Posted on 12/03/2012 7:55:21 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Prominent gender and media studies professors from across the country converged recently to help host what was dubbed by organizers as a “Feminist, Anti-Racist Wikipedia Edit-a-thon” to create or influence dozens of entries on the online encyclopedia.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Maybe an FR wikipedia version that has stricter guidelines for entering data?
And this is why I would never donate to Wikipedia, even though it has very useful information on factual things like ammunition, or chemistry, or architecture.
“With that, it remains unclear exactly what additions and changes were made to Wikipedia during the event.”
ping
No. That would quickly become marginalized as a “right wing” site. We need to drag the real wikipedia over to the right or at least the center.
Campus leftists can’t abide there being a relatively unbiased place out there to get information.
Wikipedia is brutal toward the conservative writers; they need an ombudsman who can check into individual cases and see if the liberal staff, which they say numbers only 150, handled the blocks and bans fairly. False charges are often filed against writers, such as plagiarism, copyright violations, lack of original writing in paraphrasing. One can be blocked indefinitely for practically nothing. Even when untrue, the Wikipedia people still accept the false charges as fact. Apparently the average “editor” is only 25 and thinks he knows everything worth knowing. Of course, the writers are unpaid and are expected to submit what Wikipedia wants. Most writers though would naturally have their own agenda if they are donating so much time to the site. I am surprised that they have the number of writers that they do. I have even seen articles challenged and falsely attributed to a writer other than the one who did the article. I don’t think Mr. Wales is aware of all the injustices going on at his site with his implied consent.
I stuck a comment about “Horse Doovers” in the hors d’oeuvers article. It stayed there for the week I kept watching, then I went away and so did it.
hors d’oeuvers => hors d’oeuvres
The French, like the Gaelic, pronounce great but spell funny.
But, my addition for religious symbolism to the article about “Harp” is still there, mirabile dictu if I didn’t misspell that too.
No - why don't a thousand of us join Wikipedia and start systematically moving it back our way?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
By professors who would never accept Wikipedia as a valid source for this particular reason.
Wikipedia can roll back all these changes, but it takes time and money, which they are always begging for.
So more than a takeover, events like this could *take down* Wikipedia, or put it into private hands.
Pick up a 1965 edition of World Book Encyclopedias ... just as a back-up. Before they changed the water. ;o)
When doing on-line historical research, even though Wikipedia comes up first, I only open it as a LAST resort. Usually there are plenty of other sites available that have much better and more accurate information. As far as history goes, many thanks are due to our veterans who have an interest in keeping unit and ship histories complete and accurate.
And that is why my daughters’ schools don’t allow Wikipedia as a source.
Thanks for those insights. I have been reading the wiki article on the Tea Party. However I am not sure how wiki works and how to effect any changes. The section “health care bill” has only one sentence. I can’t understand why a photo of Deb Fischer (who the hell is she) is included but no photo of Sarah Palin? Tea party membership has slipped from 1,000 to 600? What? It seems we should at least influence the depiction of “tea party” in wikipedia
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.