Skip to comments.The Wikipedia illusion: The problem is, anyone is allowed to edit material
Posted on 10/06/2018 7:10:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Wikipedia pretends to be a new kind of crowd-sourced, non-profit “people’s encyclopedia” containing fair and unbiased material. In theory, anyone is allowed to edit material, thus providing a wide range of input rather than one expert’s ideas as in conventional encyclopedias.
I have written one entire entry, on my great-grandfather, who was a candidate for president. I have edited a few other entries to correct errors.
The theory is great, but in practice Wikipedia, like most media ventures, is a vehicle for liberal ideas.
Two examples may suffice:
The Wikipedia entry on fascism follows the liberal line that the political spectrum runs from fascism on the right to communism on the left. This is nonsense, and the basis for the constant references to conservatives as “Nazis” by liberals, who fancy Nazis to be fascists. Any meaningful political spectrum would run from total freedom, or anarchy, on the right to totalitarian government with no freedom on the left. The Nazis were, in fact, socialists and as Jonah Goldberg wrote in Liberal Fascism, differed from the Soviet communists only in methods, not intended results.
When I edited the entry to provide some balance, it was rejected in its entirety.
In its entry on Fox News, Wikipedia says “Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and conservative causes.” I added to that paragraph, "just as networks such as CNN and CBS have been accused of biased reporting in favor of liberal causes."
It took the editors eight minutes to reject and remove my addition.
This despite the fact that the entry has this label:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Who uses Wikipedia? I don’t, I’m made clear to my boys that they never use it, we don’t use it at my company.
It’s great if you want to read the plot of a movie without watching it or find out about the history of a famous building. It just can’t be trusted for anything controversial.
It can also be good for obscure stuff. But the articles on any living or recently dead famous person are generally way off base.
There is also no published change log so what you quote today will not be there tomorrow.
Because it is unreliable, I never cite Wikipedia when I post on FR or any other site—and I get annoyed at those who do. I always find a more reliable source.
Wikipedia is a handy source for info on non controversial topics. But on anything controversial its completly unreliable.
RE: I never cite Wikipedia when I post on FR or any other siteand I get annoyed at those who do.
OK, I’m not a 100% fan of this site, but they DO require people to cite their sources as seen by their extensive footnotes.
Of course, as in every other literature that we read, those footnotes also have to be read with discernment,
Actually, people are banned from editing wikipedia articles that praise leftists.
RE: Actually, people are banned from editing wikipedia articles that praise leftists.
I did not know that. DO you have a reliable source for this info?
I talked to the actor Robert Conrad once and he’s furious about his birthday on there!
Years ago I attempted to add to the 0pansy Bio the fact that he won the state senate seat by getting the court sealed documents of his opponents divorce leaked. Within minutes my entry was deleted. After trying a few more times, I was finally cut off from all editing privileges.
As stated by others, for less important, benign issues, wiki is useful. Else it should be avoided.
If you are interested in learning about the African dung beetle or similar nonpolitical subjects, Wikipedia is great.
If you are interested in ANY topic be it in science, history, biography, politics, etc that is remotely or could be seen by anybody as even remotely political, wikipedia is a biased Left wing cesspool.
So, caveat lector, semper fortis, and a diabolo, qui est simia dei. Wikiquote:
"Wherever God erects a house of prayer,We could update:
The Devil always builds a chapel there:
"Wherever rulers find us living to enjoy
They bind with morals for their employ.
Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia. And the edits usually appear immediately (although they can be taken down later).
And that can lead to some - shall we say - interesting “facts”.
For example, back in the summer of 2016 I went to Hillary Clinton’s Wikipedia entry to check about a date.
Some wag had inserted this in her biography: “Secretary Clinton’s hobby is collecting pictures of women’s bums. If you have a good picture of a woman’s bum, please send it to her.”
I couldn’t believe it! But there it was on Wikipedia, in black and white. I went back in about an hour to get a Print Screen shot of the entry, but it was gone by then. Too bad.
This is why I prefer hardcover reference books. Someone sitting at a keyboard somewhere can not change a books content by hitting the enter key.
I cant imagine anyone could trust a history of a building, a movie, or anything. Imagine history of Trump Tower, text of Prophet Gores BS, etc.
The John Seigenthaler case did it for me-——I’ve never trusted them since then.
An example is information on cities. Climate, politics, demographics. Hard numbers are difficult to fudge but can be tweeked in some cases.
But the overwhelming liberal bias is clear in history, current events, and social/political issues.
I use it with caution while searching other sources.
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.