I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Wikipedia's hypocritical, farcical "NPOV" policy


"King Jimbo" Wales

Wickedpedia cult leader

Picture is courtesy of
"Anti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines"

"NPOV" is Wikispeak for "Neutral Point of View."

I have found another anti-Wikipedia article, which says,

Is Wikipedia a new fascism of knowledge perpetrated by disaffected leftists: a Wackopedia?

The following is a manifesto against Wikipedia -- against its pretensions to being encyclopedic; against its false claims of openness; against its representation of a democratic access to, and democratic enunciation of, knowledge; against its institutionalized falsification of facts; against its sordid attempts to monopolize knowledge and rewrite history by blanking out parts of our collective memory and replacing them with imprimaturs . . .

It is all done in the name of a representation of a majority and culture for the masses. The unassailable mediocrity of the entries is the credo of Wikipedians, enshrined in a new ideology, sans-party, the cult of the NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The NPOV is supposed to be the result of the checks and balances of community participation in the Wikipedia project. But that's baloney -- since the community effort is an exercise in power by the new cyber-bureaucrats that go by the name of Wikipedia Administrators, and the power-play in which the "house always wins" specializes in optimizing the degradation of information to fit it into premade slots . . . .

What Wikipedia is not, is an effective repository of the best in knowledge -- or even, much more modestly, of actual, factual and adequate knowledge. Instead, Wikipedia has become a forum for an officiating falsification of knowledge, a system for disinformation and an assurance of misinformation. Backed by cabals of administrators and bureaucrats, Wikipedia features the raw, unfettered and exhibitionistic domination exerted by ignorant and fascist bullies.

The NPOV policy and Wikipedia's associated "Verifiability" and "No original research" rules can work on printed encyclopedias and on Internet encyclopedias that are not editable by readers but cannot work on Wikipedia and other Internet encyclopedias that are editable by readers. A fundamental folly of Wikipedia was the attempt to give it the appearance of a printed encyclopedia (or an Internet encyclopedia that is not editable by readers). The reason why an NPOV policy can never work on Wikipedia is that there often can be no consensus as to whether or not something on a specific controversial topic is an "NPOV" and the result has been endless "edit wars" and the tyrannization of Wikipedia content by a cabal of "administrators." The administrators usually end the edit wars by locking in their own biased versions of articles. The thuggish Wickedpedian administrators grotesquely twist the rules in their favor so that they usually win -- for example, there is a general Wikipedia rule against using personal blogs as sources, but in the Cheri Yecke bio the Wickedpedians made an exception for two "reputable" and "very notable" personal blogs but not for this "crappy" personal blog. BTW, arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments is practiced on both of those "reputable," "very notable" blogs, so there is no way to get a contrary opinion in edgewise. It is no surprise that many people have become fed up with Wikipedia and that several alternatives have sprung up -- however, some of the alternatives are not editable by readers and those that are editable by readers might be no better than Wikipedia in regard to domination by administrators.

As I have pointed out many times, the solution to many of the "edit wars" is simply to post the disputed item along with a note that it is disputed and links to external websites where the item is discussed or debated. Such a solution has the following advantages: (1) there is no suggestion of endorsement by Wikipedia and (2) Wikipedia is not cluttered up with long discussions or debates about disputed items. Such a solution would take full advantage of the Internet's power to instantly link to external sources, a power that is not possessed by printed publications. Of course, Wikipedia administrators who have axes to grind -- e.g., the Wickedpedians who put the attack ads in the bio of Cheri Yecke -- are not interested in such a simple solution to edit wars. Also, of the Wikipedia alternatives that I checked, none employ this simple idea for resolving editing disputes.

Wackopedia was accurately described by another website, Wikitruth:

Wikitruth is a website dedicated to the subject of flaws and issues with the Wikipedia, another website run by Jimbo Wales and a massive, insane army of Wikipedians that he controls with his mind rays. It's very hard to really explain Wikipedia, but if you visit it, it says it wants to be "the free encylopedia that anyone can edit". Instead, however, it is often filled with crazy people, experiences some issues with manipulative personalities, and falls prey to abuse and censorship. And that's a real shame.


Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's kinda ironic that you were banned from wiki for your repeated attempts at contributing to the "falsification of knowledge" with your self-admitted lies on Yecke's involvement with Intelligent Design...

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:20:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> your self-admitted lies <<<<<

"Self-admitted lies"? I admitted nothing.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

This reminds me of when the jackass complained of people talking about his censorship when, in his own words: "I bent over backwards to stop."

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>"Self-admitted lies"? I admitted nothing.<

In your earlier comment when you said that the truth was a defense for libel, but not for censorship of your rebuttal. If you were censored because what you were posting was blatantly untrue and contradictory to both written and audio evidence referenced in the Yecke article, sounds like you were posting lies. And now you whine about how there is a conspiracy perpetrated by members of wiki to post and spread lies???

Hypocrite indeed.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:17:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

And if I tried to defend my rebuttal, you would say that such a defense is an admission that the veracity of that rebuttal is an issue. You've got me coming and going.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> And if I tried to defend my rebuttal, you would say that such a defense is an admission that the veracity of that rebuttal is an issue. <

Again I ask you to take a class in logic. You are totally devoid of it now.

Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Nom De Plume said...

Oh, the irony!

Friday, July 27, 2007 9:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Nom De Plume said...

>> Oh, the irony! <<

Wikipedia may well be biased, but thanks to your kicking up such a cloud of dust over a straightforward factual article like the one about Cheri Yecke, who'd notice?

I would likely have never heard of Yecke were it not for you and Wikipedia.

Here's another name for you to look up in Wikipedia: Zdenka Gast. Not exactly a household name either, you say?

She's not in Wikipedia at all. Should she be?

Yesterday I received in the mail, from an outfit called "Public Citizen" (which I do not support), a flyer titled "Enron's Tangled Web" -- all about how Enron was supposedly a Bush administration scandal. (The first line of the flyer is George W. Bush -- bold like that, underscored besides.) They call it "the worst scandal since Watergate" (these jerks are a caricature of pigheaded partisanship).

While there's no doubt that Enron sought influence in the Bush administration, there's little evidence that they ever got any. Enron was a Clinton administration scandal -- the second worst scandal of the 20th Century (and the first was also a Clinton scandal).

Zdenka Gast was a key figure in the Enron scandal. She should be as much of a household name as, say, Albert Fall. (You say he's not a household name either? Oh, well.)

If the truth about this were widely known, it'd be the end of the career of one HC. Which may be why it doesn't appear in Wikipedia.

The Left's capacity to ignore misbehavior by their favorites, while trying to pin it on conservatives, is frightening in its audacity and mendacity. I suggest you look up on the web "Building 7 and 9/11" if you can stand it. The Amazon discussion group's blog will curl your neurons.

Friday, July 27, 2007 10:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Nom De Plume said...

Speaking of Fall, I like this Wiki comment:

It is often joked among historians that Fall was "so crooked they had to screw him into the ground" upon his death.

LOL! :-)

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

these jerks are a caricature of pigheaded partisanship

They aren't partisans at all, you pigheaded partisan.

While there's no doubt that Enron sought influence in the Bush administration, there's little evidence that they ever got any. Enron was a Clinton administration scandal -- the second worst scandal of the 20th Century (and the first was also a Clinton scandal).

You're an ignorant idiot -- and you've got your party's dick shoved all the way up your hypocritical ass.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Nom De Plume said...

< They aren't partisans at all ... >

One of the entries in Public Citizen's leaflet reads as follows (bold type as in the original):

* After Bush appointed Spencer Abraham to be Secretary of Energy, he called Ken Lay to talk about Enron's financial difficulties and their effect on energy markets. As a Senator, Abraham took Enron contributions.

Excuse me? Wasn't that part of his job? (BTW, please note -- I am NOT -- repeat NOT -- a Spencer Abraham fan.)

Another says:

* Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft had to recuse himself from the Justice Department's Enron investigation after revealing that the company donated $57,499 to his failed 2000 Senate campaign.

Ashcroft was one of the most ethical persons ever to have held the Attorney General post. Note that he voluntarily recognized that he had a potential conflict of interest and recused himself. A Clintonite would have just bulled his way through -- or retaliated against anyone who dared to point it out.

Enron was just one of several sleazy bottom-feeder companies that thrived during the Clinton era. I think it is not a coincidence that they went bankrupt 10 months into the Bush administration, where it had gotten harder for them to "do business".

But this sort of corruption is indeed a bipartisan problem, and when honest politicians and bureaucrats (like the above) have to suffer this sort of crap from the same people who excuse and cover up everything that their buddies do, it's a wonder that any stay straight.

There's quite an interesting article about this (please note -- this is a members-only article -- i.e., you need a subscription to read it). Here's an intro:

Written by Dagny D'Anconia
Sunday, 15 July 2007

We hear Harry Reid say "I believe myself that ... this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday." [1] We see him doing everything in his power to aid and encourage our enemies, yet we hesitate to call him a traitor.

We call it an honest difference of opinion between fellow Americans. After all, if he were a traitor, wouldn't we have found suitcases of money, and bank accounts with checks from Arab sources? ...

You heard all about this from Public Citizen, didn't you?

< They aren't partisans at all ... >


Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home