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.

Name:
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.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Wikipedia censored on school district's computers





Picture courtesy of Evolution News & Views












I have known for a long time that many teachers and schools have banned student use of Wikipedia as an authoritative reference. I never imagined that a public school district would go so far as to block Wikipedia on all of its computers.

An article in the Seattle Times said,

EASTON, Pa. — Linda O'Connor regards Wikipedia the same way former first lady Nancy Reagan campaigned against drugs.

She urges people to "Just Say No."

The Great Meadows (N.J.) Middle School librarian hasn't been a fan of the online encyclopedia for years. This fall, she decided it was time to make others at her school aware of the Web site's pitfalls.

She put up a sign saying "Just Say 'No' to Wikipedia" over the computers in the school library.

Several other school officials feel similarly about the Web site. Wikipedia is blocked on all computers in the Warren Hills Regional School District.

Some teachers at Easton Area High School discourage its use, as do officials at Centenary College and Lehigh University.

"We don't see it as an authoritative source," said Nancy Madasci, Centenary's library director.

The problem with Wikipedia, the school officials said, is it can be modified by anyone. There have been many cases of incorrect information on the Web site, some of which has been biased.

Though Wikipedia is unreliable on controversial subjects, I still see it as giving good overviews, good references, and being fairly reliable on uncontroversial subjects. So I am especially surprised that a public school district blocked Wikipedia on all its computers.

This news article, like so many other articles, fails to recognize that open-editing is not Wikipedia's only problem or even its biggest problem. IMO the biggest problem is bias by Wikipedia administrators. It is this bias that prevents Wikipedia from being self-correcting and presenting a variety of views.

Here are some of the problems I have had or seen on Wikipedia --

(1) The administrators rewrote the entire Wikipedia article on "banned books" rather than list "Of Pandas and People," the book that Judge Jones ruled could not even be mentioned in Dover classrooms, as a banned book.

(2) Despite a rule that citation of personal blogs is prohibited, particularly in biographies of living persons (except where the subject of the biography is writing about him/herself), the Wickedpedia administrators permitted citations of supposedly "notable" personal blogs attacking Cheri Yecke while blocking rebuttals from this 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.

I don't waste my time editing Wickedpedia anymore, not even on uncontroversial subjects. There is no way that I want to help Wickedpedia in any way. Wickedpedia is dependent on volunteer editing and the more people that feel the same way that I do about Wickedpedia, the less volunteer editing that Wickedpedia is going to get.
.

Labels:

20 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

Here we see Larry applauding censorship.

> There have been many cases of incorrect information on the Web site, some of which has been biased. <

One of the sources of this crap was Larry's self proclaimed "edit war".

> The administrators rewrote the entire Wikipedia article on "banned books" rather than list "Of Pandas and People," <

Which was not a banned book.

> the Wickedpedia administrators permitted citations of supposedly "notable" personal blogs attacking Cheri Yecke while blocking rebuttals from this supposedly "crappy" personal blog. <

That is reasonable. This blog is non-notable and crappy. Perhaps if you were to leave out the gratuitous insults and the childish carping it might be taken more seriously.

> I don't waste my time editing Wickedpedia anymore <

Good.

> There is no way that I want to help Wickedpedia in any way. <

But your lack of input is helping them.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:02:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Tell me, dunghill, why you are usually the only one who finds fault with my posts.

>>>>>> Here we see Larry applauding censorship. <<<<<

Show me where I applauded censorship, dunghill.

>>>>>> The administrators rewrote the entire Wikipedia article on "banned books" rather than list "Of Pandas and People," <

Which was not a banned book. <<<<<<

You stupid fathead, if it were not a "banned book" under Wikipedia's old criteria, they would not have entirely rewritten the "banned book" article to avoid listing it as a banned book, would they?

Dunghill, you are always accusing me of changing the definitions of words, yet look at what you are doing. A banned book is a banned book. The American Library Association's list of banned books even includes books that were never actually banned but were just challenged. And even the American Library Association's own records show that "Of Pandas and People" was actually banned before the Dover case.

>>>>>> the Wickedpedia administrators permitted citations of supposedly "notable" personal blogs attacking Cheri Yecke while blocking rebuttals from this supposedly "crappy" personal blog. <

That is reasonable. This blog is non-notable and crappy. <<<<<<<

Dunghill, the Wikipedia rules say no citations of personal blogs. How many times do I have to go through that Alice in Wonderland "best butter" story before you get it through your thick skull? Here it is again:

The Hatter was the first to break the silence. `What day of the month is it?' he said, turning to Alice: he had taken his watch out of his pocket, and was looking at it uneasily, shaking it every now and then, and holding it to his ear.

Alice considered a little, and then said `The fourth.'

`Two days wrong!' sighed the Hatter. `I told you butter wouldn't suit the works!' he added looking angrily at the March Hare.

`It was the best butter,' the March Hare meekly replied.

`Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well,' the Hatter grumbled: `you shouldn't have put it in with the bread-knife.'

The March Hare took the watch and looked at it gloomily: then he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again: but he could think of nothing better to say than his first remark, `It was the best butter, you know.'


>>>>>> There is no way that I want to help Wickedpedia in any way. <

But your lack of input is helping them. <<<<<<

And your lack of input would help this blog tremendously, dunghill.

Folks, ViU and others of his ilk -- e.g., ViW, Anonymous, Hector, Sherry D., and Bill Carter -- are just disgusting trolls who don't have what it takes to run their own blogs, so they try to sabotage this blog by cluttering it up with their asinine comments.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Tell me, dunghill, why you are usually the only one who finds fault with my posts. <

> ViU and others of his ilk -- e.g., ViW, Anonymous, Hector, Sherry D., and Bill Carter <

Make up your mind. Is it just me or all of the above? You can throw in a lot of others plus, as it has already been proven to the sane, "Anonymous" is several people.

Why do you keep mentioning Sherry D. and Bill Carter? As far as I have seen, neither have posted in weeks. It also looks like Kevin has tired of you.

> Show me where I applauded censorship, dunghill. <

In this article, cretin. Or are you denouncing the actions of the school district?

> if it were not a "banned book" under Wikipedia's old criteria, they would not have entirely rewritten the "banned book" article to avoid listing it as a banned book, would they? <

You stupid fathead. That is not why they rewrote it. You are delusional as always.

> you are always accusing me of changing the definitions of words <

As you do. A banned book is a banned book.

> The American Library Association's list of banned books even includes books that were never actually banned but were just challenged. <

So their list contains, according to you, "books that were never actually banned". I would bet that they had a slightly different title to their list and you are misrepresenting it, as usual. If not, they were also redefining words. Wikipedia decided to only have banned books on their list of banned books.

> How many times do I have to go through that Alice in Wonderland "best butter" story <

Mindless repetition, for which you are well known, will not make nonsense sensible you mindless cretin. Stop acting like the March Hare.

> And your lack of input would help this blog tremendously, dunghill. <

Without the input of those who disagree with you, this blog would disappear. There would only be you and your sock puppets.

Folks, don't tire of his mindless repetition. This is all Larry has to do at the asylum.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Manual Goldenshower said...

I thought librarians were always whinging about opposin censorship and banning books?

Are the leftist atheists insane, or just hypocrites?

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in Suburbanness said...

"We don't see (Wikipedia) as an authoritative source," said ... Centenary's library director.

Wikipedia, with its policy of "no original research" and emphasis on citing external sources, does not claim to be an authoritative source (although admittedly it is ambivalent about this). Clearly, it can be no more authoritative than its citations and gets its credibility via transfer.

The problem with Wikipedia, the school officials said, is it can be modified by anyone. ...

This news article ... fails to recognize that open-editing is not Wikipedia's only problem or even its biggest problem. IMO the biggest problem is bias by Wikipedia administrators.


Sorry, I think the school officials had it right. The biggest problem is that it can be modified by anyone. To see the truth of this, just look at the entry for almost any contentious subject. One gets a version depending on the random chance of when one looks. Many readers are unaware of any need to review the discussion. The administrators don't get involved at all until there is a failure of the cooperative collegial culture that is supposed to be the basis of the Wikipedia model.

Here are some of the problems I have had or seen on Wikipedia --

Why do you cite such bad examples when there are plenty of good ones to be found?

(1) The administrators rewrote the entire Wikipedia article on "banned books" rather than list "Of Pandas and People" ...

I took a look at the "banned books" article, and I agree that OPAP was never in any sense a "banned book". Compare it to others on the list. According to your logic, a prior edition of an adopted biology text would be a "banned book" because it is not approved for use in class.

(2) ... administrators permitted citations of supposedly "notable" personal blogs attacking Cheri Yecke while blocking rebuttals from this supposedly "crappy" personal blog.

I would avoid bringing up the Yecke episode if I were you. It doesn't reflect well on either you or her.

(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.

Elsberry achieved the requisite degree of credibility with his program to support its use for the purpose.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't waste my time editing Wickedpedia anymore"

Directly attributable to the fact that Larry is banned from editing Wikipedia.

This appears to be bet one more case of the intentional ommision of central facts by Larry in order to mislead his readers.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:32:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViSU said,
>>>>>> Wikipedia, with its policy of "no original research" and emphasis on citing external sources, does not claim to be an authoritative source (although admittedly it is ambivalent about this). <<<<<

Wikipedia claims that it gets its information only from authoritative sources, so Wikipedia should be authoritative too, shouldn't it?

And the Wickepedian administrators completely misinterpret the "no original research" rule. For example, if I try to find out on my own that a particular library banned a book, that is "original research." But if I find an authoritative source that says that a library "removed" a book in response to complaints and I then say that the library "banned" the book, the Wickedpedian scumbags then call my use of the word "banned" original research because it was not used by the authoritative source.

>>>>>> The problem with Wikipedia, the school officials said, is it can be modified by anyone. ...

This news article ... fails to recognize that open-editing is not Wikipedia's only problem or even its biggest problem. IMO the biggest problem is bias by Wikipedia administrators.


Sorry, I think the school officials had it right. The biggest problem is that it can be modified by anyone. <<<<<

Sorry, I think I had it right. Open-editing can be sefl-correcting -- if someone makes a clear error, someone else can come along and correct it. But when a biased or ignorant administrator makes a clear error and then locks up the article to prevent editing, that cannot be self-correcting.

>>>>> The administrators don't get involved at all until there is a failure of the cooperative collegial culture that is supposed to be the basis of the Wikipedia model. <<<<<<

Wrong. The administrators are often involved from the beginning and often dominate the discussions. Go to the Wikipedia discussion pages of issues I addressed -- on banned books, the Cheri Yecke biography, and the Discovery Institute study of the Dover opinion -- and you will see that the Wikipedia administrators were deeply involved from the beginning.

>>>>>>Here are some of the problems I have had or seen on Wikipedia --

Why do you cite such bad examples when there are plenty of good ones to be found? <<<<<<<

Really? OK, why don't you give us some good specific examples of problems with Wikipedia.

>>>>>>(1) The administrators rewrote the entire Wikipedia article on "banned books" rather than list "Of Pandas and People" ...

I took a look at the "banned books" article, and I agree that OPAP was never in any sense a "banned book". Compare it to others on the list. <<<<<<<

That's because you were looking at the new list and not the old list. The old list included books that were only "challenged" and even included a book that was self-banned by the author.

You lousy Darwinists want to have your cake and eat it too -- you want a ban on books challenging Darwinism but you don't want the stigma of opposing freedom of expression.

>>>>>> According to your logic, a prior edition of an adopted biology text would be a "banned book" because it is not approved for use in class. <<<<<<

That is your stupid logic, not mine. No one ever said that the prior edition of an adopted biology text cannot even be mentioned in class.

>>>>> I would avoid bringing up the Yecke episode if I were you. It doesn't reflect well on either you or her <<<<<

No, you worthless piece of crap, when the Wikipedia rules say no personal blogs, allowing others' personal blogs while blocking mine reflects poorly on you and the Wickedpedian dunghills.

>>>>>> (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.

Elsberry achieved the requisite degree of credibility with his program to support its use for the purpose. <<<<<<

That's not the issue, dunghill -- the issue is that the Wickedpedians falsely claimed that Judge Jones approved Ding Elsberry's program for that purpose.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:50:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous driveled --

>>>>>>"I don't waste my time editing Wickedpedia anymore"

Directly attributable to the fact that Larry is banned from editing Wikipedia. <<<<<<<

No, dunghill -- IP address blocking is often ineffective or it can be evaded if it is effective. If I wanted to edit a non-controversial subject on Wikipedia, I could do so and I would not be noticed. But there is no way I would ever want to try to improve Wikipedia because it is a lost cause. Trying to improve it would be counterproductive.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:00:00 PM  
Anonymous W.P.O.C. (nickname "Dunghill") said...

I guess you never read the WP civility article.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:06:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

A fool, who swallows each tale
That the Wikipedia doth rail:
"I'm unable to check
Any facts, for by heck,
A tree hit my head in a gale!"

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:17:00 PM  
Anonymous "Dunghill" said...

"Dunghill" is an even worse moniker than "Anonymous" ... oversubscribed.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> if someone makes a clear error, someone else can come along and correct it. <

Until some idiot engages in a self-proclaimed "edit war". Then the administrators must step in.

> You lousy Darwinists want to have your cake and eat it too -- you want a ban on books challenging Darwinism but you don't want the stigma of opposing freedom of expression. <

Nobody has said anything about a ban on books other than having the public pay for religious books such as "creation science" or "Intelligent design" or the use of them in science, rather than mythology classes.

>>>>>> According to your logic, a prior edition of an adopted biology text would be a "banned book" because it is not approved for use in class. <<<<<<

> That is your stupid logic, not mine. <

It seems to be yours although you clearly don't understand this.

> No, dunghill -- IP address blocking is often ineffective or it can be evaded if it is effective. <

It is very easy to determine what comes from you regardless of the IP address due to the style of your rants. I know you don't believe in style, but then you are an idiot.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My school blocked wikipedia over our holday break. I know there's no reason wiki has to be a decent site, save perhaps for the checks and balances that conrol it and the good will of contributors, however it continues to be one of, if not the most comprehensive information scource on the internet. Wikipedia is one of the greatest creations of our time, a social movement aimed at educating the masses and chronicalling our history, and it does so better than any teacher, library, and/or school I have come accross, and at a significantly bargain; the cost of an internet provider over school tuition. That a school would block it disgusts me. Godbless Wikipedia.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The wikipedia folks - just as all Darwinists - are Marxists - Leninists even if they don't quite understand their own stand. The stupid ones are fellow travellers and the others are just plain evil as the communists were and still are. There are good reviews of non-controversial subjects in wikipedia precisely so that the medicine would go down. After all the teaching of basic sciences were very good, often superior to western education, in the communists countries.
I hope someone will build a better Wikipedia -with strong censorship, which I am in favor of - giving the truth and nothing but the truth.

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope someone will build a better Wikipedia -with strong censorship, which I am in favor of - giving the truth and nothing but the truth.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:04:00 PM  
Blogger Christopher said...

yepper ok ok?

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:06:00 PM  
Blogger Christopher said...

im soryyy i back now
hi! yalll rite?

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:10:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said...

>>>>> I hope someone will build a better Wikipedia -with strong censorship, which I am in favor of - giving the truth and nothing but the truth. <<<<<<

"What is truth?"
-- Pontius Pilate

Wickedpedia has strong censorship right now.

With strong censorship, all we get is what the Wickedpedian control-freak administrators think is the truth or what they want us to think is the truth.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I edit Wikipedia and am an advocate for the site, yet I never use it for research. What I do is search the article for sources, and then follow the links to these sources online.

Monday, November 03, 2008 6:23:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> I edit Wikipedia and am an advocate for the site, yet I never use it for research. What I do is search the article for sources, and then follow the links to these sources online. <<<<<<

The problem here is that Wickedpedia also censors sources! For example, Wickedpedia censored my link to the Discovery Institute's defense of a DI report charging that the ID-as-science section of Judge Jones' Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion was copied nearly verbatim from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief. And whenever a disputed entry is censored on Wickedpedia, links to websites discussing or debating that entry are also censored -- an example was censoring the listing of the book "Of Pandas and People," the book that Judge Jones banned in Kitzmiller v. Dover, from the Wickedpedia list of banned books.

Monday, November 03, 2008 6:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home