Opinion: "Here are some examples of wikipedia’s left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned."

[Drop Dead Fred]

This is absolute proof that wikipedia is systemically banning people who add reliably sourced information that is critical of the political left.

This is a clear and obvious violation of wikipedia's own "neutral point of view" policy.

Here are some examples of wikipedia’s left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned.

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill) January 21, 2025 Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions 1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van …

danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com

Here are some examples of wikipedia’s left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned.​

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)

January 21, 2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=321538315#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions​

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?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

​

 

[J.S.]

Wikipedia is a far left American internet source that claims to be an encyclopedia. It frequently publishes political opinions that pose as facts. It often neglects to follow basic standards of enyclopedic writing. It will, for example, post biased writing at the beginning of biographies. This conflicts with the basic standard of providing neutral facts in introductions.​

The site was founded by Jimmy Wales. Wales describes himself as being for liberty, but describes libertarians as “lunatics.” He also supported the fringe riots Occupy Walll Street and Occupy London. Founder Wales criticized Julian Assange for not being a true “wiki;” however, wikipedia’s own editing policies have dramatically changed. Many sections are closed and no longer subject to edits or corrections.​

Wikipedias’s authors are often students, retirees, and the unemployed. They are left leaning, and some are communists/Marxists. Wikipedia’s authors are not even identified, but they were in the past. The author bios were often immature and odd, with writers describing themselves as “would be Vikings” or enjoying beer drinking. It is likely that bios were nixed because they were too embarrassing. Wikipedia maintains its authors are not paid, but it does have a core of authors who are paid. These authors are often far left and make up the core. They also have veto authority and delete factual material that conflicts with their far left ideology.​

Wikipedia has long been criticized for a laundry list of items. Grammar, syntax, and punctuation can be very poor. Content is often far left and often does not reflect the subject. Alternative subjects are often maligned for being alternative. Articles on alternative health, for example, are not discussed objectely, but are simply criticized with political opinion.​

Many teachers will not allow their students to use Wikipedia because it is so unprofessionally riddled with problems.​

​

 

[GLASNOST]

This is absolute proof that wikipedia is systemically banning people who add reliably sourced information that is critical of the political left.

This is a clear and obvious violation of wikipedia's own "neutral point of view" policy.

Here are some examples of wikipedia’s left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned.

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill) January 21, 2025 Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions 1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van …

danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com

Here are some examples of wikipedia’s left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned.​

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)

January 21, 2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=321538315#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions​

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?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
View attachment 1069037

​

Why shoot! I'd'a banned ja' jes fer thinkin' bout it.

 

[scruffy]

Wikipedia is full of misinformation. Their math stuff is completely unreadable. I'm not going to fix it for them, they'd have to pay me for that.

Example: go to the Wiki page on "Three-Dimensional Space". Look at the vector (tensor) indices. They're completely wrong.

Scroll down to the heading "in calculus". Look for where it says "Einstein summation convention". What do you see?

Then for the last SIX MONTHS they've been pestering me to make a donation. They say "Wikipedia still can't be sold". Like it's my fault or something.

Nope, not giving them a red cent. The last thing I need is battle with a bunch of dumbass leftard editors.

 

[toobfreak]

This is absolute proof that wikipedia is systemically banning people who add reliably sourced information that is critical of the political left.

I have very detailed notes on Obumma's Czars and that is absolutely critical in understanding his bizarre and extremist illegal governmental operations.

 

[luiza]

This is absolute proof that wikipedia is systemically banning people who add reliably sourced information that is critical of the political left.

OMG
I thought even Sheeple were aware that CIA created Wiki for misinformation and disinformation .
It started in early 2001 which dark minded individuals like me note was just before 9/11.
It was a very cleverly crafted Control weapon and most seasoned investigators now treat it with the utmost caution .
Latterly it tends to be about what they simply omit rather than direct lying .
Obfuscation , as we say .

 

[Edgetho]

Wikipedia, overall, is not a bad source for beginners and for casual use, but sometimes, it just SUCKS ASS. Especially when it comes to anything political

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This is absolute proof that wikipedia is systemically banning people who add reliably sourced information that is critical of the political left.

This is a clear and obvious violation of wikipedia's own "neutral point of view" policy.

Here are some examples of wikipedia’s left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned.

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill) January 21, 2025 Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions 1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van …

danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com

Here are some examples of wikipedia’s left wing bias that I cited, right before I got permanently banned.​

By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)

January 21, 2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=321538315#Before_you_possibly_ban_me.2C_please_answer_the_following_questions

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions​

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?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
View attachment 1069037

​

Good for Wikipedia.