1
   

Wikipedia Watch

 
 
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 03:35 pm
Has Wikipedia been taken over by administrators with agendas?

Wikipedia is out of control
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,298 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 07:04 am
What does "scraping" mean?

That term seems important to the author's argument, and I am not sure what it is.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 08:18 am
Scraping :

To extract data from dynamic web pages on your targeted websites and save the content into your own databases or text files.

Copying the contents from thousands of web pages and pasting them to your own file one by one.

I think.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 05:27 am
Wikipedia has always been out of control. That's the whole point of it being a Wiki, that nobody controls it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 03:00 pm
Quote:
Posted 11/29/2005 7:12 PM

A false Wikipedia 'biography'

By John Seigenthaler

Little legal recourse

Source

An interesting read. Of course, popular/in the news topics are going to be checked, rechecked, and checked some more for content. But what about less popular material that still might be of research value to someone. How often is this material reviewed for mistakes, spam, etc?
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 03:03 pm
no more "that's my home page"
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 03:17 pm
Whoa!
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 03:19 pm
I will be keeping an eye on this one...
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 03:22 pm
I was wondering if I could join the wiki stuff and start chaning things?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 03:33 pm
husker, for the most part you don't need to be on their staff to edit something. i think there are things that only staff can edit, but those are exceptions. basically, wikipedia relies on an honor system.
0 Replies
 
RobertSieger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 May, 2006 10:07 pm
RE; WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS AND EDITORS:

The tragic thing that is going on with Wikipedia is that Catholic censors and apologists (mostly Irish, of course) have gotten adminiships and have taken over, deleting anything they don't like, without even any explanation or justification. They have already gotten away with removing any reference to Adolf Hitler's Roman Catholicism, but bringing out the tired old bromides about how he wasn't "really" a Catholic. He was never excommunicated, so I venture a guess that he was a Catholic, as was his wife, Eva Braun. The Third Reich was the most Catholic government in German history. Needless to say that can no longer be mentioned. Most Wikipedian have no idea what is going on, but many are to be blamed because they mindlessly follow directives from the abusers without question or even reviewing what they are reverting or deleting or censoring or blocking. They respond with Pavlovian instincts to any perceived breach of any wikietiquette without even reviewing what they are helping to censor.

A caveat - I am a banned user from Wikipedia, a rare honour, given the logistics of Wikipedia, because of injudicious, shall we say, language towards fellow editors. I admit that, but the entire thing was cooked up by one person - an editor who calls himself "Demiurge" (it has a religious meaning, but I don't care). He requested a RfC (Request for Comment) against me (which has no teeth), and later a RfA (Request for Arbitration), which does have teeth. Several members of the Arbitration Committee are Catholics, and should have recused themselves. One, Sean Barrett, has an anti-Protestant (anti-Presbyterian to be exact) doggerel on his homepage (at least the last time I checked), and he is a high-ranking Wiki bureaucrat!!!

Even when they block me, almost always abusively, a few hours later, I am good to go, but even I have to admit that I usually can't get my way without the "kindness of strangers" (i.e. the help of third party Wikipedians, most of whom have no idea of the Catholic coup d'etat).

The worst-known (to date) Catholic censors/apologists/revisionists include:

1) Musical Linguist (aka Ann H.) , an extremely abusive Irish administrator, whose homepage is a shrine to Catholic apologetics, and in case you aren't aware, she lets you know that she is a Catholic wikipedian, a Roman Catholic wikipedian, and an Irish wikipedian, amongst other things. She deleted a quote from an 80 plus year old native of Traunstein, Bavaria, Elizabeth Lohner, who disputed the Ratzinger brothers' claims that they had no choice but to follow the Nazi regime. The quote was from the Times of London, and her explanation/justification - nada. She (and others on this list) will go and delete not only your edits, but messages you leave on other Wikipedians' discussion pages, citing, when she bothers, alleged "incivility".

2) Demiurge - Irishman - the one who got me banned to silence me forever, although, of course, that is not the case, as I still edit, but am forced to do so without signing in. He is not an administrator yet, to my knowledge, but it may happen soon. I forced my will regarding some wikipages that he tried to take over, with the help of good third party Wikipedians who have no idea what is happening. I don't want to mention the specific pages lest they be revisited. I'm tired of being Sisyphus. Tends to delete anything he thinks I wrote using boilerplate nonsense excuses like "POV" or "sockpuppet" or "banned user" as justification.

3) Jtdirl, another abusive Irish administrator, who is the one pushing the Hitler line re Catholicism, although, of course, he can provide not a scintilla of cited or sourced backup for his POV. Claims on his homepage that he is "a lapsed Roman Catholic".

4) Ali-oops - native of Ireland, living in Cork, now I believe, but claims not to be a Catholic. Always throws his lot in with the above-mentioned (and others), and tries to pretend it is b/c I am not willing to discuss things with other editors. Tends to delete anything he thinks I wrote using boilerplate nonsense like "POV" or "sockpuppet" as justification. Even when he claims I am not all wrong he deleted the entire edit, rather than just whatever he found objectionable, knowing that I would have to resubmit and then be censored or revised by one of his buddies. Not an administrator - yet.

5) Camillus - Camillus Patrick McElhinney, one of the few (besides myself) Wikipedians to use his real name. Glasgow-area computer scientist. Claims he is not a "theologist" and does "not attend church". You can Google his name it if you want.

NOT ALL BAD, but insisted on creating a sectarian, divisive site called "Irish-Scots", but fudges the real reasons for sectarianism in Scotland, and sanitizes the history and even the list of names of prominent "Irish-Scots". Abbetted, mindlessly, by his non-Catholic lackeys (Graeme L., an administrator, and Angus McLellan, another person to, apparently, use his real name).

6) Sceptre - no idea of nationality. Real name may be "Will". 15-year old administrator who talks tough on his website about how he supports "the one-revert rule" (blocking anyone who tries to revert anything after one try), as opposed to the three-revert rule now, technically, in place. However, on one occasion (of many), Demiurge and I engaged in a long revert battle, much longer than most, way beyond three reverts. Of course, only I was blocked in the end by young Will. 15-years old!!! (Look up the movie "Wild in the Streets".)

Very, very sad, and Mr. Wales is not particularly interested. I know - I emailed him. Maybe he has made the mistake of believing his own staffers.

Robert Sieger
[email protected]
0 Replies
 
makemeshiver33
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 May, 2006 10:11 pm
I always found it best when using Wikipedia to click on the discussion area of the post and discover if there has been a chat over it, to see if everyone is in agreement or not before I use anything information from Wikipedia...
0 Replies
 
RobertSieger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 May, 2006 10:44 pm
MAKE ME SHIVER33
Sadly, makemeshiver33 does not understand that the issue is abuse of power and attempts at censorship, revisionism and apologetics. Often a discussion page will not have been created yet, although any user can create it.

When a discussion page does happen to exist allone can do is leave one's opinions, etc., which is fine, but when you are dealing with the calibre of people who will actually take it upon himself or herself (such as Demiurge, Musical Linguist, etc.) to DELETE what you have written for whatever reason, then it is a matter of abuse.

And as I first learned when I used Wikipedia you are warned in the beginning that Wikipedia can do "little" regarding "abusive editors". That being the case it must be understood that this is a battle for hearts and minds. People prefer to get their info from easy sources, even when books by Gerard Posner, Penny Lernoux (the late wonderful Penny Lernoux) and John Cornwell can finally be printed, the number of people who read them cannot compare with those who get their info. from Wikipedia and other sources subject to censorship, manipulation, etc. Public schools can't be relied upon, and Catholic schools aren't going to tell the truth about the Church, so...

Robert Sieger
[email protected]
0 Replies
 
makemeshiver33
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 08:08 am
Quote:
Sadly, makemeshiver33 does not understand that the issue is abuse of power and attempts at censorship, revisionism and apologetics. Often a discussion page will not have been created yet, although any user can create it.



Ummm,derr.......

Unfortunately, Yes..I understood. I simply said I like to click on the discussion page to see whats going on....

BUT...you wouldn't happen to know that I have a text book with the available knowledge, or the fact that I have looked up different websites for existing information on the same subject....to see if it coincides...

I don't base any knowledgeable information on Wikipedia alone...I, am..derrr smarter than that....

But I get your jist about the censorship...anyone can post on WIKIPEDIA...and anyone can go back and delete your postings....
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 10:12 am
Quote:
Online encyclopedia entries on U.S. senators and representatives are being rewritten by Congressional aides.
February 2, 2006

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been seeing alterations in entries for members of Congress, including insults like "smells like cow dung" that seem to originate from within the halls of Congress itself.



That reference was made in the entry for Eric Cantor, a Republican representative from Virginia, according to CNET News.com. Another entry, about Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said he "was voted the most annoying Senator by his peers in Congress. This was due to Senator Coburn being a huge douche-bag."



Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan was listed under a similar term. Yet another entry, about Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, called him "ineffective."



Wikipedia has traced much of this activity to IP addresses assigned to the Senate and the House of Representatives. The online encyclopedia, which permits anonymous users to post entries and edit others' entries, has traced more than 1,000 instances of such alterations over the past six months to Congressional computers.



The problem got so bad that Wikipedia has repeatedly blocked and then unblocked one of the offending IP addresses from making further changes to its encyclopedia entries. The latest block occurred Wednesday.


More: http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=15576&hed=Wikipedia+Hit+by+%E2%80%98Vandals%E2%80%99+
0 Replies
 
RobertSieger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 07:38 am
WIKIPEDIA
Derr.... (what does that mean by the way, is it supposed to be like "Duh" or "Doh"?) ... it is more than someone merely deleting your edits, although that is often infuriating when it is for no good reason.

From Wikipedia's own site (about itself):
"Wikipedia has become increasingly controversial as it has gained prominence and popularity, with many critics alleging that Wikipedia's open nature makes it unauthoritative and unreliable, that it exhibits severe systemic bias and inconsistency, and that the group dynamics of its community are hindering its goals. Wikipedia has also been criticized for its use of dubious sources, its disregard for credentials, and its vulnerability to vandalism and special interest groups. Critics of Wikipedia include Wikipedia editors themselves, ex-editors, representatives of other encyclopedias, and even subjects of articles."

When you have a mob bent on censoring anything and everything they do not like, from unsavoury details about Pope Benedict XVI to the true history of Glasgow Celtic football club, and they are abetted by bureaucrats who have no idea what they are even helping to censor then there is a BIG problem.

I was just on Wikipedia, and of course, the usual suspects are at it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 05:35 pm
RobertSieger wrote:
The Third Reich was the most Catholic government in German history.


Quote:

source: Encyclopædia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035855 [Accessed May 9, 2006].

Just adding to the above that e.g. the condemnation of Nazi anti-Semitism by the Dutch bishops of occupied Holland (July 26, 1942) provoked Hitler to order the arrest of all non-Aryan Roman Catholics and send them in concentration camps. (The most famous, Edith Stein, was beatified by Pope John Paul II on May 1, 1987. She was canonized on Oct. 11, 1998.)
0 Replies
 
RobertSieger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 04:18 pm
RE Clemens August, count von Galen
I don't hear any denial from Walter re the Concordat signed between the Vatican and the Nazis, the refusal of the Vatican to excommunicate a single Nazi or fascist during or after World War 2, or even any mention by Count von Galen regarding the Jews, Gypsies, and dissidents slaughtered by the Nazis.

The Holocaust was the logical culmination of almost a thousand years (at least) of Catholic inspired anti-Jewish hatred fostered by the Roman Catholic Church.

I didn't intend to gtet into the actual subject of Catholic anti-Semitism on this site, just to draw attention to the censorship and apologetics on Wikipedia, but Walter forces me to at least address the issue (in truncated form).
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 04:24 pm
Re: RE Clemens August, count von Galen
RobertSieger wrote:
I didn't intend to gtet into the actual subject of Catholic anti-Semitism on this site, just to draw attention to the censorship and apologetics on Wikipedia, but Walter forces me to at least address the issue (in truncated form).


Maybe we could discuss your apparent need to bash Catholics at the same time??? Where is your evidence that the admins and editors on Wikipedia are all Irish Catholics?? Or is that the label you throw on anyone you disagree with?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 05:20 pm
Wikipedia is the best source for biographical and technical information. If you want to know when Galileo died, or what CORBA is there is not much better source than Wikipedia.

Current controversial topics are much more of a crap shoot, and often political bias is very evident. But then, if you are looking for objectivity, a mob is the wrong place to look.

But it is what it is. If you understand this, I think it is a valuable resource.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Facs on the Famous - Discussion by gollum
URGENT!!! (BEER STATISTICS) - Question by Sarah17
WHAT TIME IS IT NOW? - Question by farmerman
Are Print Encyclopedias Obsolete? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
what d'you call a prince? - Discussion by Endymion
Collecting - Numismatics - Discussion by gollum
What a Trip - Discussion by gollum
New York State Economy - Discussion by gollum
Finding Old Articles - Discussion by gollum
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Wikipedia Watch
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/17/2018 at 02:25:31