MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Wikipedia SUCKS

• Posted by Beth on July 13th, 2006 filed in General, Moonbats, Stupid, WTF    

Tags: Wikipedia, Wikipedia sucks, Congresspedia, PR Watch, SourceWatch, Center for Media & Democracy, activism, Bush, Vets for Freedom, Jeff Sessions, Haditha, 9/11, September 11

Did you ever notice that only “liberals” (scare quotes) use Wikipedia as a source when using links in blog posts or comments? Well, there’s a DEFINITE reason for it, and it’s not just because they are clueless and think it’s an authoritative encyclopedia.

I’ve spoken of the Wikipedia bias before, in the context of the laughably left-wing “Congresspedia” project:

…I’m not interested in spending all my time keeping watch over stupid wiki entries. Wikipedia is bad enough–full of factual errors, inflammatory entries, and writer bias from every direction. That’s not an encyclopedia, that’s a soapbox. I call bullshi’ite.

And I forgot “libel” in that post. Well, I’ve been spending a little (too much) time at Wikipedia lately, and if you haven’t dug into it a little, you’re missing out on the real story. I’ll warn you, though: if you do dig in, prepare for frustration and a lot of arguing with brick walls to no avail, and a serious sacrifice of your time if you want to fix anything.

All you have to do is look at the “Discussion” tabs on most of the articles about (especially right-of-center) politicians, issues, or organizations, the war on terror (any articles related to it–and they won’t even allow the war in Iraq to be included as part of the WOT), even Jimbo Wales’ beloved Objectivism, and you’ll see what I mean. Just look at the the discussion page for George W. Bush–it’s even noted that it’s been subject to “vandalism”–in fact, the most vandalized article on Wikipedia ever. But vandalism, while annoying, is usually easy to spot and fix. The discussion page is where you can see the bullshi’ite. Note that there are numerous pages of archived discussion (aka “talk“) pages, as it’s been a hot one since the beginning. The very existence of a separate article to bash Bush (see the talk page there, too) is telling in itself. Now the Bush page is an extreme example, but it’s also probably to be expected that partisan attacks would be an issue (for example, the “worst President ever” was actually in there at one time). And if you’re prepared to get really pissed, look at the 9/11 talk page(s). The conspiracy theory article is longer than the 9/11 page! And WTF is this trash doing in Wikipedia?

But these articles are by no stretch of the imagination even close to the only biased/controversial articles in Wikipedia. I’ve been watching three articles in particular lately: Jeff Sessions (talk), Vets for Freedom (talk), and the Haditha killings (talk). Of course, there are countless others I could be watching, but three is already more than I have time for as it is. In the Vets for Freedom and Jeff Sessions articles, I’m basically trying to fight the battle alone, while being accused of having an “agenda.” It’s no secret here that I have my points of view, but it’s considered against Wikipedia policy to make personal attacks or not “assume good faith” toward other editors. I’ll detail the most egregious example of the three. One of the editors on the Vets for Freedom page, “Artificial Intelligence,” actually left this crap on the talk page:

First of all, I will identify who I am … I’m the lead citizen journalist on the Vets for Freedom article at SourceWatch. The VFF article grew from a simple posting on a new veterans organization into the extraordinary linkage to the definitely not non-partisan”ness” of the organization in all its various aspects.

There is no question or doubt about the organization’s founders as being true veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom. Their patriotism and heroism is not in question.

That said, in true research, one goes where the information leads. In this case, it led down a very interesting path with the Republican Party and its operatives awaiting discovery at every twist and turn.

No attempt at bias was necessary; the facts speak for themselves.

Second, it’s unfortunate that Beth C. failed to clearly identify who she is. Beth C. is the self-proclaimed “Blog Mistress” of the My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Blog, where, on June 19, 2006, she blogged the article “Vets for Freedom: Back to Iraq.” Beth C. is also a co-blogger at The Cottilion (sic) Blog, where she has also posted on the VFF, helped to swiftboat John Murtha, and promote Murtha’s PA opponent Diana L. Irey, who, by the way, is being promoted in her bid for Congress by the same group of “supporters” as the VFF: New Media Communications/Campaign Solutions/Donatelli Group.

Lastly, like Beth C., I await VFF’s input both here and at SW. Artificial Intelligence 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(Emphasis mine) Goddamn right I am the blog mistress here, but that is absolutely irrelevant. And “swiftboat Murtha?” WTF is that? Did I ever say anything about Murtha’s time in service? Idiot. Anyway, the issue with the VFF page is that it is presented as though Vets for Freedom is a “front group” for Bush and the GOP. It’s laughably fallacious bullshi’ite, based on imaginary connections. Furthermore, “Artificial Intelligence” is an OBVIOUSLY agenda-driven, biased contributor. It took a little digging, but a look at the history on his user/talk page shows it. Of course, he regularly deletes everything on there, apparently to cover his tracks. Besides, anyone who thinks Source Watch, a segment of the Center for Media & Democracy, is non-partisan is just simply uninformed. John Stauber, the Executive Director of Source Watch, is the source of all the accusations of the Vets for Freedom being “tied” to the Bush Administration and the GOP. His blog alone is evidence enough. Yet SourceWatch, or more specifically, John Stauber, is considered a “reliable source” for information to produce an encyclopedic article for an organization–an organization to which he is bitterly opposed. For all I know–and it seems extremely likely–”Artificial Intelligence” IS John Stauber.

Anyway, back to the “ties” to the GOP. If one were to go by SourceWatch’s standards, I could easily be accused of “ties to the Bush Administration and Republican Party.” After all, I donate money, I participate in Wictory Wednesday, I vote Republican, I patronize businesses that support the same views as I do, I have a GOP.com newsfeed on this site, and I even have a user page at GOP.com (although it’s not exactly active). But do I “have ties” to the GOP? Well, not in the sense SourceWatch would say, as with Vets for Freedom as a “front.” But GOD FORBID Wade Zirkle or David Bellavia or any of the others do any of the stuff I do, because they are an organized group. Therefore, to SourceWatch/PRWatch/Wikipedia, they’re a “front.” BULL EFFING CRAP. And what about people like Markos Moulitsas, who have actually been consultants for Democratic candidates? Not a single mention of “ties” at SourceWatch or Wikipedia that would say the Daily Kos or any of his other ventures are a “front group.”

Needless to say, the Vets for Freedom article is just a drop in the bucket. There are some people at Wikipedia who are vigilant in fighting biased articles from either direction, but they are far, FAR outnumbered by the activists. It’s no accident that I don’t self-identify at Wikipedia as a Republican or otherwise, because they usually end up banned or harassed–or at the very least, outshouted.

And that’s just the left-leaning bias. There are plenty more things to criticize about Wikipedia–things even more serious. The fact that people can add or edit an article about anyone or anything makes it ripe for abuse and, as I said above, libel. You can’t even get your Wikipedia article removed from there if you want to maintain privacy; in fact, fighting inclusion tends to get people banned. I don’t personally agree at all with the personal politics of Daniel Brandt or Kos’ Armando (two people of whom the vast majority of the country,much less the world, will never hear either of their names, nor need to) but it’s outrageous that one can’t correct information about themselves, much less demand some privacy. (Note the kid gloves with which Armando is treated by the fanboys, though.) Those are only two that immediately came to mind when writing this; I’m certain there must be plenty more (especially considering the left slant of most of the editors).

I could easily make this post a LOT longer, but you should get the point with this much. Bottom line: if you didn’t know already, you should not consider Wikipedia as a source for anything but certain items that could not be greatly affected by personal bias or idiocy. And Lord knows, forget the ridiculous Congresspedia unless you plan on devoting an unlimited amount of time to neutralizing their bias. As for me, I’m not giving up on the Vets for Freedom or Sessions articles, but I could sure use some help with them. I also won’t consider Wikipedia as a legitimate source by trolls any more than I’d consider the Democratic Underground a legitimate source. (Trolls: expect to be laughed at if you use WP here, even more than I already laughed at you for using it.) I knew it was crap, but I (foolishly?) had to dig in and see how these articles are formed. I’m sure that most of you who have read this are unsurprised to learn any of this about Wikipedia, but for those who don’t know, here is a further list of Wikipedia criticisms (to WP’s credit, they’re listed at WP–although it’s not an exhaustive list). Here are more people who say “Wikipedia sucks.” And finally, from a Freeper who, like me, got disgusted quickly:

First, read my tag line.

That came about after a few visits to Wikipedia and my discovering numerous mistakes about common, will known subjects. I even made a few corrections.

But I quickly figured out that I could make correcting Wiki articles my life’s work.

Not wishing to do that, I decided to just never go there again. Problem solved. :)

I have dubbed my personal, just-for-fun web site, “Second only to Wikipedia as the most unbelievable web site in the world.” So at least I’m having some fun with this.

26 posted on 04/21/2006 10:43:01 PM PDT by upchuck (Wikipedia.com - the most unbelievable web site in the world.)

Wikipedia sucks.

F.E.T.E.