Here are seven questions that I asked wikipedia moderators right before I got permanently banned. They never answered any of my questions.

The following is one of wikipedia’s most important rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia’s three core content policies; the other two are “Verifiability” and “No original research”. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

I myself was permanently banned from wikipedia because I followed this rule.

Specifically, I added notable, reliably sourced content to wikipdia’s article Presidency of Barack Obama.

Here is a blog post that I wrote about it, which includes specific examples of the notable, reliably sourced content that I added. I guess you could say this is how my Obama list got started.

This is what my wikipedia page currently looks like.

And this is what my wikipedia page looked like right before I got banned.

And this is a list of all the wikipedia edits that I made before I got banned.

Here are seven questions that I asked the wikipedia moderators right before I got permanently banned. They never answered any of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=354179095#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions

Please answer my seven questions regarding Presidency of Barack Obama:

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described “communist” who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama’s actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama’s actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama’s choice to head the “Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools” has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there’s going to be a section on Obama’s claims of transparency, why shouldn’t the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama’s nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama’s economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama’s czars by two different Senators from Obama’s own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

In all seven of these cases, I was asking the wikipedia moderators why it was wrong for me to follow wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” policy.

They never answered any of my seven questions.

 

Advertisements

August 2, 2017. Tags: , , , , . Barack Obama, Media bias, Wikipedia.

3 Comments

  1. Steve replied:

    Welcome to http://www.conservapedia.com/

    Your edits would be fantastic!

  2. drketedc replied:

    I haven’t found the point of view on Wikipedia to be particularly neutral. When there is a subject that has a lot of conflict, they would serve people better if they put opposing sides instead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback URI

%d bloggers like this: