Bill Greene Rips Wikipedia a New One

_{January 11, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Bill rips Wikipedia for about 5 minutes straight about how its liberal editors censor stuff they don’t personally agree with. He says anything remotely positive related to Intelligent Design is quickly and completely censored. Bill then goes on to interview Mark Mathis, the producer of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”.

Comments

Great job Larry. I wish there was an FAQ of Wiki transgressions.tribune7_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

My blog has a new article about Wickedpedian "lawyering to death" and censorship: http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/01/lawyering-to-death-by-wickedpedian.htmlLarry Fafarman_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

DaveScot said (comment #12) --
I understand teachers don’t allow references from wikipedia but nonetheless I’m sure students use it quite often to get links to more reliable sources.
Even the lists of sources on Wikipedia are likely to be biased. The control freaks at Wickedpedia did not just censor text that I added to the articles (I added only minimal amounts of text) but also censored links that I added, even though the text that I added clearly indicated that the links were not approved by Wikipedia. As I pointed out, at least one school district has blocked Wikipedia on all of its computers. I think that as more people become aware that censorship is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems if not its biggest problem, more schools and school districts are going to follow suit.
larry I believe he did it because he’s largely supportive of the liberal agenda and didn’t like all the liberal bashing that Bill Greene was doing prior to the Mathis interview.
I myself agree with the Wikipedia bashing but not the liberal bashing. I don't stereotype liberals as supporting censorship.
Trying to get people to skip the part of the show that I specifically wrote about in the article with no explanation why they should skip it was totally out of line.
What did he expect to achieve by doing that, other than getting people pissed off at him for misleading them? Stupid.Larry Fafarman_{January 13, 2008
January
01
Jan
13
13
2008
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

rswood Wikipedia is probably the main reference for your average jr. high/high schooler when doing research I understand teachers don't allow references from wikipedia but nonetheless I'm sure students use it quite often to get links to more reliable sources. Be that as it may no teachers are assigning research into ID as ID is censored in public schools. How ironic. larry I believe he did it because he's largely supportive of the liberal agenda and didn't like all the liberal bashing that Bill Greene was doing prior to the Mathis interview. Trying to get people to skip the part of the show that I specifically wrote about in the article with no explanation why they should skip it was totally out of line. russ No, it wasn't tongue in cheek and it means exactly what it says. DaveScot_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

idnet.com.au’s comment is no longer with us and if he pulls something like that again he’ll be next.
Does that mean he won't be able to comment, or won't be able to comment OR blog? Or is this threat made tongue in cheek?russ_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

I said,
idnet.com.au said,
I suggest you listen only from 18min 50secs.
Darn it, idnet.com.au, you threw me off. The part about Wickedpedia starts at about 6:50 and continues to about 13:00. DaveScot said (comment #3),
idnet.com.au’s comment is no longer with us and if he pulls something like that again he’ll be next.
idnet.com.au is apparently a co-blogger here. Why would he do something like that? Anyway, I can't get enough of the Wickedpedia part of the audio -- I've played it over and over.Larry Fafarman_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

BTW, I am opposed to the arbitrary Wikipedia rule against citing personal blogs. Even if a blogger is personally unreliable, his/her blog could have citations of reliable sources. And bloggers' opinions are often neither reliable nor unreliable -- they are just opinions. But this rule against personal blogs is just one of the ways that the Wickedpedians "lawyer you to death," as Bill Greene aptly put it. The Wickedpedians said that Sleazy PZ's and Ding Elsberry's blogs were OK because they were "notable" whereas my blog was "crappy."Larry Fafarman_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

rswood wrote:
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is probably the main reference for your average jr. high/high schooler when doing research;
As I wrote elsewhere on this site, I think it's time for the dissenters to form their own competing online encyclopedia. They must pick a name that is catchy as 'Wikipedia' because, when all is said and done, everything is about politics and influence.Mapou_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is probably the main reference for your average jr. high/high schooler when doing research; and they aren't likely to have the needed critical thinking skills to sift through the propaganda. As a result, these lefty editors are indeed having a large impact in forming the opinions of the young.rswood_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

There is one saving grace in this situation. Every single minute that the misguided liberal youths who comprise the bulk of Wikipedia low-level administrators spend in censoring anything appearing in wikipedia that conflicts with their leftist ideology is a minute they aren't spending studying, working, or participating in the political system. The latter activities might actually someday get them into positions of real authority where they can do some real damage. Hopefully they can't tear themselves away from their wikipedia mission long enough to even cast a ballot. DaveScot_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

j said (Comment #4) --
. . .all while trying to fob off what they write as being from a “neutral point of view” (”NPOV”).
Here is one of my blog's articles about Wickedpedia's "NPOV" policy -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/07/wikipedias-hypocritical-farcical-npov.html j said,
The founder (and still special authority) of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, could do more to combat this abuse, but doesn’t.
Here King Jimbo Wales himself is participating in the abuse on Cheri Yecke's bio -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheri_Yecke#regarding_reputationdefender Below is a typical exchange between me and a Wickedpedia administrator, from the following discussion about Cheri Yecke's bio -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheri_Yecke#Advocacy_for_intelligent_design I said,
There is a general Wikipedia rule against using personal blogs as sources. There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) when the blogger is writing about him/herself and (2) when the blogger is a news media professional who is writing on a blog that is under the "full editorial control" of a news media outlet (but then the blog is not really a "personal" blog). The first exception obviously does not apply here. As for the second exception, Elsberry's blog is not even affiliated with -- let alone controlled by -- a news media outlet. The rule has no exception for the personal blogs of "notable" people.
Wickedpedia administrator Guettarda responded,
And we are using Elsberry's blog as a source for Elsberry's first person experience, and Myer's blog as a source for Myer's opinion; that and for a quote from a news story which is no longer available online. Of course, both are experts writing about a field in which they are experts. And while Myer's is a widely read op-ed columnist (I'm guessing the most widely read one in the country on the subject of science), there's no need to invoke even that explanation. Simply put, we are using Pharyngula as a source for what Myers said and we are using Austringer as a source for what Elsberry said...just as you could use a Krugman op-ed as a source for what Krugman said without bothering to figure out whether the NYTimes op-ed piece adequately fact-checks its op-ed columnists (and based on what Brooks writes there, I'm going to guess that the answer is "no").
Larry Fafarman_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

For controversial topics, Wikipedia is unreliable, and shameful. It's a magnet for those with strong beliefs on the subjects, who can't help trying to suppress and/or distort the ideas with which they disagree -- all while trying to fob off what they write as being from a "neutral point of view" ("NPOV"). The founder (and still special authority) of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, could do more to combat this abuse, but doesn't.j_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Larry, quite right. The Wiki part was of most interest to me too. idnet.com.au's comment is no longer with us and if he pulls something like that again he'll be next. DaveScot_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

idnet.com.au said,
I suggest you listen only from 18min 50secs.
Darn it, idnet.com.au, you threw me off. The part about Wickedpedia starts at about 6:50 and continues to about 13:00. The rest of the audio is good, but it is the Wickedpedia part that is the subject of the post and is also the part that I most wanted to hear. Good for Bill Greene -- he describes the situation at Wickedpedia perfectly! I myself have had several bad experiences with Wickedpedia: (1) The Wickedpedia administrators blocked my attempt to add "Of Pandas and People," the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned in Dover public schools, to the Wickedpedia list of banned books. As a compromise, I proposed that the book be listed along with a short note that the listing was disputed and links to external websites where the dispute was discussed or debated. No soap. The Wickedpedians completely rewrote the banned books article in order to avoid listing Pandas. (2) Despite a general Wikipedia rule that citation of personal blogs is prohibited, the Wickedpedia administrators permitted citations of supposedly "notable" personal blogs (the blogs of Sleazy PZ Myers and Wesley "Ding" Elsberry) attacking Cheri Yecke while blocking rebuttals from my supposedly "crappy" personal blog. (3) The Wickedpedians falsely claimed that Judge Jones approved Wesley "Ding" Elsberry's text comparison computer program for the purpose of determining the extent to which two different texts contain the same ideas -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#.22Study.22_criticizing_Judge_Jones Needless to say, my Wikipedia user-ID has been permanently blocked -- not only can't I edit articles, but I cannot even participate in discussions under my user-ID. Many schools and teachers do not allow students to cite Wickedpedia as a source and one school district has even blocked access to Wickedpedia on all the school district's computers -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/11/wikipedia-censored-on-school-districts.htmlLarry Fafarman_{January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

I'm a fan of Wiki and I respect what they are trying to do there, but there is an bias w/regard to ID that is so obvious it is laughable. Now, I know some of you get angry at them but don't. That only makes them think they are right. Laugh at them. It is easy. The way they are treating to implement their anti-ID plan is ridiculous. And remember, we, not they, have reason on our side. Hopefully, some of them will be inspired to check their premise and see that what they think is A does not equal A -- just trying to relate to them on an atheists level :-)tribune7_{January 11, 2008
January
01
Jan
11
11
2008
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply