Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia"
m (Reverted edits by Arthropleura (Talk) to last version by Fall down) |
m (Reverted edits by Fall down (Talk) to last version by Arthropleura) |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
*Wikipedia [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ official site] | *Wikipedia [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ official site] | ||
*[http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670 The Wikipedia FAQK], by Lore Sjöberg | *[http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670 The Wikipedia FAQK], by Lore Sjöberg | ||
| − | |||
[[Category:commies]] | [[Category:commies]] | ||
{{keyword|wikikey=Wikipedia}} | {{keyword|wikikey=Wikipedia}} | ||
{{wikinav}} | {{wikinav}} | ||
Revision as of 18:50, 27 May 2009
Wikipedia, "The Encyclopedia Any Teenager Can Vandalize", is a cheap knock-off of Conservapedia, but overly verbose and full of liberal bias, porn, gossip, slander, porn, smear, bias and liberal porn.[1] What's even worse, they occasionally use "BCE" instead of "BC". It is a known fact that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American Public.[2]
Wikipedia boasts approximately 7.3 million crappy articles in 252 languages, of which 251 are not American and incomprehensible, and the remaining one is full of spelling mistakes, most notably lots of "u"s where they don't belong. Of the 7.3 million articles, about 5.5 million are related in some way to Pokemon.[3] Just like the well-established Encyclopædia Britannica, it is totally useless as a basic reference and a starting point for deeper propaganda research.
It also occasionally edits Wikipedia.[4]
In Western religion
It has been theorized by some that the creator of Wikipedia is Jimbo Wales.[5]
Bias or radial?
Wikipedia attempts to maintain a neutral point of view, and although there is admitted difficulty in attaining this goal,[6] efforts are constantly made to try to filter out and resist pervasive bias.
Copycats
The Wikipedia project has inspired a great many other, smaller projects, called "wikis" such as Homestar Runner Wiki[7] and Citizendium[8], using the same Mediawiki software designed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Although many are encyclopedic in nature, some, such as Flu Wiki[9] and RationalWiki, are used for information sharing for a specific purpose. Some "wikis" such as Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are parodies of the wiki phenomenon. Still others aren't really wikis at all, but they do allow new editors to sign up once in a while to make sure the admins can still have fun with the block button.
Bias on Wikipedia
Aside from the claims of some embittered cranks that Wikipedia has a systematic bias, various well-heeled organizations, including the CIA, Microsoft, Fox News, and Diebold have been altering Wikipedia entries for their own agendas.[10][11]
Conservapedia
Conservapedia, a very small project aiming to emulate Wikipedia from a conservative, American and Christian point of view, involves several editors and administrators who had previously faced opposition in inserting their heavily biased point of view into Wikipedia articles.[12][13] Some appear under aliases, apparently in order to distance themselves from their prior involvement with Wikipedia[14] or possibly to fit in more with a common Conservapedia username scheme.[15] As a whole, the site appears to have an unhealthy fascination with Wikipedia and its supposed faults.[16][17] It is significant to note that many of what Conservapedia administrators consider faults in Wikipedia are often repeated, to a greater degree, on their own site.
While being frustrated in their attempts to insert a respect for real world scientific facts at Conservapedia, the founders and most of the original editors here at RationalWiki "met" each other.
RationalWiki
RationalWiki, a very small project aiming to demolish Conservapedia from an apolitical, geo-neutral and sensible point of view, involves several editors and administrators who had previously faced opposition in inserting their heavily biased scientific point of view into Conservapedia articles.[18] Some appear under aliases, apparently in order to distance themselves from their prior involvement with Conservapedia, although most use the same user name they had there. Some have added more goat, in order to fit in with a common RationalWiki obsession. As a whole, the site appears to have an unhealthy fascination with Conservapedia and its supposed obvious faults. It is significant to note that many of what RationalWiki administrators consider faults in Conservapedia are often repeated, to a greater degree, on their own site.[19]
While being frustrated in their attempts to insert a respect for real world logic and sense at RationalWiki, a small cabal of vandals and skeptics "met" here at RationalWiki and someday will destroy it from within from their sekrit namespace.
Footnotes
- ↑ Seriously! They have pictures of both men's and ladies' naughty bits, if you look hard!
- ↑ According to Conservapedia.
- ↑ Just ask "Andy" about their pron and pop culture strategy to take over teh innertubes and sell it to Google!
- ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1
- ↑ www.conservapedia.com
- ↑ Perhaps they should just delete and protect the article?
- ↑ Homestar Runner Wiki
- ↑ Citizendium
- ↑ Flu Wiki
- ↑ See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign
- ↑ Wikipedia Scanner
- ↑ Roger Schlafly
- ↑ Ed Poor
- ↑ Conservative/kdbuffalo
- ↑ RobS/Nobs/Nobs01
- ↑ Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
- ↑ How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia
- ↑ See the Night of the Blunt Knives
- ↑ According to disgruntled Conservapedia sysops who joined RationalWiki
External Links
- Wikipedia official site
- The Wikipedia FAQK, by Lore Sjöberg