On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:53:59 -0700 Christopher Larberg christopherlarberg@gmail.com wrote:
To a degree the guy does have a point. Wikipedia has a huge jewish/zionist bias on a large number of articles. (Newsflash: There's biased articles in/on Wikipedia?)
But the guy is ultimately wrong. Of course it's not that Wales & Sanger are secret zionist overlords. Wales, like many americans and many liberals, just has a rather common pro-israel/pro-judaism bias. Personally, I really don't see that jews on Wikipedia need a sort of protection that other religions/folks don't receive.
If I remember correctly, in the beginning of 2005, a self-proclaimed nazi community announced it'd go to "npovize" etc holocaust and judaism related articles.
In a, what I find, rather poor move regarding NPOV, Jimbo himself figured NPOV, the demographics of Wikipedia, and the usual editorial mechanisms weren't enough to keep Wikipedia from turning into a nazi propaganda site and brought on a ton of jewish people to administrator posts, and in addition amended a couple of policies that ignore NPOV when it is about stuff like holocaust denial.
As a result from this action, the jewish community is now a huge, powerful force inside Wikipedia, that turns it into zionist propaganda.
One might say "Well that's still better than nazi propaganda" but I am far from convinced that without this sort of intervention, the holocaust articles would now say "Some people argue the holocaust happened, while others don't", but I'm pretty sure the articles on circumcision and foreskin wouldn't deny that the penile skin is erogenous
(This is not a hyperbole. I'm not kidding. Did you think Holocaust would be the only article complex that Jews write on?)
All in all, Wikipedia *is* jewish/zionist propaganda, and it's all Jimbo's liberal-pro-judaism-biases fault :P