[WikiEN-l] Metapedia - worse than Conservapedia

Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com
Thu Jul 26 14:08:31 UTC 2007

On 7/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Even though wikipedia has been soundly panned by Harlan
> Ellison, I can't help but refer you to his line about people not
> being entitled to their opinion, but rather being entitled to an
> *informed* opinion.
> So far all the panning of metapedia has been based on pages
> that had obviously been inserted there with the purpose of
> disrupting the site. Saying it sucks because of such attempts
> to disrupt the site in question is hardly an informed opinion.
> There may be crappy content on metapedia inserted there
> by its core contributor base, but I have yet to find any myself,
> and more to the point, none of the people who have expressed
> distaste at the site existing in the first place, have presented
> such either. Saying that one disagrees with the ideology of
> some group of people, is one thing, saying that what they
> write is without merit is a separate question.

The reason you can't find anything is that the english section is
fairly small compared to the Swedish one, and those articles that do
exist are written in a sort of code. They don't come out and actually
say what they mean, they use a sort of neutrality shield to hide
behind. Let me quote you the Adolf Hitler article from the Swedish
side (and that side is closed from editing by the general public).
Loosely translated it reads like this:

"Adolf Hitler, born April 20, 1889, died April 30 1945. Know for
amongst other things as the leader of the NSDAP political party and
chancellor for the German Kingdom 1933-1945. Author of Mein Kamph, one
of the most sold books in the world"

And that's it. Nothing else. Every single article reads like this,
technically they are true and the tone is neutral, but they skew the
facts into oblivion. If you want to see a really distasteful article
for yourself, read http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Nordisk.nu which is
basically an ad for a site that is proud to be a racist social

Talk about free speech all you want, but don't for a second claim that
these people writing this thing are anything other than scum. It
doesn't make you look fair-minded or unprejudiced, it makes you look
like an idiot.


More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list