Wikipedia bans all good atheistic arguments from their pages?...

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
piotrniz's picture
Wikipedia bans all good atheistic arguments from their pages?...

It seems to be a real problem. Every time somebody says something against free will (for example the 'standard argument'), or even notes that somebody said it, every time there is a topic about Catholic archbishops and cardinals, every time good historiosophical argument come into light on a page (such as, a 'mere user' comes and deletes them, pretending to do it carefully but with commitment, with tricks but still as a mere user, then you observe that struggling with him is pointless. They don't let you revert content and expect, they themselves revert yours; and whenever you're stubborn on a change they bring admins and bans as much as they want. The problem is so systematic extinction of best atheistic arguments that it must be connected with Wikimedia as a whole. Their current decidents seem to serve Vatican in the worst possible way, by fighting freedom of knowledge. Even the article on was once almost deleted, although there are many other such pages on Nietzsche in this encyclopedia. The worst fight is against good articles on free will which highlight rationalistic criticisms.



Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
wikipedia shouldn't delete

wikipedia shouldn't delete any of its articles. its supposed to be a public service. if it proves otherwise, I'm suing for the five bucks they constantly pester me for :)

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Wikipedia is a propagandist

Wikipedia is a propagandist board, they put up there anything they like and remove anything they don't.

Don't expect a fair judgment at all.

piotrniz's picture
You need to vote to have a

For sure you need to vote there to have a fair judgment and fair articles, you need to struggle with the admins. It doesn't happen just "by itself."

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
editors make final decision

editors make final decision on anything

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
yea, and also the ones who

yea, and also the ones who pay them money.
There were several cases even brought to court because of this.

piotrniz's picture
Don't you have some friends

Well, money seems to be the biggest problem there.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
WP vote is a waste of time,

WP vote is a waste of time, this is like politics, you think you have a say in the matter, but if something is not like by the rich and powerful, there is no way it will happen.

Wikipedia shareholders will always side with the guys with the big pockets regardless of votes.
It is how the propaganda machine works, you pay them and they show what you like.

Really there is little difference from a guy who wan'ts to sell you a billboard in a popular place.
Except, he has to pay taxes while Wikipedia doesn't.

"To cover these costs, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation subsist almost entirely on donations."
Wonder who is donating now?

This is how business is done, you first create the market(online users) then you sell a product on that market, in this case either a political view or a favorable article to some company, then you sell that option to the highest bidder.

Anybody who has a marketing department would gladly bid/donate.
Then you would see a huge improvement on your wiki page :) = more profits.

"I have to admit that a volunteer-operated site that has the ability to seriously harm a business’s or a person’s good reputation gives me the creeps. This is especially true for online encyclopedias like Wikipedia where content, by its social nature, tends to stray into gossip territory. I realize that this applies to many social media websites but very few have the massive power to affect opinion that Wikipedia currently has. If there is one thing that this whole scenario illustrates it is that Wikipedia’s content, no matter who administrates it, should be heavily seasoned with salt. The same goes for any socially driven content online."

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jeff Vella Leone - "Wikipedia

Jeff Vella Leone - "Wikipedia shareholders"

Thanks Jeff, I needed a good laugh.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
I laugh every time you post

I laugh every time you post something.

I always think to myself, is it this time that he will say something which is not stupid?

Always a disappointment so far, and I with this expression:


Attach Image/Video?: 

piotrniz's picture
Well, for example if you vote

Let's say 2 users post, on a voting page, that they strongly support an article. Then they get banned for 'suckpuppetry'. How the hell can admins know if they are the same user? There are so many NAT's and NATing routers out there that it turns out to be impossible.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I don't see how anything is

I don't see how anything is under threat there from fundamentalists, and I find your conspiracy theories rather amusing.

piotrniz's picture
Impaired sight perhaps? :)

Impaired sight perhaps? :)

Nyarlathotep's picture
I also lol'ed at you trying

I also lol'ed at you trying to argue that you can't prove 2 users posting from the same IP, on the same topic, are sock puppets.

piotrniz's picture
@Nyarlathotep: As far as I

@Nyarlathotep: As far as I hear, it's their own words. (subtitle "Sockpuppetry blocks").

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
if you don't like wikipedia,

if you don't like wikipedia, plotrniz, find another encyclopedia (assuming you can find any)

Travis Hedglin's picture
I am not an editor on Wiki,

I am not an editor on Wiki, nor do I even have an account. I have no plans of being a part of Wiki, I don't visit it often enough for me to bother with it. When it comes to references or citations, if it isn't a .edu, I generally don't waste a lot of time with it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Topic switch + more

Topic switch + more 'wikispiracy' theories

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.