User talk:JZambrano/WhyILeftWikipedia

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

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

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

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

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