Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wikipedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(294 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{vc}}==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)
 
−
 
 
−
::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. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 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)
 
−
 
 
−
== 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.-'''<font color="#007FFF">[[user:AmesG|Ames]]</font><font color="#FF0000">[[user talk:AmesG|G]]</font>''' 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)
 
−
 
 
−
==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]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 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.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 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)
 

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"