Posted on 05/29/2006 6:39:20 AM PDT by Lou Franklin
I have posted before about Wikipedia, but I just wanted to remind people to keep their kids away from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia claims to be an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." But neither of those things is true: it is not an encyclopedia and only radical liberals are allowed to edit. Sure it is *formatted* like an encyclopedia, but encyclopedias are well-researched and can be trusted to be correct. Wikipedia, on the other hand, contains lots of errors and extreme liberal bias.
Technically "anyone can edit" is correct, but as soon as you make edits, groups of homosexuals and other liberal nutjobs just remove your changes.
Who cares, you say? Take a look at their article on oral sex, for example. (I have no idea why an encyclopedia would have an article about oral sex, but that tells you something about the people who contribute to Wikipedia.) The article includes pictures of people having oral sex. I find that offensive on a site that is accessible to children, but it gets worse. Take a look at the pictures. They show a guy going down on a guy, and a woman going down on a woman. They show two women doing 69. The pictures in the oral sex article are all of homos!
People have tried to get them to remove the article or at least replace the perverted pictures with pictures of heterosexuals, but the gays won't allow it. There are too many of them so sensible editors just get their changes overwritten by all the gays.
I find the thought of some 13 year old kid reading that article extremely disturbing. I hope somebody figures out a way to tear down Wikipedia, but until then keep your kids away as best as you can.
Where would a 13 year old hear about oral sex? Mr. Clinton, any idea?
One wonders why anyone would be checking out oral sex articles on Wickedpedia anyway.
Beats me, I never even thought of looking it up. *boggles*
I seem to recall that in junior high, there was a favorite past time of vetting supposedly unabridged dictionaries for being *really* unabridged by looking up dirty words. I suspect this adolescent enthusiasm has simply spread to on-line media.
So....what did they have under "MILF"...?
I hate it when I go to pay bills online, accidentally hit the wrong key and end up reading about oral sex on wikipedia.
Moro Islamic Liberation Front? I'm sure they have an entry for that...
And yesterday, while reading FR, I kept seeing references to "Manbearpig" and since I had no idea what the hell that was, I went to Wikipedia and found out more than I really needed to know...
As I did based on your post. And yes, that's about 50 times more than I will even want to know about Manbearpig. Stopped reading after the third sentence and the 4th bullet.
Some of the Wikipedia entries - the non-political and socially neutral ones - aren't bad at all. I wouldn't dismiss the whole thing out of hand.
I'm sorry but this vanity is pretty funny. You're basically saying that parents need to keep their kids from wikipedia because of the pervasive gay influence on the site and your evidence for this is wikipedia's entry on oral sex.
"Hey, kids - this is a scaaaarry encyclopedia!"
There...I'm off the soapbox.
There’re 3 very simple small drawings, and one small decayed Greek painting that looks hetero. See for yourself. They’re probably put there by a bored gay teenager or two with too much time on his hands. I’ve found some Wikipedia articles driven by left agendas, but less than on CNN.
They weren't put there by a bored teenager. Look through the discussion history. Lots of people tried to get them removed to no avail.
How could a kid end up reading an oral sex article on Wikipedia? There are lots of ways. Wikipedia has buttons to get a "random article" and see "recent changes". A kid could easily stumble on the article that way, or even via a search engine.
A better question is why would homosexuals take the time and go to the trouble of creating a pro-gay "encyclopedia". Why do you think that is?
Thank you for the heads up!
'non-political and socially neutral'? So you're not familiar with The Science Wars. Wikipaedia is one of the battlegrounds. There is no such thing as socially neutral according to some progressives.
Plus a kid could just want to look it up. Kids do that.
You know, my first impression upon reading Wik. was not favorable. At first, I thought now who do they think they are? It's not like we don't have enough encyclopedias hanging around. Anyway, some of the entries are pretty questionable. And besides, allowing someone to change an entry is pretty ridiculous...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.