Stabbings in Westfield Stratford

[Patman Post]

Maybe you don't understand how Wiki works. When the administrators (Marxists PC brigade) decide on something, that is the end of it. If you try to alter an article or reinstate it, you find the first time that it is changed back, if you do it again then you get a warning, if you do it a third time then you get a ban for a short period.

Wiki is not the open book of unbiased information that you believe it is. It is usable for anything except for anything remotely political or religious. Guess which category the stuff we're discussing comes into?

Why resort to name calling and labelling of Wikipedia's mangement because you don't understand how they intend it to work? In its own guidelines Wikipedia states:

Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability. So, if you want to

• Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or
• Vindicate a murder convict you believe to be innocent, or
• Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community,

[...] you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...g_Great_Wrongs

[Road_Hog]

Why resort to name calling and labelling of Wikipedia's mangement because you don't understand how they intend it to work? In its own guidelines Wikipedia states:

I call them names because it's true. It is politicised. If a subject is about something that they disagree with, they'll happily put in derogatory things without any link or citation but will not allow anyone to put anything positive without a citation.

And vice versa, if it is one of their pet subjects, anything positive can be put in without citation, but you must have a link to put in anything that is negative. And even then they'll take it out, saying that it is not relevant to the subject.

Apart from the Zionism bit, Metapedia describes Wiki quite well.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

[longbow64]

I think you see conspiracy everywhere

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18662504

No She saw what's been happening for years, had they been white then the Blacl Broadcasting Corp would have said immediately, so She was 100% spot on, you were 100% wrong.

And do you remember in Gunchester when they gunned down Jessie James, always made me chuckle that one, cause your gona go down in flames, just like Jessie James- wot a bunch of idiots.

[Patman Post]

I call them names because it's true. It is politicised. If a subject is about something that they disagree with, they'll happily put in derogatory things without any link or citation but will not allow anyone to put anything positive without a citation.

And vice versa, if it is one of their pet subjects, anything positive can be put in without citation, but you must have a link to put in anything that is negative. And even then they'll take it out, saying that it is not relevant to the subject.

Apart from the Zionism bit, Metapedia describes Wiki quite well.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Giving a conspiracist site of cobbled-together half truths and opinion that's aimed at the easily-influence doesn't rate highly with me. I mostly use Wiki as a starter and a guide. Any reference material is only as good as its latest evidence. Metapedia comes across as a plagiaristic rant.

[flamingreen]

A man has been stabbed to death and two others suffered stabbed wounds after a large fight broke out at Westfield Shopping Centre.

Er,yes, that's what the thread is about...
And your point is?

[Road_Hog]

Er,yes, that's what the thread is about...
And your point is?

It's a bot FG, it just copies some text from one of the posts and dumps it in the thread. I think the idea is that it's also meant to drop in a spam link as well, but I the forum is set up that you need a few posts before you can post links. So the bot doesn't get to post his link.

[Citizen67]

I call them names because it's true. It is politicised. If a subject is about something that they disagree with, they'll happily put in derogatory things without any link or citation but will not allow anyone to put anything positive without a citation.

And vice versa, if it is one of their pet subjects, anything positive can be put in without citation, but you must have a link to put in anything that is negative. And even then they'll take it out, saying that it is not relevant to the subject.

Apart from the Zionism bit, Metapedia describes Wiki quite well.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

I am very disappointed in Wikipedia and Thanks!, Road Hog for bringing this to our attention. Am I right? anyone can be a Wikipedia contributor? you don't need any special qualifications or specialist knowledge? It seems open to abuse especially the type which the Left specialises in. the Left is so dishonest.

[flamingreen]

It's a bot FG, it just copies some text from one of the posts and dumps it in the thread. I think the idea is that it's also meant to drop in a spam link as well, but I the forum is set up that you need a few posts before you can post links. So the bot doesn't get to post his link.

Oh right, so these spam link posts that appear are not real persons. What a pain.

[Road_Hog]

I am very disappointed in Wikipedia and Thanks!, Road Hog for bringing this to our attention. Am I right? anyone can be a Wikipedia contributor? you don't need any special qualifications or specialist knowledge? It seems open to abuse especially the type which the Left specialises in. the Left is so dishonest.

Anyone can edit or produce a Wiki page. However, it has editors/administrators and they closely monitor any subject that they consider political/religious. For example, any attempt to correct the pejoratives on the EDL page, such as far-right, would be changed back instantly and a warning given. If you decided to add to Balotelli's page that he was a petulant child that walked off before the medal ceremony, and pushed his manager aside, who tried to stop him, the same would happen.

If I tried to reinstate the Charlene Downe's page, it would be deleted again. It started off as an excellent idea, a gift to all. But now it has turned into an online version of the BBC, a propaganda machine. Okay for non political/religious topics, such as, who was the first man on the Moon etc., but anything bordering on the former cannot be trusted.

[Patman Post]

Wiki has the following coverage of Charlene Downes:

In 2007, the jury in the case of the alleged rape and murder of Blackpool schoolgirl Charlene Downes, 14, heard a police surveillance tape of Jordanian Iyad Albattikhi, 29, and Iranian Mohammed Reveshi, 50, allegedly detailing her stabbing, and her later alleged disposal in their "Funny Boyz" kebab shop's mincing machine by the prosecution. Albattikhi allegedly boasted that he had sold her remains in kebabs.^[70] both men were acquitted of the alleged offence. John Bromley-Davenport,for the defence, said: "We have uncovered within the Blackpool Police force an astonishing catalogue of incompetence, failure to disclose, manipulation and lies, some of which were uttered on oath during the trial last year. If the jury at that trial had swallowed the lies and been duped by the manipulation then a grave miscarriage of justice would have occurred." ^[71]

What is untrue and what relevant facts have been omitted?

Given that most of the other coverage I've seen is made up of paragraph on paragraph of hypothetical (at best) and rabid right wing racist fabricated allegations and lies (at worst), it does not belong in a work of reference – unless it is to demonstrate how easily nationalist street fodder can be manipulated...