The French Revolution and the Reign of Terror was such a good idea until Napoleon came along.
Charles Bell
Wikipedia is a wildly popular online encyclopedia that anyone can edit
-- and in some cases, sabotage with misinformation and libelous or
politically slanted content.
Its co-founder, Jimmy Wales, has explicitly stated that he doesn't
make any distinction between the contributions of an Ivy League
professor and a bright 16-year-old, as long as the 16-year-old is
doing good work.
Whenever a student in the English-speaking world hears the name of an
American politician for the first time, he or she is likely to run a
Google search on the name. The first, second or third Internet page
produced by such a search is often the Wikipedia biography about the
public figure.
Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the Internet, with over
2 million page views per day. Because Wikipedia articles are mirrored
on other sites such as Answer.com, the number of daily hits on
articles written by Wikipedia editors is about 2.6 million per day.
Editing decisions are made not by a team of experts in a given
subject, but by a consensus of whoever shows up to edit the article.
Many have written about the failures inherent in this system.
Knowledge vs. Agenda
Some of the most pithy critiques are from Ikkyu2, a board-certified
neurologist and clinical epilepsy specialist whose peer-reviewable
work on Wikipedia's "Epilepsy" article kept getting messed up by
others who, to put it kindly, did not share his level of expertise.
There have also been several publicized examples of staff members for
Democrats in Congress, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Tom Harkin,
Sen. Joe Biden and Rep. Marty Meehan, "airbrushing" or spiffing up
their bosses' Wikipedia articles.
Wikipedia traced Capitol Hill IP addresses contributing to their site
and found the source of the airbrushing, as well as vandalism of
articles about Republicans including Rick Santorum and George W. Bush.
Staff members of a few Republicans, including Sen. Norm Coleman, have
also done some airbrushing.
Accusations of libel have also peppered Wikipedia's recent history. A
former staffer for Robert F. Kennedy, John Siegenthaler Sr., attacked
Wikipedia in print for "false and malicious" content when he learned
that for 132 days in 2005, his biography said "he was thought to have
been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and
his brother Bobby."
Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller sued a Miami firm, alleging that libelous
statements about him that appeared in his Wikipedia biography were
posted from a computer at that firm. The statements claimed that he
had abused drugs and alcohol, and committed domestic battery.
"Courts have clearly said you have to go after the source of the
information," said Zoeller's attorney, Scott Sheftall. "The Zoeller
family wants to take a stand to put a stop to this. Otherwise, we're
all just victims of the Internet vandals out there. They ought not to
be able to act with impunity."
Who's Minding the Store?
Wikipedia's Site management simply doesn't have the manpower to
supervise 1 million editors. But perhaps the worst failings of
Wikipedia arise not from its Capitol Hill visitors, its libel-
mongering vandals or its editorial policies, but from the people who
have risen to positions that grant the power to interpret and enforce
those policies.
A scandal involving academic fraud recently brought unwanted
notoriety. A 24-year-old community college dropout from Kentucky
passed himself off for years as "Essjay," a lecturing professor with a
doctorate in divinity, supporting his claims with quotations from
"Catholicism for Dummies."
This case has been presented by most of the mainstream media as if it
is somehow unique. It is neither unique nor surprising, given the
leadership at Wikipedia.
"Essjay" was serving on the 13-member Arbitration Committee, which
serves as a kind of Wikipedian Supreme Court. Its senior member, 60-
year-old Fred Bauder, describes himself as a "retired lawyer" living
in Colorado, but the truth is that in 1997 he was officially censured
for inappropriate activities.
Aside from Bauder, the average age of an Arbitration Committee member
is around 22. The committee, and the 1,000 or so administrators who
enforce their rulings, appear to include a disproportionate number of
high school and college students.
As a result of Wikipedia's open-door policy, hordes of political
partisans have flocked to the site from such liberal Web sites as
MoveOn.org and Daily Kos, and made it their "turf."
The Left Takes Over
Newcomers who try to put Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" into
practice on sensitive political subjects are often shouted down, or
baited into committing rules infractions that lead to a lifetime ban.
Wikipedia members from Democratic Underground and MoveOn.org have the
power, the numbers and the seniority. They can win any argument about
content, either through mob tactics or a well-placed block by a
friendly administrator. The rules and policies form an online
minefield, and they derive immense satisfaction from baiting newbies
into that minefield.
Editors are recruited from Democratic Underground. The author of the
recruiting drive, Ben Burch, is the Webmaster of a site whose motto is
"Fighting the Rise of the New Fascism."
Articles about politically delicate subjects such as the war in Iraq,
the dismissal of seven U.S. attorneys, and Republican politicians and
conservative organizations have been turned into hatchet jobs.
Take the case of Republican Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico. Several
years ago her husband, Jay Hone, was accused of molesting a teenage
boy. Until March 5, the accusation was blared loudly in a boldfaced
headline in Rep. Wilson's Wikipedia biography: "Husband Jay Hone's
hidden file on alleged sexual harassment of male minor."
But the fact that Hone was thoroughly investigated and cleared of any
wrongdoing didn't make it into the article at all. The biography has
now been amended to remove any reference to the charge.
Then there's Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo. Until March 4, his
Wikipedia biography strongly hinted that Tancredo's congressional
office falsely reported a bomb threat during a visit to South Florida,
which was scheduled to include a gathering at a local restaurant:
"While it was first reported by South Florida media that the
congressman had received a bomb threat, Miami Police detectives stated
they were not treating it as such, and the [restaurant] denied any
such report."
Eventually it was revealed that the bomb threat was actually reported
by the restaurant's manager, and it was removed from the article.
Early in 2006, Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska was another Republican
lawmaker whose Wikipedia biography was vandalized. Terry was falsely
accused of domestic violence.
The problems at Wikipedia are many-layered, and yet it thrives as the
most popular reference source on the Internet.
Most people accept information that is at their fingertips and don't
take the time to check original sources. Thus the information
superhighway offers everyone access to the same often inaccurate and
biased information.
1Z
> Some of the most pithy critiques are from Ikkyu2, a board-certified
> neurologist and clinical epilepsy specialist whose peer-reviewable
> work on Wikipedia's "Epilepsy" article kept getting messed up by
> others who, to put it kindly, did not share his level of expertise.
Bring on the climate deniers who have any expertise.
Facts have a liberal bias.
Sorry.
Charles Bell
> Bring on the climate deniers who have any expertise.
>
And fudge-factor scientists should have their pooter-shoots plugged in
prison.
acar
much for the
so called "agenda".
.
.
.
.
Charles Bell
> The founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, is an admirer of Ayn Rand. So
> much for the
> so called "agenda".
The only agenda going on is of leftist totalitarians taking advantage
of anarchy (or minarchy) as they always do. Hence, the subject line.
Malrassic Park
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the Internet, with over
>2 million page views per day. Because Wikipedia articles are mirrored
>on other sites such as Answer.com, the number of daily hits on
>articles written by Wikipedia editors is about 2.6 million per day.
"Sickipedia" IS one of the greatest porn sites of all time. There are
absolutely no parental ratings for the site, yet any 5-year old
watching his teenaged sister can view the Ejaculation page video of a
human male ejaculating.
I wonder if it's a video of Jimmy Wales trying to dredge up some more
support money?
Malrassic Park
<male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:51:21 -0800, Charles Bell
><cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the Internet, with over
>>2 million page views per day. Because Wikipedia articles are mirrored
>>on other sites such as Answer.com, the number of daily hits on
..
>"Sickipedia" IS one of the greatest porn sites of all time. There are
>absolutely no parental ratings for the site, yet any 5-year old
>watching his teenaged sister can view the Ejaculation page video of a
>human male ejaculating.
..
>I wonder if it's a video of Jimmy Wales trying to dredge up some more
>support money?
I forgot to mention that the page I mentioned above is locked against
editing, and debate over the video has been censored. In other words,
any attempt to censor or even debate censoring open pornography on a
site open to all has been censored.
Charles Bell
> I forgot to mention that the page I mentioned above is locked against
> editing, and debate over the video has been censored. In other words,
> any attempt to censor or even debate censoring open pornography on a
> site open to all has been censored.
There is a distinction to be drawn between physiologically graphic and
pornographic, the former being a bit too instructive and the latter
being designed to arouse lust. It is a bit of a odd person who would
find that video "arousing". A middle-aged, pudgy, male narcissistic
onanist, perhaps? However, I agree that there are many things on the
internet that cannot be age-specific censored when they ought to be,
though, again, I think the very young would find that video "gross"
and not arousing and sexually effectual.
However, I have to say my entry in Wikipedia as a Regency-era Scottish
surgeon and scholar is wonderful.
1Z
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:40:19 -0800, Malrassic Park
> I forgot to mention that the page I mentioned above is locked against
> editing, and debate over the video has been censored. In other words,
> any attempt to censor or even debate censoring open pornography on a
> site open to all has been censored.
That WP is open to all is one of its guidelines. That
it is not censored is another. It works like democracy
within constitutional constraints, as opposed to pure democracy.
1Z
This is neutrality itself of course:
Charles Bell
Notice the name. It implies a bias, for good or ill, as according to
one's POV. The trouble with the MSM and now wikipedia, outside of
statistics on the population of Peru, for example, there is a facade
of neutrality in front of overt propaganda or an incoherent mess of
conflicting POV's impinging on the presentation.
1Z
> Notice the name. �It implies a bias, for good or ill, as according to
> one's POV. �The trouble with the MSM and now wikipedia, outside of
> statistics on the population of Peru, for example, there is a facade
> of neutrality in front of overt propaganda or an incoherent mess of
> conflicting POV's impinging on the presentation.
or neutrality looks like prejudice to the prejudiced
Malrassic Park
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 2:44�pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
..
>> I forgot to mention that the page I mentioned above is locked against
>> editing, and debate over the video has been censored. In other words,
>> any attempt to censor or even debate censoring open pornography on a
>> site open to all has been censored.
..
>There is a distinction to be drawn between physiologically graphic and
>pornographic,
However "pornography" is defined, I did mention a 5-year-old possibly
looking over the teenaged sister's shoulder at that page. So you're
saying you would allow your under-10 children to view that page,
assuming you have any such children.
Malrassic Park
I know the Wiki philosophy. Here's the dealio regarding that comment.
Wikipedia philosophy is a product of British culture, and other
cultures may not appreciate the ideas emanating from that culture.
China, for example, has attempted to block out Wikipedia (but their
filter is too easy to bypass).
Charles Bell
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:05:25 -0800, Charles Bell
> >There is a distinction to be drawn between physiologically graphic and
> >pornographic,
>
> However "pornography" is defined, I did mention a 5-year-old possibly
> looking over the teenaged sister's shoulder at that page. So you're
> saying you would allow your under-10 children to view that page,
> assuming you have any such children.
I don't feel comfortable presenting that information in that way even
to a ten year old, but I also believe it not to be "pornographic" or
harmful in any way other than making me feel uncomfortable, such as
having once to explain the word "rape" to a ten year old boy because
he heard it somewhere. Frankly, as is the point of this thread, I
feel far more harm is done to children, through college age, by the
dissemination of leftist propaganda through Wikipedia.
Malrassic Park
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 8:18�pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:05:25 -0800, Charles Bell
..
>> >There is a distinction to be drawn between physiologically graphic and
>> >pornographic,
..
>> However "pornography" is defined, I did mention a 5-year-old possibly
>> looking over the teenaged sister's shoulder at that page. So you're
>> saying you would allow your under-10 children to view that page,
>> assuming you have any such children.
..
>I don't feel comfortable presenting that information in that way even
>to a ten year old, but I also believe it not to be "pornographic" or
>harmful in any way other than making me feel uncomfortable, such as
>having once to explain the word "rape" to a ten year old boy because
>he heard it somewhere. Frankly, as is the point of this thread, I
>feel far more harm is done to children, through college age, by the
>dissemination of leftist propaganda through Wikipedia.
Of course one porno page on that site isn't going to make that kind of
difference. We all know this. All I'm saying is that it can make that
kind of difference.
And anyway, many people would view that page as pornographic,
furthermore, many women, gay males, and certain teenaged girls will
view it positively as a turn-on. So you were wrong to pick and choose
your example of "the teenaged girls you know would view it as gross,"
and to use yourself as an example of someone who doesn't get turned on
by it therefore it isn't pornographic to you.
Can you be any more subjectivist or relativistic than that?
1Z
> I know the Wiki philosophy. Here's the dealio regarding that comment.
> Wikipedia philosophy is a product of British culture,
Well Schlafly doesn't think it's American enough. Obviously
US-centric=neutral
>and other
> cultures may not appreciate the ideas emanating from that culture.
> China, for example, has attempted to block out Wikipedia (but their
> filter is too easy to bypass).
That's a complement to WP
Charles Bell
> or neutrality looks like prejudice to the prejudiced
Or a lie is still a lie to computer programmers who believe in fudge-
factor science.