Home > propaganda, Wikipedia > Who Cares About Carabane?: A Grand Example of Wikipedia’s Hypocrisy

Who Cares About Carabane?: A Grand Example of Wikipedia’s Hypocrisy

Today, the nerds of Wikipedia, called Wikipedians (which includes truth-hider Jimmy Wales), is featuring an extremely obscure and not noteworthy place called Carabane, at least until Wikipedia decided to make a show out of it:

Here, you can see how Wikipedia presented this article full of eloquently stated information, yet casually neglected, with apathy towards their own rules, to cite references for a large bulk of it (the first parts), as I kindly revealed for them and their audience:

And here you can see how two of their administrators broke their own precious arbitrarily and hypocritically enforced rule against reverting a particular page more than three times in one day:

Notice how wannabe Pope “Pontificalibus” lies in his last “reason for editing” (undo/revert) comment section by implying that he’s only reverted one of my edits? What a rabid, malicious, liar, and yet this liar is allowed to manipulate Wikipedia left and right to no end. This is the typical rabid hypocrisy you can expect from Wikipedia, and yet Google Corp is perfectly happy to promote Wikipedia as a relevant reliable encyclopedia and so promoting Wikipedia’s massive anti-Bible propaganda.

And notice here how his partner breaks their rule to assume good faith, and almost immediately warns he’ll ban me?:

Notice another reference to the Bible in the name of this idiot moderator “Sangrail”? Clearly they see themselves as holy warriors in a jihad against reality.

These are the typical tactics which the atheist dominated Wikipedia uses in order to silence, subdue or crush their opposition, hoping to appear to be running a professional, neutral and factual encyclopedia.

On top of all that: how is this article “noteworthy“, and yet it’s featured on their home page as the number one featured article! Wikipedia’s administrators are noted for making out obscure hardly useful articles to be noteworthy and deleting things and people which clearly are noteworthy out of jealousy and hatred of some truth or truths.

Other common tactics is to twist the meaning of neutral to mean “unbiased” (when it means “in the middle” and in context meaning “not taking sides” which is the last thing they do, they are clearly biased) and to claim to be factual, asking for facts arbitrarily, or pretending some member they are against isn’t giving them facts or enough facts to back up some claim must be done) and yet implying that “factual” doesn’t mean, at least in part, “truthful”, which they do by insisting that, Wikipedia is not about truth.” when the facts inconvenience them.

  1. Nihiltres
    February 13, 2010 at 2:38 PM

    Hate to break it to you, but a majority of your points are essentially wrong.

    First, the importance of a subject doesn’t play into the choice of featured article each day: the focus is on choosing articles that a) have passed Wikipedia’s “Featured Article” process b) that are relevant to the date if possible, and c) to include a reasonable balance across topic areas (i.e. avoiding having high concentrations of particular subject areas over time). So the comment about the “unimportance” of Carabane is questionable at best—the process of choosing an article isn’t about importance at all.

    Second, the lead section is primarily a summary of the rest of the article, an introduction to the topic. The lead will, often not contain citations—these citations will instead be given in the body of the article where that same information is presented in more detail. This is deliberate, so your objection there seems weak at best.

    Third, the three-revert rule explicitly doesn’t apply to reverting vandalism. Since your changes were, arguably, vandalism, there’s no rule being broken. The tendentiousness of your behaviour supports this, and you were given explicit warnings that your edits constituted vandalism.

    Fourth, the “assume good faith” guideline was not violated. People should *assume* good faith, but there’s no requirement to be stupid. When someone is *evidently* dealing in bad faith, there’s no need to treat them as highly, though *civility* remains important. With a username of “Unreliablepedia” and attempting to make your point through repeatedly defacing the day’s featured article, this was obvious from the start.

    Finally, your accusation of bias in favour of Christianity is laughable. If Wikipedia is so Christian, why does it go to great lengths to establish, for example, how evolution is a fact (at “Evolution as theory and fact”), or any number of entries from the general category “Category:Christianity-related controversies” (e.g. “Christian terrorism”)? The “Sangrail” name is another example: individual editors can choose whatever pseudonym they want, so sure, you’ll see a few potentially religious names, but “Clovis Sangrail” is not a particularly bad one. The reference to the “Holy Grail” could be a simple reference to the Arthurian legends. After all, that user describes themself as a biologist on their userpage—I find it amusing that you’re accusing a *scientist* of as being part of some group that “see themselves as holy warriors in a jihad against reality”.

    Finally, you’re misquoting Wikipedia when you say “Wikipedia is not about truth”. The statement itself is “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth”, which is further clarified to give the real meaning: statements in Wikipedia should be supported by references to sources that are usually correct, rather than by the unsupported assertions of pseudonymous editors. If I say to you “My cat can speak 5 human languages” (an obviously false claim), your response will naturally be to say “Prove it”. If I just say “Well, it’s the truth!” are you going to believe me? No, you’d want documentation. This is precisely what Wikipedia’s doing. The point is that it’s not Wikipedia’s place to correct the sources. If the news gets it wrong, Wikipedia will repeat the mistake unless there’s reasonable counter-evidence. You don’t offer evidence of its “bias”, but you’re willing to repeatedly assert it. Go look up “Ipse-dixitism” sometime.

    Your argument is largely incoherent and based on ignorance of the facts; I hope that you’ll reconsider your position based on my explanation.

    If there’s some particular grievance you have, I’d be willing to help address or at least explain it, but you’ll have to, naturally, do me the favour of assuming good faith on my part. :)

    • February 13, 2010 at 3:19 PM

      “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth”

      Did you bother to read a word I said carefully? You’re REPEATING. I just pointed out HOW WIKIPEDIA BREAKS IT’S OWN RULES and what do you do, REPEAT THEM BACK TO ME!

      You don’t know wikipedia as well as you think, and you seem to have a narcissim problem yourself, by saying “essentially wrong”. Was it too hard for you to say, “wrong”? My points were clear, I cited my sources, Wikipedia did not, broke their own rules, and that is typical of them. Further, they have said to me flat out literally that Wikipedia is not about truth. I know Wikipedia’s hypocrisy very well; you clearly are gullible and bought into the propaganda. Perhaps you should read my older entries on Wikipedia or wait for a very large folder of Wikipedia’s hypocrisy to be uploaded. Use a search engine next time so that you won’t waste my time next time. Have no clue how you get around the not notable policy. You’re a slippery snake.

  2. Nihiltres
    February 13, 2010 at 8:50 PM

    *Where did Wikipedia break its own rules?*

    I told you, but you are spiritually blind and unwilling to see your own mistakes.

    “You have not responded to my rebuttal.”

    Yes, I did, and before you even spoke: I pointed out Wikipedia breaking its own rules, even cited the images. But you are full of hate and a narcissist. Just because you make a claim, doesn’t make you right. You are someone who relies on your own feelings as justification, not evidence, you reject evidence and a contentious person.

    “I haven’t read your older posts on Wikipedia, but from the level of discussion I see here I’m not sure they’re worth my time.”

    And your insults are magically evidence that what you say is true too huh Moron do you think just because you don’t call me a moron that you’re a good, moral and wise person and that whatever you say is true is true? You are childish, you think like a child with reasoning like that, and yet you talk to me about levels of discussion? You’re not even discussing idiot: YOU, YOU DUMB ACCUSER ARE THE ONE WHO DID NOT RESPOND TO MY ARGUMENTS, YOU GLOSSED OVER THEM AND SIMPLY REPEATED WIKIPEDIA’S RULES AND MADE BASELESS INSULTS. YOU ARE A MORON, A FAULT FINDER OF OTHERS WHO IGNORES YOUR OWN FAULTS. Where idiot, did you refute my point that the false Pope did not lie about how many edits of mine he reverted? Idiot? Idiot you also ignored the fact that CARABANE DOES NOT DESERVE A PAGE IN WIKIPEDIA ACCORDING TO IT’S OWN RULES YOU IDIOT, AND YET, A MASSIVE MORON, IGNORE THAT FACT AND SIMPLY SKIP RIGHT TO “OH WELL THEY HAVE TO GIVE EQUAL TIME TO EVERYTHING” AS IF YOU DIDN’T HEAR A WORD I SAID YOU IDIOT, AND YET YOU TALK ABOUT A LEVEL OF DISCUSSION? YOU’RE RANTING YOU CONTENTIOUS HYPOCRITE. YOU, LIKE THE REST OF THE ADMINS ON WIKIPEDIA, LOVE TO ARGUE, YOU LOVE TO PROVOKE HATRED AGAINST THE TRUTH, THAT IS WHY YOU IGNORE WHAT I SAY AND BABBLE BACK.

    And idiot, aren’t you replying? I thought I wasn’t worth talking to stupid? Contradict yourself much you hate monger? YES, YOU DO. Since you are unwilling to carefully listen to me, and instead only to trample me with Wikipedia rules and insisting that you and the rest of the admins are perfectly obeying them (what a vain, deluded a moron you are), THEN I WILL NOT GIVE YOU ANY MORE WORDS HERE EITHER. You’re a BIASED, unfair liar and a truth-hider who is unwilling to see the truth acknowledge the truth about the evil you and your friends engage in.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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: