Wikipedia Censorship

Any Wikipedians here?

I'm guessing I'm not the first person to come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is censored and it is sometimes used for political purposes.

I have recently tried to put information that would help people understand how to reduce violence based on work from academic sources. This has been mainly to prevent School Violence but it would also prevent other forms of violence.

I think they could also be used to inform the public about lesser known political candidates. The Mass Media shouldn't have veto rights to decide who can run for office which for all practice purposes they do. If Wikipedia is going to ask for help from the public they should help the public in return.

There is also a lot of censorship on what they consider fringe science or misrepresentation of it. Most of this is justified but not all. I'm not advocating that they try to become a pseudo-science site; however I think there are some subjects that have legitimate mysteries to them.

I have written more about this in the following site which includes information mainly about the censorship on preventing school violence.

zakherys.tripod.com...

Good day

They will end up destroying themselves with their methods of moderating. I was banned from wikipedia for "editing from scientology servers" because i added a reference from my home computer.
When i asked to get the ban lifted they reviewed what i had done and said that it was a legit edit but due to my stance on the subject it was "likely i was editing from a scientology server"

I was banned because I was "biased" on a subject. The subject? Cynobacteria and the conditions that spawn that green goo.

Yes their definition of "bias" is laughable. On wikipedia unbiased means agreeing with the admin that is baby sitting the article. In my experience the admins will normally make up reasons why your sources are not credible. I actually had one admin tell me I could not use Time Magazine as a source on the article about EST, that is Erhard Seminars Training. I was not able to put that it was founded by a used car salesman because my source was "not credible" however TIME Magazine is plenty credible for a reference about scientology.
www.time.com...

Came by to see this thread from the previous one about Wikipedia's a conspiracy, let me comment a bit. I was banned from Wikipedia by Boing! said Zebedee with personal attacks, with appeals to "WP:BASC" declined without any further reason and in less than a day by AGK and not listed on the Wikipedia's list of banned users. I'm also banned from Wikipediocracy for the same reasons by William V. Burns.

The censorship by Wikipedia is prevalent, as people on it have not just developed a set of rules for site veterans and novices to follow, but also worship those rules to the point of eliminating the very producers of the encyclopedia so that trolls and ne'er-do-wells are preserved, as well as deleting comments, inventing facts to rewrite their history, a trait that made popular by a user who goes by the name of "BatteryIncluded".

I believe acts of censorship was made by admins to hide information of editors and their activities, as per the "WP:OUTING" policy, in which Wikipedia are not clear of. The takedowns of OhInternet.com and Encyclopedia Dramatica (the latter survived though) may have been an attempt to cover up their activities and keeping the invented fabrications of contributors' histories intact.

This one was quoted from that thread, showing the unilateral revert on Scott Martin's entry for Russavia was made by BatteryIncluded's administrative enforcer Dennis Brown (I suspect he's going to ban me from computers and the Internet with further personal attacks and threats on behalf of BatteryIncluded, by locking my computer with a crypto-malware that disables every input devices connected to it and Safe Mode).

originally posted by: bryansee

This shows an example of censorship by Wikipedia.

Also as what I heard from banned user Archtransit is that Ryulong also did the same, but indefinitely blocked the users. In addition, there were valid concerns raised by outsiders about Wikipedia that people on it never seem to address. For example, there was a discussion about things that administrators should do or never do. They seem to like sensible and proper things, like being a regime that killed countless civilians, treated women as sub-humans and mutiliated people for transgressing religious laws. The user was promptedly indefinitely blocked, and his/her comments were deleted.