| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jenny
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:11 am Post subject: Homophobic, right-wing editors on Wikipedia ! |
|
|
Over at Wikipedia, there is a self-confessed right-wing individual who contributes to the supposed "neutral" information portal, but edits according to his right-wing leanings, and has openly, and publicl said that "immigrants should be locked up, gays cannot adopt or get married because his christian bible forbids it and it must be law, and any page that posts unflattering iformation about his right-wing governement or his leader, he edits it to protect his conservative views!!
The user is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xtra and his contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xtra
Now he's editing a gay rights page! A man who openly said he didn't approve of gay rights is editing according to his propaganda, and has already rmoved nflattering contributions on a gay rights page that made his leader look bad! So much for being neutral! Please, there is a campaign to pay him back, by vandalizing any page he edits! This is the only way to get him back, because no one will prevent him from editing according to his religon or his politics! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Enoch
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 8471
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who cares? Wikipedia is NOT a credible source in the first place, given issues exactly as you describe. Now, if he starts editing the Journal of Clinical Psychology based on his politics, come let me know. In the mean time, anything happening at wikipedia doesn't really matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
yETII90
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 1484
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
UrielsFyre wrote: Who cares? Wikipedia is NOT a credible source in the first place, given issues exactly as you describe. Now, if he starts editing the Journal of Clinical Psychology based on his politics, come let me know. In the mean time, anything happening at wikipedia doesn't really matter.
Wikipedia is a widely used source so therefore it might send messages that will be detrimental towards your cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Enoch
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 8471
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
yETII90 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Who cares? Wikipedia is NOT a credible source in the first place, given issues exactly as you describe. Now, if he starts editing the Journal of Clinical Psychology based on his politics, come let me know. In the mean time, anything happening at wikipedia doesn't really matter.
Wikipedia is a widely used source so therefore it might send messages that will be detrimental towards your cause. This may sound like I am shooting myself in the foot, given my desire to change people's negative opinions of gay men and women, but how accurate Wikipedia is is of little concern to me. Probably due to my experience in the academic world, I am more of an advocate of people gaining information from credible sources. Wikipedia, as widely used as it is, is not a credible source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Luke
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 17
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Gay rights page doesn't need to be alterred to make gays look bad...everybody (or most) critisize them and this guy on wikipedia is just following his religious convictions, but I'm not saying that he is right in rewriting history...there isn't much that I hate more than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
spearsy23
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 5400
Location: Fulton, Ks
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Luke wrote: The Gay rights page doesn't need to be alterred to make gays look bad...everybody (or most) critisize them and this guy on wikipedia is just following his religious convictions, but I'm not saying that he is right in rewriting history...there isn't much that I hate more than that.
'Everybody' criticizes them so it makes it right? How bout i go on all the religious ones and start talking about unicorns and pokemon type characters, in fact i think if you're really into wikipedia (which as a rule i'm not) this would be a good course of action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Stygma
Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 1339
Location: Boulder, Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
:spam:
http://forums.utopiatemple.com/showthread.php?t=69101
http://www.advocate.com/idealbb/view.asp?mode=viewtopic&topicID=545303155&forumID=&catID=
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48464
http://www.glbtq.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=602
http://www.illegalvoices.org/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&func=view&catid=2&id=370#370
This person gets around.
I wonder if the starter of the thread is in any way related to this incident.
As long as his edits don't violate NPOV he's perfectly fit to be a contributor. There are many editors, and many have differing views. As long as they remain civil and don't violate NPOV, there's no reason they shouln't be able to edit.
Edit: You're advocating vandalising any page he edits. Jesus christ, if there's anyone who's unfit to be an editor of wikipedia it's you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
George W Bush
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 3770
Location: Divided States Of America
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
since Wikipedia is alot like a learning resource,
the guy will be teaching everyone how an intolerant bigot acts.
they will learn nothing more than these types of phobes are still around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
