Re: Metapedia - worse than Conservapedia

On 7/26/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavarogmail.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.met
apedia.org/wiki/Nordisk.nu which is
basically an ad for a site that is proud to be a racist
social
network.

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.

--Oskar

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-llists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 7/26/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardssongmail.com> wrote:
> 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.met
apedia.org/wiki/Nordisk.nu which is
> basically an ad for a site that is proud to be a racist
social
> network.
>
> 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.
>

Your comment about myself notwithstanding ;o) ...

I think by and large what you say above is very fair
comment. Like
I said above, I had only examined the english language side,
and
that cursorily. I have since checked out the swedish side
too, and
it does appear that it is pernicious, even if subtly so.

I do kind of regret that the english wikipedia no longer has
an
article on the site. A neutral article based on the media
visibility
the site has had in Sweden would have been quite useful in
putting the site in proper perspective. I read in some
Swedish
news article that there had been pictures of Jews hanged on
some portal or other of the site. (not sure if that was
vandalism
or run of the mill content for the site, but nevertheless)

In this case however as in most, criticism to be effective,
ought to be based on accurate facts, rather than stuff that
misses the point, as much of the criticism has been here on
the list; most specifically not including yours, as you
have
the ability to read the Swedish sites content, and the
media
coverage.

For all that, however malevolent the site may be, it would
be sort of sad for this list to turn into a sort of
metapedia-review.
I would much prefer wikipedia to have a neutral article on
the
site that would bring forth the basic factors that make the
site malingnant. But since it was AFD:d that is not likely
to happen soon. And I would note that the Swedish language
wikipedia article on the site remains adcopy by the
founders
of the site, not NPOVed at all, which needless to say,
isn't
hardly ideal.

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-llists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l