UPDATE2: There’s now some question about who is who regarding the editing of the Connolley page at Wikipedia.One of the problems with Wikipedia is the use of handles. In the messages sent to me seen below, it appears that they came from William Connolley via the Wikipedia message system, but can’t be sure since the identity of the people who have handles and are involved in active editing aren’t known it appears not to be the case. This is one of the central problems with Wikipedia- anonymous editing lends to the confusion. While it is clear that Mr. Connolley has in fact edited his own page in the past, I have removed a reference to self editing in the current time frame because of the uncertainty he did not do so recently. My apologies for the confusion. – Anthony
======
People send me things. Here’s a story about a thread of recent exchanges that appeared in Wikipedia in the “talk” section regarding William Connolley’s page. This incident highlights the shape shifting nature of the information presented on Wikipedia, and how it is subject to the whims of ego and agenda. With information changing character literally in minutes, how could anyone treat Wikipedia as a reliable reference? I’ll coin a new word and call this “turborevisionism” due to the speed, sound, and fury it characterizes.
Consider the “Neutral Point of View” required by Wikipedia policy:
Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.
The editor who takes issue with this event writes:
On Sunday night, I went to the William Connolley wiki page and entered:
Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
That disappeared within an hour (maybe less); I reinserted it. On Monday night, checked again: text gone. I wished to re-enter it, but the [edit] facility was totally missing from the wiki page. Hardly ever saw that before.
Found a msg from Connolley directly to me:
William Connolley I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. —Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
___________________________________________
Date: Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Wikipedia activity
In 2005, an article in the scientific journal Nature compared the reliability of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. It discussed Connolley as an example of an expert who regularly contributes to Wikipedia.[8]
A July 2006 article in The New Yorker reported that Connolley briefly became “a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming”, in which a skeptic repeatedly “watered down” the article’s explanation of the greenhouse effect.[9] The skeptic later brought the case before Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, claiming that Connolley was pushing his own point of view in the article by removing material with opposing viewpoints. The arbitration committee imposed a “humiliating one-revert-a-day” editing restriction on Connolley. Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about”, Connolley told The New Yorker.[9] The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley went on to serve as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006 until 13 September 2009.[9]
An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]
___________________________________________
Just appeared in wiki (by Mason):
Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
__________________________________________
Instantly changed to:
An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]
Mason corx, 2009 XII 21, 12:45 AM & again 12:51 AM:
[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the ”[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].<ref>{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}}</ref> The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,” claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
__________________________
2009 XII 21 midnight: txt missing again. Mason want to re-inserts txt, cannot because the facility [edit] is now missing :
[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the ”[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].<ref>{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}}</ref> The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,” claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
_____________________________________
Msg from William Connolley to Mason, 2009 XII 22:
William Connolley
I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. —Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You’re welcome to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=William_M._Connolley. He’s been involved in editing entries on Pauchari, Richard Lindzen (yes, THAT Richard Lindzen) and the Middle Ages Warming Period. You’ll see who’s editing the article about himself!
I e-mailed him at wmconnolley@gmail.com to ask him if he thought it was a good idea to be involved in editing entries on those topics. His reply? No. Why?
This online encyclopedia lacks transparency and is a propitious habitat for ensconced ideological cabals. Articles on subject matter that is ideologically charged cannot be trusted. Another battleground is ed ideology. I know writers with a background in pedagogy who fought a losing battle with censors on constructivism.
Until this institution cleans house I will call it Kafkapedia.
There’s an article referenced at the end of the talk page on Climategate which is being discussed by Wiki under “New expert commentary”
It’s extremely critical of the Team.
http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-science-mantra.html
Hope it gets included!
My wikipedia account is TMLutas. I’m currently working in the global cooling article to improve it and getting double teamed by WMC and Atmoz, nothing new. If you’re frustrated that you can’t get your edits into a semi-protected article, put them in talk. If they’re good, somebody with rights, like me, will put them in.
Another thing you can do is to go to noncontroversial pages that you are knowledgeable about and put some edits in there. I do edits on religion, anti-communist politics, and climate issues and have done so for years. The red diaper babies defending Alger Hiss are just as annoying as WMC, believe me.
You can express yourself and improve articles totaling 10 edits over four days and you will be auto-confirmed. If you’re using an anonymizer like a Tor network, it’s 90 days and 100 edits. Once you’re auto-confirmed, you can edit semi-protected pages.
Tim S. and others, this is my response to the donation appeal, lots of topics have the same problems. Not least of all religious topics, and any science writers who do not support the big bang, for example supporters of the Electric Universe hypothesis.
Dear Mr Wales,
I have been using wiki’s since c2.com and the derived why? clublet.
A fundamental flaw in the idea is the belief in NPOV, it doesn’t work. I have spent hours of my time writing content for wikipedia and other sites, only to have them instantly removed by someone with a differing point of view.
For example, I am have been a full time carer for an individual with Dissociative Identity Disorder. This friend of mine has fully articulated personalities and I have lived with them for 6 years 24/7 as a paid support worker. This means that I do know a little about the subject. If you look at the wikipedia page on this subject it is consumed by the controversy over whether or not the condition even exists, a ridiculous notion if you have my POV.
Any article I have written gets removed within a day of writing it. With my experience I could do 10-20 pages of detailed information that would be beneficial to those seeking detail on the subject, however the dispute holds the front page, and prevents further illumination on a complex and interesting subject.
It would be far better to have a subject with a point of view attribution. i.e. “Assuming DID does exist – this is a page on DID”, “Assuming DID does not exist – this is a page on DID”. The pages on DID, would grow to be perhaps 100 pages on various aspects of the topic, whereas the pages against DID would be just one. The present situation is that the anti-lobby simply gate-keep all new material, to the extent that I will not bother contributing to wikipedia again. This similar scenario has been played out on a number of topics.
best regards, Keith
====
Their reply was a standard reply they give with regards to editing disputes. i.e. we dont control the content you have to fight it out.
====
My response:
Dear Joe,
I was not writing about a dispute in editing. I used the editing dispute as a clear illustration for the reason that I was not donating to your appeal.
I wrote as a user of wiki’s since the beginning. In particular I was the last contributor to the page “Jesus Christ” on c2.com before the page was locked and moved to the why? clublet site for metaphysical discussions.
In my experience the policy of NPOV does not work and needs to change, because the result is never truly NPOV, but is actually biased in the direction of the archetypal “secular non believer”. The result is that I am unable to contribute to wikipedia on almost any topic that I have some knowledge of, simply because I do have a point of view. Indeed without a point of view, many topics cease to have useful content.
This policy is the reason I am not considering a donation to Wikipedia, because the content of wikipedia is inherently biased due to this policy. This situation could be changed easily if the idea of POV was recognised. If each side were to be able to present their case fully, according to their point of view then you would actually be providing useful information.
In the case of Dissociative Identity Disorder, it is of no help to sufferers of this condition if the wikipedia article’s primary message is that the condition does not exist. The reality is that it does exist and is completely curable with the right help and information. Wikipedia could be the source of that information, but the NPOV policy gives an opportunity for the controversy to hog the content where there really shouldn’t be any controversy. Those who want to read about the controversy can of course do so, but the majority of people looking for information on DID want to find actual information about DID, not about the controversy. It stands to reason that the majority of actually useful information about DID will have been written by individuals who believe that it exists, but those individuals cannot post because they have a point of view.
best regards
Keith
Wikipedia looks to be nothing more or less than the 21st century update to Orwell’s 1984 with regard to rewriting history on a daily basis. Though Wikipedia is much more efficient at this task than was actually possible in 1984, I think it is fair to say that Big Brother is (so far) somewhat less brutal in enforcement of the process than he was in Orwell’s novel (Orwell imagined a totally repressive Stalinist type of regime in 1984). Though certain politicians have devoted extraordinary energy in attempts to terrify the public with their “consensus” of AGW Armageddon, they haven’t quite succeeded…yet.
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia needs to find a more accurate description for itself.
Guys, The Onion says it best.
Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence
Gentlemen, if I may make so bold as to suggest:
Some three years ago, a gentlemen named Andrew P. Schlafly started a wiki encyclopedia of his own, in response to three specific and pervasive faults that he found with Wikipedia:
1. Liberal bias, including without limitation the editing of articles to reflect the liberal and collectivist point-of-view (this although the founder, James “Jimbo” Wales, was supposed to have been an aficionado of Ayn Rand)
2. Gossip.
3. Pornography. This includes, to my certain knowledge, blatant plagiarism from another wiki that is a known source of pornographic content and even, dare I say it in this context, “advice.”
As I said: Andrew P. Schlafly decided to found another encyclopedia to compete directly with Wikipedia. He called it Conservapedia. Find it here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
His first editors and administrators were students of a home-schooling group that he also founded, in northern New Jersey. Then he began to attract other editors–and, frankly, some other “editors” not willing to get into the spirit of the thing. Of course, anyone who doesn’t want to behave is asked to leave.
Full disclosure: I became a senior administrator of Conservapedia in April of 2007. Today Andrew P. Schlafly counts me as a friend. He even arranged for me to attend a taping of his recent appearance on “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central, here in the States. (And during the audience warm-up session, I gave Stephen Colbert’s staffer what-for about this entire Climategate affair, and asked him rather scathingly whether he would like to see my copy of the CRU Archive.)
But I digress. The point is that, at Conservapedia we’re always looking for good editors. I daresay any of you, other than obvious hecklers, would be more than welcome.
As far as I can tell Miesianiacal was someone trying to add similar content to you. He was complaining that your wording of it was inferior to his own. Go look at the change log.
Anyhow based on the change log, you should examine the activities of Stephan Schulz. Crazy stuff it is Wikipedia. This is what you get when you are trying to write history as you are living it.
Wikipedia is one of those awesomely great ideas that would work perfectly in a 100% honest society. Unfortunately, we are all biased (whether we think so or not) and we cannot trust one another. Humanity must get rid of its self-righteousness because it is seriously defective. We must seek and find a more ethical, more logical and more powerful authority than ourselves and submit to it. Otherwise, we’re screwed.
Having said that, all is not gloom and doom. I believe that we will find that higher authority in the end, when we are on the edge of extinction. In the meantime, it will get worse before it gets better. Much worse.
As I have been saying everywhere I can, Connelly sits on the LIttle Ice Age piece and maintains a “proposed” and a “hypothesis” that man in Europe and N America caused the Medieval Warm Period from all of that farming going on and then the plagues wiped out the people and the LIttle Ice Age was caused by reforestation. Geez, if that small number of people did that, we are way beyond warming and roasting right now. Wait, the Medieval period was warmer than now! Oh well, another bad idea failed.
I added an ameliorating sentence to this entry 6–8 times over many months and W Connelly deleted it ASAP. Then he threatened me with a ban.
@Scott Gibson (15:35:22) :
RE: My understanding is that Connelly’s administrative privileges were revoked in September 2009. Is that correct and if so, why was he able to block an article on Climategate in November? And secondly, it is clear his article (on himself) has been extensively modified recently. Who did that if not him, and why did they delete the statement about his past punishments?
My reply:
WMC is no longer an administrator. He was stripped of his administrative privileges on 13 September 2009 when the arbitration committee ruled that he had abused them by blocking his opponent in an on-going arbitration case. This is a pretty obvious no-no but he did it plain as day. I would like to think he had his privileges revoked because of his behavior on the GW pages, but the reality is that this action was unrelated to those pages.
You can read the details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley&oldid=315690726
There is a small but loyal cadre of editors who continually cooperate to enforce the status quo on these pages. One person could not accomplish it alone under the existing rules. It requires several people in concert to “tag-team” any editor that tries to put in information that they disagree with. In the end it comes down to a simple numbers game. The group with the most numbers wins, for the most part. It is the cadre of loyalists who are scrubbing his BLP of the information, not WMC himself. He doesn’t need to as you can see since his friends do it for him.
The recent editing there is typical of any page on Wikipedia, especially controversial ones. In this case a couple of people wanted to add references to Solomon’s article to his page. His friends, obviously, object. There is always much wrangling about with the citing of Wikipedia policies and the subtle nuances thereof, but this is all just for show in an instance like this. The arguments are formulaic. It boils down to some number of people wanting something in, and some number of people wanting something out, and the larger group ultimately prevails.
Currently WMC has no special status and is not able to block other editors or protect pages, but he has plenty of close friends that will do his bidding for him on the things he really cares about, but obviously within the rules of the site such as they are. If they violate those they will be called out on it.
I am quite certain (even without having checked) that WMC did not alter the protection level of the climategate page after he was desysopped so there must be some confusion on that point. When the pages are protected the normal editing capabilities are restricted to certain classes of users. So the discussion above about the editing tab being removed is because the page was protected, in this case by user BozMo, not WMC himself. This is all available in the history tab of his page for those who are interested in checking it themselves.
Thanks, GoRight. I think your statement clears up a lot of confusion.
Scott,
GoRight is correct. WMC in fact simply moved the ClimateGate page and the protection moved along with it. The original protection was done by Wikipedia user MastCell and was supported by policy IMO.
There are several editors and even some administrators active on Wikipedia who are GW skeptics. At a certain point it turns into a war of attrition and they simply have more time and more accounts. In the end, the neutrality of the encyclopedia suffers.
As a side note, for those worried about deletion, an article requires a 7-day community discussion before deletion unless it is obviously problematic, i.e. clear vandalism or a copyright violation.
It is my opinion that items posted on something like the Wikipedia that have withstood the test of time in that venue or in the peer reviewed literature of record should not be subject to summary deletion by any one person who thinks they are inaccurate or incomplete.
I believe the most appropriate action when apparent new information raises doubts of an earlier science is to add amendments to the earlier articles without destroying the original information. We do not stop teaching Newton’s laws just because Einstein has shown them to be incomplete. I suppose some degree of Wiki-Thrashing is unavoidable on new controversial issues.
I’ve personally had some of my edits reverted by Conolly because they conflicted with HIS point of view. It’s not that they didn’t site outside sources: they did.
To say the least, I don’t bother with Wikipedia.
Wikipedian gets the last word at WUWT? And it’s an apologism.
“Please kind sirs. Don’t destroy the Wiki. It’s not all bad.”
Isn’t it delightful? Take a deep breath. Can you smell that sickly sweet aroma?
The stink of fear is on this thread. The Wiki is in a vulnerable position.
Now I’m simpathetic to the Conservapedia efforts, but isn’t it just another example of “me too”.
We’ve been there haven’t we? We got the NewYork Post and the Washington Times, me tooing the NYT and WaPo, but what does it get us?
I submit to you that the world doesn’t need a conservative version to balance the misinformation of the Ministry of Truth.
Instead let us kill Wikipedia dead using the very statist tools the liberal government of the UK so generously provides. They have libel lawyers advertising there like we have personal injury attorneys here. There has to be a reason for that. Maybe they’ll take your case on contigency.
Imagine a world without Wikipedia.
It isn’t hard to do.
No more slander of our heros.
The end of edit wars too.
Lets introduce a little chaos into their well ordered Orwellian world.
I’m looking forward to seeing what springs up from the desicated husk of Wiki.
My email to Wikipedia, to which I have yet to receive a reply.
“Dear Jimmy Wales,
You wrote, “It stopped being just a website a long time ago. For many of us, most of us, Wikipedia has become an indispensable part of our daily lives.”
When six years ago I started reading Wikipedia I also felt as you did, but no longer can I maintain that sure confidence, because of the blatant left wing political bias of a clique of administrators led by WMC who secretly police the body of knowledge relating to Man made global warning. Alternative explanations are reverted within minutes, purely because they are not considered consensual, nor orthodox.
You would be wise to read these WUWT articles linked below,together with all the comments attached.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/
You have people in your organisation who are working to see your idealism collapse. Clean house and the donations will resume. Best wishes with your duty, to clean the Augean Stables, otherwise the end on era beckons.
Respectfully,
Perry Debell.
GoRight says, “It boils down to some number of people wanting something in, and some number of people wanting something out, and the larger group ultimately prevails.”
Wikipedian says, “At a certain point it turns into a war of attrition and they simply have more time and more accounts. In the end, the neutrality of the encyclopedia suffers.”
*) Which confirm what many of the posts for this blog entry have stated. Wikipedia “Truth” is determined by a pseudo-democratic battle.
*) The Wikipedia battlefield is predominantly controlled by leftist activists who are going to save the world in one way or another. This fact alone advantages propagandists like William M. Connelly. I’ve butted heads on blatant misrepresentations found in Wikipedia articles and lost. It wasn’t worth the time to appeal up the chain.
*) You might be surprised at how many articles are biased or controversial. It is often as informative to read the discussion page as it is to read the main entry.
*) Even Wikipedia’s CO-founder has been caught rewriting history. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Controversy . That’s the CO-founder of Wikipedia REWRITING HISTORY!
*) My wife who occasionally reads articles from Wikipedia came to me some months back with a “fact” she had just read. It was one of those “authoritative Wikipedia facts ’cause it’s in black and white” that was posted by a troll and the article was reverted 5 minutes after my wife saw the page. She learned a lesson about trusting Wikipedia.
Wikipedia can never be more than the aggregate consensus of its left of center editors with healthy doses of propaganda and troll droppings indiscriminately mixed in. And if you know it, you probably aren’t qualified to edit the article.
Wikipedia is a bad almost evil place.
Check this out: http://www.deepcapture.com/tag/wikipedia
The same tatics are used all over the place.
For example, the Bilderberg meetings, where the most powerful and influencial people in the world meet every year, has been suppressed and censored sistematically. This year I tried to get enough information in a especific page and that was delete, under the pretext the page was not relevant. If the most important meeting of the year, which participants and minutes are secret, are not relevant, what is relevant, the xfactor series????
Check the details and help to change this censoring trend:
http://bigbrother-uk-1984.blogspot.com/2009/06/2009-bilderberg-meeting-wikipedia.html
As a researcher I use wikipedia regularly and find it very useful. The first rule of the internet is to assume no one soruce is correct but make use of reference links to get further information. Wikipedia is full of links, even to opinions which the major entry disagrees with.
Wikipedia is also a valuable experimenting in utilising the broadest involvement of experts, unlike tradtional encyclopaedia which had panels of experts. because it encourages input, it is open to opinion confict and where this occurs, activists can take the upper hand one way or another.
Wikipedia’s credibility is at risk when this occurs and must constantly evolve its safeguards accordingly. But this takes time.
However, if wikipedia is part of the public discourse, as it is, opinion partisans must engage in consistent debate and in numbers required to effectively sustain it. Otherwise this important global information conveyor is left in the hands of those whose opinion you disagree with.
Bad mouthing it won’t make it go away.
Simply, organise or surrender the turf.
*snort* Wiki…great information source. OT, but for a good example, check out the glittery review of Ernest “Che” Guevarra sometime. From reading it, you’d think he was a cultured, dignified politician…rather than a psychopathic mass-murderer. /shrug Go figure…
Sent to Wikipedia’s “Donate” email address:
Dear Jimmy,
I was going to donate as my two kids used to use Wiki for their elementary and junior high school reports as well as myself for
various basic informational research, and I consider this to be a valuable asset to society.
Nevertheless, when professors in college, all the way through to the teachers in my youngest son’s ELEMENTARY SCHOOL no longer
accept Wikipedia entries as citable references because of rampant edit wars, factual errors placed by anonymous “editors”, and the
outright bias of administrators such as William Connolley and his merry band of revisionists (to wit, K. D. Petersen, Atmoz, Boris,
etc..) among others, I find it difficult to part with the $50 I would like to donate. Instead I must now spend that money on the
latest (and last) Encarta dvd as it ~IS~ still a reliable and citable source.
Since I cannot bring myself to donate to Wiki, I will therefore cease to use it and will not allow my children to use it either as
this is only fair. Furthermore, I will encourage the rest of my family and our friends, and their friends (Etc, etc..) not to use
Wikipedia either. This situation will remain until the Wiki leadership actually ENFORCES your policies of neutrality, and integrity,
and once again wiki becomes a citable source of reliable, FACTUAL, and completely UNBIASED information.
Finally, I feel that is a sublime irony and powerful commentary on our times when unbiased and eminently factual publications like
Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, Collier’s, and Macmillan have all died in competition with electronic media like Wiki which has
become uncitable, and has VAST sections of information that have become politicized and/or hijacked by special interests.
V/r,
{redacted}
—===*Cool Website of the Week: http://web.mit.edu/isn/ *===—
PS. There was once a time that Wikipedia would be linked as my “Cool website of the week” on my emails, which goes out to hundreds
if not thousands during the workweek. No more.