Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wikipedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(347 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Sources==
+
[[Talk:Wikipedia/archive1|Archive 1]]
−
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..." 
+
=Page archived=
−
How ridiculous.  How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
+
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 15:15, 21 December 2011 (EST)
−
(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)
+
== GFDL issue is dubious ==
  
−
Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
+
Out of caution, I did not remove the section outright as I planned to do, but I would like to raise this issue on the talk page.
  
−
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
+
Could someone point me to the specific provisions of the GFDL that '''require''' Wikipedia to continue making content available to the public once it has been published online? If Wikipedia deletes content or otherwise makes it unavailable, I don't see any obligation for them to continue providing texts and attributions required by distribution of that text.  Further, the anti-DRM provisions are aimed at reusers who want to deny downstream persons the rights of the GFDL, and I don't think Wikipedia is opposed to sites mirroring deleted content.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:11, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
  
−
== "Controversy" ==
+
== Source does not demonstrate that Wikipedia is "left-wing communist", there are right-wing editors who edit there and evidence shown on Wikipedia on mass killings by communist regimes. Why is this not being accounted for? ==
  
−
This 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)
+
This link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm was used as a source to say that Wikipedia is "left-wing communist". Nowhere in the source does it say that Wikipedia is "left-wing" or "communist". There are conservative and right-wing editors who work on Wikipedia, why are the contributions of conservative and right-wing editors on Wikipedia not acknowledged here?.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 11:28, 3 August 2012 (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)
+
The claim ignores material like this:, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conservative_Wikipedians or this article titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes" at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes which is obviously not pro-communist but shows that communist regimes have committed mass murder. Why is info like this not accounted for?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 11:43, 3 August 2012 (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)
+
== -Nazi ==
  
−
:::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)
+
I see no evidence & not citations to prove that Wikipedia has Nazi influence.  Liberalism / Progressivism should be apparent, but not Nazi.  I suggest delete the term Nazi. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 18:01, 13 August 2016 (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.
+
== Citation 1, First sentence. ==
  
−
=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
+
The first citation does not support that Wikipedia is funded by "left-leaning foundations" and an "aggressive" annual fundraising drive. I would recommend modifying the statement alike to "Wikipedia is an online wiki-based encyclopedia hosted and owned by the non-profit organization Wikimedia Foundation and financially supported by grants from corporations like Apple and Amazon plus an annual online fundraising drive." (https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-just-donated-1-million-to-wikipedia-2018-9) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/?utm_term=.ef32d2b129ca). If I have formatted or written something incorrect/incorrectly inform me for future reference. {{unsigned|GenericGman}}
−
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?
+
:The link cited the fundraising part, though it's now a dead link (link rot). The "left-leaning" part can be plainly observed, so I don't think a citation is needed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:47, 20 January 2019 (EST)
  
−
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.
+
==Patrick Byrne==
 +
Patrick Byrne, cited in this article, resurfaces (related to the Russia collusion/[[Maria Butina]]/[[NRA]] case). [https://saraacarter.com/russia-probe-twist-a-billion-dollar-ceo-a-convicted-russian-agent-and-the-fbi/ Russia Probe Twist: A Billion Dollar CEO, A Convicted Russian Agent And The FBI.] Byrne gave [https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Naked_short_selling permission to publish his article for CP here].  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:30, 29 July 2019 (EDT)
  
−
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)
+
:I had communicated with Patrick Byrne in 2008 through gmail; I cannot access his Fox Business interview today through Google, Twitter, or the Fox News website. I did get it [https://finance.yahoo.com/video/former-overstock-ceo-patrick-byrne-215248855.html from Yahoo Finance]. The interview is worth watching.
  
−
:" 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)
+
:Google algorithms evidently are already in place to disrupt electronic communications between "like minded" individuals in advancxe of the 2020 elections. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:18, 22 August 2019 (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)
+
== Commercial and government backing of WP ==
  
−
:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
+
Here is an interesting piece, which might be useful as a reference: [https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wikipedia-disinformation-operation] --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:50, 10 March 2020 (EDT)
  
−
::Have you ever read the story, Dave?  The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|&lt;&lt;-David R-&gt;&gt;]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
+
==Does it really have a leftist bias on talk pages?==
 +
I would dispute this article's claim that Wikipedia has a leftist bias on talk pages. I left a note on the talk page of the article on [[Margaret Thatcher]], saying that Margaret Thatcher was arguably the worst Prime Minister ever to have occupied Number Ten Downing Street, and this was soon removed. I also pointed out on the talk page of the Wikipedia article on the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom that although the Conservatives are meant to stand for freedom, you'll often find it is the ones who are Conservative who take freedom away from others. This too got removed. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 11:57, 9 June 2020 (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.
+
== Wikipedia IS Left ==
 +
I put the facts that Joe Biden praises China and I just got banned forever for doing that, so I will come here. Thanks. [[User:Punish China|Punish China]]
  
−
::::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.
+
==Bigoted falsehoods==
 +
[[User:Conservative]], in his war on atheism, falsely claimed, without evidence, that Wikipedia co-founder [[Larry Sanger]] was an atheist. In so doing, he tried to link Sanger to [[bestiality]]. Sanger was never an atheist. Unfortunately, Conservapedia's credibility and reputation was damaged when the false claim was repeated in [https://therightscoop.com/why-should-a-conservative-bother-using-wikipedia/ conservative media.]  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 01:40, August 4, 2024 (EDT)
  
−
::::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)
+
Will [[User:Conservative]] apologize to Mr. Sanger and the [[Conservapedia]] community for the harm he has done in his exuberance to slam his personal enemies as "atheists", people who are practitioners or tolerant of bestiality, fat atheists, or if they believe in God, then merely "obese"? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 03:26, August 4, 2024 (EDT)
  
−
:::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)
+
:Let the record show it's been 4 days with no response regarding false information in [[Conservapedia]]'s 5th most visited page, despite the offending party having been active in the interim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 21:28, August 8, 2024 (EDT)
  
−
==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
+
:When Sanger left Wikipedia, he took a lot of wiki developers and experienced editors with him. In 2020, Sanger published ''God Exists''. We could have asked Sanger and his following for help, but [[User:Conservative]], in his zeal to [[demonize]] anyone he perceives as a "fat atheist", has probably made that difficult if not impossible. And User:Conservative's refusal now to accept responsibility for his errors and the damage he has caused to Conservapedia and its reputation only underscores how much of an uncooperative editor he has been, and remains. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The Truth. Just Putin It Out There'']]</sup> 06:48, August 9, 2024 (EDT)
−
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)
 
−
 
 
−
==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)
 
−
 
 
−
==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)
 

Latest revision as of 10:52, August 9, 2024

Archive 1

Page archived

JonM 15:15, 21 December 2011 (EST)

GFDL issue is dubious

Out of caution, I did not remove the section outright as I planned to do, but I would like to raise this issue on the talk page.

Could someone point me to the specific provisions of the GFDL that require Wikipedia to continue making content available to the public once it has been published online? If Wikipedia deletes content or otherwise makes it unavailable, I don't see any obligation for them to continue providing texts and attributions required by distribution of that text. Further, the anti-DRM provisions are aimed at reusers who want to deny downstream persons the rights of the GFDL, and I don't think Wikipedia is opposed to sites mirroring deleted content. GregG 17:11, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Source does not demonstrate that Wikipedia is "left-wing communist", there are right-wing editors who edit there and evidence shown on Wikipedia on mass killings by communist regimes. Why is this not being accounted for?

This link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm was used as a source to say that Wikipedia is "left-wing communist". Nowhere in the source does it say that Wikipedia is "left-wing" or "communist". There are conservative and right-wing editors who work on Wikipedia, why are the contributions of conservative and right-wing editors on Wikipedia not acknowledged here?.--TheQuestioner 11:28, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

The claim ignores material like this:, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conservative_Wikipedians or this article titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes" at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes which is obviously not pro-communist but shows that communist regimes have committed mass murder. Why is info like this not accounted for?--TheQuestioner 11:43, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

-Nazi

I see no evidence & not citations to prove that Wikipedia has Nazi influence. Liberalism / Progressivism should be apparent, but not Nazi. I suggest delete the term Nazi. (Thunkful2 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2016 (EDT))

Citation 1, First sentence.

The first citation does not support that Wikipedia is funded by "left-leaning foundations" and an "aggressive" annual fundraising drive. I would recommend modifying the statement alike to "Wikipedia is an online wiki-based encyclopedia hosted and owned by the non-profit organization Wikimedia Foundation and financially supported by grants from corporations like Apple and Amazon plus an annual online fundraising drive." (https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-just-donated-1-million-to-wikipedia-2018-9) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/?utm_term=.ef32d2b129ca). If I have formatted or written something incorrect/incorrectly inform me for future reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenericGman (talk)

The link cited the fundraising part, though it's now a dead link (link rot). The "left-leaning" part can be plainly observed, so I don't think a citation is needed. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2019 (EST)

Patrick Byrne

Patrick Byrne, cited in this article, resurfaces (related to the Russia collusion/Maria Butina/NRA case). Russia Probe Twist: A Billion Dollar CEO, A Convicted Russian Agent And The FBI. Byrne gave permission to publish his article for CP here. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:30, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

I had communicated with Patrick Byrne in 2008 through gmail; I cannot access his Fox Business interview today through Google, Twitter, or the Fox News website. I did get it from Yahoo Finance. The interview is worth watching.
Google algorithms evidently are already in place to disrupt electronic communications between "like minded" individuals in advancxe of the 2020 elections. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:18, 22 August 2019 (EDT)

Commercial and government backing of WP

Here is an interesting piece, which might be useful as a reference: [1] --DavidB4 (TALK) 16:50, 10 March 2020 (EDT)

Does it really have a leftist bias on talk pages?

I would dispute this article's claim that Wikipedia has a leftist bias on talk pages. I left a note on the talk page of the article on Margaret Thatcher, saying that Margaret Thatcher was arguably the worst Prime Minister ever to have occupied Number Ten Downing Street, and this was soon removed. I also pointed out on the talk page of the Wikipedia article on the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom that although the Conservatives are meant to stand for freedom, you'll often find it is the ones who are Conservative who take freedom away from others. This too got removed. Carltonio (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

Wikipedia IS Left

I put the facts that Joe Biden praises China and I just got banned forever for doing that, so I will come here. Thanks. Punish China

Bigoted falsehoods

User:Conservative, in his war on atheism, falsely claimed, without evidence, that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger was an atheist. In so doing, he tried to link Sanger to bestiality. Sanger was never an atheist. Unfortunately, Conservapedia's credibility and reputation was damaged when the false claim was repeated in conservative media. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 01:40, August 4, 2024 (EDT)

Will User:Conservative apologize to Mr. Sanger and the Conservapedia community for the harm he has done in his exuberance to slam his personal enemies as "atheists", people who are practitioners or tolerant of bestiality, fat atheists, or if they believe in God, then merely "obese"? RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 03:26, August 4, 2024 (EDT)

Let the record show it's been 4 days with no response regarding false information in Conservapedia's 5th most visited page, despite the offending party having been active in the interim. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 21:28, August 8, 2024 (EDT)
When Sanger left Wikipedia, he took a lot of wiki developers and experienced editors with him. In 2020, Sanger published God Exists. We could have asked Sanger and his following for help, but User:Conservative, in his zeal to demonize anyone he perceives as a "fat atheist", has probably made that difficult if not impossible. And User:Conservative's refusal now to accept responsibility for his errors and the damage he has caused to Conservapedia and its reputation only underscores how much of an uncooperative editor he has been, and remains. RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 06:48, August 9, 2024 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&oldid=2071252"