Wikipedia Sucks!

I've got something to say about this blatant left-wing wikinut. Check back later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Activist

We start by posting the first part of the book-wiki article about the nearly-forgotten Carl DeMaio editwar:

Carl DeMaio

An almost-inexplicable and multi-year dispute over a Congressional candidate from San Diego and much diddling of his Wikipedia article. Since its creation in July 2009, DeMaio's article has been fought over by DeMaio himself, plus a weird variety of "activists" and apparently paid editors. In 2011 it became a media issue.

Guilty parties

SanDiego7 (T-C-F-R-B), created article
SDresident (T-C-F-R-B)
MelanieN (T-C-F-R-B)
CFredkin (T-C-F-R-B)
XinJeisan (T-C-F-R-B)
Athene cunicularia (T-C-F-R-B)
Activist (T-C-F-R-B), enjoys fighting over bios of American politicians
VickieJR (T-C-F-R-B) (see below)
Plus a number of SPAs (single-purpose accounts).

"Activist" or "Activism" is a clever choice of name--it has also been changed a few times over the years. Googling or searching Wikimedia sites for this sort of username is very difficult thanks to the generic word(s) used. No mistake though, this is a single account that has been fiddling with WP political content since 2006 routinely.

It is absolute clear Wikipedia is a walhalla for- most times indeed extreme leftish- activist. Here is one of the gender crap bitches, the one who blocked Klaas a few days ago, is claiming a bra is absolute gender neutral. Because both man and woman can wear a bra. I am wondering when she start to claim a tampon is gender neutral. The whole world is gender neutral by this gender idiots. Tomcats, or it doesn't matter who or what, it's gender neutral.

Welcome POV pushers, gender crap idiots, and free source fools in the free source world. Wikipedia is the place to be, and we have alway a overpaid Wikimedia fake job for you. Because, how extreem they are, it does't matter, a lot money for doing noting is always welcome by them!

Graaf Statler wrote:It is absolute clear Wikipedia is a walhalla for- most times indeed extreme leftish- activist.

And that's not all--they tend to be incompetent, arrogant, and "untouchable" because certain left-wing administrators will cheerfully protect them.

Even all that would be tolerable, if fucks like "Activist" weren't writing blatant personal attacks on people whose politics they hate.

Wanna see another one? This guy had no Wikipedia article--until December 13, after he committed suicide. Activist and several others have been crank-attacking a dead man. Johnson probably was a shitty human being, but since when is Wikipedia a soapbox for petty garbage like this? Where are the "NPOV Warriors" now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Johns ... politician)

And I continue to maintain that this kind of thing is an embarrassment and a net negative to any politically-progressive cause. This is not how you get rid of Republicans--you beat them at the ballot box. Since when is any political battle settled via Wikipedia snipery?

Sometimes I seriously wonder how many wealthy Americans saw articles like this, said "that's terrible and biased", and turned right around and gave a huge donation to a conservative PAC. I bet it's happened more than once, and we will probably never know for certain. You won't read about it on Wikipedia......

So the problem with blatant bias intended to help the left-wing POV is not that it's blatabt bias, but that it doesn't help the left-wing POV.

I see ...

ericbarbour wrote:

Graaf Statler wrote:It is absolute clear Wikipedia is a walhalla for- most times indeed extreme leftish- activist.

And that's not all--they tend to be incompetent, arrogant, and "untouchable" because certain left-wing administrators will cheerfully protect them.

Even all that would be tolerable, if fucks like "Activist" weren't writing blatant personal attacks on people whose politics they hate.

Wanna see another one? This guy had no Wikipedia article--until December 13, after he committed suicide. Activist and several others have been crank-attacking a dead man. Johnson probably was a shitty human being, but since when is Wikipedia a soapbox for petty garbage like this? Where are the "NPOV Warriors" now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Johns ... politician)

And I continue to maintain that this kind of thing is an embarrassment and a net negative to any politically-progressive cause. This is not how you get rid of Republicans--you beat them at the ballot box. Since when is any political battle settled via Wikipedia snipery?

Sometimes I seriously wonder how many wealthy Americans saw articles like this, said "that's terrible and biased", and turned right around and gave a huge donation to a conservative PAC. I bet it's happened more than once, and we will probably never know for certain. You won't read about it on Wikipedia......

Of course it helps nobody. Or do you believe the mainstream of the woman is attracted to Wikipedia because of the new gender gap neutral porn articles? Or a foolish gender gap woman who is claiming a bra is gender neutral and start to threaten with arbcom when some is saying it's ridiculous?
And yes, the politically-progressive parties doesn't need enemies anymore, because they have wikipedia.
And if they were real idealists, maybe a I had some respect for them. But, what they are doing is filling there one socialstic pockets, what in my opinion nothing has to do with the ideas and vision of Karl Marx, what they seems to follow.