conviction, you cannot declare someone as guilty. Really? Look at Wikipedia's entry on [[Alger Hiss]], even with trial and conviction, he's still not guilty. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:22, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:P.S. we got an entry on [[M19CO]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:22, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== liberals vs liberalism and creationist vs creationism - dictionaries verses encyclopedias ==

I do think that an encyclopedia should mention movements or systems of thought like liberalism, creationism, capitalism, and conservatism but encylopedias are not dictionaries and need not have entries on liberal or creationist or capitalist. So I removed the fact that Wikipedia does not have an entry on liberal which is an insignificant point and placed all the emphasis on the failings of Wikipedia's [[liberalism]] article. This way we go straight and forcibly to main issue and do not appear picayune to our readers. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Al Gore and Dick Cheney ==

Regarding the Al Gore and Dick Cheney entry, I'm not sure that this is a problem. While Wikipedia does not mention it in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore Al Gore] article, it is mentioned prominently in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_III Al Gore III article] (about the former vice-president's son), where it has two supporting references. I would also like to note that context is important for the "criticism" of Dick Cheney: I don't think the word "prominently" is quite accurate when it is mentioned in ''only one sentence in the 88 kB article'', and noted to have affected his views on same-sex marriage a sentence later. For reference, please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney the Wikipedia Dick Cheney article] and [http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/cheney.samesex/ the article cited for verifiability]. It seems to me that there isn't any particular correction to Wikipedia needed or particular bias displayed in this example, is there? I'd like to confirm that this is still a problem, because it would be nice to fix any potential problems in Wikipedia. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 13:49, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

: We're not fooled by the [[placement bias]] that is pervasive on [[Wikipedia]]. The Wikipedia Al Gore entry is going to be visited far often, and perhaps 100 times more often, than the entry on Al Gore III. It's placement bias to bury the embarrassment in the obscure entry, and hide it from the main entry, when the Dick Cheney family matter is placed prominently in the very first substantive section in his entry. Maybe placement bias can fool users of Wikipedia. It doesn't fool us here. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I think it is a leap to connect his espoused views (those of a traditional conservative/states rightist), to any "issues" of sexuality. This is only done in furtherance of [[deceit]] IMO. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:57, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::TK, I am basing the idea of his view being partly based on that on the CNN article that Wikipedia references, which (the CNN article) quotes Cheney as mentioning that "[he and his wife] have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that [their] family is very familiar with" when speaking about same-sex marriage. [http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/cheney.samesex/]. I'm not trying to deceive, I'm just repeating what I see from a reliable source. :)
:::Aschlafly, I don't think that there's a specific bias in placing Al Gore III's information on a page of its own, given that he is a separate person. It is justifiable on editorial grounds without any particular bias - Wikipedia and Conservapedia each value that articles remain on topic, and that wider topics are separated into multiple, linked articles. I can imagine a conservative editor separating the two, in the interests of succinctness in the Al Gore article, which could use some (neutral) editorial paring regardless. That being said, placement bias is possible, though I find it unlikely that liberals would try to smear Cheney by mentioning a fact that he acknowledges, when many liberals don't have a problem with homosexuality in the first place. ;) (for the record, I'm straight)
:::I'll stop arguing now - I don't want to be combative here, I merely want Wikipedia to be dealt with fairly, and arguing ad infinitum won't help. There's a Wikipedia guideline called "Assume good faith" that I wish were used for criticisms of Wikipedia here. I'll tell you if I can find reasonable justification for the resolution of other examples on this list. In such a good faith, [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:10, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Placement bias

2007-09-16T19:02:59Z

Nihiltres: I believe that placement bias is not specific to online encyclopedias (WP is mentioned regardless :( ), so reword slightly as such. All content is otherwise identical in meaning.

Placement bias is the manipulation of the placement of a fact in a document in order to manipulate the impression left in the reader by that fact. As any newspaper editor knows, the number of people who read a fact is proportional to its proximity to the beginning of the article. Moreover, readers expect the more important facts to be first, and place more emphasis on them in reading an article.

On Wikipedia, placement bias is taken on step further by downplaying facts unfavorable to [[liberals]] by placing them in less-visited entries.
[[category:media]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-16T17:49:55Z

Nihiltres: Al Gore and Dick Cheney

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-15T21:33:01Z

Nihiltres: /* Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." */ comment

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
 
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2|Archive 2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3|Archive 3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4|Archive 4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5|Archive 5]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6|Archive 6]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive7|Archive 7]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive8|Archive 8]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive9|Archive 9]]
 

----
== The following have been corrected at Wikipedia ==

Thank God! At least that's a few less instances of bias and slander Wikipeda will try to pass off as truth. On the other hand, I suppose it's only fair to now remove them from the list...

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.
*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...
*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.
*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".
*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

Evidently examples 5, 6, 7, and 10 have been corrected some time ago, but I suppose they should be kept for posterity's sake?

Also, for example 8 and 16... it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual slant and no respect for experts (a 14-year-old dropout has as much weight on a subject, if not more, than an actual professional or researcher in the domain). But does that really constitute "[[bias]]" per se, according to Conservapedia's definition? I just wasn't quite clear on that...

Hopefully keeping up the pressure will force Wikipedia to correct the rest of these errors - or even better, convince people to come to Conservapedia instead.

[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:39, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

*We will wait and see how long they remain fixed.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll start at your beginning and if your claims of correction don't hold true for the first few, then I'm going to stop wasting time on your list:

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.

:: Deceit does not have the same meaning as lie. That redirect is improper, misleading, and illustrates the merit of the complaint.

*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...

:: The JBS reference in the Fred Schwarz has been removed, but the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons still has the JBS reference. Your statement to the contrary is false.

*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.

:: The association is not justified. It's plainly an improper attempt at guilt-by-association.

*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.

:: The Zach Johnson entry does finally admit that he credited [[Jesus Christ]], but the [[liberal]]s on [[Wikipedia]] insert a "citation needed" to try to discredit Johnson's quote. The effect remains similar to before.

*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".

:: The John Birch Society entry does continue to smear unrelated people.

*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.

::I didn't bother rechecking this, but why is Jimmy Wales given preferential treatment in an entry about Conservapedia? He has no connection with Conservapedia, and it's unclear he's even spent any time on this site.

*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

:: The rewording continues to obscure the timing of Operation Eagle Claw during unpopular Carter's difficult primary battle with [[Ted Kennedy]] for the [[Democratic]] nomination. The new explanation seems determined to confuse the political implications of the operation as the old explanation did.

:: I stopped at this point, and see no need to change the examples of bias on the above points. The changes often did not occur as stated, and where changes did occur they merely underscore the bias further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I apologize then... particularly for the JBS reference in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article, I don't know how I missed that one. As for the "deceit" example, I thought deceit and lie might be essentially synonymous, hence Conservapedia not needing an article on "lie"... but you're right, claiming they are one and the same is misleading. Sorry, I genuinely thought these might constitute valid corrections.

:::[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:02, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Planning to add a few new examples ==

It's about time to add a few new examples to the list here. Please make suggestions here. A point about the new attorney, apparently liberal, who has taken the helm is appropriate, and his callous attitude towards the smears and gossips (while editing his own entry). Another point about the anti-Christian entries is needed. An update about how the leadership of Wikipedia is trying to cash in on the traffic with their for-profit search engine may be appropriate. Other suggestions? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just about to point out link 14 above after noticing it as a major headline on a news site. The fact that US government computers have been caught editing Wikipedia articles on subjects relevant to their work (i.e. Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay) implies that they are using Wikipedia as a government propaganda tool. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: And don't forget that the Dem HQ, the New York Times were also caught. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:36, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The New York Times example is excellent. Do you have a link to prove that? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The actual tool that is being used to find the anonymous edits by various companies and governments is http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ . It is probably more useful to link the tool, allowing people to do their own research on who did what rather than linking to a secondary source. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:13, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Here is an example of a NYT edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:02, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

SPierce, that IP traces to Norfolk, VA. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:: IP location traces are not always as accurate as going in the other direction. Useing wikiscanner is better. New York Times edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=15725782] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=33031414], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85320018] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85322406] . ACLU: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=12530341]. Amnesty International: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40462106] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40461974]. Reuters: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=next&oldid=13990756]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Skip, I look at two of your examples and they consist of shockingly obscene edits to the entries. How do we know that IP addresses at the institutions like the NYT and ACLU were really responsible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:22, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::A WHOIS search checks out the IP addresses, but it doesn't check out the users of the IP address (there simply is no way to know who is physically at the keyboard). The NYTimes edits are exceedingly juvenile, as are the ACLU and Reuters edits (plus they don't benefit the respective organization -- they are just run of the mill vandalism). It's much more likely that someone had their kid in on visiting day and let them use their computer. The Amnesty International edit, however, is definitely someone from AI, or at least someone intimately involved with them. I checked some other edits they made, and almost all involved AI, whether on AI's main page or on other pages across the site. I highly doubt, however, that these edits were approved by AI, but there is no evidence to the contrary. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Please realize that the obscene edits are in no way limited to organizations with a liberal bend. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=115836000] from the Republican party of MN offices[http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=204.73.177.2]. Also realize that these edits in no way suggest a bias in Wikipedia any more than vandalism on Conservapedia suggests that it has a bias of some sort. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So the Republican Party has been infiltrated by subversives; we already know that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:12, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Even I'm amazed that computers from the [[New York Times]] were used to insert crude vandalism in Wikipedia. Are we sure about this? Let's be sure before we post this on the main page and in the content page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. The NYT acknowledged this in their own article about this. Since we've put this on the front page, we should list it here as well. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== this is probably too obvious to mention but ==

WP has an article for "evolution". We have one for "Theory of evolution." I think that says it all? [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:I agree :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 03:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:As do I. Good catch! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:38, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed on [[John Seigenthaler]] ==

We now have an article on [[John Seigenthaler]]. The mentions of his name in this list should link to it. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== GLBTs are the only group of people in which "self-identity" determines the content of their articles ==

Midge Potts is a man (no surgery or proven hormone therapy) who "self-identifies" as a woman. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states this about identity:

<blockquote>
Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.
</blockquote>

This means that since Midge calls himself a woman, only female pronouns may be used in the article. The fact that he is still physically a man is irrelevant. When it comes to GLBTs, a person's personal opinion of their "self-identity" trumps facts on a site that claims to be encyclopedic.

And it is ''only'' GLBTs to whom this rule applies. No white person can "self-identify" as black and have their articles state that they are black. No nutcase like David Koresh or Charles Manson can "self-identify" as Jesus Christ and have their articles state that they actually are Jesus. Only GLBTs can have this done to their articles. Capriciousness trumps facts. Exactly how is that either encyclopedic or unbiased? It's not. If Midge Potts were to die today, a coroner (a scientist!) examining his body would not give a rip about his "self-identity." Midge would go down on paper as being a man. Period. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The patients rule the liberal insane asylum at Wikipedia. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
::::The arguments being made seem to bear that out. I've never seen such twisted logic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, this "self-identity" thing isn't even an official Wikipedia rule. It's a "non-binding guideline." Very, very weak. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:48, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide ==

What rational person can believe that WP is "heavily promoting" suicide? In fact, the opening paragraphs of the main entry are rather like CP in that they define suicide and describe the views of suicide held by Christians and members of other religions. And how many times does the word suicide occur in CP? It would be interesting to match that figure per pages with that of WP. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, the Henry Friendly article has been changed. But in a biographical article is is scarcely "heavily promoting" suicide to mention that the subjevt took his/her own life. I ask you! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:50, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed ==

On [[John Birch Society]] and [[Jerry Costello]]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. ==

Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. Also, the Wikipedia entry is actually "Deceit (album)" . Please do not put this in our encyclopedia again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:Now hold on a minute, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. Wikipedia ''did'' briefly redirect the word "deceit" to "Conservapedia." True enough, someone changed that back to "lie." But, seeing that a redirect to "Conservapedia" is of a piece with the other examples we have seen, one must ask: was the reversion a matter of policy, or was it a cover-up of an embarrassing edit by an overzealous editor?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::We have vandals with an agenda too. Why should we not expect the same at Wikipedia. I don't think you have shown that the redirect from Deceit to conservapedia wasn't vandalism. More importantly, the Wikipedia entry is actually '''"Deceit (album)"''' . Please let's be precise and not engage in "feel goodism" in regards to Wikipedia. There is a ton of liberal bias at Wikipedia and we don't have to have poorly supported strawmen to show it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:33, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== I believe I just found some incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia ==

I think we need to put the more hard hitting material first in the article by reexamining the various examples we gave. With that in mind, I believe I just found some very incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia which I will start posting in a user workspace that I will create.

I also think we should removed some uncited material until it is ready to be cited.

Lastly, hopefully, the whole "deceit(album)" controversy can be resolved and we can move on.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

*I think you are paying too much attention to the emails you receive from known (but evidently not known to you) vandals, and too easily swayed by those who seek to discredit you, by counting on your predictable reactions. The material will stand, and I advise everyone to stop removing material unless invited to do so. I hope this warning is very clear as to its meaning, and that this line of posting is finished here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::TK, I received no email in regards to the material I deleted. I just know the material is not sufficiently cited or supported. Now some of the material I deleted may be subsequently supported via reputable citations. However, until they are I think they should be removed as a Conservapedia commandment states that everything must be true and verifiable. Do reputable news reporters have a habit of stating serious and unsupported statements and then a week or so later give the evidence? No they do not. And neither should we and the Consevapedia commandments reflects this. I think it is fair to say that I have championed true and verifiable policy at Conservapedia in the past through various efforts and I received valuable help from others in this regard so it would be a mistake to say I have been alone in this respect. Obviously, this is because I know the policy of true and verifiable is important. Yesterday, someone added a completely fictious large article at Conservapedia. It was completely uncited. Obviously, if we do not take the sourcing policy seriously a lot of bogus material will creep into Conservapedia. Now I realize that everyone make mistakes. For example, the greatest heroes of many conservatives - namely biblical heroes - are stated to have made several mistakes. However, I think it is important to be amenable to fixing our mistakes in regards to the consevapedia commandments and other matters. Lastly, I do think that I could have communicated privately at first given the high profile nature of the article in question and some of my pointed remarks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Music ==

"Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[80] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about '''music''', Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

I quite agree about the music. It should be deleted. I suggest the following articles be eliminated: Beethoven, Brahms, Vivaldi, Bach, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Muddy Waters, Chopin, Louie Armstrong, Gershwin, Liszt, The Rolling Stones, Haydn, and all the rest. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:11, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Oh right. Beethoven, Moby and thousands of obscure and vulgar rap artists are all about the same in significance. Wiki-logic at work! Hey, this wasn't a waste in responding after all. We discovered a new term: [[Wikilogic]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:23, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Exactly. They aren't the same, but where's the line? The Beatles did drugs, slept no doubt with many women, talked about "doing IT in the road" in a song, and so on, but I can't imagine any reasonable encyclopedia excluding them as unimportant can you? Where's the line? Tchaikovsky was in love with his nephew I think, should he be excluded? Should this be mentioned in a article? Where's the line? Who decides on where the line is? Thanks for responding. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sutrebla, without the Mobocracy here, the decisions are made by Administrators, applying that good old idea of ''common sense''! Like Aschlafly said, Moby is one one thing. Another thousand one-hit-wonders is another. Surely you can see that? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for being kind. Aschlafly seems to want to scare away people. Anyway, I can't say I know much about "Moby", so I'm not sure what you mean by "Mobocracy" or what Aschlafly means by "Wikilogic" for that matter. I guess a lot of one hit wonder bands would be a waste, but I still don't see where the line is drawn vis-a-vis vulgarity or relevance or whatever. I am dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and thought this might be an alternative that could actually work. Still, if the administrators decide where the line is, then almost anything I write could just be overridden, same as Wikipedia. I happen to think that Tchaikovsky being in love with his nephew (if I have that right) is pretty bad, but that doesn't mean the music is bad does it? Suppose Michael Jackson was in jail right now for pedophilia, would that mean he doesn't exist anymore? If a band had one record which was profane, would they be denied an entry here? My Dad used to say that "common sense" is not very common. Would the "common sense" of one administrator be the same as the "common sense" of another? Confused. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:14, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*If you think Aschlafly was being scary, or you worry about what common sense is, you perhaps worry about what the meaning of the word "is" is! Nothing is worth all that angst! In a family-friendly encyclopedia, how is some supposed attraction to his nephew relevant to an article about a famous composer? Does it add knowledge as to his compositions? No. That is what I mean by common sense. If we had an article about Nas, would it be family friendly to include his lyrics, and links to his profane website? No. Is it common sense to spend all this time discussing hypothetical scenarios? No! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*I appreciate your response. Where is the line? Thanks. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:38, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
** more Wikilogic which is actually just plain old logic that the sites rulers happen to disagree with. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and thus can afford the luxury of including a great many pop culture references be they good bad or indifferent. A fair comparison would be to look at X number of topics and compare the coverage or lack there of between this site and WP. ''Hint:'' this site loses. [[User:JackNoc|JackNoc]] 15:56, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*BTW, I don't actually worry about the meaning of the word "is" 8-) [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 16:05, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:Sutrebla, a "line" is not necessary to justify different treatment. I realize that [[Mindless Equality]] is a characteristic of [[liberal style]], but you've taken it to absurd extreme. How about complaining to your local library because it does accept worthless book and let us know how they respond.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:I must admit it's pretty tough to be labeled so quickly around here, just like Wikipedia. Family friendly may mean no profanity, but it certainly means you're gonna be called a liberal if you disagree with anyone! LOL. I guess I deserved the "Oh, right" after my initial entry, it was a bit sneering, but after that, I was also "worrying about what common sense is", don't know the meaning of the word "is" (ouch, now I'm Clinton!), angst ridden, unduly hypothetical, using Wikilogic (still don't get that one since I thought Conservapedia was based on Wiki technology), mindless, (double ouch), and worst of all, I am using characteristic liberal style. Well, I'm not a liberal, and AM dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and hoping to find something else. If you want to keep heaping on the labels, well, I guess conservapedia is not for me. As far as the music goes, my point was how are things determined to be unsuitable? If Wikipedia is biased by including so much music, Hollywood, etc., to what standard must music/musicians be held in order to make the cut on Conservapedia? Just saying "common sense" doesn't quite do it. And just so you know, I'm a Christian, and most definitely conservative. Feel free to use THOSE labels at your discretion. I would love to add some stuff about music, but expect it will be taken down if it includes rap, especially non-Christian rap. Thanks [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:52, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Sutrebla, we could fill a football stadium with [[liberal]]s claiming that they are [[conservative]]. Watch [[Hillary Clinton]] pretend she's a [[conservative]] too. [[Wikipedia]] will welcome your entries about rap "music". We are a serious encyclopedia and learning resource here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, now I'm a liberal claiming to be conservative. Another label, and I regret the last one I want to hear. How do I PROVE I'm conservative? Please review Matthew 7:1. And rap "music" in quotes? Nasty. What about Christian rap, I saw some on EWTN just the other day. A lot of people would put Arnold Schoenberg's music in quotes I think, but it is music nonetheless. Please do whatever you have to do to delete my account. You guys play rougher than Wikipedia. You will push a lot of sincere people away I fear. I wanted to upgrade your Roald Amundsen article too. Rats. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:16, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::: And now we see a classic example of [[Liberal style]], with liberals trying to claim to be victims after they caught lying. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 13:24, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:Just wanted to say goodbye. May God be with you. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:43, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== # 18 ==

The current complaint #18 significantly misrepresents the contents from the Wikipedia project page for the Countering systemic bias project.

The first incorrect assertion is that the meta page "complains" that Wikipedians tend to come from Christian countries. The page was actually commenting on a survey of the demographics of Wikipedians: Some articles, sections, or subjects related to other religions or cultures may naturally be neglected because fewer Wikipedians are part of those religions or cultures.

The second misquoted section is really warning that articles pulled from '''all''' old and/or non-neutral sources may need to be checked for bias. The policy is not against Judeo-Christian values, merely to check that imported material is not biased. Material from The Atheist's Encyclopedia would get the same treatment.

The third assertion of #18 refers to a section that really warns that large scale disasters in the developed world are naturally seen by the Wikipedian demographic as less significant than insanely large scale disasters in the developing world. The example given is the coverage Al-Qaeda bombings, which is so detailed that it includes a medium length article on a specific search and rescue dog involved in 9/11. That's more than for many major leaders in the third-world Darfur conflict, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

I request that #18 be removed. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:04, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

: I reread #18 (now #20) and updated the minor revision in the "misquoted" section in the footnote. Wikipedia changed "predominantly Christian" to "nominally Christian." Whoopee. The rest of your criticisms of #18 (now #20) have even less merit. The Wikipedia meta page does complain about Christian "bias" in older sources. Too bad that [[liberal]]s can't realize the difference between identity, perspective and bias. #18 (now #20) is correct but you have given me another point to add to [[liberal style]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== Admission of Liberal Bias ==

No complaints this time, I just thought I may have found a suitable addition to the list. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Liberal_bias Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales actually admits Wikipedia has a liberal bias] (original source [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html here]). According to Jimmy Wales, "the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average." ''Slightly?'' Try '''six times''' more liberal.

Add or reject as you see fit. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:06, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide entry (#5) not cited on key claim and here is some material which may help the entry. Also, know someone in the press who might be interested ==

Currently the #5 entry for Examples of Bias in Wikipedia claims there are 21,544 entries at Wikipedia that mention suicide. However, there is no citation for this claim. The Conservapedia commandments state you must give your sources. Is it not cited because you can only run the stats from a Wikipedia account? If so, how do you run that stats at Wikipedia? We should at the very least have a footnote which tells the reader how to run this stat at Wikipedia. I don't think we should take the 21,544 on faith. To do so would wreak havoc at Conservapedia because anyone could claim anything. For example, does Wikipedia merely use the work suicide 21,544 times including the talk pages? Does Wikipedia use the word suicide 21,544 times in its articles but not necessarily in 21,544 entries. With that being said, I am going to temporarily take the 21,544 claim on faith merely for the sake of discussion here but I do believe that unless the entry is cited or at least some method is available to verify it that it should be removed as soon as possible.

With that being said, I believe I might have some useful information in relation to suicide and Wikipedia in relation to its claimed inordinate preoccupation with suicide. Conservapedia mentions that Wikipedia has about 20,000 articles that mention suicide. If Wikipedia has about 2,000,000 articles that means that 1% of its articles mention suicide if the 21,544 claim is true which is a lot. Currently, we do not bring that out and 1% is a high percentage. Again, can someone tell me how you got the 21,544 figure of the number of articles that mentions suicide and can we cite this in our article so people can see it for themselves?

Next, I have a theory on why Wikipedia may have so many references to suicide. Please take a look at this article: Heavy Metal Music And Adolescent Suicidality: An Empirical Investigation - Statistical Data Included at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_134_34/ai_55884913 Also, please see this article: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, The Influence Of Music And Music Videos at: http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/the_influence_of_music_and_music_videos Wikipedia is known for having a lot of emphasis on teen oriented music so maybe this primarily explains the apparent high percentage of articles on suicide.

Also, suicide is associated with physician assisted suicide which is legal in some liberal areas like Oregon and the Netherlands (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p040201b.html ). So this might also play a factor but I am guessing it is negligable.

My guess is that the teen music is the most likely explanation if the claim of 21,544 is true Lastly, can we look at enough of the articles which mention suicide to see in what context in which suicide was mentioned? Also, do we believe the above material or similar material would be appropriate to mention in the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article for the entry dealing with suicide and do we want to develop this more. '''I ask this because I know someone in the conservative press who might be very interested in this claim if it is true. His organization reaches millions and it has an international reader base. We are currently working on a story together and he might be interested in this one too if I can verify the claim.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:43, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

: A search of Conservapedia shows that it has 0.87% of its articles mentioning suicide (144/16536). Those numbers are remarkably similar given the size of each collection. If this is a critique of one, it is likewise a critique of the other... unless Conservapedia is to remove instances of the word from its articles too (but then it would either be using euphemisms which reduces the impact of the word or avoiding history that is likely importance at showing the distasteful nature of it). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:54, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Rutm, Please tell me how you did the above stat. And does it count talk pages as well?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Type 'suicide' in the search box and hit search. As noted in the 'search results' page that comes up, this is searching only the main space - not talk pages. On the 'View' click '500'. Right now, that shows 143 pages - apparently one has been changed since my previous posting. If one is to click the rest of the name spaces, that gives 190 pages. The 16536 comes from the Statistics link on the side, listing only the ones that have content. Right now, that is 16,544. Divide 143 into 16544 and you get 0.008643... or 0.86% (slight change due to number of articles - its easier to change this number with a smaller article base). Compare this to the quoted number of 21,544 articles and the corresponding stats on Wikipedia of 2,009,073 pages and you get 0.0107... or 1.07%. Coparably similar numbers. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, your comparison is meaningless. The percentage of entries about suicide should decrease as the overall number of entries increase, if there is no bias. Instead, that percentage increases at Wikipedia. Moreover, the content of those entries is very different on Wikipedia than here, further illustrating the bias. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." ==

Here is what our [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article states: "Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, describes deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."

With the above being stated it is clear that Wikipedia does '''NOT''' describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." like our article claims. The Wikipedia article in question is for an entry called '''"deceit(album)"''' that is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29 Here is what the article on "deceit (album)" actually states: "The '''Trouser Press Record Guide''' called the album "austere, brilliant and indescribable." So Wikipedia clearly said Trouser Press called the album in question "austere, brilliant, and indescribable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29] Wikipedia is different from Trouser Press. Trouser Press described the album as "austere, brilliant,, and indescribable." Wikipedia did not. Why do we have to have an unclear statement in our encyclopedia? Would Britannica (which I don't even consider to be a great encyclopedia) keep something like this in their encyclopedia that is unclear and not true. I don't think so. Why do people have to go to Wikipedia to see that Trouser Press describes the album this way?

It is my hope given that I showed conclusive proof that our entry is wrong and since the conservapedia commandments state that everything you post in a article must be verifiable and true that this sentence would be removed. Clearly, there is no reason to keep it as is. The statement is both unclear and untrue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I clarified my previous post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::Uh, deception is the act of deceiving, and a search for deceit at wikipedia now redirects to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit deception], an article which has been around since 2002. This article does give a definition of what deceit is and gives examples of deceit in various circumstances. It seems that all along there has been a page covering deceit, and it was simply a mistake of an editor in redirecting the exact word to the wrong page. Furthermore, WP only says that deceit is an album in the same way someone could say that Evolution is a 2002 movie, and it is impossible for anyone looking for information on deceit to come across it, and even if they did there is now a link to the correct article at the top of the page. Hopefully this entry can be corrected [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:25, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Um, you describe a change in Wikipedia's redirect ''in reaction to the criticism raised here''. Before we raised the point, Wikipedia redirected "deceit" to a different term having a different meaning. Credit us for the change at Wikipedia, if you're going to be fair. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:25, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Still a couple of issues with the entry:

* The bit on deceit (album) doesn't demonstrate an example of bias, given that it is pretty much impossible for someone searching for the other definition of deceit to stumble across it (the only backlinks are from project or music related pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Deceit_%28album%29] and a search for deceit is a redirect). This entry is on par with saying WP has an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28movie%29 Evolution (film)] which describes it as "reminiscent of Reitman's Ghostbusters" or an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_%28album%29 Conspiracy Theory (album)], which states it has sold 20,000 copies to date. Neither of these would have any bearing on critism of the Evolution or Conspiracy Theory articles on WP just the same as the article on the album deceit has no bearing on wikipedia's choice to redirect the word to a separate article
* To say wikipedia does not have an entry on the exact word "deceit" is the same as criticising conservapedia for not having an entry on [[deception]] (note the redirect to deceit). The two words are interchangable and have pretty much the same meaning (deception is the act of deceit)
* The redirect was changed 7 times in two days, however three of these were acts of vandalism and three more were reversions of this vandalism. Only one actually served to redirect the page to the correct site. Also, saying that it was done by a WP in response to CP's criticisms can give the image of lower standards on this site, because as clearly stated in #1 anyone can edit wikipedia, and CP editors could (if they wanted to) have changed the redirect to the proper word
* The first line of the WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true". The first line of the CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another." Both of these provide a clear definition, it's just a question of whether one is biased or not
* Everyone is welcome to add to WP, if you don't feel that the entry on deceit contains enough examples then try adding some, just remember quality over quantity and that an encyclopedia article does not need every single case of deceit to explain it (it may contain a few examples to clarify the definition, and if necessary a historic recount of deception. The proper entry would be "List of Acts of Deceit")
[[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia encourages silly entries on obscure and [[liberal]] albums to build traffic. Yes, this does reflect its bias. Wikipedia encourages edits by anonymous IP addresses that lead to pervasive [[liberal]] vandalism. Yes, this does reflect bias. Wikipedia changed its redirect for [[deceit]] only after we complained here. Case closed.

: The excuses made for Wikipedia are getting tiresome, but have led to an addition of another point in [[liberal style]]: [[liberals]] don't believe in accountability. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:: With all due respect your post failed to address many of my points. In short:
::* A new entry should be created on "silly entries on obscure and liberal albums" and the deceit (album) moved to there, at the moment it does nothing to contribute where it is
::* WP does not have an entry on the deceit just as CP does not have an entry on deception. The two words are interchangable and mean pretty much the same thing
::* The article does have a clear definition, it should be more a question of whether this definition is biased or not
::* The article does not have many example as it is not a "List of acts of deception". Examples are used only to clarify the point, quality over quantity
:: Please do not mistake this for making excuses on WP's behalf, I am merely trying to clarify this entry on the list and prevent any accusations of bias again CP [[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:::*''WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true".
:::*''CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another."
::::This is exactly the point. WP fails to highlight the moral aspects of deceit (or deception if you wish), or make a judgement worthy of condemnation. WP's entry on Murder for example says, "Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the '''elements of malice aforethought''''" CP's entry on deceit uses '''"deliberate."''' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: Rob is exactly right. Wikipedia conceals the intentional wrongdoing and immoral conduct at the center of [[deceit]]. Note also that Wikipedia changed its redirect for the term deceit in response to the criticism here in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia needs to change further its entry for deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::Is there some alternate wording (which you would allow me to insert to Wikipedia as GFDL) which might solve this problem? One major semantic problem I see with changing the current wording is that it is possible to deceive by accident without moral slight - the Wikipedia entry's alleged lack of morality is partly based on this. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 17:33, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

=="philanthropist"==
[[Image:Elizabethannduke.JPG|thumb|300px|right|A Wikipedia "philanthropist." [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/dt/duke_ea.htm]]]
Wikipedia calls terrorists "philanthropists." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&diff=prev&oldid=83051994] This has been in there since the article was created in May 2006. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&oldid=55173134]

:Uhm... Whats the point? She might have been an philanthropists allso. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:00, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::Wouldn't "alleged philanthropist" be appropriate; after all, just cause the FBI calls someone a spy or terrorist doesn't mean they're a spy or terrorist. We all know how incompetent FBI field investigators are, and I know firsthand how you cannot cite the FBI verbatim in Wikipedia, even when the FBI declares it has verifiable facts. Wikipedia still requires "alleged to's" and "supposedly's". [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:15, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Canada

2007-09-15T15:07:58Z

Nihiltres: /* previously reverted edits */ reply

==No Room For Unsubstantiated Claims==

Why is it necessary for me to keep correcting the work of vandals? This page is not for comparing Canada to the United States. This is a page for reporting facts about the country. If I was so inclined, I could come up with some really nice things to say about Canada that make us look much better than the United States- but I don't. It's people that come in here and try to drag down my country that make their country look bad. Lose the attitude of superiority. This is not "An American Site". This is a wiki which is open to users around the world. If this site is to gain credibility, then it has to be balanced. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== About Canada ==

This is an encyclopedic entry on Canada. This not a page designed to highlight how the US is better than Canada. Please take your heads out of your hind quarters. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana ==

On the subject of Canada exporting pot to the US, I don't see the big deal. It is fair to include that, as it is something that we aim to improve. You say we supply your 5% like its a bad thing? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

You should have seen waht was there before I softened it up a little. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 00:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Canada's Response to SARS ==

Comparisons of the incidence of SARS in different jurisdictions is problematic, because it depends on health care professionals diagnosing the illness. In the US, for example, an unknown respiratory illness was reported which might have been diagnosed as SARS in Ontario. In fact, no real diagnosis of a "syndrome" can be made, because a syndrome is merely a collection of symptoms. Only when a virus or other cause is identified can a true diagnosis be made. The best known example of this is AIDS, which was later found to be caused by HIV infection.

During the epidemic, Chinese and American health officials may have wished to minimize its perceived gravity, while Toronto officials were more concerned with containing the actual illness. At the same time, the Canadian and Ontario governments largely ignored the problem, which they saw as a local matter.

The main article implies that Canada had a higher mortality rate for SARS because of its public health care system. While that is an interesting hypothesis, it would be helpful if the writer could provide a comparison of the treatment given to SARS victims to show how improved care in Ontario's hospitals could have improved the rate.

:I agree whole heartedly. However, the problem we are left with is that what is there now is a compromise from the original contribution. A very bitter user contributed a handful of sections that made Canada look like the worst country in the world to live, and was rife with tabloidization. We need more editors to squeeze out those with fuzzy logic. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

The Sars section should be removed. It is one of the least relevant things about Canada or even Toronto. It's not topical. I'm sure even Torontonians have forgoten about it.

==Top 10 places to live in the world==

We really need a citation for that. According to whom? A travel magazine? The UN? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human Trafficking ==

I do not believe that this fits in the article on Canada. It provides no information on Canada as a country, it just highlights some opportunities for improvement. It's not something that anyone would allow done to an article on the United States, so why allow it here? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness in this entry ==

Why is it that most of the recent changes in this article have been people adding foolishness, malarkey, and drivel? That people like Crocoite, TK, Fox, Karajou, and RobS have had to devote so much time to repairing this article (and kudos to them for doing so) is particularly frustrating when you consider that there are still no entries for the NWT, Nunavut and most of the provincial capitals. As well, most of the articles about the provinces are quite minimal and need to be augmented. In addition, there is virtually no mention on Canada's significant contributions to WWI and WWII in those articles. There is lots of work to be done here so if you are thinking of vandalizing an entry out of boredom or a desire to see your name in print, why not channel that energy into posting something productive?
--[[User:Regulas|Regulas]] 07:57, 6 June 2007

:Excellent comment Regulas. From your entry above, it appears you could make a significant contribution to this article and I encourage you to do so. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 10:24, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== previously reverted edits ==

I was curious: I am a Canadian, and so I thought it might be interesting to read this article. I came across a small problem, being from Montreal. I noticed that the article accuses Canada of having lower standards of education indirectly, quoting McGill's grading scheme - which happens to be unusual in Canada. Most of the schools in Canada follow a grading system identical to or similar to the U.S. system (which is not cited), and McGill also does not pass a student with a D, which makes the effective failing grade 54%, which is minimally different from the U.S.'s 59%. I recommend that this particular passage be removed, as it is highly misleading. May I remove it? I do not want to be accused of vandalism or of arbitrarily removing information. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 23:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...I don't think you actually have to walk on eggs so gingerly, Nihiltres! Please make common sense edits, and cite your material properly, and there won't be a problem. ''If there is, please let me know.'' I do suggest, coming from a family that has many teachers, that 54% verses 59% isn't what any teacher would call minimal. In that 5% of difference are how many students? I am merely trying to point out things that people take for granted saying on WP, won't skate here, in our Conservative world. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:57, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I'm sure that there's good reason to make the change, just I'm not sure how to find a source for what would seem to be a norm - people do not usually write news reports saying that "life is normal." I'll try to find a couple of sources for the correction, perhaps using the grading schemes of other schools. As for walking on eggs, I plan to do that while here - offending Conservapedians is the last thing that I want, as it reinforces negative feelings where cooperation and friendliness might otherwise reign. I think that if Conservapedians want a problem on Wikipedia fixed, commenting on the talk page with a courteous explanation of the problem might prove effective at solving many problems of bias or correcting factual inaccuracies. The [[Golden Rule]] is what I have in mind here. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 11:07, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Golden rule

2007-09-15T15:05:55Z

Nihiltres: add redirect to Golden Rule

#REDIRECT [[Golden Rule]]

User talk:Nihiltres

2007-09-15T14:54:06Z

Nihiltres: reply to TK

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:50, 15 September 2007 (EDT)}}
 

Hope your stay here is pleasant, Nihiltres! 90/10 is actually not a rule, per se, as you can read it says it ''may'', not ''will'' be enforced. In our conservative world, we tend to rely more on common sense. I am alarmed your scope of interest is so narrow that all articles you would be interested in are protected. Here at Conservapedia that doesn't preclude editing, however. You are certainly invited, as everyone is, and as the protected template states, to leave suggested additions on the talk page. If you IM me on AIM, or leave a message on my talk page, I would be more than happy to unlock almost any article for you. Have a great weekend! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:50, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:(post delayed by strange protection mechanism) Thank you, TK, and the clarification on 90/10 is quite reassuring, and reminds me of similar recommendations for common sense on Wikipedia - I somehow suspect that my edits may approach 10/90, given the nature of my position while here. That my scope of interest is so narrow is mostly because I tend to keep to Wikipedia, and my primary interest in creating an account here is to be able to alert Conservapedians to problems relating to Wikipedia here (GFDL violations are my primary concern), though I may occasionally wish to correct or modify other articles - as Jimbo Wales said, ''free culture knows no bounds''. I am pleasantly surprised that Aschlafly has already made a positive change in fixing a GFDL violation I pointed out to him, and I hope that my occasional visits will be equally agreeable. I'm tempted to comment on some examples at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] or [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]], because I don't think all of them are reasonable complaints, but I don't want to be overly antagonistic - my role here should be that of a friendly presence to help spot problems and ease tensions. I find it unfortunate that Conservapedia and Wikipedia are portrayed as being at such odds - there is no reason, even making the assumption (which I personally feel is misguided) that Wikipedia is liberal, that we cannot simply fill different niches. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 10:54, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Canada

2007-09-15T03:33:34Z

Nihiltres: previously reverted edits

User:Nihiltres

2007-09-15T03:13:47Z

Nihiltres: clarification

Hi. I'm a Wikipedian and administrator there, a liberal, and a somewhat agnostic person whose spirituality falls under the vague wording of "buddhist-leaning transcendental pluralist", which if you can't figure out, means that I more or less think everybody's ok in what they believe. Yeah, here I might as well be the Antichrist, but if Conservapedia has any sense, they'll realize that I'm not out to vandalize or anything - this account is just to ask rational questions about valid issues, including potential copyright (GFDL) violations on Conservapedia (of Wikipedia). I do not condone the attacks against Wikipedia that are presented at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and other places, but I'd like to be reasonable and merely comment, not criticize. I know that this account will violate the 90/10 rule, but I hope that you, Conservapedia administrators, can be reasonable and not block it for that reason alone - all I want is to comment, and I'm announcing any bias I have. I would make "quality edits", but all of the pages I would edit are protected. Regardless of Conservapedia's copyright, I consider my contributions to Conservapedia to be multi-licensed into the public domain if at all possible.

User:Nihiltres

2007-09-15T02:46:30Z

Nihiltres: announcing who I am.

Hi. I'm a Wikipedian and administrator there, a liberal, and a somewhat agnostic person whose spirituality falls under the vague wording of "buddhist-leaning transcendental pluralist", which if you can't figure out, means that I more or less think everybody's ok in what they believe. Yeah, here I might as well be the Antichrist, but if Conservapedia has any sense, they'll realize that I'm not out to vandalize or anything - this account is just to ask rational questions about valid issues, including potential copyright (GFDL) violations on Conservapedia (of Wikipedia). I do not condone the attacks against Wikipedia that are presented at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and other places, but I'd like to be reasonable and merely comment, not criticize. I know that this account will violate the 90/10 rule, but I hope that you, Conservapedia administrators, can be reasonable and not block it for that reason alone - all I want is to comment, and I'm announcing any bias I have. Regardless of Conservapedia's copyright, I consider my contributions to Conservapedia to be multi-licensed into the public domain if at all possible.