> Whatever the earliest editors did has long been superseded by
> liberal bias.
"Classically" liberal, as in libertarian trickle-down economics, have
been strongly reinforced including recently. Have you seen the cadre
of editors who protect their walled gardens of Mises Institute-sourced
economics articles? Fair Tax is a good example, pure trickle-down
advocacy with a dozen articles on it, so carefully curated that Fair
Tax would come up first in "Suggested articles" before they realized
it could be gamed like that and turned it off:
> It was nearly impossible to insert even neutral information
> about Hillary Clinton into her article
That is obviously hyperbole. Her article at the end of October has a
six paragraph "Whitewater and other investigations" section mentioning
no less than eleven scandals and linking to four summary style
sub-articles. There are also separate "Email controversy" and "Clinton
Foundation and speeches" sections, each with their own sub-articles.
Fred, remember when you proposed banning me for calling the medical
credentials of a Department of Defense employee who claimed to be a
doctor in to question after repeated deletions of my edits supported
by MEDRS-quality sources that breathing uranium fumes is dangerous? I
still feel that you treated me unfairly, and you may be interested to
see that the controversy is still ongoing but slowly turning in favor
of the MEDRS literature's position:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:39 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone doubt that the English Wikipedia's longstanding,
> pervasive, counter-factual, systemic bias towards supply side
> trickle-down austerity libertarian objectivist economics due at least
> in part to early influence of editors attracted to Jimmy Wales' former
> public positions isn't at least partially responsible for the
> situation Romaine describes below?
> Would it be better to move the Foundation out of the U.S., fix the
> bias, or both?
> Jim Salsman
> ---- forwarded message ----
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:33:53 +0100
> From: Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia <email@example.com>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general
> Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that before
> something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> approve this.
> Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> Even if it is only partially.
> Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers in
> the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation, who
> is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
> What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> This is just the first week of this president!
> I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> still starts to get concerning.
> If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech, freedom
> of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> actually move when the danger grows.
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right and
> should be protected.
> Thank you.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org