FREEP this: Wikipedia's Biased Description of Free Republic

Wikipedia.com | ongoing | liberals

[nerdgirl]

What a joke - the liberals that you find in places like Dmoz and other internet directories have managed to fill the Wikipedia description for Free Republic with all kinds of snipes that make FR look like a marginalized group of extremists.

But, the beauty is that anybody can change a Wikipedia entry. I worked on one of the sections (which shall go nameless!) a bit already - it's easy to spot.

Believe it or not Wikipedia entries get quite a few page views - the site is one of the top 50 sites on the web - so let's get this description to be "fair and balanced"!

Sorry but I can't post the URL to Wikipedia here, - but if you Google wikipedia, "free republic", you'll find the entry.

[johnmecainrino]

That site has been DUmmied down.

[Riley]

It partly reads as if it was written by a disgruntled ex-Freeper who was banned.

[antiRepublicrat]

Sorry but I can't post the URL to Wikipedia here

Why not?

[Borges]

Oooooooh you posted it!!! I'm tellllling! :-)

[Tijeras_Slim]

TLBSHOW works for Wikipedia?

[nerdgirl]

No doubt. But since Wikipedia entries tend to dominate search engine results, there's no reason to let this ridiculous article stand. I'll work more on it later, but wanted to alert other freepers to it in the meantime.

[nerdgirl]

filter won't allow it, I guess a lot of bogus wikipedia stuff has been posted here before, so it's a troll filter I guess.

[Riley]

I took it that this article needed some help. I am on Free Republic as well, so an insider's viewpoint may help make this a decent NPoV article. Many details were missing and I supplied them. Some people on FR come from left but most are conservative. There are a few places where the language showed bias, and some places were not as relevant any more, like Poll FReeping. Lately, Moveon and other Democratic Party front organizations do it a lot more effectivly. I too don't understand the racism, but future edits and discussion can help fix things up. Dominick 23:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm..

[tfecw]

Hmm, i thought for the most part it was okay. I think i know the "one part" would it be the piece with the "3" hyper-link at the end of it?

That guy probably got booted cause he's an idiot, not cause of the remarks about GW. Heck I've made a few remarks expressing some disappointment with him. Still here, or at least I think I'm logged in :)

[Vigilanteman]

A few words of advice:

1. Be persistent.
   
2. Be patient.
   
3. Be aware that most of the Wikipedia nazis with time on their hands are lunatic liberals masquerading as reasonable people.
   
4. If you can't reason with them, you can make it very difficult for them to propogandize by going after their other articles and contributions.
   
5. If you have access to more than one terminal, spread things around a bit since the IP address is recorded and leaves a trail for them to go after your articles in like manner.
   
6. However, since most of us have a life beyond posting and, therefore, have fewer articles and modifications to trace, they can eventually be worn down since they have far more to lose in their work than we do in ours.

[LongElegantLegs]

Known as "freeping" a poll, the practice is not unique to the Free Republic forums and is employed by many other activist websites of all political stripes, such as Democratic Underground, where it is called "DU'ng".

hee hee hee! He said dung.

[GSWarrior]

The authors seem more positive in their entry for Democratic Undergound.

[AdamSelene235]

Not a flattering potrayal but not exactly dishonest either. I particularly enjoyed reading JimRob's initial opposition to Bush.

Keyes was a far superior choice just as J. Brown is superior to Miers.

[nerdgirl]

Where is that quote from? Ah I think I see - Wikipedia has various entries - the actual ENTRY for FR is not the one you get by Googling wikipedia, "free republic" - that page appears to be some kind of Talk section. The filter appears to be for article postings, not html tags inside of individual posts, so here is the Free Republic Description on Wikipedia

[Riley]

Cick on the 'Discussion' tab on the top of the entry.

[nerdgirl]

Keep in mind, I've already done some editing in an area that was particularly biased.

Nothing wrong with a little more fine tuning...

[Riley]

I should have read the rest of your post before replying. :-)

[yayforlater]

This comes up every couple of weeks now. To be fair, Wikipedia is open to everyone for editing. Any complaints that it isn't fair or balanced really aren't valid 'cause you can go over there and fix it in just about as much time as it takes to write and complain.

Make sure that you're looking at the actual article page too, and not the "Talk" section.

[nerdgirl]

No problem!

Yikes I really need to get back to work - don't mean to abandon the thread, will be back later! (sooo easy to get sidetracked...)

[processing please hold]

Wow, what a link.

[Bigh4u2]

"Some members of Free Republic have questioned whether the funds raised in these "Freepathons" have been spent in an appropriate manner. Many of those who have raised such questions have been reportedly banned from the site."


These statements are 'hog wash'..

[Brad's Gramma]

"Some members of Free Republic have questioned whether the funds raised in these "Freepathons" have been spent in an appropriate manner.

It happens every FReepathon. Not to worry.

[Brad's Gramma]

Let me clarify that......the people complaining are from other sites, jealous of the fine job Jim, John, and all of us are doing here.

THAT'S what I meant by "not to worry".

[SubMareener]

There is a simple way to avoid Freepathons all together!

[Brad's Gramma]

Let me guess.

By reading and heeding (hehe) YOUR TAG LINE!!!!!!!


It really is SO simple, isn't it???

[bk1000]

They have a link to DUmmie Funnies!

[COEXERJ145]

The stuff isn't just coming from the DUers but also the losers from Liberty Post, FU, etc.

[veronica]

Wikipedia is moderated in large part by 17 year-old Eurotrash leftists, FYI.

[veronica]

And CP.

[COEXERJ145]

Yeah, can't forget them.

[Guyin4Os]

I edited this section: "Some members of Free Republic have questioned whether the funds raised in these "Freepathons" have been spent in an appropriate manner. Many of those who have raised such questions have been reportedly banned from the site."

It now reads: "Free Republic was founded in 1996 by Jim Robinson of Fresno, California as a non-commercial, Limited liability company. The site gained popularity during the Republican-led impeachment of President Clinton.

"The site is funded by volunteer donations requested through "Freepathons." These fundraising events occur each quarter and are used so that the readership may contribute to the costs involved in procuring bandwidth for a highly-popular forum. The current Freepathon (October 2005) is requesting $72,000 for the next three months."

[Hildy]

I read the whole description. I didn't see anything that wasn't true. Why is everyone so mad?

[Hildy]

I read the whole description. I didn't see anything that wasn't true. Why is everyone so mad?

[onyx]

Oh Hildy, you silly girl you. It's supposed to read like it's written by Patrick J & A Keyes, doncha know?

[expat_panama]

I read the whole description. I didn't see anything that wasn't true. Why is everyone so mad?

In general IMHO the entry was substantial fair.  The main thing that I'd take issue with is the statement on Freerepublic principles:

The Free Republic community is largely united on certain political staples of the american conservative movement, including having a strong dislike for former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton, Liberal/Socialist political agenda and opposing gun control, abortion, and what it considers to be a homosexual agenda, particularly same-sex marriage.

What's bogus is the liberal stupidity of equating opposition to assertion --saying that hating something is what you're in favor of.   They'd have been a lot more accurate to state that freepers have things they like: including a preference for: the United States, its constitution, defense, the rule of law, lower taxes, smaller government, and freedom.

[Hildy]

Geez...I think they did a fine, overall job of describing this website.

[Hildy]

EVERYONE HERE SO TOUCHY. It's getting a bit tiresome.

[veronica]

I don't think it's true that FR is more "right-wing" than the Republican Party. It's pretty much the mainstream of the GOP, the paleos being the exception. And they are not a third of the posters here, by any means, from what I have observed.

[gpapa]

Three main groups can be observed on the forum: neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and libertarians/paleolibertarians
I can't find my place in any of the groups mentioned. Help me!!!

skepticism and fear of United Nations/European Union
Geesh. I'm quaking in my boots with fear.

"DUNG"

[SubMareener]

As little as $5.00 per month from everyone of us winners in life's lottery would do the trick!

[expat_panama]

Don't bother clicking back to the thread-- someone posted pictures of feces.

I was agreeing with you that overall the entry was good.    I was only disagreeing with the entry's suggestion that freepers were basically negative.

Maybe they were right and I was wrong after all.

[relictele]

I think it's handy but many of the articles do indeed show a tilt that makes the Matterhorn look flat.

It's catnip to those bores you encounter at the music store, the ballgame or anywhere else that somebody thinks you're entitled to their opinion.

The George W. Bush entry is sad bordering on hilarious in its poorly disguised venom.

[July 4th]

Who the heck is Jim Robertson?

[Doctor Stochastic]

They'd have been a lot more accurate to state that freepers have things they like: including a preference for: the United States, its constitution, defense, the rule of law, lower taxes, smaller government, and freedom.

There's not much call for lower taxes or smaller government here; there's some support for vigilantism (like the guy who shot the ex-cons because he didn't like pedophiles). There's often more support for Empirism than for defense. That's the nature of the Net.

[Peter Libra]

Ahem, "everyone" is a pretty broad statement. Still, I agree with you on most points here. Does everyone carefully peruse the WHOLE thing though?. One of my own prime mistakes on FR has been to cull the objectionable things and lead off too soon. Worth re-reading is in two areas. They are where Freepers are generally in agreement and where they are diverse.

I can categorically state, ahem, too pompous here,that Wikipedia has quite fairly nailed it. Oh that damned weed marijuana and the potheads on this website- shoot em'. LOL

[CalRepublican]

I like this paragraph: Alexa, a company that ranks the Internet's 100,000 most visited sites, and measures their traffic in users per million, estimates that Free Republic reaches approximately five to six hundred users per million each day, and ranks at number 1,560 of all sites. Comparitively, by Alexa Internet's estimation, Wikipedia.org reaches 11 to 12 thousand per million each day and ranks at 53, Yahoo reaches 300,000 and ranks at no. 1, and Google reaches 220,000 and ranks at no. 3. Visits at Free Republic tend to spike sharply upward during election seasons and when news breaks which captures its users' interest. Note, however, that Alexa rankings are not reliable as a means of assessing actual traffic to a site. Shouldn't we be compared to our "countersite" DU? I bet that traffic comparison would tell you a whole lot more.

[Tribune7]

Right now it actually seems kind of fair. (albeit I'm sure it will change)

[Tribune7]

Right now it actually seems kind of fair. (albeit I'm sure it will change)

[Brad's Gramma]

Seriously, for most of us, that's a drop in the bucket, isn't it?