Wikipedia?? Giving it one last chance...(Vanity)

wikipedia ^ | 9.10.05 | Love Doc

[LoveDoc]

Greetings,

This is my first time creating a thread, so please be kind...

I am a conservative who's fascinated with Wikipedia. For those of you who don't know, Wikipedia is an open sourced on-line encyclopedia. In theory, anyone can contribute, add or subtract to it's contents.

I've read just about every thread I could find about Wik in Free Republic and found that most people fall into one of 3 camps:

1) Wikipedia is an excellent and useful source of information.

2) Wikipedia has potential but it is biased left and, if you want to change it, go in there and edit it yourself.

3) Wikipedia is so in bed with the left that it's unsalvageable. We need to start our own conservative edited Wikipedia.

I reside mostly in Camp 2. I do believe Wik is OVERRUN by leftists ( I know it is), but my experience has been that, if you pick and chose your fights wisely and REFUSE to back down, you can make significant changes. How long these changes will last is anybody's guess. And if all the hard work I've put in is later reversed, it will no doubt re-position me in Camp 3.

But, for the time being, I'm COMMITED to making Wik the best possible encyclopedia ever. In theory it has that potential. Let's face it, never in the history of man has such a project been even possible. I'm not willing to just leave it to left wingers to run. And starting up an alternative in my mind is kind of like starting up an alternative to Ebay. They already have first-mover status. Let's just untilt the bias. And besides, they don't blackball conservatives at Wikipedia, like they do at...oh the Associated Press for example! (or seems to.) It's just that there are more left wingers editing.

We can change that.

Now, I'm not talking about turning Wikipedia into a conservative-oriented source of information. And if you have had trouble working with Wik in the past, it may be because that was your agenda. I simply want to remove as much of the institutionalized left wing bias that currently PREDOMINATES in their articles. Particularly when the subject is a left wing villain. For a few yucks, check out the Karl Rove article. It is a CESSPOOL of liberal refuse.

I am willing to work to change Wikipedia.

I'm satisfied our work will not go for naught. If, at the end of the day, they conduct some purge or enact some policy that effectively censors conservatives, in other words, if we force them to reveal their hand, than we win by EXPOSING them for who they are. But, if we can figure out a way to influence Wik so that it no longer is just an alternative domain name for the johnkerry.com, then we win that way as well. And by 'we', I mean the general public, not just conservatives.

So, it's a win:win:win.

Therefore, if you like to write, and have some time (it can feel like a THANKLESS task) and you feel it's important to eliminate all the left wing bias in Wikipedia... please do so.

Freepmail me if you decide to edit Wik. I'd like to stay in touch and hopefully work together. I'm not interested in starting some sort of right wing cabal, but staying connected can be valuable both with respect to support and editorial insights.

[humblegunner]

This is my first time creating a thread, so please be kind...

It's also your very first post.

Welcome to Free Republic.

[LoveDoc]

That too. LOL! (Nothing like starting out with a bang!) Thanks for the welcome...

[jp3]

Welcome to the smartest place on earth...

[Our_Man_In_Gough_Island]

In my opinion you are wasting your time. Wik is committed to the notion of " objective" discussion, which is philosophically a built-in bias to the Left. In almost every non-scientific topic, in order to discuss it well, there must be a " point of view", generally represented by Western traditional social ideals. You are never going to sell that notion to Wik.

In addition, the website is far less technically viable than it would have you realize. It can take hours to get on and get access to posting plus editing one or two simple paragraphs. The thing is a horrible " black hole" for time, and that of course, also favors posters with very little else to do and very few real-world responsibilities. I have written several articles on it, which have been reproduced over the Internet, and in my opinion: chuck it - the project os hopeless.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Welcome to the smartest place on earth...

I agree with your statement, but this "place" is only as god sa it's membership.

[jp3]

true, but zots are a'plentiful when the rats sneak in. Savvy people can spot them dead-on!

[Hot Tabasco]

Therefore, if you like to write, and have some time

I do but I don't. There's too much happening here that I don't have time for any place else.

Wikipedia? Thats in New Zealand isn't it?

[quantim]

We need to start our own conservative edited Wikipedia.

There is no reason to re-invent the wheel.  You'll find everything you need here.

[humblegunner]

In my opinion you are wasting your time.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever decide to go there.

I'm not the author of this thread.

[frankjr]

Don't bother with Wikipedia. As soon as you change something, it will be changed or deleted. Last week I added to the Sean Penn entry how he liked to beat Madonna driving her to file divorce citing spousal abuse. The entry now reads "Sean Penn is most widely known for his stormy relationship with Madonna,"

[tubebender]

FR already has it's own dictionary...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1481648/posts

[Morgan in Denver]

You left out a most important element. Editing Wikipedia on subjects you are familiar with and can authoritatively back up and explain. Because of the time necessary, one has to be passionate about a subject to take enough time to correct Wikipedia.

In addition, I also use Free Republic, Answers.com, Google, Yahoo and other sources for information. To get past simple bias I spread out the search, as I presume most Freepers do.

Liberals will accept the single source party line easier than conservatives. We have had to defend ourselves for so long that few of us will read one item or viewpoint and run with it. We've had things blow back on us so we are more cautious in what we will quote and what we will defend.

[Smartaleck]

It is a good source as long as you take the info with a grain of salt, trust but verify.

Yes FR is a wealth of data too, but it's not a "data base", not easy to find information on any one topic consolidated in some organized easy to extract table...and has its own bias.

Wiki is fairly large and I'm not sure you're going to find the people with the time and resources to re-invent another one, not here anyway.

Good idea though.

[Fierce Allegiance]

I love the smell of ozone in the morning.

[Susannah]

I've been on other forums where liberals and conservatives debate the issues. Liberals use wikipedia as a source, but I've also noticed that when I find something that helps me make my case and reference an entry at wikipedia...the liberals will then discount it as an unreliable source or just say that the particular item was biased.

I've also notice that when I've found useful info at wikipedia that's controversial to liberals...sometimes a "neutrality warning" label later appears at the wikipedia entry that I referenced.

I usually use the search box at the main page and search for what I'm looking for. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

There is some controversial info that liberals took issue with, for example, on entries related to "Nation of Islam" , Malcolm X, Hamas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
(read the entries from the bottom of the page and upward to get a good grasp of some really controversial stuff!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X
(the remarks Malcolm X made when he was taking pleasure over the assassination of President Kennedy were disgusting)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

[Born to Conserve]

I was looking at wikipedia and noticed an equation that was incorrect. I went in and changed it, got abused by a rogue moderator who changed it back and left insulting remarks, was not helped by the other moderators, left and never returned.

If you care about your information being correct, wikipedia is not the place for you. If you like "rule by the obnoxious" than go for it.

[Hand em their arse]

"I am a conservative who's fascinated with Wikipedia..."


Using those first four words in a first post always gives me hives....