Sunday 22nd of April 2018

in defence of wikipedia...

the battle of the pedias...

Wikipedia is set up to inform people with the best possible facts and figures in all spheres of human endeavours... In contrast, the Conservapedia appears to have been set up as a rabid Christian organisation to counteract Wikipedia... The Christian religion demands love, compassion, turning the other cheek and being kind... Nothing of the sort is shown in this complete rubbish Conservapedia. This is what this half-footed pedestrian rotten pedia has to say about Wikipedia:



Wikipedia on polyamory

The website Wikipedia was founded by the atheist Jimmy Wales and the agnostic Larry Sanger. Wikipedia has a pro-atheism/evolution slant.

For example, the current Wikipedia article on atheism is very flattering to atheism. As of June 14, 2012 the Wikipedia atheism article does not explicitly mention the tens of millions who died under atheist communist regimes although it does allude to it. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[7] In addition, as of June 14, 2012, Wikipedia had no article on militant atheism and deleted its article written on militant atheism.[8]

As of June 14, 2012 Wikipedia had this flattering description of polyamory:

 Polyamory, often abbreviated as poly, is often described as consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy. The word is sometimes used in a broader sense to refer to sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies; an emphasis on ethics, honesty, and transparency all around is widely regarded as the crucial defining characteristic.[9]


I guess that since the days of sheep and donkeys, nothing has changed in the mind of the Constupidia, nothing has changed. Planes and genetics are illusions of scientific tricks. 
But then I guess, these people don't read the bible — they only refer to it while they are in glorious golden robes and silly hats. Should they bother looking at it, they would find some interesting passages about polygamy and concubines (polyamory)... None more so than in regard to King David, who features prominently as a good guy in this rotten book, and glorified by religious scholars:

David was probably the greatest lover in the Old Testament.  As a man after God's own heart, he was the greatest responder to the Love of God.  He was very handsome.  He had "beautiful eyes and a handsome appearance" (1 Samuel 16:12).  The Hebrew word for David is dw!D*, from the root which means delight from love, or lover.  The first letter of his name is the pictorial for the point of a female breast.  The root, dwD) (dodh), meaning beloved or love delights, has two of these letters.

David's wives, except for Mikal, are listed in 1 Chronicles 3:1-5.  These women, along with their meanings, are listed in the table.  Each wife was a test for David in the development of the Intimacy Room of the Edification Complex of the Soul.  Bear in mind, that David had the Enduement of the Holy Spirit, but he did not have the Filling of the Holy Spirit nor the power of the Spiritual Life of believers in the Church Age.  After each test was passed, David was promoted with another wife.  After his victory over Goliath, he received his first wife.  During his flight from Saul, he picked up two more, 'Achino`am and Abigail.  While he was King in Hebron, he picked up four more; and when he was King in Jerusalem, he picked up the eighth...
Of course the bible also mentions King David's concubines (polyamory)...

set up by creationists...

I believe the Conservapedia has been set up by American creationists or as they mostly call themselves these days as "intelligent design adherents", though there are still Neanderthals (sorry to insult this species of homo) amongst creationists... They try hard to sell science as one of their own subject, but it does not work. Science and religion do not mix. Science does not "prove" anything, while their idiotic idea of science "proves" their dogma... They are fierce and lethal in their beliefs, but totally irrational about reality. Between you, me and the tomb of a dead Jesus, I could not care less, except they proselytise with a passion that is terribly iconoclastic towards the proper scientific process.

From that awful Conservapedia relative sites:

The Question evolution! campaign, launched by the biblical creation organization Creation Ministries International, is a worldwide "grass-roots movement to challenge the anti-Christian dogma of evolution".[2] The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.[3] The 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer can be found HERE.

The campaign is being primarily conducted in the United States, the United KingdomCanadaEuropeAustraliaNew ZealandSingapore and South Africa.[4] In May of 2011, Creation Ministries International initiated a Question evolution! campaign which encourages students and others to "question the evolutionary pseudoscience peddled to them", to wear anti-evolution clothing and to pass out Question evolution! tracts within their schools and community. The campaign features tracts, t-shirts, badges, mugs, etc. and students are being encouraged to participate in the campaign.[5]


Go away and disappear, you idiotic false prophets! I've seen chimps with better understanding of the two ends of their digestive tract...



And in regard to the questions that evolutionists cannot answer, yes they mostly can. But the answers quoted by the creationists are only titbits, carefully selected and edited to make sure the full answers did not appear... Then comes the sticky tar of religious erroneous adaptation of scientific rigour, used like spackle on a crumbling house as if it was going to support a rotten edifice, already crumbled, against the wind of proper analysis... 

Intelligent design is scientifically idiotic in the face of history and evidence.

Ah... and please read: 

the magnificent scientific proof of the creationists...

biggest number of contributions...


Over the past seven years Swedish academic Sverker Johansson has published 2.7 million articles to Wikipedia.

The articles, mainly about animals, insects and geography are written in Swedish and two Filipino languages.

How has he done it?

read articles from top...

defending wikipedia...


Wikipedia has imposed a ban on page edits from computers at the US House of Representatives after anonymous changes were made to entries about politicians, businesses and historical events.

In response to what it calls "disruptive" revisions, Wikipedia has a 10-day ban blocking any editing from an IP address at the US Capitol, which is shared among a number of computers.

One entry referred to former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld as an alien lizard who eats Mexican babies.

Another said that John F Kennedy's assassin Lee Harvey Oswald acted "on behalf of Fidel Castro".

The ban came after unusual revisions were pointed out by Twitter account @congressedits, which describes itself as "a bot that tweets anonymous Wikipedia edits that are made from IP addresses in the US Congress".

The account was created by a software developer named Ed Summers.

read more :


I would not be surprised if this sort of edit were performed by or on behalf of the rabid Christian creationists lurking in the US Congress, to discredit Wikipedia... But good for Ed Summers to let Wikipedia know that some edits from the US congress are loony.


Ed Summers describes himself as:


I’ve been working as a software developer for close to 20 years, trying to bridge the worlds of libraries and archives with the World Wide Web. I’ve worked in academia, startups, corporations and the government. I work best in agile, highly collaborative teams, that want to help make the world a better place, one website at a time.

I like to use this blog as a place to throw ideas around, to see what sticks. They are my ideas alone and are not associated with my current employer. 



ill-tampered editing of the wiki...

The row over Channel 4's revelations that people using government computers have been making questionable edits to Wikipedia pages is intriguing. It would of course be scandalous if it transpired that officials within the UK government or police service had conspired to tamper with Wikipedia pages on the killings of Jean Charles de MenezesDamilola Taylor and Lee Rigby. But that's not what the Channel 4 report was able to establish: all it claimed was that some person or persons unknown, using computers with IP addresses within the domain, had edited the relevant Wikipedia pages.

On the Menezes page, for example, this text was added to the entry: "There has been some public backlash against Menezes, with British tabloid newspaper in particular protesting that he has received more publicity than any of the 52 people who died in the bombings. 'Anti-war' groups who champion Menezes case, ignore the fate of the victims of the bombings, other then to 'understand' why the attacks occurred due to the UK's role in Iraq." Another edit cast doubt on the dead man's immigration status.

Members of Menezes's family are understandably outraged by this kind of tampering and the ensuing hoo-ha has apparently stirred the government into devising a code of conduct for public officials in dealing with Wikipedia entries. That's good news, because this isn't the first time that official malpractice has been detected. Last April, for example, the BBC reported that the phrase "all Muslims are terrorists" was added to a page about veils and that another edit deleted text in Cherie Blair's entry about the flat-buying scandal that made headlines in 2002. And theLiverpool Echo discovered that insults had been added to the entry for the Hillsborough disaster.

read more;

adding scientific entries...

The organisers of Australia's first Wikibomb to give greater recognition to the work of female scientists say there is a gender imbalance in the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, and the work of women in the industry is going unrecognised.

To counter this a group of online activists today bombarded the site with new entries about Australian women scientists, past and present.

Emma Johnston is a University of New South Wales Professor and a marine ecologist with the Sydney Institute of Marine Science.

"We've got 144 women joining us for the day, and men, who are writing Wikipedia pages about women in science so we're going to have at least 144 excellent entries," she said.

She says the Wikibomb initiative is important for all women.

"If your role models aren't there, it's really difficult to envisage yourself in that role and it's hard to imagine that you might become a scientist," she said.

Dr Marguerite Evans-Galea from the Murdoch Children's Research Institute is also taking part.

"I've actually really gotten very excited about the Wikibomb and I really wanted to focus on women across the spectrum," she said.

Dr Evans-Galea has made four entries.


Good one. Wikipedia is created by people for the people... So far it's one of the best source of scientific information on the planet. Gender would only be an issue if women would not participate. Thank you...

WPD, unreliable according to government propaganda...

Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”.

The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

read more:

Between the religious nuts and the government honchos who both hate the truth, Wikipedia sits pretty. So it is going to ruffle a few feathers and constant vigilance to protect the integrity of its entries. Not everyone will be happy at any one time. read rom top. 

As we face false facts, alterntive events and various interpretations of reality, we should realise that all media is unreliable. We've got to live with it.


See the final version of "The Age of Deceit" coming soon.