Wikipedia blocks all sceptics

“If you are wondering what the heck is going on at Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy article, I think I can provide a quick summary for everyone who’s not familiar with the situation. Basically, we have three groups of editors there. One group wants to maximize the damage of this controversy as much as possible. The second group wants to minimize it as much as possible. The third group just wants to write a good article in accordance with policies and guidelines on neutrality and reliability. We’ve been able to deal with the first group though various forms of blocking. However, we have not be able to address the issue of the second group. Thus far, repeated reminders about policy (particularly neutrality and undue weight) have not worked. The issue was brought up at NPOV Noticeboard, and an uninvolved editor has agreed that the article does not follow our neutrality policy. You can read the uninvolved editor’s opinion here. However, the ‘minimizer’ WP:CABAL of editors are still refusing to write the article in accordance with our neutrality policy.

“We’ve been able to deal with the first group though various forms of blocking.”

You don’t find that a bit problematical? Solicitr (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)” “User:A Quest For Knowledge” h/t Magicjava

Advertisements

No Responses to “Wikipedia blocks all sceptics”

  1. astonerii Says:

    Of course they do not find silencing opposing views problematical. Wikipedia is purely a liberal publication. It was made by liberals and is run for liberals. Thus cutting off conservative points of view are always allowed. When you get to see their 'fair and balanced' articles you will note that the only difference between the fair side and the far left side is that they package it such that it is no longer farce, making it palatable, but false at the same time.

  2. warren Says:

    The interesting part is the lack of symmetry. The post might be entirely defensible if group 1 and group 2 were treated the same way, but obviously they are not. One can imagine the "reminders" going to group two: "Look, we are totally behind you but you need to be a bit more subtle in disguising what you and we are trying to do."

  3. papertiger Says:

    I feel the need to drop an F bomb.Excuse me fellas. How would a person give Babel a direct message that he'll be sure to see???

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


%d bloggers like this: