Slashdot Mirror

But in the past:

Wikitruth documented the corruption and scams and scandals that happened in Wikipedia. But it happened so much, and hardly anyone cared about it that Wikitruth had to quit. There was no point in continuing as people didn't care that Editors and Admins who claimed to have PHDs didn't actually have them, or that oversight abuse happened to remove evidence of corruption, etc.

Conservapedia, no I won't link to them, but they claimed Wikipedia was not a neutral POV but a liberal one, and created their own Conservative Wiki Encyclopedia.

Uncyclopedia was started after Wikipedia refused to host deleted facts and other nonsense section of their Wiki site, so many of us went to Uncyclopedia, and others went to Illogicpedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica or both or all three, etc. Even the humor sites seemed to be more accurate than Wikipedia and not as prone to politics, corruption, etc.

Wikipedia is good for WWE/TNA Wrestling facts, and Comic book and Sci Fi and Movie facts. That they do right, there is no bias, and a neutral point of view mostly. I find myself checking Wikipedia for comic books, movies, sci fi shows and movies, wrestling, and other things a real Encyclopedia won't cover but Wikipedia will.

I am not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, nor are most people. I don't want a Wikipedia entry on me as I want to be a private citizen. I do a lot of open source writing on Uncyclopedia, Wikibooks, Wikipedia, Wikia sub-Wikis, etc. I might later on publish a few books when I get good enough to write them without community help, or I may release them to creative commons license on LegalTorrents instead and give them away for free. That might make me notable, but I don't think it would be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. I am just one in 9 billion people trying to survive. I also do open source programming and help people fix their computers via home tech support for friends and relatives, like most Slashdot readers.

I left for the similar reasons. The administrators are abusive of their power and connections. An admin (I didn't know at the time, not that it should matter) was mass reverting large numbers of edits calling me a "sockpuppet" (a second account created by a user who wants to hide their identity). Some of my edits didn't support the admin's politics, others did, but he didn't read them; he just reverted them all. Some were just footnotes on otherwise unsupported statements.

I carefully followed procedures to notify the admin to stop reverting and posted about the problem in the appropriate forum. Another admin deleted my forum post (a unique occurrence, as far as I could see in the history) and banned me. Sure, I could spend many hours appealing, but who has time for that nonsense -- I have better things to do.

As in many organizations, the cultural problems start at the top. You can read about Jimmy Wales corruption, editing his own pages, excising comments he doesn't agree with from the history, editing his ex-girlfriend's page. If Jimmy Wales does it, why would people one level down from him hesitate to abuse their power, and then the people below them, etc. Remember when the Arb committee banned someone on 'secret evidence' (which turned out to be nothing more than the following: The new user was editing too well, so they must have been another 'sockpuppet', and were therefore banned) -- that was the highest authority in Wiki-land except for Wales.

Here are some links for you:
http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
http://antisocialmedia.net/category/wikipedia/

When I saw "Google submitted to the Newspaper Association of America (NAA)", my immediate thought was that Slashdot had been hacked by a certain troll organisation. I guess that serves me for browsing at -1.

Uhhh...forcing someone to undergo a simulated drowning should NOT be divided on whether or not that would be considered torture. Anyone not drinking the koolaid or with an agenda would be hard pressed to have any kind of rational argument about that particular fact.

Now one could argue about whether or not torture is ever justified (I say it is not and erodes our position and makes us no better than the enemy) but having a page on waterboarding changed and locked saying that it isn't torture is like having one of the moon landing is a hoax guys linking all articles on lunar exploration to Capricorn One. here is a nice article on wikitruth about NPOV, and how politics play a very heavy handed role on Wikipedia.

It's simple.

Wikipedia's original goal was to get as many articles in the Wikipedia as possible.

This has been done. The English-language Wikipedia, at this point, is a summary of all worthwhile human knowledge.

So, now the goal is to make the information Wikipedia has be more accurate. Or, as per Wikipedia policy, better reflect what reliable sources have to say.

So, the big drive has been to update articles to have all information cited. This way, patent nonsense and what not doesn't get in the articles.

At the same time, since Wikipedia has a very high search engine ranking, the other goal is to make sure spammers do not control the Wikipedia's content.

Is Wikipedia becoming a bureaucracy? Hell yes. In an encyclopedia which covers the full range of human knowledge and over a million articles, that is very frequently the #1 listing when doing a web search, we need a very complicated system of policies and procedures in place to minimize conflicts, protect the Wikipedia from spammers (and pathological liars and trolls and loud-mouthed minorities and so on), and to keep the Wikipedia as accurate as we can.

Are there issues with editors on power trips? Hell yes. Since editing the Wikipedia is a volunteer project, there are a lot of editors whose only reward for editing is being able to enforce authority over other users. Do a lot of people dislike the Wikipedia? Hell yes. With the website in the Alexa top 10, something this popular can't help but have a lot of enemies. Heck, if you don't like the Wiki, you're not alone.

Is the Wikipedia a very valuable resource for finding information? Hell yes.

No, you do it because you're a fucking freak without any friends.

To top if off, now we're left with a question: Can wikipedia be trusted to be impartial and open anymore?

Simple answer: it never could be.

I think that he meant the Wikipedia Foundation and any other overseers who control the locking of topics, etc. - most people up to now have assumed good faith (!). Your link is certainly interesting though it's probably not had much coverage compared to the perception of Wikipedia as an unbiased medium.

To top if off, now we're left with a question: Can wikipedia be trusted to be impartial and open anymore?

Simple answer: it never could be.

Interestingly, Wikitruth is now frozen, claiming to have won.

Somehow, I think it's true; more and more people understand that you can use Wikipedia at the same time as questioning it. Many people have learned how to question all media (the problems of Wikipedia are the same as those of traditional media, just more obvious). At the same time there's a whole load of anti-wikipedia people who just wanted to destroy. That doesn't seem to have happened.

TELL THE WIKITRUTH

"...originality has been rejected by art. There is no such thing. It's all just different forms of appropriation. So it seems to me that Wikipedia is a perfect place to expose the current state of affairs"

M'kay. Perhaps in Mr. Mecklenburg's art-philosophy opinion notebook it is, but not in mine and I feel relatively assured that this guy might have just took a big dump on that book were he still alive.

Still, Wikipedia needs to back off now that it's won on it's own site; squelching a .org is just, well, bad form.

What qualifies someone to be an expert?

You cannot prove that you have degrees on the subject, but many list PHDs even if they never earned any of them. Wikipedia's staff had many members that got exposed as frauds.

When you cite a reference, they can quickly dismiss it by saying the source is not a reliable source. For example if it was not a liberal web site like the Huffington Post but rather the CATO institute, chances are the citation will be removed as well as the text that explains it. The same way for technical articles, apparently an OS/2 fan base is not a trusted source on OS/2 but IBM got rid of their OS/2 pages to base OS/2 history on. Luckily I was able to find a Unix Programming book that cited OS/2 2.0 used Amiga technology in exchange for Amiga using REXX technology. The IBM pages that talked about the exchange of technology are gone, and no web site mentions it anymore. But it is important history to learn that IBM licensed the Amiga technology to make OS/2 2.0 and above.

But anyway yeah people watching articles like a hawk and then instantly reverting it, even if the points are valid and have a reliable citation are but one of the many problems that Wikipedia suffers from. I call them as "Armchair Experts" because they lack knowledge, wisdom, and an education on the subject (no college courses or degrees on the subject) and act as an expert from their armchairs using their computers to bully and bash and revert their way into the articles.

I call such people as the Thought Police who accuse us of Thought Crimes and quickly revert the articles even if it was a valid edit that cited reliable sources and had a neutral point of view.

He's also a fuckwit Wikipedia administrator who's been slagged up and down on Wikitruth.

TELL THE WIKITRUTH

I've read this blog. I know how wikipedia works.

Or rather... how it doesn't work at all.

The worst thing you could do is feed the Wikipedia brand of nonsense to kids as "educational" material. Might as well give them a set of unshielded wires and an electric socket and tell them to learn about electricity. And it's not just the situations this Parker Peters describes above: you people fuck up on a pretty regular basis.

Well? I'm not comfortable knowing an "encyclopedia" infested with this kind of behavior is being given to kids as "educational" and "correct" learning material. How do you justify it?

Liberal nazis who censor things by deleting them. Deleted Wikipedia articles usually end up on Uncyclopedia and get made into funny articles that are more factual than the articles on Wikipedia that are not deleted. No offense to modern liberals or classic liberals who are nothing like liberal nazis. Barack Obama is a John F. Kennedy modern liberal and not at all like the liberal nazis that hacked Sarah Palin's email, or liberal nazis on MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Moveon.org, or blogs that do personal attacks and political smears. Not all liberals are nazis, but some if not all of the admins on Wikipedia appear to be. Uncyclopedia is liberal nazi free, just modern liberals, classic liberals, anarchists, communists, libertarians, moderates, conservatives, neocons, independents, and others who join together to write funny, but not stupid, articles. Liberal nazis usually get banned at Uncyclopedia, or we make funny articles about them instead if they keep coming back with web proxies.

At least they aren't Conservapedia the Conservative Wiki that only Neocons can edit.

Read Wikitruth for the reasons why many of us don't want to use Wikipedia anymore. Even a humor Wiki like Uncyclopedia is managed way better than Wikipedia ever will be, and we are all volunteers who do work for free.

The Uncyclopedia article was deleted and put back many times as well on Wikipedia. Apparently Jimbo and the sockpuppet Admins think we aren't notable enough to have an article on us.

a collection of 63,559 deleted Wikipedia pages that range from "vanity entries" or obscure points of reference to heavily edited topics that Wikipedia administrators eventually deemed fan fiction

There, fixed that for you.

I honestly don't get the whole hate that Wikipedia seems to have against sci-fi and geeky topics... I think it's an attack by people who figure that if they have too much of it that Wikipedia won't resemble an old media encylopedia. This argument is pretty stupid, given the nigh-unlimited space in their database (Wikipedia themselves have said not to worry about performance).

Somoene's going to come in here and say that the problem isn't the topic, it's that the articles are either original research, aren't verifiable, or aren't "notable" (the latter is the worst argument I've heard), but IMNSHO there is a definite bias, especially among admins, against these types of articles.

Oh, and tell the Wikitruth.

Huh? How stupid can one get to use the Internet as a reliable source of information? As I and many others have written It it is on the Internet it must be true! as a joke for many that do fact-checking over the Internet.

Those that "fact check" over the Internet become known as Uncyclopedia Brown and will believe any wild far fetched conspiracy theory and do political attacks on vice-presidental candidates based on fictional stuff someone wrote on a blog like Sarah Palin believes that dinosaurs existed 4000 years ago and turned into oil. Not just liberals do those false rumors, the conservatives once said that Barack Obama is a Muslim and that was spread all over conservative blogs.

Sorry but Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information either, Wikitruth debunks their articles and shows a left-wing bias and corruption of admins and editors of making false or misleading information. PBS is not that much different from Wikipedia and has false and misleading information as well as management is corrupt in dealing with it.

So basically saying you use the Internet and Wikipedia and PBS to do fact checking is laughable at best. It is like trying to get accurate historical facts from Hollywood movies like "The Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars", "Forrest Gump", "Pulp Fiction", "Rambo" as the way things really were in the past based on those movies.

Sometimes Slashdot is that way, I know Ars Technicia and other sites like Kuro5hin, IWETHEY, The Daily Kos, Red State, Little Green Footballs, Conservapedia, and others are false and misleading as well and sometimes written as a troll.

You pay your money, you take your chances. Buy the ticket, take the ride. Read everything with a grain of salt and use critical thinking, logic, and check for fallacies and personal attacks before you believe anything written on the Internet.

Wikipedia is doing the same thing: Jimmy Wales is most certainly profiting from the information that millions of well-meaning Internetizens innocently contribute. By the way, did you know that Jimmy Wales is an Internet pornographer? Yeah, his legion of zombie "editors" does a good job keeping such thoughtcrime out of his main Wikipedia article, but the truth is out there if you look a little. And, no, this photo isn't a fake. (Yes, that photo is safe for work. However, if you do an unfiltered Google image search for "bomis", the name of Wales's most successful porno site, then you'll find a few things that are decidedly not safe for work.)

The next time you feel like making a helpful contribution to a Wikipedia article, keep in mind that your work is creating a product used to shill for Jimbo Wales's yearly allowance. And God forbid you give money to the fundraising drive yourself! Who knows? Maybe there will be enough cash left over to buy more bandwidth after Jimbo's taken his cut - incidentally, what's a nightly hooker-and-coke binge cost these days? But, oops, I forgot: those hundreds of thousands of donated dollars also have had to pay the expenses of Jimbo's entourage, including the violent criminal Caryoln Doran, Wikimedia's Chief Operating Officer in 2007! (No lie: she's a thug who's done hard time for multiple offenses.) It seems that even the Wikizombie groupthink can't keep everything a secret.

So let's see: the thousands upon thousands of unpaid writers who author Wikipedia content are actually helping to solicit "donations" for a gang of pimps and ex-cons? Just who is this Jimmy Wales character, anyway? He's like an evil MySpace Tom. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Wikipedia funds terrorism.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Wikipedia is doing the same thing: Jimmy Wales is most certainly profiting from the information that millions of well-meaning Internetizens innocently contribute. By the way, did you know that Jimmy Wales is an Internet pornographer? Yeah, his legion of zombie "editors" does a good job keeping such thoughtcrime out of his main Wikipedia article, but the truth is out there if you look a little. And, no, this photo isn't a fake. (Yes, that photo is safe for work. However, if you do an unfiltered Google image search for "bomis", the name of Wales's most successful porno site, then you'll find a few things that are decidedly not safe for work.)

The next time you feel like making a helpful contribution to a Wikipedia article, keep in mind that your work is creating a product used to shill for Jimbo Wales's yearly allowance. And God forbid you give money to the fundraising drive yourself! Who knows? Maybe there will be enough cash left over to buy more bandwidth after Jimbo's taken his cut - incidentally, what's a nightly hooker-and-coke binge cost these days? But, oops, I forgot: those hundreds of thousands of donated dollars also have had to pay the expenses of Jimbo's entourage, including the violent criminal Caryoln Doran, Wikimedia's Chief Operating Officer in 2007! (No lie: she's a thug who's done hard time for multiple offenses.) It seems that even the Wikizombie groupthink can't keep everything a secret.

So let's see: the thousands upon thousands of unpaid writers who author Wikipedia content are actually helping to solicit "donations" for a gang of pimps and ex-cons? Just who is this Jimmy Wales character, anyway? He's like an evil MySpace Tom. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Wikipedia funds terrorism.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Fuck off. As stated, requesting a citation for claims is not trolling. It's an attempt to verify.

Guess what? It's only a motion to discredit it if it isn't credible. If it is actually credible, an attempt at verification will only be met with verification, so if someone's agenda is to mar the credibility of a truthful claim, asking that the proof be provided would be just about the stupidest fucking thing that person could do, because it will only result in that person's claims being displayed as truthful.

Further, this is slashdot. Far be it from the GP to assume that someone belonging to the target demographic of this site could accomplish a trivial task that non-technical users manage to do all the fucking time.

To hold the hand of the person who made the original claim, lest you believe that I, too, am "trolling" by asking that claims be verified, screenshots can go to any number of image hosting websites, like photobucket. Documents and images alike can be uploaded to wikitrith, whose express purpose is for material like this. Links to the diffs containing the edits that are the topic of discussion require virtually no effort.

Once again, Moryath, in case you've forgotten, fuck off with your ridiculous accusations of trolling.

Ha! Nice use of "Sherilyn" ...

One did some research - http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Tony_Sidaway

Citizendium can be the answer to many of these problems...

Also Wikitruth sheds a lot of light on ol' Jimbo Wales and his shenanigans

Someone coped that article about Darrin McGillis to wikitruth.info.

I have no idea why Jim Wales would get rid of that article and perma-ban anyone connected with it. That is just bizzare.

Tell the WikiTruth.

It is original research, and in this particular case, I regard it as borderline stalking. People should be ashamed of themselves for doing it.

Well it's impossible to use the talk page diff now as it seems to have been deleted by someone with at least oversight powers. That's the best way gain to consensus, isn't it?
-- RockMFR

He has only himself to blame. Had he actually read the original article he was so busy screwing with in between "marathon sex" sessions, he would've known what he was up against!

This is not a subtantive argument demonstrating the idea will not work. Just an edge-case that probably nobody cares about.

Nonsense! Dismissing a crystal-clear example demonstrating perfectly why "the idea will not work" as an edge case concedes the point. What is porn? Do erotic art/stories, medical photos/information, nudity, "dress malfunctions" etc belong under .xxx? Who decides, who is the arbiter of public taste? What about a nude shot on a blog or a page like this?

Are these also edge cases or would you care to explain how an .xxx domain name would be suitable for any form of content classification?

Wikia is a completely separate organization.

Yeah, Jimbo... yeah...

Remind me again, on whose servers was this first published?

Come to your wikipedia page?

you mean the one that you have been documented (and here) not only editing, but wiping clean the edit history on, trying to bury your tracks?

The game you're playing is dirty and how dare you come here unwilling to meet us on equal ground.

Certain high level wikipedia editors have the ability to remove such a permanent link from the database, for reference check out Jimbo's birthday on wikitruth. http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo's_birthday

Jimbo Wales is actually pretty convinced that those editing the articles concerned in the way described and banned for the fact are acting in bad faith.

I don't think you know much about Wales. There are plenty of fine examples of Wales thinking and doing completely ridiculous, petty things.

It portrays the events as arbitrary despite the fact that, actually, these things don't go on in secret.

* http://www.wikipediareview.com WR is a forum that is populated by a mix of Wikipedia administrators posting openly, regular users, and a few "banned" users. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia 'elite' routinely badmouth the holy hell out of the WR forums because of the fact that "banned" users are allowed. Also, the Wikipedia "BADSITES" final solution (which is still active--disregard that rejected notice, its just been implemented anyway), was a direct revenge response against Wikipedia Review and similar sites that the Wikipedia leaders have no ability to silence or control in any way.

* http://www.wikitruth.info Wikitruth is a private Wiki, which is ran by a variety of actual Wikipedia administrators, who post deleted content from Wikipedia and other insider information. Wikipedia HATES Wikitruth, almost as much as they hate Wikipedia Review, but are both helpless and powerless against them. Why? Because anything posted to Wikipedia is posted under the GFDL, and you can't de-GFDL Wikipedia content. Wikipedia just "chooses" not to display deleted content as an editorial decision. Oops.

Go to Wikipedia Review for frank and uncensored discussion about Wikipedia. Yes, some lunatics and social and/or mental defectives live there; the same as on the Slashdot comments. But a frightening number of smart and eloquent people post there. Those are the ones that Wikipedia is truly frightened of, because they can't be controlled or stopped. Go to Wikitruth for the best insider dirt.

I'm sure someone will mod me down as flame bait, or trolling, or someone who edits Wikipedia will be along to troll me. However, isn't it funny how whenever this sort of thing happens, you *cannot* get a straight answer out of the Wikipedia "executives"? It's always spin control, and damage control, sadly. Irresponsible.

Sadly, to get the real story, you need to read external sources such as:
* http://www.wikipediareview.com/
* http://www.wikitruth.info/

And to get the real story about THOSE sites, you need sources like:
* http://www.wikipediareviewtruth.com/
* http://www.wikitruthreview.com/
* http://www.wikipediareviewtruthreview.info/
* http://www.whocaresaboutyourpissingcontestsijustwanttolooksomethingupquickly.com/

* http://www.wikipediareview.com/
* http://www.wikitruth.info/

"On-Wiki" they are already in spin control. The best thing about the secret mail list is that it is hosted on Wikia.com servers, the private for-profit company owned by Jimbo Wales, which is legally supposed to be seperate from registered charity the Wikimedia Foundation. Various people have already informed the IRS.

This is the evidence that Durova, self-proclaimed "complex investigations specialist" used to justify banning one of Wikipedia's finest contributors. http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Durova's_Sekret_Evidence

Here she is on Slashdot. In what appears to be an amazing coincidence, the person she is defending here is the same person who happens to run the mailing list in question.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781&cid=20020479

Its funny you mention the Star Wars Kid article , because certain Wikipedia administrators have been trying to supress the fuck out of his real name from that article for months. There's even a threaded debate about it on the articles discussion page.

From http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Category:Uncensored

Here are uncensored copies of Wikipedia articles which have been removed from Wikipedia.

Uncensored:1.800.Vending
Uncensored:Alan Dershowitz
Uncensored:Alexander MacGregor
Uncensored:Allison Stokke
Uncensored:Angela Beesley
Uncensored:Anna Halman
Uncensored:Ashida Kim
Uncensored:Barbara Schwarz
Uncensored:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)
Uncensored:Brian Peppers
Uncensored:Christopher Ruddy
Uncensored:Cory Williams
Uncensored:Crystal Gail Mangum
Uncensored:Darrin McGillis
Uncensored:Edmund Reggie
Uncensored:Encyclopædia Dramatica
Uncensored:Gay Nigger Association of America
Uncensored:Gregory Lauder-Frost
Uncensored:Israel News Agency
Uncensored:Jack Thompson (attorney)
Uncensored:Jason Fortuny
Uncensored:Joel Leyden
Uncensored:Justin Berry
Uncensored:Laura Tennessen
Uncensored:Lava lamp
Uncensored:Manar Maged
Uncensored:Mindy Kaling
Uncensored:Mitch Modeleski
Uncensored:NewsMax.com
Uncensored:Norman Technologies
Uncensored:Paul Barresi
Uncensored:Philip Sandifer
Uncensored:Qian Zhijun
Uncensored:Rachel Marsden
Uncensored:Richardson family murders
Uncensored:Rose (goat)
Uncensored:SMS.ac, Inc.
Uncensored:Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy
Uncensored:Simon Pulsifer
Uncensored:Stephen Schwartz
Uncensored:Wikitruth
User:Essjay/Letter

(go to the site for the list and the uncensored pages)

Jayjg was even banned from the Italian Wikipedia for abusively deleting edits. The problem on English Wikipedia is that it is the co- founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, himself who personally approved the controversial appointment of Jayjg to the powerful Oversight Committee for English Wikipedia despite numerous objections from other editors about Jayjg's abusive edit-warring. This is hardly surprising given that much of Wikimedia Foundation's funding comes as anonymous donations often from dubious political foundations.

Some very revealing studies of Wikipedia from the outside:

wikipediareview.com

wikitruth.info

antisocialmedia.net

Things like this have not been addressed.

http://www.wikitruth.info/ has some info... but don't take it's word on it. Give editing Wikipedia a shot and see the shitstorm it can raise.

I'm a casual Wikipedia editor -- I edit Wikipedia on and off, semi-regularly but certainly not enough to be part of any incrowd. I have never run into any shitstorms. In my impression, most of the people who keep running into conflicts are actively looking for them. The site you cite is a nice case in point -- the whole tone of it screams extreme, borderline-psychotic hostility. It seems designed to create problems rather than solve them.

If you're civil, respect established community consensus without accepting it as gospel, familiarize yourself with rules and traditions so that you can follow them or break them wisely, offer constructive and well-argumented criticism, and generally avoid behaving like a bull in a china shop, you should be allright. In the rare cases in which you get nowhere, just edit something else for a while, or take it to the arbitration committee if you feel that strongly about it. Yes, Wikipedia has mechanisms for conflict resolution -- funny how the critics never seem to try those!

Even if it's true that some articles are guarded by people with a sense of ownership or control over them (and it probably is true), the only difference between them and those bitter critics is that the former managed to gain control, and the latter tried and failed. Both categories of people have control issues, otherwise the critics wouldn't be so bitter over their lack of control over Wikipedia. Non-control freaks, on the other hand, don't generally have a problem reaching consensus, even on Wikipedia.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people lack an essential life skill: the ability to accept that not everyone everywhere is always going to agree with you. Wikipedia seems to attract such people by the bucketload for some reason. It's actually possible to learn to let go of a silly conflict without taking your ball and going home. But some people seem so blinded by spite and bitterness they can't seem to see that anymore. Sad.

Thing is, dishonest articles and misleading text won't get fixed. I gave up contributing to Wikipedia when I had my editing slammed left and right from "regulars" selectively applying rules in order to shut out the unpopular. "No original research" only applies when your assertions are against consensus, regardless of how accurate, "You don't own the article" only applies if you're outnumbered by a bunch of others that do own the article, "Bias" only when you're striving for uniformity.

I mean, I'm not even talking about abortion or rape or anything... look at the fight over "XOR" vs. "Exclusive-OR". Sheesh.

http://www.wikitruth.info/ has some info... but don't take it's word on it. Give editing Wikipedia a shot and see the shitstorm it can raise.

SlimVirgin gets banned along with her enablers. Grow some balls Jimbo.

I respectfully disagree with you.

SlimVirgin along Jayjg, Crum375, Mantimoreland and a few others do effectively operate as a powerful and unaccountable clique on Wikipedia controlling the content of numerous articles and quickly banishing and/or abusing those that disagree with them. SlimVirgin is a very abuse character, although she is also great at playing the victim and ingratiating herself with those who hold power.

There is an essay I wrote about the tactics that they use to effectively control articles on Wikipedia here:
-> Cabals on Wikipedia: Prerequisites, Characteristics and Tactics of Effective Partisan Groups

Another honest account of the situation is provided on this web page, also written by experienced long-time Wikipedians:
-> WikiTruth.Org: SlimVirgin

There is an elite class on Wikipedia that colludes together and is effectively unaccountable. You can continue to ignore this issue but it isn't about to go away, its just going to grow.

Be sure to check out: http://www.wikipediareview.com/ http://www.wikitruth.info/ For uncensored information on Wikipedia.

As Wikitruth and the Wikipedia Review forums have shown hundreds of times, Wikipedia is full of inaccuracies and edit wars on all but the most mundane topics. More insidiously, there is tremendous pressure for particular viewpoints from groups of administrators with special interests, sometimes reflecting the bias of Wales or employees.

So, the idea that there will be an organised effort by a particular group to push a particular agenda (that of a particular dept of the German government) is nothing new. The idea that it will spoil some honourable volunteer effort where all points of view "balance out" is, alas, a complaint about a horse that has grown wings and a horn and blasted through the stable roof.