Welcome to the hypocritical world of Wikipedia, Tim. I hope that you will take some time to visit the enlightening forum at WikipediaReview.com. There, you will learn of other topics that are simply not allowed to be talked about on Wikipedia, despite reputable sources. Topics like "Carolyn Doran", "Openserving", and "Wikia is a spin-off of Wikipedia". All are subjects banned by the Wikipediots, because they make Jimmy Wales look bad.

The author must be amused to know that many in the U.S. consider the wikipedia to have such a strong *left-wing* bias, that a whole alternative was created: http://www.conservapedia.com/

Yeah, I was going to raise that point myself, Wizofaus.

I'm going to have to disagree with most of this article. I think the administrator was making fair points.

As for the North American point of view, it's interesting that one of the grudges conservapedia holds, is that wikipedia doesn't use the American spelling for many words. (Apparently, if you don't use American spelling, you're a liberal sympathiser... or should that be sympathizer?)

It's a delicate balancing act, and I think wikipedia does it very well. They don't kowtow to the far right, as evidenced by conservapedia, and articles like this, show they're not the lefty conspirators that conservapedia would have you believe.

i think it's a fair cop - "brutal invasion" is clearly a point of view. To be impartial you would surely just say "invasion" and leave out the brutal?

I don't see what you're on about really.

Wikipedia has standards and operates by consensus, what could be more democratic? Adminstrators on wikipedia are no more godlike than users. If you want your interpretation included, couch it in neutral language and use good sources. Most of all, stick around and persuade people they are appropriate.

Otherwise, you make yourself look like another one-eyed leftist defender of totalitarians, too crippled by confirmatory biases to accept that reality is more than support for slogans.

i do wish ozzies would not used the word democratic, when they mean fair, or progressive. democracy isn't necessarily fair, or progressive, it is "the people rule" in classic greek.

it is understandable that ozzies would be vague about this, having no contact with democracy in oz.

americans have less excuse, but the rich rule there like everywhere, and since 'plutocracy' would tip off even the dimmest, they newspeak the word 'democracy' shamelessly.

'information' has long been the mob-handling tool of choice by the political oligarchs and their plutocrat masters. it is vastly cheaper than putting a checkpoint on every street corner, and safer too, since generals are not encouraged to play a 'hands-on' role. any source of information will be subverted by the rich at a big cross-roads like wikipedia. the only cure is to get as many viewpoints as you can, and filter the result through your own experience.

I have to add my voices to those who don't quite see the problem here. Wikipedia's always been pretty clear on the "no original research" rule and I think that's appropriate - there are plenty of venues for original research, including the sources that the author wanted to use. Also, "brutal" is clear POV.

It's a bit depressing that the author chose to walk away rather than defend his point of view.

(Part 1 of a 2 part post)

I think the author raises a good point to consider: what is considered a “reliable” source by the Wikipedia administrators, and how may this inherently bias the articles.

Whilst this is a pertinent issue to consider, I think the author does not use the best example to back his point up. The contestation of the administrators to his addition to the Wikipedia article appeared to be justified.

The major problem (in addition to the use of the word “brutal”) that I can see with the author’s submission to Wikipedia is that he is addressing a different point to that discussed in the article.

The Wikipedia article (as well as the Time article) postulates as to what may have motivated Chavez to refer to Aznar, the previous Spanish president, as a fascist during a speech being given by Zapatero, who is the current Spanish president.

Why did Chavez spontaneously attack a past president of Spain during the speech of the present president?

The issue is not “why does Chavez consider Aznar to be a fascist?” (which the author of this opinion piece seems to be addressing), it is “why did Chavez interrupt Zapatero to repeatedly attack Aznar?”

In speculating the possible reasons behind Chavez’s actions and comments, the Time article refers to the point when Chavez appears to become agitated over the contents of Zapatero’s address. This was reported to be when Zapatero mentioned the need for attraction of foreign capital.

If this was the point at which Chavez chose to repeatedly interrupt to bring up the “fascist” nature of the previous president, then it is not an unreasonable hypothesis to link the remarks to the monetary and trade policies of Latin America.

(Part 2 of a 2 part post)

I think if the author wishes to clarify/contest the comments included in the Wikipedia article (made by “Time”) he should focus on the conversation that immediately preceded the attack of Chavez. If this was Zapatero referring to the need to attract more foreign-capital then no argument can be made against the inclusion of the interpretation into the Wikipedia article. If Zapatero was referring to any other topic, or to Aznar in general, then perhaps the Online Opinion piece’s author has some stronger merit.

If this information had been included in the submission to Wikipeda, I can imagine that the administrators would have responded more favourable to the proceeding content.

I’d also wish to point out that the referencing used by the author did not support his arguments. His argument was that

“according to Chavez, in public statements at the summit and soon his reasons for calling Aznar a fascist were far more specific than those suggested by Time magazine”

• Aznar in 1999 had urged President Clinton to bomb Serbian radio and television
• Aznar's government, along with the Bush administration, openly backed the April 2002 military coup against Chavez
• Aznar actively participated in the “illegal” and brutal invasion of Iraq, on the basis of false assertions about weapons of mass destruction."

However, the references he provides do not actually indicate that Chavez held these opinions. These links merely reference articles that describe the events, rather than providing evidence that Chavez held any strong views on the events (and more importantly, that these views are what precipitated his attack of Aznar at the summit).

Once again, I’d like to point out that the author of this piece raises a very important point, in that the definition of a ‘reliable’ source has the potential to bias so called “neutral” articles. It is also worth pointing out that this topic is not confined to Wikipedia articles; it is also very important to consider with respect to standardised texts provided within schools and universities.

I discovered that wikipedia was biassed when I attempted to edit Paul Keating's entry to add the information that on the 11th November, 1975, Paul Keating was dismissed from his position as Minister for Northern Australia (a position he had held for exactly three weeks) by Her Majesty's representative, Sir John Kerr. Needless to say, the edit was removed immediately.

Plerdsus,

”Needless to say”?

Did you check to see who removed it? What was the reason they gave?

Were you using “weasel words”? Perhaps your tone was a bit too “weasley”?

How do you know that it was the staff at Wiki who removed it?

Considering the thousands-upon-thousands of articles on Wikipedia, I think the staff there have a lot more important things to do then guard the articles of former Australian Labor Prime Ministers.

You can check here if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Keating&offset=20071205040549&action=history

I think you might be jumping to conclusions here...

If you want correct political or historical information then wikipedia is not the one. It seems that the only thing that does not seem to get edited are scientific information. Things the left wing bloggers and politically correct editors are not interested in. So stick to scientific subjects fine, but any thing to do with politics
etc check other sites and don't be lazy. You do not get to the truth of things easily. You have to look for yourself.

To all dimwits. It is Aussies not ozzies. you lazy spelling sons of idiots

Despite some minor flaws in Tim’s argument – well summarised by jaranet – his overall point is fair in the broader context, especially in view of Wiki’s amplification as a first-port-of-call reference source (particularly school projects and blog commentary).

The supposedly reliable Time article uses plenty of subjective and less than substantial POV – e.g. ‘repeatedly interrupted’, ‘Chavez's leftist policies shun outside investment’ (BTW, this is not true), ‘What may have motivated Chavez’, ‘(Chavez) went on the tirade’. The article also unreliably second guesses Chavez’s own feelings and attitudes – e.g. ‘(Chavez) insists’, ‘(Chavez) blames’.

I would also challenge the wisdom of basing any encyclopedic reference on news articles, which are notorious for being compromised by media editorial policy, which is in turn compromised by the profit incentive.

It would also be interesting to speculate how this whole King Carlos/Chavez incident would have played out in the Western media, had it been Chavez who told King Carlos to shut up.

Whats in some names?
Im not much at wiki.
Its too close to wicca.
And witchcraft.
Maybe if theres a lot of untruths on Wikipedia it may become a bit witchy.
If its not reliable with truth then it going to serve the dark side anyway.

Gibo, get help.