Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Wikipedia illusion: The problem is, anyone is allowed to edit material
American Thinker ^ | 10/06/2018 | Lloyd Brown

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 ...


TOPICS: Computers/Internet; Society
KEYWORDS: fascism; mediabias; politics; wikipedia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

1 posted on 10/06/2018 7:10:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


2 posted on 10/06/2018 7:14:06 AM PDT by Reno89519 (No Amnesty! No Catch-and-Release! Just Say No to All Illegal Aliens! Arrest & Deport!y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reno89519

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.


3 posted on 10/06/2018 7:16:03 AM PDT by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: \/\/ayne

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.


4 posted on 10/06/2018 7:19:59 AM PDT by Fai Mao (There is no rule of law in the US until The PIAPS is executed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


5 posted on 10/06/2018 7:20:07 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Wikipedia is a handy source for info on non controversial topics. But on anything controversial its completly unreliable.


6 posted on 10/06/2018 7:21:53 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

RE: I never cite Wikipedia when I post on FR or any other site—and 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,


7 posted on 10/06/2018 7:24:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (look at Michigan, it will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Actually, people are banned from editing wikipedia articles that praise leftists.


8 posted on 10/06/2018 7:24:13 AM PDT by CivilWarguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarguy

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?


9 posted on 10/06/2018 7:25:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (look at Michigan, it will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

I talked to the actor Robert Conrad once and he’s furious about his birthday on there!


10 posted on 10/06/2018 7:26:59 AM PDT by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


11 posted on 10/06/2018 7:28:50 AM PDT by redshawk (0pansy is a Liar and Hates.........he just hates!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


12 posted on 10/06/2018 7:35:48 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In practice, everything--and that means everything--is a vehicle for liberal ideas.

So, caveat lector, semper fortis, and a diabolo, qui est simia dei. Wikiquote:

"Wherever God erects a house of prayer,
The Devil always builds a chapel there:

We could update:

"Wherever rulers find us living to enjoy
They bind with morals for their employ.

13 posted on 10/06/2018 7:41:48 AM PDT by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The Internet illusion: The problem is, anyone is allowed to publish material.
14 posted on 10/06/2018 7:43:34 AM PDT by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


15 posted on 10/06/2018 8:04:55 AM PDT by Leaning Right (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


16 posted on 10/06/2018 8:10:58 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: \/\/ayne

I can’t imagine anyone could trust a history of a building, a movie, or anything. Imagine history of Trump Tower, text of Prophet Gore’s BS, etc.


17 posted on 10/06/2018 8:21:35 AM PDT by Reno89519 (No Amnesty! No Catch-and-Release! Just Say No to All Illegal Aliens! Arrest & Deport!y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

The John Seigenthaler case did it for me-——I’ve never trusted them since then.

.


18 posted on 10/06/2018 8:28:53 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
When Wiki sticks to facts and numbers it's a good resource at least as a starting point. The footnote links can take you to original sources and reveal objectivity or bias.

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.

19 posted on 10/06/2018 8:53:14 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reno89519
I can’t imagine anyone could trust a history of a building, a movie, or anything. Imagine history of Trump Tower, text of Prophet Gore’s BS, etc.

OK, buildings were just an example (like the Pima County Courthouse building) and I specifically mentioned that if it was controversial it was not to be trusted.
20 posted on 10/06/2018 8:55:18 AM PDT by \/\/ayne (I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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