Sticky Wiki Update

Last month I mentioned the existence of a Wikipedia entry for this blog. At the time of posting, it was an outrageously biased description of Gates of Vienna, and seemed to have been composed mainly by Norwegians.

Since then the distributed intelligence of our readership has been at work, and dedicated volunteers with editing privileges have been able to alter the text to make it more or less objective — although it’s so brief, one wonders why it is even necessary to include the article at all.

It still has the “Islamophobia” template attached, and the “See also” references include “Islamofobia” (note the Norwegian spelling) and “Anti-Turkism”. All three external references are to Norwegian-language articles, indicating that the main impetus behind the entry still comes from interested parties in Norway.

A stalwart Wikipedia editor from among our readers left this comment today on my earlier post:

Been working with this for the last couple of weeks. The mud/teaspoon analogy is apt. The text itself is now somewhat less biased, and that seems to be sticking. But the application of “Islamophobia” and now “Anti-Turkism” keeps going back and forth. Any additional help would be welcome.

I’m not sure what anyone can do to help, since Wikipedia has such a relentlessly leftist bias. However, for those who have the grit, patience, and inclination to make the attempt: Have at it!

5 thoughts on “Sticky Wiki Update

  1. I left Wikipedia years ago, for exactly these reasons. And Wikipedia sure is grudge-bearing: They won’t just let you go. The best I could achieve, and only after negotiating with ‘Jimbo’ personally, was this (see ). It’s even among Google’s top-10 for my name. .) So no, I can no longer participate in editing wars. Just as I no longer aspire to benefit from Paypal or Godaddy (who purchased Nodaddy, just to silence a powerful critic).

    Michael Laudahn

  2. I stand by a remark made on another forum/blog, made a couple of years ago.

    Wiki is a great source of reference, except for anything to do with religion or politics.


  3. Attack pages is what these are called by insider Wikipedians. They are commonplace. Try looking at Wikipediocracy for some information on what is really going on.

  4. The Wikipedia article is horrible in current state. It is missing basic information – when the blog was established, who contributes/contributed there and what (documented) influence it had on the outside world.

Comments are closed.