Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Contributer to Wikipedia has Fictional Side (wikipedia fraud)
New York Times ^ | 3/5/07 | Noam Cohen

Posted on 03/04/2007 10:00:30 PM PST by lqclamar

Under the name Essjay, the contributor edited thousands of Wikipedia articles and was once one of the few people with the authority to deal with vandalism and to arbitrate disputes between authors.

To the Wikipedia world, Essjay was a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law, according to his user profile. But in fact, Essjay is a 24-year-old named Ryan Jordan, who attended a number of colleges in Kentucky and lives outside Louisville.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: antichristian; christianleft; essjay; gaystapotactics; goebbelswouldbeproud; homosexualagenda; jimbowales; lavendermafia; revisionisthistory; ryanjordan; waronerror; wiki; wikipedia; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
This Essjay character is VERY typical of the Wikipedia administrator elite. The NYT has the basics, but they also leave out a lot about him.

Specifically - Essjay claimed to be a homosexual theologian and frequently espoused far left versions of Christianity in his article edits. He basically used his phony Ph.D. to browbeat his leftist point of view into articles on Christianity by citing himself as an expert.

He is also one of dozens of radical gays who CURRENTLY populate the upper tiers of wikipedia's administration. This guy is just the tip of the iceburg at Wikipedia.

1 posted on 03/04/2007 10:00:32 PM PST by lqclamar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

How long before the Times hires him? (snicker)


2 posted on 03/04/2007 10:03:47 PM PST by BookmanTheJanitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

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

Strange to see the site discussing itself in a 3rd person way.


3 posted on 03/04/2007 10:04:34 PM PST by Tolsti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
"He is also one of dozens of radical gays who CURRENTLY populate the upper tiers of wikipedia's administration. This guy is just the tip of the iceburg at Wikipedia"

Correct.
Wikipedia simply stinks to high heaven.
I have made it a point never to use it.
4 posted on 03/04/2007 10:05:17 PM PST by ShawTaylor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

The Russian version of Wikipedia is worse - the expert arbitrators are clearly from the Russian government. Articles on the Moscow theater hostage crisis and Beslan - written by survivors and relatives of those who died - get deleted faster than they can be posted.


5 posted on 03/04/2007 10:07:33 PM PST by struwwelpeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShawTaylor
This link has a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court about another of Wikipedia's top administrators. He's an ex lawyer who was disbarred as described in the case after he was caught soliciting his clients for prostitution.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=1999sc%5Csc0125a&invol=1

Like many of the other pervs who run wikipedia, he posted a misleading profile that only says he's a "retired" lawyer without mentioning that his retirement is involuntary. He used his lawyer credentials to rise up the Wikipedia sysop circuit and is now the head of the Arbitration board - wikipedia's highest level of administrators and the final voice on content dispute.

6 posted on 03/04/2007 10:09:42 PM PST by lqclamar ("That's it, Seth, you can't blame them. It's want of education. That's all it is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

I've pretty much given up on wikipedia. It's a fun idea to go in and collaborate on the historical record, but the editors with authority will simply overwrite anything that doesn't jive with their left-wing gay agenda. Waste of time.


7 posted on 03/04/2007 10:12:44 PM PST by YCTHouston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

I find Wikipedia creepy. I once went on there and corrected some political bias and which ever power-that-be was on duty tracked me down by my IP and sent me on-screen messages lecturing me.

I was then banned or locked out from making changes -- forever.


8 posted on 03/04/2007 10:16:26 PM PST by ElkGroveDan (When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YCTHouston
the editors with authority will simply overwrite anything that doesn't jive with their left-wing gay agenda

Very left wing. And very gay. It's probably not a far cry to say that around 35-40% of wikipedia's ADMINISTRATORS are homosexuals or other sex perverts. The percentage is even higher in the upper levels of wikipedia's heirarchy. But should we expect anything different from a site that was founded by a well known internet pornographer who also tried to cover up his porno business when wikipedia became popular?

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,69880-0.html

9 posted on 03/04/2007 10:16:50 PM PST by lqclamar ("That's it, Seth, you can't blame them. It's want of education. That's all it is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
In a discussion over the editing of the article with regard to the term “imprimatur,” as used in Catholicism, Essjay defended his use of the book “Catholicism for Dummies,” saying, “This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s credibility.

This is Stephen Glass all over again.

10 posted on 03/04/2007 10:17:27 PM PST by denydenydeny ("We have always been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France"--Wellington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

There's also been a very large movement to show an islamic point of view on nearly any subject. Or at least, what they'd like the islamic pov to be.

Good luck trying to correct or remove that noise as well.


11 posted on 03/04/2007 10:18:51 PM PST by Tolsti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

That's really creepy.
Sounds like Orwell's 1984.


12 posted on 03/04/2007 10:23:47 PM PST by ShawTaylor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: YCTHouston
You are correct to give up on Wikipedia. Its hopeless. I gave up after fighting with someone who was trying to put something anti-Iraq war in about everything. In this case...J. William Fulbright would have been opposed to the Iraq War. As if the guy could channel the ghost of J. William Fulbright and get his spin on George Bush from beyond the grave. I got no help.

Any encyclopedia that can't get a consensus that someone who has been dead for years cannot comment on a current event.....needs giving up on.
13 posted on 03/04/2007 10:24:44 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolsti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay

Better save it. It looks like they are planning to make it disappear as part of their coverup: "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."

14 posted on 03/04/2007 10:25:04 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

Of course, it's not like that doesn't happen here on FR. Ever notice how many "doctors" we have when there's a bioethics debate? Or "scientists" when there's an evolution thread? How come no one ever cites their own authority as garbage men when there's an article on public works? I'd generally rather talk to a garbage man than a doctor or scientist.


15 posted on 03/04/2007 10:25:21 PM PST by YCTHouston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

Wikipedia is simply once source of information, and a very good one. Like anything, it is best to get information from multiple sources and then come to your own conclusion. Yes, some entries on Wikipedia are biased, but so is most everything else. It is your job to make up your own mind based on the best available evidence.


16 posted on 03/04/2007 10:28:32 PM PST by killjoy (Life sucks, wear a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

BTTT


17 posted on 03/04/2007 10:29:32 PM PST by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

I loved the pimping he did on The New Yorker. They "corrected" their "mistake" in the latest issue. That's one down, eleven million to go.


18 posted on 03/04/2007 10:34:32 PM PST by Wally_Kalbacken (Seldom right but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: struwwelpeter
The Russian version of Wikipedia is worse - the expert arbitrators are clearly from the Russian government. Articles on the Moscow theater hostage crisis and Beslan - written by survivors and relatives of those who died - get deleted faster than they can be posted.

Russian version of Wikipedia is similar to American Wikipedia only in Russia is the poster who gets deleted and not just the posting.

19 posted on 03/04/2007 10:37:42 PM PST by weegee (Carbon credits are nothing but the Global Warming movement's way of selling indugences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: YCTHouston
How come no one ever cites their own authority as garbage men when there's an article on public works?

I have cited my own authority as a garbage man on several occasions here on FR. I have life-long experience as my family owns a trash company (Which I am no longer part of).

No Joke. You didn't expect that response did you?
20 posted on 03/04/2007 10:38:45 PM PST by lmr (The answers to life don't involve complex solutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: weegee

In Soviet Russia, wikipedia edits you!


21 posted on 03/04/2007 10:39:14 PM PST by Tolsti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: killjoy

Wikipedia is not even the same resource from day to day. Left and right fight back and forth over any point and create controversies where none should exist.

Of course we are talking about millions of people who actually believe Bush was "selected not elected".


22 posted on 03/04/2007 10:39:19 PM PST by weegee (Carbon credits are nothing but the Global Warming movement's way of selling indugences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: killjoy

Exactly!


23 posted on 03/04/2007 11:10:57 PM PST by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

If you have a static IP (like most cable broadband users have), use the public proxy for these sites so you can't be tracked and banned.

If you have a dynamic IP (like most DSL users have, unless specifically requesting static), then it's unlikely that they can track you and ban permanently, as your IP changes regularly depending on your disconnect/reconnect timeout period is.


24 posted on 03/04/2007 11:45:49 PM PST by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gdo01 is just as bad.

He joined Wikipedia as some self proclaimed anti-vandalism patrolman and later got special status. Now someone has nominated him to be an admin.

This guy is about as far to the left as Karl Marx. Anything negative about any liberal, be it a politician, celebrity, reporter, etc. is instantly deleted and if the author protests, he is threatened with banning.

I went a few rounds with him but when I was able to provide a credible citation, he was forced to back down but he's still holding a grudge.

25 posted on 03/04/2007 11:51:09 PM PST by COEXERJ145 (Bush Derangement Syndrome Has Reached Pandemic Levels on Free Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
So I vote we change the name to Wikipederasts!

BTW, spellcheck passed "Wikipederasts"

26 posted on 03/04/2007 11:52:31 PM PST by skeptoid (BS, AE, AA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

I attempted to edit the unreferenced fictions dealing with Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin's "deeply Catholic faith" with a more neutral account of their legislative histories and words as compared with Catholic teaching. For that bit of free speech, I got stomped on like a narc at a biker rally. The admins have I.P. blocked me from Wikipedia ever since.


27 posted on 03/05/2007 12:48:45 AM PST by Antioch (Benedikt Gott Geschickt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antioch; COEXERJ145
There's little use in fighting the libs on Wikipedia article content because the cards are already stacked against us from the beginning. They control the admininstrators, which also means they control which version of the content stays or goes.

As indicated the vast majority of the admins are far left wing wackos, and many of them are also sexual deviants. At one time there were three different "transgendered" individuals serving on the Arbitration board or as its clerks...and that was out of 7 or 8 total. Add the prostitution guy I mentioned in the earlier post and literally half of the board was controlled by the very worst kind of net pervs - i.e. the reasons they invented child blocker software.

THe best and only way to fight the liberal bias on wikipedia is to discredit ALL of wikipedia itself by discrediting its personnel. This Essjay creep is a major step in that direction, but conservatives need to get the word out on more. They need to spread the word on its porno magnate founder Jimmy Wales. They need to spread the word on that Bauder guy and his prostitution solicitations. They need to spread the word on all the perverts among the high ranking wikipedia administrators. Point out that top level Wiki admins Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, Rebecca, and dozens of others are "transgendered" activists. Point out the rabid liberal political activists like Gamaliel and Will_Beback (also queer) and SlimVirgin and Raul654 and Jdforrester and FCYTravis (another queer activist). Point out the homos, and the guy with the Che Guevara posters all over his user page. Show the world what freaks these people are and wikipedia's credibility goes bye-bye real quick.

28 posted on 03/05/2007 1:20:39 AM PST by lqclamar ("That's it, Seth, you can't blame them. It's want of education. That's all it is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid
So I vote we change the name to Wikipederasts!

Not very far from the truth. About a year ago somebody set up an anti-wikipedia site that tracked down one of the leftist pro-homo wikipedia administrators and found him posting all over a bunch of porno website message boards. A few weeks later they uncovered that one of the top sysops - an extremely ugly lady named Kelly_Martin - was formerly a man who used to run a scientology conspiracy website. I think it was www.wikitruth.org, but it doesn't seem to be online anymore.

29 posted on 03/05/2007 1:25:23 AM PST by lqclamar ("That's it, Seth, you can't blame them. It's want of education. That's all it is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
I was holding my own editing and reposting Trudeau's bio for a week. The hammer came down when I posted this pic Trudeau sucking up to the bearded arch apostate after having handing him a check for 14 million dollars. That got me banned within 3 minutes.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

30 posted on 03/05/2007 1:30:42 AM PST by Antioch (Benedikt Gott Geschickt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: killjoy
Yes, some entries on Wikipedia are biased, but so is most everything else

It is not so much the bias that concerns me - it's the people who are behind it - the enforcers of bias. They also infect more than "some" entries. You will find that there are virtually no articles on wikipedia of any substantial size that don't have a biased admin closely guarding them. If you take a little time to research exactly who those admins are you will find that they tend to be the scummiest elements of the internet.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Wikipedia is literally owned by a professional pornographer and controlled by a tight-knit group of homosexuals and perverts. If you feel that you can avoid these elements and glean something useful from wikipedia articles, then go ahead and use it as a source. My concern is for the unsuspecting parents who let their kids go onto wikipedia, completely oblivious to the fact that they're coming into contact with hundreds of internet predators and perverts who happen to also have the title "Administrator" next to their names.

31 posted on 03/05/2007 1:33:04 AM PST by lqclamar ("That's it, Seth, you can't blame them. It's want of education. That's all it is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
My concern is for the unsuspecting parents who let their kids go onto wikipedia, completely oblivious to the fact that they're coming into contact with hundreds of internet predators and perverts

It is quite funny when people become parodies of themselves.

32 posted on 03/05/2007 1:43:35 AM PST by killjoy (Life sucks, wear a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BookmanTheJanitor

33 posted on 03/05/2007 1:50:29 AM PST by sure_fine ( • not one to over kill the thought process™ •)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: killjoy
It is your job to make up your own mind based on the best available evidence.

"Can't someone else do it?"

34 posted on 03/05/2007 2:33:17 AM PST by Oztrich Boy ( for those in Rio Linda, there's conservapedia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ShawTaylor
Wikipedia simply stinks to high heaven.
I have made it a point never to use it.

I sometimes use it for convenience. There are topics not subject to interpretation, but when it comes to questions dealing with politics or religion I avoid the site. I will use it now and then for history, but ignore everything but the basic who, what, where and date - and I sometimes double check those.

35 posted on 03/05/2007 2:48:25 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

For those who are anti-wiki, can you please post on here some of those excerpts that you find objectionable?


36 posted on 03/05/2007 3:24:47 AM PST by killjoy (Life sucks, wear a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShawTaylor

Yeah, the Ministry of Truth.


37 posted on 03/05/2007 4:45:05 AM PST by MonicaG (In hoc signo vinces. The whole world will see justice done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
The only thing WP is good for is subjects which have absolutely no diverging points-of-view eg (why) the sky appears to be blue.

Once you have more than one shade of opinion (eg does the color of the sky appear to be blue or another color?), it succumbs to a series of edit wars, including deletions, reversions, bannings, etc.

Eventually, disputes can lead to 'voting', which are completely subjective and prone to corruption as a result of favoritism garnered/given to various editors/groups. Even worse, there's no way to determine authority and/or expertise, so you might have a professor of climatology overridden by a pimply-faced geek.

I know quite a few wikipedians (many with thousands of edits) who have bailed on the site. What originally started out as a noble exercise in information sharing has devolved in a standard collectivist nightmare. That is, everyone is equal, except some are more equal than others.

Speaking of which, Animal Farm is the most frequently used analogy, featuring Larry Sanger as Snowball (driven off) and the worker bees as horses (like Boxer). Of course, we all know who the pigs are as they plot ever increasing & arbitrary power.

Many in the know expect Wikipedia to crash as fast as it rose.

38 posted on 03/05/2007 7:12:25 AM PST by Chuck Dent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolsti

Essjay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

39 posted on 03/05/2007 7:41:38 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

Wikipedia, welcome to the real world where people use fake or tenuous credentials all the time, like Ward Churchill, quite a few other teachers and public servants, and most of the old creation/ID proponents.


40 posted on 03/05/2007 8:03:01 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lmr

Excellent! I'll ping you on my next Waste Management bash.


41 posted on 03/05/2007 9:49:54 AM PST by YCTHouston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar

Wikipedia is a nice source of info, but anyone who relies on it as THE source is naive. There are plenty of sources against which the info in Wikipedia can be verified if one is so inclined.


42 posted on 03/05/2007 10:24:04 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

It's gone.


43 posted on 03/05/2007 2:49:35 PM PST by sig226 (see my profile for the democrat culture of corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
I don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a source in my classes. Neither do any of the professors that I work with, nor do any of the other professors that I know at this university. Citing Wikipedia as a source in my class is an instant F.
44 posted on 03/05/2007 3:07:14 PM PST by Brucifer (JF'n Kerry- "That's not just a paper cut, it's a Purple Heart!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Wow, they went and did it.

What a bunch of jerks.


45 posted on 03/05/2007 3:39:37 PM PST by Tolsti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: YCTHouston

LOL. I would definitely join you.


46 posted on 03/05/2007 4:06:21 PM PST by lmr (The answers to life don't involve complex solutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: killjoy
For those who are anti-wiki, can you please post on here some of those excerpts that you find objectionable?

There's a growing list here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

47 posted on 03/06/2007 10:46:26 AM PST by lqclamar ("That's it, Seth, you can't blame them. It's want of education. That's all it is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
He is also one of dozens of radical gays who CURRENTLY populate the upper tiers of wikipedia's administration. This guy is just the tip of the iceburg at Wikipedia.

As an occasional "editor" at Wikipedia, I can testify that anything even remotely crtical of homosexuals or the homosexual lifestyle doesn't stay up for very long. They are, indeed, all over it. Pathologically so, if you ask me.
48 posted on 03/06/2007 10:51:41 AM PST by Antoninus (I don't vote for liberals, regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: struwwelpeter
Articles on the Moscow theater hostage crisis and Beslan - written by survivors and relatives of those who died - get deleted faster than they can be posted.

I wonder how long it takes Putin and his pals to delete the survivors and relatives themselves?

49 posted on 03/06/2007 10:53:52 AM PST by CFC__VRWC (Go Gators! NCAA Football and Basketball Champions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
There's a growing list here:

Complaining about the use of 'foreign words' such as 'favoured' and 'labour'? ROTFLMAO.

You are complaining about Wikipedia and then saying sites such as Conservapedia don't have bias? I was curious and looked up Palestine on conservapedia.com and it states:

Palestine is a politically-unrecognised region of the Middle East that includes Israel.

Nope, no Bias there. LOL.

50 posted on 03/06/2007 9:23:32 PM PST by killjoy (Life sucks, wear a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson