… if you need correct information, not just free information.
This should have been enough:
Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project’s own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle -ranking quality scores. – MIT’s Technology Review
Here are some of the people who help make that possible:
Then there’s this: this:
Wikipedia shocked!, just shocked!! that some editors act for pay to promote stuff.
And this:
Wikipedia vs. facts: Someone else discovers the hard way about Wikipedia’s “facts” All that research to get the history correct, and he lost to the trolls. Another Wikipedia edit-ee reports that he was the victim of a 14-year-old.
On the other hand, people who need others to do their thinking for them should get on fine with these people. They seem to enjoy the job.
Michael Scott from the office said it best “Wikipedia. Is the best thing ever. Anyone, in the world, can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.”
On it’s “natural selection” page I added a quote from Mayr’s “What Evolution Is” and they removed it because they thought it was vandalism! IOW those morons can’t even check out the source!
F/N: Observe the speaker is ENDORSED by the James Randi “Educational Foundation” to present on guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia.
Almost in her first words she says that “Wikipedia is the most important tool in the skeptics’ toolbox.” She then calls for ideological skeptic editors in the context of crowd-sourcing.
We here have an outright public confession of ideological censorship, manipulation and distortion of Wikipedia and God only knows what else by the “skeptics” who see themselves as our intellectual betters.
They plainly have no shame, for they KNOW that a lot of innocent and naive people go to Wiki as a first and too often final reference. So, their reaction is to exploit the openness of the site, and taint it with their ideology in the guise of being knowledge.
That is, we see here direct videotaped evidence of why Wikipedia so often is so slanted and is so resistant to reasonable correction.
And, they are obviously exhibiting the amorality and nihilism that Plato warned against so long ago in The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, which we need to hear and ponder yet again:
Sobering.
And, we need also to remind ourselves of a discussion of lying that used to be at Wikipedia about two years ago — given the context, one wonders if that is mere coincidence:
KF
PS: There is therefore a clear need for reformation. A move to properly accountable curators who in a panel decide on article content may be an improvement. However, steps will have to be taken to ensure the curators are credible and of reasonable integrity. A complaints system is also needed, as is a zoning that identifies pages with potentially prurient content or controversial matters or the like. Perhaps, there should be a pro and con or panel of schools of thought feature for matters of controversy. In the end, Wiki will either police itself or it will be policed by the courts via tort law and obscenity law.
I use Wikipedia every day to confirm names and dates and spellings. It’s really good at that. And when I see an error in wording or punctuation, I fix it.
And I can usually find some reference in the list that will give me a better explanation of what’s going on.
But on almost every subject the main text is Politically Correct to the point of distorting history, Leftist, and of course fully supportive “settled science”.
kairosfocus,
Wikipedia already has all of that in place – they are called Office actions,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions
Given how litigious the US is then it already is policed by the law and for such a high profile (and reasonably wealthy) group it is working as the number of lawsuits that Wikimedia foundation has been involved in is tiny.
I don’t know what you mean by “obscenity law” as such law is already in place and applies to Wikipedia/Wikimedia (Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) ). That said Wikipedia is not censored per se.
So in the end it is working. Sure ID bias doesn’t get into Wikipedia science pages but you can try editing Conservapedia or even better Uncyclopedia http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/.....ent_design
The WP Talk section on Haldane’s Dilemma is interesting 😛
LP:
1: The talk feature is not the article, which is where the disclosure of diversity needs to be by pro con or schools of thought. (Such a feature would reign in a lot of the ideological games playing that goes on there all the time.)
2: US libel law is a mess, that is why ever so many people imagine they have a “right” to smear innocent reputations under the name of free expression. The final nail in that coffin was the Gen Westmoreland case in the early 80’s as I recall. And, surprise, the groups you are fronting are specialists in smear tactics.
KF
PS: The notion that Wiki is not under ideological censorship, due to infiltration of its moderators by ideologues is nonsense. The longstanding example of the hatchet job on ID is a capital example but there are ever so many others. And Wikipedia has a lot of prurient or outright obscene materials that should be in the Webs’ red light districts. As for Stanford Enc of Phil, Internet Enc of Phil, Britannica, Journals published online, newspapers, magazines or even Citizendium and New World Encyclopedia that try to correct the mess that is Wikipedia, they all use curated articles with accountable editors for good reason. So drop the pretence by giving a slanted selection of sources and suggesting thereby that anyone can waltz in and do as they please or worse get set up as moderator by a plainly broken system is a good thing. Unfortunately, because it is “free” Wiki seems to be driving legitimate encyclopedias out of business. Let’s just say that that lack of trustworthiness on critical points is why citing Wiki in many Colleges, gets you an automatic grade docking. The safest use of Wiki is as a barometer of 101 level a priori materialist, secular humanist statist thought, to know what one needs to be better than.
F/N 2: Here is Wikipedia itself on part of the problem:
It could not be clearer than from the horse’s mouth, in a damage-limiting disclaimer.
KF
F/N 3: Harvard U:
The matter should be plain, and the zero concession, design thinkers are inevitably ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked attitude of too many Darwinist Zealots should be even more plain.
KF
kairosfocus, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should not be used as a reference. I would have thought that everyone knows this so don’t know why you are repeating that here. Oh that’s right you are poisoning the well. The way to use Wikipedia is to see what references it uses for a subject and go to those references.
In the end though for molecular biology not only does Wikipedia not have ID dogma, it does not cite references to ID/Creationist journals as those are considered to be unreliable sources for those science topics.
Even if you wanted to bring in your changes to wikipedia, ID/creationist material would not get a free passage onto wikipedia just as how today it does not get a free ride into science journals.
The only way that ID/creationists can get their material published is if they create their own journal e.g. bio-complexity (ISSN: 2151-7444). Trouble is that even with 33 or so people on the editorial board of that journal it doesn’t clearly appear in the Thomsonreuters web of knowledge of journals.
LP:
Wikipedia is an ideologically manipulated source and should not be trusted.
Period.
Squid ink rhetorical clouds and attempted subject switching distractors on how Wiki will not cite “ID/Creationist journals” — note the implied equality on your part, an irresponsible falsehood that you need to correct — are simply red herring side tracks.
Similarly, excuses about being a tertiary source have nothing to do with it.
So are most dictionaries, general reference works, textbooks and encyclopedias, but such are by and large reasonable.
Those who willfully manipulate Wikipedia, as in the original post’s video, should be red ring fenced as what hey are — deceitful mind-benders of the naive, whom they know will go there as a first and too often a final source.
This is a serious moral question, and it is an indictment on the atheistical “skeptics” movements that stoop to such tactics.
Let me again cite the focal opening words of the young woman invited by the James Randi “Educational Foundation” as a speaker and recruiter of volunteers, from the video in the post by News:
This is willful deception (by continued misrepresentation), and endorsement of it at organisational level.
Deal with it, or stand indicted as an enabler of those who carry out willful deception.
KF
PS: The hatchet job on ID in Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether or not they are willing to cite journals that are published by Intelligent Design advocates or journals by Creationists. It has everything to do with the duty of care to truth, accuracy, fairness and innocent reputation. The article LIES and SLANDERS by willful misrepresentation in the teeth of abundant opportunities to correct its errors, period. Whatever rules manipulation tactics — a Wiki specialty — are used to excuse or obfuscate the lying, are besides the point. That lying like that is tolerated, encouraged and even hosted by atheistical groups speaks loud volumes. End of story.
KF
Be realistic. On a controversial topic such as ID some groups are always going to find any article “ideologically manipulated” – basically the ones that disagree with the article. Given that, is it not much better to have an article which quotes its references rather than one that just says “this is so”?
LP:
If it isn’t going to be open and honest then it shouldn’t exist at all.
As for getting published, well there aren’t any publications that support unguided evolution in any journal. Heck wikipedia can’t even find support for unguided evolution- evoklutionists can’t find support for unguided evolution.
Mark Frank- Unguided evolution is very controversial. It can’t even be tested. If it could be tested and verified, ID wouldn’t even be around, yet it is…
Wiki’s portraying of Casey Luskin borders criminal behavior.
#17 Box
Wikipedia does not have an article about Casey Luskin. You are not confusing Rational Wiki with Wikipedia are you ? Evne if you are not, by calling it “Wiki” and placing it as a comment under an OP about Wikipedia you certainly might confuse others.
Joe,
Wikipedia is that collection of editors that contribute. It is as open and as honest as any group but as contributions must be supported by reliable sources then they can’t really throw in random nonsense but be willing to support what they say.
Again, the fact that ID contents fails to stick is no different from why ID contents fails to stick in schools, universities or journals; it is any of poor quality, unscientific, unverifiable, or just out and out creationism.
You are correct. I wrongly assumed that Rational Wiki is part of wikipedia. My mistake.
Lincoln, I posted a quote by Ernst Mayr wrt natural selction and they removed it. Also it is very telling thaty yopu cannot present any supporting evidence for unguided evolution. You can’t even reference a theory of evolution.
MF: Kindly, stop enabling evil. Slander, willful misrepresenations of basic objective points in the teeth of easily accessible corrections and facts, and the like are inexcusable. THAT is realistic. There is a patent duty of care to accuracy, fairness, truth and more, which are being willfully and consistently violated by a great many people, here through the deliberate sabotage of a general reference web site advertised to one and all as an encyclopedia. This, as willfully continued misrepresentation, is lying. It is also in many cases willful defamation of innocent character. That, too, is reality. And it is inexcusable. GEM of TKI
LP: Stop being irresponsible and enabling of evil — or pay the price of that, being ring fenced as just that. If you care to investigate you will easily find out that Wikipedia has a major bias problem on many topics [cf the Harvard U warning above for a sampler], and indeed the OP helps show why — from the mouths of brazen liars and slanderers themselves. Abusive amoral, ruthlessly deceitful persons have taken over key positions and are doing inexcusable things, so that corrections, however well warranted, do not stick. Sometimes they are removed in seconds or minutes, and often those who make them — in a vicious twistabout — are tagged as vandalisers and may be barred. Some articles are then locked down. As to the censorship games with journals such as PBSW a decade ago, they have decisively failed. There are now dozens of peer reviewed design supportive publications in technical journals, and the number grows month by month. KF
F/N: Bias regarding ID is longstanding, cf here from ENV in 2006, and compare to what obtains today, which raises the point that after nearly a decade the problem is deeply entrenched:
_______________
>>Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries
Casey Luskin September 6, 2006 9:15 AM | Permalink
We received this e-mail recently from a friendly engineer. He gave us permission to post his letter but only if we put his name in bold.
I know of numerous people who have tried to suggest changes to Wikipedia to lessen the current bias of the ID entries — including staff of Discovery Institute. They were rebuffed. The moderators of Wikipedia’s ID-pages have repeatedly rejected and censored changes that would provide some semblance of balance or objectivity to the discussion. Basic accuracy on dates and names have suffered, never mind the downright falsehoods about the science.
If you would like to contact Wikipedia to express your feelings about the biased nature of the entries on intelligent design, e-mail them at: “info-en@wikimedia.org”. >>
________________
Something that longstanding and sustained in the teeth of correction is a core systemic characteristic. If you doubt me on sustained, cf. this UD post, here, dating to Dec 29, 2012. I doubt things have got better in the past year.
Wiki is outrageously biased, and built on a defective model. As political biases were demonstrable from the outset in ways evident to even crude metrics, it seems to be part of the institutional DNA.
(And in response to this article, I suggest the bias has got subtler in some ways, not truly better. For instance this self serving announcement, we got rid of commercial biases serves only to underscore the ideological biases and tell us the sort of techniques that are liable to still be going on.)
That sort of deep-rootedness means, it will take breakdown and existential crisis to change it.
AKA, it has to get worse — much worse — before it will get better.
KF
F/N2: An old expose on some of the moderation powers abuse tactics is here. Much the same continues to this day. On odd topics like hobbies Wiki can work okay . . . though I just found it amateurish on fishing lures . . . but once the selectively hyperskeptical a priori materialist secular humanist, statist- progressivist those who dare differ are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked agenda kicks in that’s the kiss of death. KF
PS: this one on climategate — which has over several years eviscerated the momentum of a major global push be exposing academic thuggery — shows how the game works on other topics.
PPS: It is worth laying out some facts on the Connolley affair, from the just cited:
Now, look at what has happened with design theory and ask yourself if we are seeing signs of a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing unvaryingly the same design.
F/N 3: A now 4 yrs old reference page on dissections of Wikipedia, see if there’s been any serious change for the better. Don’t hold your breath. KF
F/N 4: How toxic narratives planted at Wiki then spread far and wide. KF
Wiki’s F– on ID, Jan 2 2013, here. KF