Changes

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized (view source)

Revision as of 07:46, December 8, 2019

7 bytes added , 07:46, December 8, 2019

m

no edit summary

Line 75: Line 75:

#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by its unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref> Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.

# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]

−

#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.

+

# Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles—the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.

−

#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>

+

# Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>

−

#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,

+

# Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,

1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>

−

#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>

+

# Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>

−

#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>

+

# Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>

−

#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>

+

# Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>

−

#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>

+

# Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>

#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref name="aina.org">http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref name="aina.org"/> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>

−

#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>

+

# A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"—is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>

−

#Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink—considered by many as "[[radical left-wing]]". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "[[far-left]]" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.

+

# Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink—considered by many as "[[radical left-wing]]". Any attempts to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs. So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink</ref> The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "[[far-left]]" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics.

−

#For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.

+

# For a time, a search for the [[Watergate]] informant [[Deep Throat]] would take a viewer directly to the article about the pornographic film of the same name. Included in this article were explicit images related to the film. A reader needed to click the link at the top of the article to be taken to the page about the whistleblower. However, this has since been changed and "Deep Throat" takes a reader to the historical figure's article with a link to the film.

#Many Wikipedia editors regard it as just a big online game with very complicated rules. So much so that as a fundraising project, they are designing a card game where the players will win "centijimbos" points. The card game rules continue to be debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules|title=Rules|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=July 23, 2012}}</ref>

# Wikipedia has a page called American war crimes, which is an article that accuses American soldiers and is seething with anti-American hatred and prejudice, as is often seen in the war crimes by country categories on Wikipedia.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/american_war_crimes] and places the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the category of "American war crimes" even though it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and the Japanese would just not simply have surrendered if the US hadn't done so, the fanatical Japanese would have fought on the death. This act is despicably labeled as a war crime by the editors of Wikipedia and their far-left "historians" who blatant anti-American propaganda passed off as scholarship. when other people were bombing cities like the Japanese were. It does not place the bombings of Shanghai and Nanking in the categories of "Japanese war crimes" which they were bombing innocent civilians. Wikipedia shows its selective outrage of "American war crimes" and uses these war crimes categories to carry prejudice and hate towards other countries by accusing them of war crimes.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:american_war_crimes</ref>

# Liberals loathe patriotism and nationalism and sense of deep national identity and this is evident in this article. This article is typical left-wing contempt for people that have a deep belief in their country by labeling it as a myth and propaganda, reflecting the self-hatred of their own country by many on the far-left and the academic far-left Marxist scholars hatred for nation-states and people's sense of identity. Wikipedia does its utmost to bash patriotism and nationalism by labeling the ideas of nationalism and nationalism as based on pseudo myths, but says nothing about the Communist Marxist ideology being a "myth" of the lower classes rising against the upper classes or the many myths in Communism. Wikipedia presents these scholars as "truth tellers" Communist tinted historiography is presented as factual, whereas historiography that has a deep love of country, written to convey a sense of identity and beliefs in their country as a love of their own identity and shares a deep sense of history for their nation, is presented as "pseudohistory" "propaganda" "lies" and mythology written as national myths. Liberals use this to bash our nation's founding principles. The bias is pervasive enough to label people's patriotic beliefs as "national myths." in this article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth] it this article, it labels a nation's beliefs about liberation from colonialism as mythology based on lies and propaganda. Wikipedia articles like these advanced by left-wing anti-patriotic anti-nation state academics are common on the site. Wikipedia articles label patriotism and belief in one's culture as a myth and propaganda, which it's not. The national myths article is an outright bashing of people's patriotic beliefs in their own nation, with the pejorative label of "myth" and Wikipedia presents history that has a love of country and love of people written in it as "mythology" and "myth-making" and "propaganda" which it is not. Wikipedia's obvious contempt for patriotism and national identity is rampant throughout the site. Even insulting the ideas of nation-states to promote their pseudo-intellectualism.

−

#Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>

+

# Wikipedia labels deep belief in one's country and history that expresses a love of that country and proud of its identity as lies, propaganda, and mythology concocted by liars and presents national belief in one's identity as "propaganda" and blatantly mocks it. Reflecting the obvious liberal hatred of patriotism and nationalism by many Wikipedia editors. This is typical left-wing hatred of people's identities as part of the Marxist agenda to discredit patriotism and unite everyone under a socialist banner by undermining a nation's deep love of itself and patriotism, by labeling it with the pejorative term of "myth" and labeling it to propaganda to promote their agenda.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth|title=National myth|date=August 20, 2011|accessdate=August 20, 2012}}</ref>

# The Wikipedia article on Philip Roth's novel ''The Human Stain''<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=513423255&oldid=508328139 difference between the pre-New Yorker Letter and post-New Yorker Letter versions].</ref> mistakenly stated that the book was based on the real-life story of Anatole Broyard, an author and book critic who was of mixed race but identified as being white. Roth denied that this was true and had his representative request that Wikipedia correct the mistake. In response, a Wikipedia administrator said, "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work… but we require secondary sources." Roth posted his complaint on the ''New Yorker Magazine'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/philip-roth/|title=An Open Letter to Wikipedia|author=Philip Roth|work=New Yorker|date=September 7, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref> Using that as a source, Wikipedia corrected the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/philip-roths-complaint-wikipedia-is-wrong/|work=ABC News|title=Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong|first=Russell|last=Goldman|date=September 10, 2012|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/09/09/philip-roth-spars-with-wikipedia-via-the-new-yorker/|title=Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker|date=September 9, 2012|work=Forbes|accessdate=September 18, 2012}}</ref>

#Although Wikipedia is supposed to avoid making subjective, normative judgments, editors frequently paint over criticisms or controversies by rewriting sentences replacing less flattering adjectives with the word "popular."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=526219701</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=prev&oldid=526978735</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=502678389</ref> When a Wikipedia editor writes that something is popular, he means that he personally likes it rather than reporting on some public opinion survey.

Line 98: Line 98:

# Although the bizarre and disturbing opening ceremony of the [[Gotthard Base Tunnel]] in [[Switzerland]] on June 1, 2016 was widely reported by the media, it was removed from the tunnel's Wikipedia article for allegedly violating several site policies.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&diff=prev&oldid=756946920</ref>

# When Wikipedia editor Ad Orientem was nominated to Wikipedia adminship, numerous editors opposed his nomination mainly because he mentioned that systematic leftist bias existed on Wikipedia (he made the comment as a side note to a larger point). Additionally, his comment and his position on that issue was quite mild and reasonable. The other editors had no real reason to oppose him in regard to systematic bias on Wikipedia. Despite the large number of oppose votes, Ad Orientem's nomination was ultimately successful.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ad_Orientem&oldid=756550905</ref>

−

# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris on February 2017.<ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref> Furthermore, it is worth to note that ~~a user~~ who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story, as such this can be construed as a textbook example of the "[[Streisand effect]]". The ~~user~~ in question has likely long since succumbed to kidney cancer.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/8hxsh7/rwikipediaafdwatch_is_up_for_adoption/</ref>

+

# Besides that, there are significant numbers of editors at Wikipedia who advocate selective coverage and removal of articles seen by them as "unnecessary or highly substandard". They are known as "deletionists" who usually abuse Wikipedia's "Articles for Deletion" or "Speedy Deletion" feature to [[Censorship|exclude any other viewpoints they don't like]] by nominating the pertaining articles/pages up for deletion. Even [[liberals]] like transgender journalist Andrea James have spoken out against this hubris on February 2017.<ref>http://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html</ref> Furthermore, it is worth to note that an editor who goes by the name "Bugmenot123123123" has written a lengthy post on [[Reddit]] detailing his experience with the deletionist editors (including users "Coltsfan" and "Calton") who frustrated him by marking his first articles for deletion before he was blocked indefinitely by a Wikipedia administrator under dubious circumstances. Since then he has reached out to Andrea James about his story, as such this can be construed as a textbook example of the "[[Streisand effect]]". The editor in question has likely long since succumbed to kidney cancer.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/</ref><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/8hxsh7/rwikipediaafdwatch_is_up_for_adoption/</ref>

−

# [[BuzzFeed]] has regularly been debunked as fake news and satire. However, the [[Wikipedia]] article on ~~[[BuzzFeed]]~~<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BuzzFeed&oldid=786931798</ref> has very little if any mention of this if any and absolutely zero direct mention of this, only about a bunch of random plagiarism accusations. The article discussed BuzzFeed printing the full text of the alleged dossier on [[Donald Trump]]. In contrast, the [[Wikipedia]] article for [[Alex Jones]],<ref name=jones>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=786853916</ref> who is the head of [[InfoWars]], says in the final sentence of the first paragraph, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.", and the InfoWars section of the Alex Jones article says, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled by media outlets as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16] Infowars editor is Paul Joseph Watson, who also occasionally guest hosts or co-hosts Jones' radio program."<ref name=jones/>

+

# [[BuzzFeed]] has regularly been debunked as fake news and satire. However, the [[Wikipedia]] article on that<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BuzzFeed&oldid=786931798</ref> has very little if any mention of this if any and absolutely zero direct mention of this, only about a bunch of random plagiarism accusations. The article discussed BuzzFeed printing the full text of the alleged dossier on [[Donald Trump]]. In contrast, the [[Wikipedia]] article for [[Alex Jones]],<ref name=jones>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=786853916</ref> who is the head of [[InfoWars]], says in the final sentence of the first paragraph, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.", and the InfoWars section of the Alex Jones article says, "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled by media outlets as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16] Infowars editor is Paul Joseph Watson, who also occasionally guest hosts or co-hosts Jones' radio program."<ref name=jones/>

# After the [[Mueller Investigation]] concluded President Trump did not commit any crime, Wikipedia editors downplayed that finding.<ref>Adler, T.D. (April 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/12/wikipedia-editors-post-fake-news-on-summary-of-mueller-probe/ Wikipedia Editors Post Fake News on Summary of Mueller Probe]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 12, 2019.</ref>

# Wikipedia editors censored several examples of left-wing violence, including [[Antifa]]'s attack on [[Andy Ngo]] and a violent anti-ICE attack in Tacoma.<ref>Adler, T.D. (July 18, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/18/wikipedia-editors-protect-antifa-by-censoring-andy-ngo-assault-ice-attack/ Wikipedia Editors Protect Antifa by Censoring Andy Ngo Assault, ICE Attack]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 18, 2019.</ref>

SamSamson

76

edits