I also thought Wikipedia was an open forum where anyone could contribute as long as they put facts there. They claim they are an encyclopedia that should be correct as a historical reference.

This is not true. The administrators on Wiki are full of self-importance, use insulting language, and behave like the thought police. The administrators seem to delete entries that are not written by self-appointed administrators, or writers they approve of. Also any of their many administrators can delete an entry and you don't get redress if you complain. I think most are American and they have an American centric point of view. On debatable issues they are willing to leave false accusations about events or pressure groups, even though these have been proven to be incorrect. Wikipedia claim this gives balance. All it does is add to incorrectness on Wiki entries. A lot on Wiki is factually incorrect or poorly analysed.

Wikipedia deleted a posting I put there. There was nothing abusive in the posting, and it was factually correct. I wrote a factual entry about a charity, and then said that the charity needed funding, but didn’t realize this is against their rules since they don’t state this. The administrator who deleted my entry didn’t even have a contact email, so I couldn’t contact them directly to complain. They also don’t seem to have a higher administrator to complain to, there’s no accountability.

Wikipedia are breaking personal data protection laws. They deleted my posting, but left my personal IP (internet protocol) address there in the history. This was along with the insult and false accusation that I had vandalised the site. I have now found that vandalise is the term they use if they object to your entry and you try to post again. They do insult people personally because they inferred that I deliberately tried to wreck the site when all I did was put facts on the site. I did not vandalise anything, I posted an entry, and because I didn't know they edit what is written, I re-posted. Strange messages appeared on my screen, but they didn’t specify what the Wikipedia was objecting to, it was a generalized message that didn’t make any sense. I hadn’t realized before I used Wiki that I would be censored. Wikipedia don't have clearly stated rules. I had never used the site before, and they don't tell you to read an etiquette section before posting entries, and they don't have a clearly written etiquette section with rules even if you wanted to read them. If you look for the rules, you end up going round in circles to find them. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, but they can’t even write about themselves in a structured way. A lot of the arbitrary decisions written by administrators are not based on any clearly available rules. It can be down to the individual administrator’s bias.

I have not had anyone remove my personal data yet, even though I complained and told Wikipedia to remove my IP, especially since my entry was removed. Wiki itself can be sued because they're breaking laws.

I can understand Wikipedia not wanting racist, sexist or other discriminatory entries, but with their insulting editing, I think that an alternative to Wikipedia is needed.

I'm interested. One could make many such accusations about publishers, but often they use well respected academics to write key sections and have tight editorial teams to ensure fairness. I wonder if W. have missed the boat.

Post the pieces you had the trouble with us and let us judge for ourselves.

I don't know the truth of the above allegations but one of the points of the GFDL  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL is that it enables you to fork the project, see:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29

Of course the NPOV sucks in may ways, and it does at times seem to stand for Neo-Con Point Of View... :-(

Unfortunately the problem with wikipedia is the shear volume of idiots that abuse it.

Agitators and trolls often replace legitimate entries with rants, Zionist nutters troll page after page and replace unbiased material with anti palestinian propaganda etc etc.
A lot of the editors are politically naive and scientifically uneducated and replace/flag legitimate entries on politics and science with their own twisted opinions.
It has become a soap box for nutters.

Most of the editorial/admin are american jews.

A small minority with a massive political voice running an 'independent' information source......... speaks for itself how imparial that will turn out to be.

Seeing this comment was just removed and has to be reposted, I have suspicions that some of the pests that edit wikipedia are probably also indymedia editors...

on wikipedia

"Most of the editorial/admin are american jews.

A small minority with a massive political voice running an 'independent' information source......... speaks for itself how imparial that will turn out to be."

Steve

This article is full of POV and independent research. I'd fix it, but it looks like someone has disabled "edit this page".

I'm afraid I have to look at this article with scepticism. First off, you all seem to think that there some huge neo-con/zionist conspiracy to taint wikipedia with their points of view. Yes, this happens but I've found that the left are just as guilty as pushing their POV as the right.

Secondly, I doubt this was all how the author of the article said it was. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy was pushing his own POV and threw a hissy fit when they didn't let him continue screwing around with the site.

Still, if you don't like the way wikipedia is run, there's a very simple solution - stop visiting the site.

this has got to be theeee worst excuse for advertising Wikipedia i have ever seeeeeen


hey! everybody come and have a look at wikipedia



woooooooooooooooooo

so f**ckin what!

this whole page would have
been toast about 6 months ago if it was a
sneaky book advert


think about it

all language in a wiki
is run by THE WIKI



get over it






form your own wiki



wiki wiki wiki wiki

in the immortal line from
streetsounds electro 1

break!

There were an organised group pushing a POV,
using their group numbers to pool their 3RR rule rights to keep the page under their control,
they refused to acknowledge any need for neutrality and said their agreement among themselves was a "consensus" overriding it,
and they used personal attacks on character as a reason for denying the validity or need for anything but their own POV,
and interpreted the attacks as proved right by any strong fightback against them.

Now how about directing some suspicion towards the group instead of their target?

Humpty Dumpty wrote; "Still, if you don't like the way wikipedia is run, there's a very simple solution - stop visiting the site."

Or better still- set up your own wiki???

Get a life FFS!

wiki news
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page

wiki news UK
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:United_Kingdom

wiki current events
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_events

wiki current events UK
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_and_Irish_current_events

science & tech
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_science_and_technology_events

Wine cork prevents fuel leak on train
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wine_cork_prevents_fuel_leak_on_train

Man allowed to keep deceased friend in warehouse freezer
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Man_allowed_to_keep_deceased_friend_in_warehouse_freezer

Man injured by flying sausage
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Man_injured_by_flying_sausage

Inspectors close landmark Healthy Food restaurant after finding dead mouse in cooler
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Inspectors_close_landmark_Healthy_Food_restaurant_after_finding_dead_mouse_in_cooler

British motorists showered with cash on motorway
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_motorists_showered_with_cash_on_motorway

Exploding toads confuse scientists
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Exploding_toads_confuse_scientists

Tom Cruise orders Euro 14,500 takeaway meal
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise_orders_%E2%82%AC14%2C500_takeaway_meal

Woman finds human finger in bowl of chili at Wendy's restaurant
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Woman_finds_human_finger_in_bowl_of_chili_at_Wendy%27s_restaurant

Speeding ticket paid with 12,000 pennies
 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Speeding_ticket_paid_with_12%2C000_pennies

Some links to inside information on other users of Wikipedia seeing through the situation, in recent months.

a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win
 http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html

on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content
 http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html

this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins"
 http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html

these are essential reading on the pattern of autocracy by the appointed administrators
 http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html
 http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025871.html

INDYMEDIA CENTER BOSTON
An Insider Perspective



If you join the Boston Indymedia Center, you may just receive an anonymous message like this:

"we have decided that it is clear that your frequently stated political beliefs are incompatible with the Global Principles of Unity"

Once you receive that message, you have been thrown out of BIMC because of your stated opinions, beliefs, or even disbeliefs. If you disbelieve in: male feminism, homosexism, white anglophobia, patronizing attitudes toward blacks, libel, socialism, communism, or anarchism, you will find your membership to Boston Indymedia Center revoked.

But why would one join such an organization in the first place? The answer is to be found in what BIMC claims to be. The answer is in the LIE of Indymedia and in the false invitation to "be the media" which they offer to the general public of Boston.

It is a the lie of being a "public media outlet" which they are not. (They are private but collecting charity.) It is the lie of "radical, passionate tellings of the truth." Radical perhaps, but frustrated, irrational, blathering propaganda. Spiffed-up stories cleverly separated from criticism, manicured and packaged as unquestionable free press items, deliberated upon by an inner cabal of tech keyholders, each with his own defeatist prejudice or strategy for cowing humanity into a dystopian stupidity allegedly called democracy. Not a shred of democracy exists at Indymedia Boston.

BIMC is called a collective. It is run under the general principles of collectivism and solidarism, those two faded ideas from the French Revolutionary period which stated that somehow a competitive utopia could be built where men contributed according to ability, received according to need, and survived by defending one another in any situation -- those nice sounding, but failed ideals which resurfaced as soviet communism failed again and resurfaced as neo-communism.

Theory and ideals aside, the facts of human nature remain. BIMC, the Indymedia Soviet is run by secret meeting and by coup. Coups compose every meeting and the email listserv. The only thing the members of this soviet can agree upon are the "Principles of Unity" content filter, which like the esoteric codes of Freemasonry, are the belief in an obtuse unitary principle. No one may express views which could be interpreted in any remote way to be offensive to the "protected groups" in society. It is open season, however on whites, people who own businesses, people with college educations, straight people, and people with the fearlessness to speak freely and without reservation.

The BIMC Principles of Unity are bunk not only because of their double standard. They are bunk because the general group (which meets at the Lucy Parsons Center) is led to believe the entire group are united as equals, when in reality the general meetings are just for show and for boring clerical task allocation. The real fun happens in the Web-Editorial Group, many of whose members never show their faces at a general meeting, knowing full well that the power is in the upper tier. Hence the neo-communist consensus-based paradigm is victim to the same old garbage bolshevism.

The alleged consensus process at BIMC is the collective's attempt to reason in borglike fashion. By coming to complete agreement in a time consuming way and by randomizing the ever changing website rules, they can plan protests to later report on, and give column-space to violent anarchist and communist groups while preventing other Bostonians from joining up and evening out the heavily left-skewed opinions.

General group consensus, however is trumped by secret or web-editorial consensus, since these meetings have selectively limited participation and decisions are made by wink and nudge before meetings take actually place (at the MIT Dome). With one man in charge of the listserv membership, two in charge of story posting, one same man in charge of censorhip, a total of three men effectively control all opinion on Boston Indymedia. Combined with a couple of lower ranking editorial members with their own triggerhappy deletions, the entire organization of Indymedia Boston is consolidated in the hands of five key technical administrators. Policy trickles down to the yes men in the general group, and opinion is then officially closed.

One could go into great depth on the intense personal rivalries and even crimes committed within this group in jealous bids to oust one another. Each core member has his or her particular style of passive aggression by which he "contributes according to his ability" to the mayhem at BIMC.

Pete Stidman, a senior editor and anarchist, goes into fits of offense, defensiveness, depression, name-calling, pleas for solidarity, and appeals to not "abuse" the procedural functions of Indymedia any time a new member presents new ideas, or challenges his de-facto leadership. He once accused this author of slander and libel, and was later defended by this same author against slander and libel by a fellow BIMC member. The other members (Eric) wanted to run him through a conflict resolution and brainwashing seminar.

Matthew Williams, a Boston College Gramcian communist, situationist, homosexist, and quite possibly the most absent, most powerful, and most obnoxious member of BIMC, is the chief censor, and the only real rival to Pete Stidman. Though they stab each other in the back routinely, they defend each other in cases where one inserts esoteric politics into the site, or the other squelches minor players or writes dubious news. The few times they challenged each other in any serious capacity, the group risked splintering.

Eric Ginsburg, a JuBu, is a psych/soc product of some local school. He is the de-facto mediator of general discussion groups. He is intensely averse to discussion, and uses neutrality to avoid responsibility where his judgement is necessary to punish crime, or uphold the stated principles of Indymedia. This feigned inability to decide quickly vanishes if a centrist or a capitalist decides to join a discussion. Then he is quick to say "shut up or get out!" His best trick is subtly to allocate speaking speaking time to those he feels are waging the minor side battle, regardless of correctness.

Sofia Jarrin-Thomas, an hispanic revolutionary wannabe and feminist poseur, has written scathing attacks against BIMC. She has written that she does not care if she commits slander if the said opponent is compromising the rights of illegal aliens hiding in the United States. Having failed once to oust Pete Stidman, she accused or implied that he was physically abusive and an embezzler. This was after she had been allowed to return after faking a resignation to write the scathing attack.

Svea Eppler, a gender marxist, also fake quit Boston Indymedia but lurks waiting to strike down Pete Stidman. Together with Sofia and Sharpie, they form a feminist bloc equal in power to either Eric, Pete, or Matthew.

Sharpie, a white-male-hating white male, is part of the bloc against Pete Stidman, is logically inept, and one of the primary proponents of increasing the secrecy of the allegedly open, public, and honest list keeping of the site. His particular prejudice against this author is that he wrote an article criticizing BAAM, the boston anarchist union of which Sharpie is a liason. Sharpie, the emissary of Sofia and Svea, routinely cries for anarchy when he is being asked to corroborate accusations, and cries for rules when the world sees his nefarious activity published on the web.

Joe Slag is a core technician and homosexist censor for BIMC.

Other IMC members include:

Tim Ledwith
Petrina Vegan
Andrew Mcleod
David Smith (davewreckoning)
Dana Moser
Jamie

Each of these members is a lesser member, or one with unclear role, avoiding hassle and going with the prescribed flow of the Indymedia Cabal.

It is important to note who is not censored at Boston Indymedia:

Revolutionary Communist Party USA chairman Bob Avakian
NEFAC Northeast Federation of Anarchist Communists MaRK Laskey.
(Pete has even asked to solicit more NEFAC posts).
Women's Fightback Network homosexist socialist Stephanie Simard.
The Anarchist Black Cross Network "Tree Monkey" aka Frances Little

There is also a situation which persists at Boston Indymedia where an anonymous censor named only "Zorro" deletes a large of the posts on the site. While the name of Zorro was originally linked to Michael Larson of Malden MA, the moniker Zorro is also a real idiot flamebaiter of Portland Indymedia and nearly every website with a comment section. His aliases are: NRA4Freedom, jade, jethro, mjk, skittles, get real, backdraft, arod, gerbil, twiggy, anon, devoy, kobe, the troll, ariel natan panko, dex, zed, daryle lamont jenkins -- some of which are identity thefts.

Between the allowable content, and the allowable trolls on the site, virtually nothing gets said except for an extremely narrow leftist bent. Ultimately, no one gets to "be the media" in this web-forward environment, save for at most six high level people with code access and those allowed by Soren Wigglia (sp?) into the UNITE Building at 33 Harrison Ave, a dilapidated low rise building in Chinatown, housing more of the same.

www.boston.indymedia.org

hi, just a quick response to steve - the comment that you refer to is showing immediately above the one you made. due to the technical set up of the uk site, when you connect to  http://www.indymedia.org.uk you are redirected to one of about 10 mirrors which all synch from the (single) publish server. it may be that you first connect to a mirror that is up-to-date, and then connect to a different on later that is not quite as up-to-date. hence, some comments or articles may appear as 'hidden' even though they are not.

i hope this explanation helps.

--gdm

one of imc-uk

"Secondly, I doubt this was all how the author of the article said it was. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy was pushing his own POV and threw a hissy fit when they didn't let him continue screwing around with the site."

In fact, that is how it happened. The article in question was about Asperger's Syndrome; go check out the history over the last few weeks. There was no collusion among editors; there was indeed a legitimate consensus among a bunch of unrelated folks that Tern is a few beers short of a sixpack and his content additions to Wikipedia were classic POV.

As somebody who likes using Indymedia as a way to avoid advertising in news media and information I found this statement, whether it is true or not, very disturbing.

(snip)

I can’t say who I am, but I do work at a company that uses Wikipedia as a key part of online marketing strategies. That includes planting of viral information in entries, modification of entries to point to new promotional sites or “leaks” embedded in entries to test diffusion of information. Wikipedia is just a more transparent version of Myspace as far as some companies are concerned. We love it (evil laugh).

On the other side, I love it from an academia/sociological standpoint, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with it used as a viral marketing tool. After all, marketing is a form of information, with just a different end point in mind (consuming rather than learning).

(snip)

It was from some game blog site discussion about viral marketing on Wikipedia

"Viral Marketing, Spamming and Censoring Wikipedia "
 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/index.php?p=2058

I would not want to see this kind of marketing strategy exploit the Indy Network
Please write articles and educate people about viral marketing.

more horror:
 http://backspace.com/action/viral_marketing.php

Squeegy your third eye, peoples...
Adapt, Mutate or Buy.

You will find, in fact, that the "legitimate consensus" was a collusion in a very personalised hate campaign that was begun out of nowhere by an out-of-order personal slander whose motives were drawn from completely outside Wikipedia. It was a collusion in using force of numbers to bias the page and in using repeated abstract personal attacks as an excuse to refuse to discuss neutrality of content. The record shows I was constantly citing the rule that NPOV of page content should be adhered to and the mob were gloatingly denying there was any such obligation.

Tern- I just read the rambling page of rantings that is your talk page at wikipedia- you clearly have too much time on your hands, get a life FFS!!!

hey tern,
just a question... did you leave a message on my talk page on wikipedia in regards to this? I have never had a problem with admin's. Mind you i use common sense while i am on wikipedia unlike some of the vandals that i run into as a member of the counter vandalism unit on wikipedia.. there are always checks and balances.

by the way there are more important things in life that bagging wikipedia... just for your future reference ;)