Skip to comments.Anti-Pinochet bias on en.wikipedia
Posted on 12/25/2004 10:16:07 AM PST by Critto
I'm an active participant in wikipedia. Generally, it's a wonderful project that allows people to share their knowledge and find some more. There are, however, things that make me feel disappointed and disgusted.
The biggest problem there is bias. As there are many leftists out there, they tend to show the history in a way that is favorable to them. Not only that they write the biased articles, where all achievements of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan (RIP) or Augusto Pinochet are belittled, and the alleged "achievements" of the socialist and communist governments are applauded; some of them also do make attempts to silence the dissenting views.
Such is the case of the articles related to Pinochet, his Coup and Miracle of Chile. Just take a look at the following pages: "Augusto Pinochet" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet) and "Miracle of Chile" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile), read their history (each page has its own history of changes) and you will find, that: 1. any mention of facts that might be seen as favorable for Pinochet is being removed each time they show up, 2. any links that might be seen as defending or supporting the stance of General are being removed each time they show up.
Only the anti-Pinochet, pro-leftist sources are allowed to stay. Talking about the article called "Augusto Pinochet", one wikipedian has removed all links to the sources that put General in a good light (put by me and some other folks), and left only the ones as "Crimes of General Augusto Pinochet". The reason for removal (inserted in the comments accompanying each change)? He (or she) finds them "biased"! Biased! And the anti-Pinochet pieces are left as the "reliable sources"!
The case of the article on "Miracle of Chile" is even worse. Few months ago, I found there some allegations that the rule of Pinochet caused the real wages to drop by 40%. Well, I have made some research and found out, that while it might have been true, it was because Allende has artificially raised them by 39% before. So, believing in the wikipedian ideas of NPOV (Neutral Point of View), I put my findings on those facts on this page, accompanied with two links (one to its source and the second to Liga Chilena Anti-Comunista). What a suprise, when few months after (namely: yesterday, 24. of December ) I found it COMPLETELY DELETED! The only external link left alone was ... Greg Palast's anti-capitalist book "The best democracy money can buy". My information on Allende artificially raising the wages was totally removed, too; only the allegation that Pinochet's rule caused the fall in wages by 40% was left intact. The reason behind it? "well, we should make some consensus, or else, we will have the never-ending counter-counter-criticism havoc". Well, so why not delete the sources favorable to the leftist point of view?
Now I'm deliberating, what does removal of sources and silencing of the other side has to do in common with any research, truth, skepticism? Must wikipedia ultimately become the den of leftists? Take a look at the articles on communism, Mao Ze Dong, Lenin, October Revolution, and the famine in Ukraine, too. You will find -- if not in their current versions, then in their histories -- even some attempts of denial of the communist crimes that were found out to be true many years ago, or the efforts to belittle them or to justify them in some way.
I think that it's very important that we, anti-communist, conservative, libertarian and classical-liberal folks put a spotlight on what's happening on wikipedia. Only the public opinion may improve things there. Please participate in their discussions and edits. Please tell your friends. Until wikipedia becomes the source of information that is actually encyclopedic, NPOV and independent, we should constantly watch the doings of contributors and right them wherever they're wrong. And tell the people to let them know this source isn't so reliable now.
In Liberty, Critto
Oh, wait. I misunderstood you. Sorry, I thought you were a troll and thoughtlessly shot from the hip. I've asked that my post be removed.
The marxists invade and detract from all good things. It's their MO.
Here is a thread from yesterday? regarding what wikipedia says about FR
My rants have had to do with the pro-AKC bias among the dog breed entries.
Even with a so-called editorial process, bias creeps in. Just look at the US "mainstream" media.
Good reply. I have found that using prejudice (in the true meaning of the word, not the left's bastardized version) and His gift of DISCERNMENT usually helps me in the understanding of almost anything.
Indeed, we are blessed with the gift of discernment of good and evil and the gift of discriminating based on those discernments. Merry Christmas.
Discriminate is the other key word I was trying to convey...alas, many braincells have departed since last night.
Discrimination is indeed a gift from Him. Too bad it's true meaning has been hijacksoned by those who would take away our freedoms of thought and true choice.
Pinochet was a fascist, pure and simple, who used summary executions to try to maintain law and order in Chile.
I don't care if, because he fought leftists, you like him. He was an indefensible bastard.
Supporting him is sort of like supporting Adolf Hitler because he fought against the Communists.
Hard to be biased against a guy who used rape as a political tool. The agrument you Pinochet groupies use is the same one the Fidelistas use to gloss over his barbarity. Both groups are despicable.
I'm curious aboutCritto here. what is the thought proces like:
hmmm, its Christmas...what should I do today...I know!, I'll go join freerepublic and post an article about wikipedia. does anyone find that just a bit on the weird side?
Amateur hour personified. The New York Slimes is often a better source.
See my #19.
The point is some critter showing up here on Christmas to post what is essentially a thinly disguised defense of a murderer/rapist and then run. Too many people here have recently either denied all crimes by Pinochet or have excused them in the name of anti-communism.
I think you are missing the point. The point is not support for Pinochet, the point is that you can't state truthful facts about Pinochet in what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia because partisans on the other side think that the truth makes Pinochet out to look better than they want.
Exactly. They put the arguments of one side and then claim it's truth, while thwarting the openness of debate. Now, after my intervention, the user Cantus who previously removed all the links that could be received as pro-Pinochet didn't do so again. In fact, he just removed few links pointing to the material describing the economic successes ... Well, I may move them to 'Miracle of Chile'. On the other hand, he put the word "truth' in the title Truth of Chile Under Salvador Allende in quotes, to suggest that it is a semi-truth or non-truth. I'm going to change that. But the fact that he hasn't just deleted my contributions again shows us, that now the leftists aren't so self-assured anymore.
I experienced the same thing there. You can't put in facts that detract from the underlying premises even if your intent is just to put in a fact (at least not without a huge freaking fight).
It seems that you are a wikipedian. Could you help me with cleaning the mess around the commie-related topics? Most of them are pro-commie, though some change can be observed: last time I've opened the article on "Khmer Rouge", it contained a clear statement that it was a criminal, murderous regime, without any justification (some wikifolks even tried to justify the mass-murderer Pol Pot). In Liberty, Critto
Wiki(d) (Encyclo)pedia. Amateur hour personified. The New York Slimes is often a better source.
Yep. But I know it may be better, if only more non-commies started to participate. We could end the leftist domination there. At least, pages on libertarianism are quite good.
No sympathy. Pinochet was a fascist, pure and simple, who used summary executions to try to maintain law and order in Chile. I don't care if, because he fought leftists, you like him. He was an indefensible bastard. Supporting him is sort of like supporting Adolf Hitler because he fought against the Communists.What you say isn't exactly the truth. While probably 3000 people died under the rule of Pinochet, more than 2000 of them were Pinochet's soldiers and supporters, who were murdered by the leftist guerilla gangs. The remaining body count of 1000 could as well be the dead commie rebels, who were killed during the battles. The alleged "heinous crimes" of Pinochet, all those fairy tales (or rather, horror stories) about Pinochet's people cutting stomaches of women and putting them into the sea full of sharks are typical leftist propaganda BS. The communists did the same in the communist country. Just find some communist sources and read about the alleged "cruelty of capitalism and capitalists". It's the same pattern of lying. In fact, Pinochet has even *saved* lives, including those of communists. For example, one Spanish commie was set to be departed to Spain, a country ruled by Franco, who had already prepared the death sentence on that person. But Pinochet hasn't agreed for the deportation (and execution), and he put this communist in prison (for few years) instead, thus saving his life. To compare Pinochet with Hitler requires either tons of ill will, or the total stupidity, or just the willingness to joke. I hope it's the last case:) And besides, fascists and nazis were socialists, too. It was another form of collectivist tyranny against the individual. In Liberty, Critto
I forgive you and hold no pretense against you. Heh, strange is our world, that a person with friendly views can be sometimes seen as an adversary ... There are too many trolls over the net to trust all people you meet online ... But it's OK with you and me. Merry Christmas !!!
Hey Critto...what country do you call home, no way you're an American, not the way you butcher the language. How about you take your Pinochet worship down to the tavern on the corner of whatever foreign street where you live.
1. If some leftist keeps inserting his point of view into an article and removing your presentation of the other side, simply put up a bias header at the top of the article! It'll alert everybody who reads it that the neutrality is disputed and sometimes make the leftist who keeps inserting his bias more cognizant of the fact that he's being watched. These headers can be removed by anybody BUT its very conspicuous when they do it unlike edits to the article text. It also puts them - not you - on the defensive because they now have to justify why the article is NOT biased and why it should be removed. If they remove it without fixing their bias, simply put it back in!
2. Get a username if you don't already have one. They literally take only two clicks to activate and you don't even have to give an email or anything else - just a name and a logon password. That's it! Getting a username gives you a couple more posting features and privileges than anonymous editors. This also makes your changes have a little more weight and gives you at least an even playing field if you get into a dispute with somebody else.
3. If you're going to edit contentious articles (i.e. the socialism stuff) pick only two or three articles to invest your time in. That makes it possible to check those articles daily or weekly and sort of police what happens to them. Doing anything more is too difficult.
4. You can setup a wikipedia feature called "Watch" that will alert you every time some leftist makes a change to the article. They do this all the time so they can screen changes by conservatives. Return the favor and give em a taste of their own medicine.
5. Use the revert feature. I think you can only do this with a username (which again is very easy to get). If they remove something relevent and factual that they don't like or insert a blatant liberal point of view comment, simply revert their changes to the previous version before they made the changes! That way you don't have to keep editing out their garbage or screening for stuff that they hide in the text.
6. Use editing labels to your advantage. If you're removing a leftist opinion disguised as factual content say so. Write "this is opinion, not content" in the message. And if they remove your contributions of facts they don't like, revert to the previous version with the comment of "Fixed vandalism by so-and-so" (name the leftist who removed it by his username).
7. Where possible avoid getting into a discussion over a contribution. Sometimes it is necessary but it should be avoided because the leftists are even more abusive in editing those than the articles themselves. They use discussions as a type of leftist inquisition to gang up on people they don't like, so the best thing is to simply ignore them when they are using them for improper purposes. If you have to discuss simply state your charges against the people who are screwing around with your posts - say "User so-and-so removed item X, which is a documented fact (see source linked here), because it conflicts with his political point of view" and leave it at that.
8. Play hardball and don't back down to their intimidations. If they keep deleting valid stuff you put in or if they keep inserting liberal opinions as fact after you take them out, CHANGE IT! Go back every day and revert the edits they make that are invalid. You have nothing to lose. After all, what's the worst they can do to ya? Call you a "right wing meanie" on the discussion section?
9. If you encounter a leftist who is particularly offensive and particularly bad at removing valid stuff and inserting his opinions, take it to the disputed point of view forums and draw attention to it. Sometimes the squeeky wheel gets the grease and if you bring attention to a liberal who is excluding everything that isn't liberal, he'll get a warning message from one of the site administrators.
10. MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL - write everything you do with a neutral viewpoint and with sources. You can insert facts that also reflect favorably on the conservative position so long as they are factual, but present them in a neutral viewpoint and wherever possible give a source. Instead of saying "Bill Clinton was an adulterous lying criminal who deserved to be impeached" say "Bill Clinton came under intense criticism in 1998 following his adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky and an investigation of him for criminal perjury that resulted in his impeachment a year later." This also puts the burden of proof on the liberal because it's harder for him to justify taking out the second sentence (which is factual and does not have a point of view even though it highlights negative episode in Clinton's life) than the first (which asserts a point of view about Clinton).