Wikipedia Sucks!

Wikipedia's political bias problem
Page 5 of 8

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Are the Wikipedians keeping their article on Bruce Ohr because he is a significant individual in world history? His role in current events being sufficiently large that his specific within them is established such that their often invoked ethical concerns over having an article on someone known for only one thing, can be overcome? (WP:BLP1E)

Of course not. He is kept, immortalised forever, because having a specific page dedicated to broadcasting the message 'OMFG Trump wants to ruin this man's career', fits with their political ideology and the overall reason why they edit Wikipedia. Namely to partizanly influence politics rather than dispassionately document history, even near history.

Even after all this time, the meagre amount of content Wikipedia has to offer the reader, masquerading as a biography, is evidence that when it comes to their desire to bash Trump, their usual ideas about how to better present such material (as a mere section in a more relevant article) are easily overidden.

As the corrupt and wholly biased Administrator put it when someojne dared try to delete it on those well established ethical grounds....
I think you should withdraw this so we can get on with it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Further to past posts, this a classic example of how a Wikipedia editor goes about establishing notability of a Republican..... ... =855059072

You will not find this editor making a similar edit to a biography of a Democratic, especially not a black one.

Is it any wonder that the Administrators of Wikipedia put conditions like this on unblock requests.......?
you have not made any statement to the press about conduct on Wikipedia or that you have withdrawn such statement. ... =855241852

Author:  AndrewForson [ Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Interesting that Wikipedians are getting worried about adverse media coverage, even though "This isn't truly a legal threat".

Author:  CrowsNest [ Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Administrative oversight urgently required
Jeremy Corbyn's Wikipedia biography has 20% of its coverage dedicated to his views (all said to be related) on anti-Semitism, Israel, Jews and Palestine.
There is not a skerrick of evidence Corbyn has ever made an anti-Semite remark
Compare our wiki bio of the outstanding virulently lethal anti-Semite, the architect of the Holocaust, Hitler, and we get 9% of the content on this.
Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Now, quiz time.....

Is Nishidani an all round generalist Wikipedia editor who is merely concerned about basic neutrality policies being followed for this high profile individual?

Or is he one of the regular players in the interminable disputes in and around Israel-Palestine articles, one who has a clear and obvious POV, and a strong and long term intent to get Wikipedia to reflect it as far as humanly possible.

No peeking at his user page!

Credit where it's due, when he's not doing this, he is absolutely obsessed with the article on the Shakespeare authorship question. Any Jewish/Palestinian academics involved in that, I wonder.....

Author:  AndrewForson [ Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

... and Nishidani retires. Keep up the good work!

Author:  CrowsNest [ Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

I'm flattered, but it seems this is nothing to do with me. Bizarrely, he is simply pissed that he wasn't completely absolved at a recent AE report. His retirement post makes it clear he thinks he is owed an exception to the usual behavioural standards because he 1) writes lots of articles 2) writes in a stressful area 3) the AE report was by a fellow battler from the 'other side', not a completely independent observer. Like that ever happens......

As is normal for Wikipedia, most Administrators accepted all this as perfectly fine mitigation, and so, wanted to let him go on his merry way. Free to continue to aggressively push his POV.

As is sadly usual, Sandstein, an Administrator who never touches these articles and never takes sides in blocking anyone, was the only Administrator to call bullshit here, and wanted to apply a sanction on this basis......
This is unacceptable conduct, and Nishidani has a record going back to 2007 of blocks and warnings for overly aggressive conduct in the ARBPIA topic area. According to the AE log, the user has already had two one-month topic bans. I am therefore considering imposing an indefinite topic ban. Sandstein 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Unusually, he was persuaded not to act given he was alone in this view. One wonders if more time might have produced a more just outcome from the bench than 3-1, that three including Drmies and Black Kite, whose record of corruption and bias in how they deliver their Admin opinions, is legendary. I have not heard good things about the other one, Fish+Karate too. Then again, maybe not.

It says everything about how utterly biased and corrupt Wikipedia is, that a user who basically gets away with it, and wasn't even facing a block, just a permanent ban from the area they clearly have massively strong bias over, still has a tantrum and 'retires' because Sandstein posted this....
I am closing this without action at this time, given that I am the only admin that considers this actionable. Nonetheless, I will consider imposing a block or an indefinite topic ban, with or without any prior discussion, in the event of continued battleground-like conduct by Nishidani in this topic area. Sandstein 16:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Nish consider this to be an open invitation to his enemies, a Sword of Damocles. Unacceptable!

This may well just be a tantrum though, as his reporter put it: "I have seen you retire from this project many times in the past, only to continue your offensive and disruptive behavior after a while."

As seen in the comiserations from all his fellow battlers, who of course want Sandstein burned at the stake, it turns out he does have other interests......
Over the past 18 months or so, Nishidani has created and written nearly 700 articles on the Aboriginal nations and peoples of Australia (with a little help from me, but 99% of the drive and effort behind these articles has been Nishidani). That documents a set of peoples who have suffered genocidal extermination or near-extermination as a result of British settler colonization. All with no disruption at all, since nobody is trying to justify that genocidal extermination. The contrast with the Palestinians is obvious, and I would love to see the result on Israel/Palestine articles if Nishidani were allowed to get on with them in the same way, with none of this constant, time-consuming, energy-draining hassle, petty niggling and blatant bad-faith disruption. --NSH001 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
See, totally different!

Author:  CrowsNest [ Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Hmmm. For a globalised encyclopedia, where all significant viewpoints are supposedly considered, it sure as shit seems like the Wikipedians believe "racists" can only be white people, more specifically, white people who are also fascist anti-semites. ... =858224158

It explains a lot. It certainly explains how Sarah Jeong's Wikipedia article has a strange version of "settled reality" locked into it. It explains how an innocent British user could possibly have been blocked for saying "sonny boy" to a self identified black Jew (someone who has since proven themselves to be every bit as capable of sheer hatred bordering on insanity as Adolf himself), and everything that happened to him since then.

This is not going to be the encyclopedia that the world wants. People aren't stupid, they can tell quite easily when the scales are being tipped by those who so clearly don't believe that a simple dispassionate presentation of the facts is enough. You will believe that Jeong was only criticised by Conservatives. You will believe that British user was a racist. If you do not believe, you will be forced out. One way or another.

This is the sort of person who writes Wikipedia these days.....
I've learned a lot from my students, about what it's like, for instance, to be arrested for walking down the street. And I bet most white people (SOME white people) don't even know what the real-life results can be of just being arrested if you're already leading a fragile life. The depths to which some people will sink by calling 911--as long as white people do that (SOME white people, whatever), white people (MOST white people) don't have much to complain about. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
He has been instrumental in achieving the strange settled reality in both the incidents mentioned. And countless others besides.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Further to last, proof that actual intellectuals on the left don't find this stuff hard to grasp. ... ump-racism

Unsurprisingly, they also grasp the toxic effects of incivility.

In short, if Wikipedia wants to claim it has influence on the world, then it has to accept the blame for causing the hatred and division the Wikipedians claims to be horrified by.

People like Drmies, running around lecturing editors about white privelage, racism and generally being an insulting boor, they're the exact people who are destroying Wikipedia. The cancer at its core. They normalised the idea Wikipedia is part of the identity politics battle space, and people like Drmies are the generals. It's no secret Jimmy Wales is disgusted that scum like Drmies have risen to such heights in Wikipedia. This wasn't his vision for Wikipedia. And we know Larry Sanger is disgusted at the way they have co-opted his original vision of neutrality in favour of one that merely reinforces their own political agenda.

Wikipedia wants to divide society into good and bad people, using whiteness as the lazy template for defining what is bad, just as much article as Trump does, in the opposite fashion.

It is ironic to think, these stupid Wikipedians have probably ensured, or at least hastened, any impending real world conflict. They arguably want it more than the proper white supremacists. Probably think it would be some kind of Gulf War 1 deal, a cake walk. Instead of in reality, being more like the sequel.

Author:  NadirAli [ Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

ericbarbour wrote:
Please, don't ever make the mistake of taking Guy Chapman at his word. He is a raving nutball and a classic internet troll, who sucked up to Jimbo a very long time ago and is now "permanently embedded" in the "cult". He is not rational and he is not an "intellectual" by any wild stretch of the imagination. His perpetual pursuit of "quack" medicine content on WP would constitute a valid reason to participate; if only he wasn't also a complete freak. Who literally starts editwars just for the fun of it.

I've never encountered him except on AN where he supported my ban. But I've read a lot of complaints on him off Wiki. There might have been some positive editing on occasions, but for the most part it seems he would fit WP:NOTHERE by definition.

But like the other administrators, policy does not apply to them.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wikipedia's political bias problem

Oh, he's got far more immunity than the average Administrator. Guy is one of the few people on Wikipedia who can genuinely do what they want. Level 1 Power User. In that environment, if you're not Level 1 and don't have the protection of a Level 1, why would people even participate? It is a question that continues to puzzle.

Page 5 of 8 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group