Wikipedia violates its own “Neutral point of view” policy by censoring information about Michael Moore’s liberal hypocrisy
Wikipedia has a policy called “Neutral point of view,” which states the following:
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This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.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 agree with this policy.
This is the current version of Wikipedia’s article on Michael Moore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore
Here is some content that was censored from the article. The diff can be seen here.
Michael Moore has been accused by Peter Schweizer in his book Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy of being a “Corporate Criminal, Environmental Menace, and Racist Union-Buster”, making the following claims:
* Moore portraying himself as working class is deceptive, and that he actually grew up in an well-to-do home.
* While Moore criticizes racial disparity in Hollywood, Fahrenheit 9/11’s crew was all white.
* While Moore claims to not own any stock, he and his wife’s foundation owns stock in many large companies, including Halliburton.
* While praising unions, Moore tried to dissuade his workers from joining them.[Citation]
Here’s is something else that was censored. The diff can be seen here.
Moore was criticized by Sean Hannity for criticizing capitalism while benefiting from it himself.[Citation]
In this, diff, someone censored a link to a YouTube video of the Sean Hannity interview with Moore that is referenced above. The link to the video is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5YOIUpLpLI
The following was also censored. The diff can be seen here.
In October 2009, ABC News reported that Moore had used non-union labor to create his 2009 film Capitalism: A Love Story.[Citation]
This next content was also censored. The diff can be seen here.
Moore’s net worth has been estimated at “eight figures.”[Citation]
Wikipedia has censored each and every example of Moore’s liberal hypocrisy.
This censorship is a clear violation of Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy.
Media bias: Wikipedia has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information about how hunting endangered animals, when done properly, makes their populations get bigger
Wikipedia has repeatedly removed the following reliably sourced information from its Trophy hunting article. (The deletion history can be seen here, here, here, and here.)
In 2015, a Texas hunter who had won an auction paid $350,000 for legal permission to kill an endangered black rhinoceros in Namibia. The Washington Post wrote the following about the particular animal that was chosen for this kill: “The bull, Knowlton said, was a problem in his own herd. The animal was too old to breed but so aggressive that it had already killed calves, cows and and other male rhinoceroses in a jealous rage.” The money was used to fund conservation efforts. Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism had approved of the kill. The meat was eaten by residents of a nearby village.
In 2017, a hunter paid $35,000 for permission to kill one bongo at a ranch in Texas. The ranch’s manager said this was enough money to feed the ranch’s approximately 30 remaining bongos for an entire year.
In 2017, wildlife experts said the ranches in Texas had more blackbuck antelope than their native country of India.
In 2018, a hunter from Kentucky legally killed an adult male giraffe in South Africa. Because this particular male was too old to breed, and because it had previously killed three younger adult males who were capable of breeding, this particular kill caused the population to get bigger, not smaller.
The above content is notable, relevant, and reliably sourced. There is no legitimate reason to not include it in the article.
Wikipedia violates its own policy by censoring reliably sourced information about the idiots at Evergreen State College
Official wikipedia policy states:
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.
In line with that policy, a crazy person who lives in my apartment building recently added the following specific, detailed information to wikipedia’s Evergreen State College article:
On June 1, 2017, the Washington Post, referring to events that had taken place earlier that year, wrote, “This year, the school suggested that white students and faculty stay away from campus that day. Weinstein, a biology professor, wrote a letter to organizers saying that he would not stay away from campus, noting, ‘On a college campus, one’s right to speak — or to be — must never be based on skin color.'”
On this same issue, New York Times staff editor Bari Weiss wrote an opinion column which said, “Following the protest, college police, ordered by Evergreen’s president to stand down, told Mr. Weinstein they couldn’t guarantee his safety on campus. In the end, Mr. Weinstein held his biology class in a public park.” Weiss also included a link to this YouTube video, and wrote of the video, “For expressing his view, Mr. Weinstein was confronted outside his classroom last week by a group of some 50 students insisting he was a racist. The video of that exchange — ‘You’re supporting white supremacy’ is one of the more milquetoast quotes — must be seen to be believed. It will make anyone who believes in the liberalizing promise of higher education quickly lose heart. When a calm Mr. Weinstein tries to explain that his only agenda is ‘the truth,’ the students chortle.”
Everything in those two paragraphs is cited by either the Washington Post or the New York Times, which are as reliable (by wikipedia standards of reliability) as any source that one could ever hope to find.
Unfortunately, going against official wikipedia policy, someone else removed that information, and replaced it with this vague, generic, watered down version that doesn’t really convey any specific details about what actually happened at the school:
The Day of Absence is an annual event held in April at Evergreen inspired by Douglas Turner Ward’s play. Each year, minority students are encouraged to attend off campus activities focused on issues involving race. This is followed by the Day of Presence, when the campus community reunites. In 2017 the process was reversed, with white students encouraged to attend off campus activities, while the events for minority students were held on the Evergreen campus. One faculty member, Bret Weinstein, publicly objected to the change. In May 2017, student protests – focused in part on the comments by Weinstein – disrupted the campus and called for a number of changes to the college. Following the protests, a threat conveyed to police led to the temporary evacuation and closure of the campus.
Afterward, something known as an “edit war” happened, with supporters of letting people know the truth reinstating various parts of what had been removed, and opponents of letting people know the truth removing what had been added back in.
As of this writing, none of those original, specific details are in the wikipedia article.
To make matters even worse, YouTube has since removed the video that was cited by the New York Times, with the following explanation:
“This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s policy on harassment and bullying.”
Pretty much any YouTube video of social justice warriors acting like idiots could be removed under that policy, because pretty much everything that social justice warriors do is “harassment and bullying” in one form or another.
But I think the real reason that YouTube removed the video was to protect the social justice warriors from being embarrassed by their own behavior. After the video had been originally put up at YouTube, the protestors had written a letter to the school which stated:
“We demand that the video created for Day of Absence and Day of Presence that was stolen by white supremacists and edited to expose and ridicule the students and staff be taken down by the administration by this Friday.”
I count at least four factual errors in that one sentence:
1) The video was not “stolen.”
2) The video was not “edited” by “white supremacists.”
3) It is the students themselves who “expose and ridicule the students” because they chose to conduct such behavior in a public setting.
4) The video was not put up by “the administration.”
By removing the video, the only people that YouTube is protecting are the people who committed the “harassment and bullying” that YouTube claims to be against. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. The best way to fight against “harassment and bullying” is to expose and embarrass the people who are engaging in it. If YouTube was truly against “harassment and bullying,” then instead of deleting the video, YouTube would link to the video on its home page so as many people as possible would see it.
In addition to demanding that the video be taken down, the protestors also demanded that “criminal charges” be filed against the people who “stole” the video.
Furthermore, after protestors demanded permission to skip doing their homework, the school’s president, a weakling and wimp named George Bridges, gave in to their demand. How hard could it have been for him have said, “You are adults. You chose to attend this school. And with that choice comes the responsibility to do your homework.”?
Evergreen State College has an admission rate of 98%. The school could probably save itself a lot of trouble by lowering that rate all the way down to 96%. And it should get a new president as well.
Wikipedia’s Obamacare article continues to knowingly and deliberately include false information
On October 15, 2013, I posted Wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is a heavily censored, utopian puff piece that ignores Obamacare’s real world problems
On November 6, 2013, I followed that up with Wikipedia’s Obamacare article continues to be a heavily biased and censored puff piece
Now, on November 30, 2013, I am writing part 3 of this series.
(more…)
Wikipedia’s Obamacare article continues to be a heavily biased and censored puff piece
On October 15, 2013, I wrote this blog entry, titled “Wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is a heavily censored, utopian puff piece that ignores Obamacare’s real world problems.”
Well it is now November 6, 2013, and I am writing this new blog entry on the same subject.
As of November 6, 2013, more than a month after the Obamacare website went online, wikipedia’s Obamacare article still includes absolutely zero content on the problems of the Obamacare website, Obama’s false promise that people could keep their insurance, or the rate shock that people felt when they saw their new, higher premiums.
Wikpedia has an entire article – with 38 citations – for Read my lips: no new taxes. But it won’t allow even one sentence about Obama’s broken promise that people could keep their insurance.
I’m glad that that Bush article is there. That was a notable lie that Bush told, and it deserves its own wikipedia article. The fact that wikipedia won’t allow any mention at all of Obama’s broken promise about letting people keep their insurance is a sad reflection of the bias that exists at wikipedia.
(more…)
Wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is a heavily censored, utopian puff piece that ignores Obamacare’s real world problems
Wikipedia’s Obamacare article ignores almost every single criticism of Obamacare that has been reported on by the news, and of the few that it does mention, it severely understates the problem. Some of these criticisms did get added to the article, but they were deleted.
So, some crazy person suggested, on the article’s talk page, that a few specific criticisms be added to the article, such as the healthcare.gov website not working, the large number of employers who have switched to a 29 hour work week (the article mentions, but severely understates, this problem), Obama’s broken promise of letting people keep their insurance, Obamacare “rate shock,” the politicians and unions who supported Obamacare but requested and obtained waivers for themselves, and a few other things. And this person posted links to reliable sources for all of them.
Not only were these suggestions deleted from the talk page, but the user who posted these suggestions was banned.
As a result, wikipedia’s article on Obamacare is about the promises of Obamacare, instead of the actual real world results of Obamacare.
Of course this violates wikipedia’s policy of requiring articles to be true and accurate and unbiased, but hey, wikipedia is controlled by Obama supporters – all the conservatives and libertarians who who tried to balance out the various Obama articles with reliably sourced criticism have been banned from wikipedia for doing so.
Al Gore’s supporters at wikipedia repeatedly erase the info regarding his environmental hypocrisy
Al Gore. Just his name warms our hearts with love and admiration. He loves the environment. He cares about the environment. He’s doing everything he can to protect the environment.
(more…)
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 