<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia Blocks Fred The Oyster And Challenges Blaxthos On Holocaust Entries[/b]
Eurasia Review
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia created by anonymous editors, has reacted to disclosures in The Cutting Edge News that three of its ...



View the article

That article is fascinating. I had no clue.

It amuses me for some reason that Wikipedia forces people to write serious articles about people known only by names like "Fred the Oyster" and "WebHamster".

How was this newsworthy? I'm sure there are more notable people who were blocked.

News flash: nobody in the big bad world cares who is or is not blocked from editing Wikipedia.

What is interesting is the reason he was blocked. All I heard on Wikipedia was that he was unfairly blocked by a block-happy admin. So I now know there was more to the story. And it shows me how Wikipedia works, information that I don't learn from being there.

Well, isn't the fact that this article exists suggest you are wrong?

So, back to the point: if someone had the time to write this article, why didn't they pick one of the hundreds of academics and professors who were blocked?

That Fred the Oyster was blocked is, in and of itself, of no concern to anyone whatsoever. That some unidentified party was attempting to manipulate content in Wikipedia to favor a particular point of view is what is of interest to the author of this article, and that only because the organization he represents seeks to forward a different, incompatible point of view. Note that the article in question was originally written for the Cutting Edge News, which has a very obvious pro-Jewish editorial bias.

This is just another example of Wikipedia being used as an ideological battleground.

I don't really see much evidence that Fred was part of any organization, or really any real details on any such connection. I see a flippant statement about weasels and ferrets, but nothing about the rest.

By the way, from your link:



First one on the list. It would show why they are so edgy.

Because none of them were attempting to deny the Holocaust. Duh.

There is a difference between denying the holocaust and having an opinion on the reliability of an obviously very POV book.

And which are you saying is worse? It seems that Fred the Oyster and socks were pushing a strong POV.

Yes it was, on several levels. Quote of the day:



Alas, IBM in the 1930's had not yet stumbled upon the corporate motto Don't Be Evil. If there's ever a second holocaust they won't need IBM machines, but can simply look up bio information on Wikipedia. There's even a List of British Jews. Heh. Thanks to Poetguy in no small part.

Question to ask: If Wikipedia found that some nasty regime like China or Iran or North Korea was using its content for Bad Purposes, would it erase that content and block creation of any new content of that type? If you know your product will used for evil, are you obligated to stop creating it? it's sort of a topical question, no?

Under the surface, there's a subtext of Cagematch Jews vs. Everybody Else on Wikipedia. And the Jews win one! It's David vs. Goliath! Go figure. The wiki article IBM and the Holocaust will continue to be named that way, without warning that it's an article about the book of that title. No "IBM and the Holocaust (book)." They're not going to back down on that, unless there are at least three things with that name, and a dab page is needed. Then they might, but do not bet on it.

Bah, I was saying that they were claiming the book was POV. If Nazi sympathizers were a -1 and Jewish Nationalism was a 1, then there is a possibility Fred the Oyster merely wanted a 0 instead of a -1. Does that make sense?



I heard a rumor that Stalin had a Mac.