Saturday, October 20, 2007
If you didn't see my previous post on this, please go here. The call is still (and will remain) open. This seems to be a perfect hobby for some of the exceptional blog commenters I've seen out there with an envious facility for coming up with facts and citations. Here's an email I received on this I thought I'd share:
Wrong, VERY wrong.
Wikipedia takes an organized effort. It is a combination of "user community" and a political organization which in large part is controlled by left-wing academics and "intellectuals" who set it as a goal to re-write the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and disseminate it via Wikipedia.
Their main method: Removing facts which could be understood as "pro-Israel" (they claim those facts are biased) and adding a one-sided view of history. The result is good propaganda: Half truth which creates the needed impression. When possible they add lies: soft, based on so-called "academic research" or "Human Rights" organizations - claims such as "Israel builds apartheid roads in the west-bank"...
A new generation of students, from high school to colleges is using and will continue to use Wikipedia - they will learn about important subjects from biased wikipedia articles.
A large group of Muslims, a well organized group are controlling many Wikipedia articles. (with help of antisemites, anarchists or just "good souls" from the left.)
Take for example an Australian Professor [link removed] (who hides his identity under a internet handle Zero0000 - he was involved in the "trial" with Lance6Wins that you have mentioned)
In real life: Do people know that he is editing many Wikipedia articles about Jews, Israel and Palestine? On his Wikipedia user page in he explains that he must keep his identity a secret "for professional reasons." He is after all, a respected CS professor - but in Wikipedia he is considered a History expert.
Sure, if one wants to edit an article about Penicillin - everything would be fine but try adding a word in an article about Israel 1948 independence war and your words will soon be deleted by one of those "good souls" from the left.
Should you fight, soon you will find that Wikipedia has cliques and rules and a special police force (called administrators) as well as a "supreme court" and together this organization will prevent you from editing wikipedia.
They will record your IP address, keep track of your edits and remember your "editing style" and favorite articles – should you try to circumvent their bans they WILL detect it and ban you again.
There is no way to work in Wikipedia as a loaner.
This organization can be dealt with, if it is done smartly. It will take time, it will take a coordinated effort and it will take discipline: There is no way Wikipedia articles can become "Zionist" - but there is a way, that over time, much of the lies about Israel and history of the conflict can be removed to make the most quoted encyclopedia in the world at least neutral and closer to the truth.
What can you do?
Get a wikipedia ID, edit only subjects which have nothing to do with Israel, Zionism, Judaism. Don't get into any fight, just blend into the community, make friends with other editors – you will need all that in due time. Maybe even get elected to become a "Wikipedia Admin" - many muslims and marxists already are.
one of the best comments I've heard about the msm is that if people judged it on the basis of the subjects they personally know well, virtually everybody would judge it to be deeply flawed.
wikipedia has essentially the same credibility problem that the msm has, and for largely the same reasons. Given that fact, its novelty and flexibility are not assets. If anything, the credibility problem will come faster and hit harder, since this kind of blatant and overwhelming manipulation will take place on every sensitive subject, not just Israel. Classic tragedy of the commons.
not that I'm not bothered by what I see there, but I think the better effort is to expose its flaws than to correct them. correcting them is ultimately not possible in any case.
Maybe a better approach would be a campaign to get highschool teachers to refuse to accept wikipedia citations in papers, given its demonstrable flaws as an information source.
He is right. It is impossible to work in Wikipedia as a loner. One must make friends and form an organization to resist the highly orgenized left and Islamists.
Good article. I love Wikipedia but have become quite disheartened by how politicized so many pages have become. I'm currently engaged in what appears to be an edit war at the Wikipedia entry for Gayatri Spivak. She's a Columbia professor who's been criticized for making some questionable comments about 9/11. I've tried to balance the article's open praise of her with a pretty reasonable criticism section. I'm outnumbered, and my contributions get summarily deleted. If anybody's interested in this subject, I could use the company. Thanks.