The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia

[Robert Vincelette]

I have to question identifying oneself with a picture of anyone with a cigarette in his mouth. Such things earn some suspicion and diminution of credibility. Because smoking violates the human rights of nonsmokers, it is not appropriate to esteem it in a choice of image.

 

[Altfish]

Again, it's your WP and internet atheist brain talking. Was Breitbart a porno king? What 10 facts do you have?

OK, let's say the creator of Wikipedia was a porno king...what has that got to do with the quality of the website?

 

[philbo]

Did nobody else want to point out the massive irony of describing Wiki as a biased source and backing it up with a quote from NaturalNews, one of the least trustworthy sources on the internet?

 

[George-ananda]

OK, let's say the creator of Wikipedia was a porno king...what has that got to do with the quality of the website?

I agree that the porno king thing is not related; just a character attack.

What is related though is the fact that he is a hard atheist and supports an atheist-materialist re-editing of the website as I explained in post #29.

 

[viole]

>>The theory of evolution makes statements about three different, though related, issues: (1) the fact of evolution—that is, that organisms are related by common descent;<<

>>It is basically saying that you are like a flat earther if you do not accept evolution and common descent.<<

You're welcome, viole. This is why Britannica is beautiful. It clarifies our biased and fuzzy thinking. Yes, I think we've agreed on the fact about organisms are related by "common descent." What Ayala is describing is descent with modifications or natural selection. Certainly, this is close to fact as I have been stating such as microevolution. However, creation scientists and evos diverge when we get into macroevolution or "common" descent from unrelated species. Thus, when I say that I did not descend from an ape, this is not descent with modification "common descent." It's like saying that I evolved from fish. There is no "common" descent here.

You really believe they are talking of common descent within a kind?

By the way, I told you. We do not descend from apes. We are (great) apes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Altfish]

I agree that the porno king thing is not related; just a character attack.

What is related though is the fact that he is a hard atheist and supports an atheist-materialist re-editing of the website as I explained in post #29.

So what do you have to be to start a website that is 'neutral'
You've excluded atheists. So do you have to be a believer to be neutral?

 

[George-ananda]

So what do you have to be to start a website that is 'neutral'
You've excluded atheists. So do you have to be a believer to be neutral?

No, a person of any theological persuasion can create a general encyclopedia. But if it is presented as a general encyclopedia the articles themselves should be neutral and not allowed to be re-edited by an organized group with a clear stated agenda (atheist-materialist Guerilla Skeptics in this case).

 

[Susan Maneck]

Search any topic and the chances are that a Wikipedia entry for it comes to the top on near the top. Wikipedia is not a trusted, academic website because it is biased and contains wrong information. It may contain links at the bottom that are good, but what is written by Wikipedia can be modified by anybody. Conservative statements and valid links are routinely censored by Wikipedia editors. The founder of Wikipedia is a former pornographer named Jimmy Wales. I would not donate any money to Wikipedia because it is not a reputable nor academic website. I almost spit out my coffee when I first heard the term, it's not up to "Wikipedia standards" from a news article on CNN. What a crock that is. It sounds like fake news or biased news that CNN is noted for.

10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales

If one has to use Wikipedia, then search for the same topic under Conservapedia in order to balance out the lies, errors and censorship of Wikipedia. A better academic website is Britannica online. For those serious about academia and research, a $70 subscription per year is not too much to pay. Furthermore, it's worth looking up Britannica subjects online as many of the popular searches have been put online without having to pay. Just type the subject you are searching for and then put Britannica after it. For example, here is Britannica's link (I searched for evolution Britannica) on "evolution."

evolution | scientific theory

Do you seriously think academics think more highly of Conservapedia? Truth is, overall, Wiki is nearly as reliable as Britannica. Academics go on wikipedia all the time to write and edit articles. The problem is that you don't have to be an academic to write there, because it is an open source which anyone can mess with. But usually problems get flagged pretty quickly.
And by the way, I'm an academic. Do I let students use wiki as a source? No, I don't want them using encyclopedias period. What I do encourage them to do is check out the bibliographies for these articles to find possible sources.

 

[Susan Maneck]

Because of Wales, it cannot be trusted. A few of the shocking facts,

"1) Wikipedia claims to be run by "volunteers" but is actually edited by corporate-paid trolls on many topics such as GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals."

I doubt very much that corporations are paying people to write Wiki articles but I'll be happy to examine your proof for this. It may be that scientists who work for these companies write some of those articles, but then they are the experts. ...

"5) Jimmy Wales is a key operator of the "Hillary Clinton protection network" that cleanses the Clinton entry of all facts about Hillary's crimes and acts of treason against America"

Gee, I didn't know there was such a thing. But tell me which crimes and acts of treason did Hilary commit that comes anywhere near what our president is doing?

6) Wikipedia also distributed child porn. "The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography..." said Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia

Were that true they would be out of business already: Here is wiki response to that accusation.

“The Wikimedia Foundation obeys the law. In the weeks since Sanger’s published allegations, the Wikimedia Foundation has not been contacted by the FBI or any other law-enforcement agency with regard to allegedly illegal content on any Wikimedia projects. Our community of volunteer editors takes action to remove illegal material when such material is brought to its attention. The Wikimedia Foundation is proud of the Wikimedia editors who zealously work to keep the projects free of illegal material. If and when we are informed by law enforcement agencies of illegal content that has not already been removed through self-policing, we will take quick action to delete it.”
...

7) Jimmy Wales openly despises natural medicine and the healing arts, deliberately allowing corporate-funded Wikipedia editors to disparage authors, naturopaths, doctors and practitioners who help people heal
...
In other words he doesn't like charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

10) The Wikipedia extortion racket is a reflection of the total lack of ethics practiced by Jimmy Wales himself"

Really? And who exactly did they extort?

 

[QuestioningMind]

In a court of law, I can say as God as my witness and be deemed credible. If I say Jimmy Wales, then I'd probably be dismissed as not credible.

At least if you claim that Jimmy is your witness the court could call Jimmy in to verify your claim. Sounds like a FAR more reliable source to me.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Conservapedia is an unintentional variation of The Onion. It provides just as many laughs with none of the self-awareness.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, let's say the creator of Wikipedia was a porno king...what has that got to do with the quality of the website?

Benjamin Franklin was the most hedonist, immoral person in the history of the USA. His exploits with women some young in France brought him great notoriety. What does that say of his stature of one of the Founding Fathers of our country. and his face on the $20?

 

[Altfish]

No, a person of any theological persuasion can create a general encyclopedia. But if it is presented as a general encyclopedia the articles themselves should be neutral and not allowed to be re-edited by an organized group with a clear stated agenda (atheist-materialist Guerilla Skeptics in this case).

You mean like Wikipedia is?

 

[George-ananda]

You mean like Wikipedia is?

No, like Wikipedia should be is what Ian saying.

 

[Polymath257]

>>You are an ape.<<

No, I am not an ape. I am a human and descended from other humans. We already went through this in creation vs evo for umpteen pages.

1) Are you made of complex cells with internal organelles? If so, you are a eucaryote.

2) Do your cells have membranes made of lipids rather than walls made from glucosides and are they surrounded by an extracellular matrix composed of collagen and glycoproteins? Then you are an Animal.

3) During embryo development, does the blastopore (the first opening) become the anus? Then you are a Deuterostome.

4) Do you have a head, backbone, brain, red blood cells, and kidneys? Then you are a Vertebrate.

5) Are air-breathing, have hair, three ear bones, sweat glands, the ability to regulate internal temperature and specialized teeth? Then you are a Mammal.

6) Do you lack an epi-pubic bone and do females like you have a uterus which produces a placenta during pregnancy? Then you are a placental Mammal.

7) Do you have a collar bone, opposable fingers, a flat nail on fingers and toes, eye sockets made from bone, stereoscopic vision, an enlarged cerebral cortex? Then you are a Primate.

8) Do you have a narrow nose and downward pointed nostrils, broad rib cage, a fused frontal bone, convoluted cerebral hemispheres, a large brain for his size of mammal, color vision, a lack of tail, and a lack of cheek pouches? Then you are an Ape.

So, yes, if you are human, then you *are* an ape.

 

[Willamena]

If one has to use Wikipedia, then search for the same topic under Conservapedia in order to balance out the lies, errors and censorship of Wikipedia.

Balance doesn't mean objective.

 

[james bond]

I have to question identifying oneself with a picture of anyone with a cigarette in his mouth. Such things earn some suspicion and diminution of credibility. Because smoking violates the human rights of nonsmokers, it is not appropriate to esteem it in a choice of image.

Ha ha. I have quit my smoking long time ago. What about the cred of heathen Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia which is the topic of thread? Can we toss him into jail and his Wikipedia into the lake of fire already because of suspicion and diminution of credibility? Because the following violates the human rights of all humans.

1) Wikipedia claims to be run by "volunteers" but is actually edited by corporate-paid trolls on many topics such as GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals.

2) Before launching Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales ran a porn site network called "Bomis" that featured "Bomis Babes."

3) Jimmy Wales broke up with his girlfriend by posting a message on Wikipedia. She responded by saying "You are the sleazebag I always suspected you were... You are an absolute creep."

4) Wales' girlfriend auctioned off the clothes he left behind in her New York apartment, selling them on eBay

5) Jimmy Wales is a key operator of the "Hillary Clinton protection network" that cleanses the Clinton entry of all facts about Hillary's crimes and acts of treason against America

6) Wikipedia also distributed child porn. "The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography..." said Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia

... and more.

 

[james bond]

OK, let's say the creator of Wikipedia was a porno king...what has that got to do with the quality of the website?

Hullooooooooooooooo. I can hear an echo coming from your head. Anyone home? Please read #1 and #13 for the umpteenth time.

 

[james bond]

You really believe they are talking of common descent within a kind?

By the way, I told you. We do not descend from apes. We are (great) apes.

Ciao

- viole

Let's stick with Britannica. Yes. You were referring to the Britannica article on evolution. It's microevolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor. It would be like saying some dogs, wolves, hyenas and other canids have a common ancestor. We agree on this type of common descent. You said we do not descend from apes, so we agree on that. Apes are not our common ancestor. Creation scientists do not consider them as part of our human species. They do not consider great apes as part of our human species either. AFAIK, they consider them apes. Thus, we did not descend from great apes as you believe. That part is theory according to Britannica under human evolution. Does it say anything about great apes in that?

I don't think Britannica mentions this under human evolution. The other disagreement that we have are the ancient humans before Noah's Flood. They were humans, too. In fact, they were more advanced humans than the humans we are talking about after the flood. For example, Cain used tools being a farmer. Thus, the humans from Noah's family which we are descendants of weren't as healthy as the ones from Adam and Eve's time. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, but are generations removed from them. All of this should be in Britannica one day under baraminology once the creation scientists are able to complete baraminology theory.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why do I get this constant feeling that there is a teapot constantly making fun of a kettle.