They suppress the truth because they fear it. Their arguments are hallow & without substance so in an open discussion of a subject they always lose which is why they must resort to the evil of censorship in order to win.

STOP ONLINE CENSORSHIP!
STOP ONLINE CENSORSHIP!
STOP ONLINE CENSORSHIP!

CRUSH THE COMMUNISTS!

The anti-spam-project on Wikipedia is a communist complot. One of the leaders of the project rewarded with the spam-star is the self declared Hebrew communist WP User:El_C. Today the group contolls all the key positions on Wikipedia. The communists do not only arbitrarily decide which contributions are spam and which are not. They also decide which contributors to block and which websites are blacklisted. A few days ago the Hebrew communist openly claimed discretion about Wikipedia’s blocking policy on the WP administrators noticeboard.

The communists also controll and fraud Wikipedia’s security system and gained full controll over the strategic administator’s noticeboard. Repeated messages alarming bona fide administrators of the communist take-over were erased in less than 30 seconds without leaving a trace on the WP history tab. This obvious fraud of the WP archive system is part of a large scale cover-up including erasals of user talk pages.

Communists have already vandalised and rewritten thousands of socio-economic and philosofical titels in Wikipedia and are continuing to do so. The plot was discovered by http://workforall.net staff while they were defending the contributions they made over a two year period against the communist vandalism.

The communist take-over will mean the end of Wikipedia’s impartiality and credability, maybe even the end of this unique project. A coordinated action of bona fide administrators could still undo the communist take-over, but few seem to realise what is going on beneeth the surface. Wikipedia administrators do not yet realise that this putch in their virtual world has the very real world consequence that the world’s most refered to source is now set for perpetuing the socialist fraud and deception.

Read the full story and the evidence at http://workforall.net/wikipedia.html

Laurence — Do you think that a more traditional encyclopedia, one written and edited by hired staff and printed/sold by a publishing house would have given your thoughts on a subject that’s important to you more of a fair hearing? Do you think, had you written them a letter or an email they would have done anything more than sent you a polite response… at best?

And when the Wikipedia model didn’t give your particular subject the exact slant and/or hearing that you wanted, what was your response? To disparage the entire nearly 1 million article database as a “virtual dictatorship” and “more dishonest” than the classical media. This is based on… the fact that your encounter with the model, though more interactive than would be possible with any other type of encyclopedia, was not to your liking. How does that affect the legitimacy of the other 900,000+ articles?

I know nothing about the subject you are an expert on. You may be right. Your treatment, and the treatment of that subject may have been appalling and grossly incorrect at the hands of the wikipedians. But the *system itself* that has been set up is, by and large, astounding.

At least, with the wikipedia, there is a *chance* for many, many amateur authors and editors to work together. That is pretty new. Or, at least, the scale is pretty new. If you read, “The Professor and the Madman,” you’ll find that the original Oxford English Dictionary was actually originally created and edited largely by amateur volunteers…

Why do we carve our initials into trees and park benches? Why do we write journals and diaries and poems and stories? To leave a mark. The wikipedia gives us a common place to help leave a mark about subjects that are important to us. Will it always be 100% correct? Of course not… because we can’t ever agree on what that is. But it’s a great addition to the world of reference, because nobody will ever, ever be paid to sit on the editorial board of a “real” encyclopedia and write an article about the history of the MUD or the MOO or the “Heavy Metal Umlaut.”

Unhappily the article is not yet translated in english, but there is a summary in your language on my page on Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laurence67

I just hope that this pseudo-encyclopedia never has a monopoly of the information, since it is more dishonest than the “classical” media, imho…