English Chess Forum

What is going on with Wikipedia? Several comments here have contained interesting criticism
of how some matters of public interest are portrayed by Wikipedia, even if we should understand
that a system that relies on public input is going to have some "issues". There is clear evidence,
however, that a specifically biased agenda is being promoted within Wikipedia, One hot potato is
the matter of US presidency eligibilty, viz:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=294221

On surfing the net recently I came across the English Defence League website and find their
mission statement perfectly reasonable, yet Wikipedia portrays the EDL in a totally biased
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY damning the EDL as an extreme right wing outfit without any reference
to EDL's mission statement. It might be argued that basing the EDL in Luton was an obvious
blunder, tarnishing perceptions of the EDL by association with historical controversy in the area.
Anyway, I emailed EDL about the Wikipedia matter and after a couple of weeks they replied
that they have been trying for a very long time to correct, or at least include information giving
a more balanced view, on the Wikipedia site which has been resisting all attempts to change
the misrepresentation! How many other matters on Wikipedia are similarly editorialized?

Note that, despite sharing the "Wiki" name, Wikipedia claims that the WikiLeaks of Julian
Assange (who could be described as a techno-anarchist) is not affiliated with Wikipedia
or the Wikimedia Foundation!

Should we care about any of this? I believe that it could use some discussion. People
familiar with totalitarian societies will tend to care more, knowing that control of the
media and dissemination of information/misinformation is a primary objective of totalitarian
elites in gaining and maintaining their power over the likes of you and me. Since the recent
widespread popular grassroots insurrections in Arab countries, the Beijing government
has implemented a major crackdown on dissent, "disappearing" known critics of the regime
and trying to control access to the Internet and foreign media sources. Some might say,
"Oh, don't be silly, that can't happen here". Should that way of "thinking" gain dominance
then that will be how it will happen here.

A wiki is a model, it's a type of website. Suspecting that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are somehow related just because they have the word "wiki" in the name is no different to suggesting that this forum is somehow linked to any other forum, just by virtue of the fact that it has "forum" in the name.

If you look at the actual actions of the EDL, it seems that they are a right-wing group. Having said this, there's no central decision making of the "wikipedia website" as you put it, the decision to accept or revert individual contributions to wikipedia is made by whichever admin happens to come across it after a large amount of discussion on the talk page related to that article. These decisions are made on an individual basis within a flexible overarching framework.

George Szaszvari wrote:Note that, despite sharing the "Wiki" name, Wikipedia claims that the WikiLeaks of Julian Assange (who could be described as a techno-anarchist) is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation!

That's because Wikipedia is right, it isn't.

Rob Thompson wrote:A wiki is a model, it's a type of website. Suspecting that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are somehow related just because they have the word "wiki" in the name is no different to suggesting that this forum is somehow linked to any other forum, just by virtue of the fact that it has "forum" in the name.

Thank you for this clarification.

Rob Thompson wrote: If you look at the actual actions of the EDL, it seems that they are a right-wing group. Having said this, there's no central decision making of the "wikipedia website" as you put it, the decision to accept or revert individual contributions to wikipedia is made by whichever admin happens to come across it after a large amount of discussion on the talk page related to that article. These decisions are made on an individual basis within a flexible overarching framework.

Seems like all the admins are of one mind, or afraid to do anything else. I've been away for a decade, but do
remember the problems in Luton. However, it does look as though it is real easy to simply paint the EDL with
the same brush that might have been more true of Luton demos decades past and I can see certain contributors
to the talk forums vociferously decrying the EDL on that basis. It also seems likely that "unreasonable" elements
will latch onto the demo crowds, tarnishing the EDL mission statement. As I said, being based in Luton was hardly
the way to do it IF the mission statement is sincere.

Alex Holowczak wrote:

George Szaszvari wrote:Note that, despite sharing the "Wiki" name, Wikipedia claims that the WikiLeaks of Julian Assange (who could be described as a techno-anarchist) is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation!

That's because Wikipedia is right, it isn't.

Jawohl!

Rob Thompson wrote:A wiki is a model, it's a type of website. Suspecting that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are somehow related just because they have the word "wiki" in the name is no different to suggesting that this forum is somehow linked to any other forum, just by virtue of the fact that it has "forum" in the name.

If you look at the actual actions of the EDL, it seems that they are a right-wing group. Having said this, there's no central decision making of the "wikipedia website" as you put it, the decision to accept or revert individual contributions to wikipedia is made by whichever admin happens to come across it after a large amount of discussion on the talk page related to that article. These decisions are made on an individual basis within a flexible overarching framework.

Okay, regarding Julian Assange's WikiLeaks there is a very mixed reaction on this side of the pond.
To Libertarians and those who laud total transparency in government Assange is a hero. Then
there are those who are not so sure, and others who see him as simply evil. Any opinions here?

Reactions (or lack of) to the EDL thing I find puzzling: are people afraid to publicly express support
for a mission statement that condemns Islamofascism?

Any opinions on this supposed "sanitiziing" of info embarrassing to the current incumbent?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=294221

Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It is not peer-reviewed etc. As a librarian friend says, "It is a good place to start a search, but a bad place to finish."

Kevin Thurlow wrote:Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It is not peer-reviewed etc. As a librarian friend says, "It is a good place to start a search, but a bad place to finish."

The strength of wikipedia isn't really what the writer puts on the page. It's the sources at the bottom, which can often link to meaningful things.

"The strength of wikipedia isn't really what the writer puts on the page. It's the sources at the bottom, which can often link to meaningful things."

That is what I was trying to convey.

George Szaszvari wrote: Reactions (or lack of) to the EDL thing I find puzzling: are people afraid to publicly express support
for a mission statement that condemns Islamofascism?

This is in the mission statement:

The EDL believes that radical Islam has a stranglehold on British Muslims. It keeps them fearful and isolated, especially the women that it encases in the burqa. It misrepresents their views, stifles freedom of expression, and radicalises their children, whilst continually doing a discredit to those who do wish to peacefully co-exist with their fellow Britons.

*Polite cough* -- this is patently untrue. And it fits snugly into the West's new narrative where "Islamofascism" is the new global bogeyman (conveniently supplanting the postwar 'red menace'). So domestic repression at home (at least of a chunk of the population) coupled with imperial wars of plunder abroad. If you're going to go down this route, do it in the relatively candid fashion of Thilo Sarrazin rather than the disingenuous euphemisms of the EDL.

Arshad Ali wrote:

George Szaszvari wrote: Reactions (or lack of) to the EDL thing I find puzzling: are people afraid to publicly express support
for a mission statement that condemns Islamofascism?

This is in the mission statement:

The EDL believes that radical Islam has a stranglehold on British Muslims. It keeps them fearful and isolated, especially the women that it encases in the burqa. It misrepresents their views, stifles freedom of expression, and radicalises their children, whilst continually doing a discredit to those who do wish to peacefully co-exist with their fellow Britons.

*Polite cough* -- this is patently untrue. And it fits snugly into the West's new narrative where "Islamofascism" is the new global bogeyman (conveniently supplanting the postwar 'red menace'). So domestic repression at home (at least of a chunk of the population) coupled with imperial wars of plunder abroad. If you're going to go down this route, do it in the relatively candid fashion of Thilo Sarrazin rather than the disingenuous euphemisms of the EDL.

Patently untrue? Hmm. I keep hearing US immigrants from Islamic countries, especially women, state in the
media pretty much what EDL claim, and sometimes beyond that, completely denouncing Islam as something rooted
in anachronistic paternal tribalism, a tool justifying repression, etc. OTOH there are also those who say otherwise,
how Islam is misunderstood, misrepresented, etc....I remember that the "red menace" conveniently aligned itself
with Black September, etc, to oppose the US-Israeli alliance... the USSR confused the issue with their invasion
of Afghanistan, a blunder that played a big part in the "re-organization" of the Red Empire into what it is today.

Sarrazin? Yeah, I heard about him and he seems to raise some relevant points.

Interesting input, thanks.

Kevin Thurlow wrote:Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It is not peer-reviewed etc.

Wasn't the original suggestion that this does not always seem to be the case, or can be at least influenced?

Anyone who thinks the EDL is a harmless movement of concerned citizens is uninformed. I won't cite the Guardian, the Independent, the Mirror or the BBC, as, no doubt, they will inanely be dismissed as "left wing". Try the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... treet.html

Britain is relatively free of tensions between ethnic and religious groups. Long may it remain so.

Paul McKeown wrote:Anyone who thinks the EDL is a harmless movement of concerned citizens is uninformed. I won't cite the Guardian, the Independent, the Mirror or the BBC, as, no doubt, they will inanely be dismissed as "left wing". Try the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... treet.html

Britain is relatively free of tensions between ethnic and religious groups. Long may it remain so.

Indeed. It is a bit puzzling that George so emphasises the EDL's "mission statement" - as if it was ever going to actually say "we are a bunch of far-right misfits and football hooligans who hate all Muzzies"

Paul McKeown wrote:Anyone who thinks the EDL is a harmless movement of concerned citizens is uninformed. I won't cite the Guardian, the Independent, the Mirror or the BBC, as, no doubt, they will inanely be dismissed as "left wing". Try the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... treet.html

Britain is relatively free of tensions between ethnic and religious groups. Long may it remain so.

Uninformed, perhaps, and that's why I sought some responses. But regarding your last statement, despite the
qualification "relatively", I can recall several Brixton riots, and was regularly woken up by IRA bombs exploding
in the early hours, then there were the Luton riots (referred to in this thread,) etc, and I did use the big word
"IF" concerning the sincerity of the EDL mission statement. But then chessplayers always did have a tendency
to see everything in black and white!

Thank you for your interesting input.