Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: I am new; we need pro-DP people to edit WP online encyclopedia

  1. #1
    ablephd
    Guest

    I am new; we need pro-DP people to edit WP online encyclopedia

    I am new to this board but not to death penalty issues. I am not exactly a survivor but I knew two people who were murdered; know the daughter of another victim; met the family of another victim; and another victim was once married to a distant cousin of mine.

    Would anyone care to join me in editing articles pertaining to death penalty cases on the encyclopedia web site I refer to by its initials WP? Especially welcome are people who have already edited WP.

    The anti-DP community is very active on WP. Usually when an article about a person on death row is created, the following can be expected:

    1) Anti-DP activists turn the page into a celebration of the killer
    2) Facts about the case are removed from the article, especially if they tend to weigh against the killer's innocence
    3) Anything at all pertaining to the victim is removed from the article as "not relevant"
    4) Quotes from court decisions are removed from the article as being "primary sources"
    5) Unless the murder happened in a major city, quotes from articles in the local newspaper are removed as being "non-reliable sources."
    6) The article gets filled with quotes from anti-DP celebrities
    7) If two or more pro-DP people edit an article, they are accused of being "sockpuppets" of each other
    8) The article will have baby pictures of the killer but no photos at all of the victim
    9) If the anti-DP lose control of an article, they seek to have it deleted because the subject is "not notable"

    WP articles are not supposed to be pro- or anti- anything. But one WP editor can do little to stand up to a stream of anti-DP editors determined to have their way with the article. Therefore, it is important that pro-DP editors work together to keep WP articles neutral and focused on facts. We don't want the articles to be one-sided. But they need to state the facts of the murder, trial, and appeals.

    Would anyone who is interested in editing WP please send me a private message?

  2. #2
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    We usually don't edit articles here, we use the original articles and post the link. The only time I edit is when it is a duplicate article that has been updated.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  3. #3
    Jan
    Guest
    Heidi, ablephd wants us to edit wikipedia posts.

    To ablephd: I edited the articles but stopped because I don't care anymore what can be read on wikipedia about death row inmates. Sometimes I edit the article about the death penalty in the US and add the names of inmates after an execution. There are so many anti-dp sites which you can't edit so it doesn't make a big difference if you edit the wikipedia article. Join this forum to get information about all death row inmates and not only about the high profile cases on wikipedia. If you are really intrested you can also read the court orders and that is the only thing which matters.

  4. #4
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Thanks Jan.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  5. #5
    ablephd
    Guest
    Hi Jan. I think it is very important what is on Wikipedia because of the number of people who read it. Usually a Wikipedia article is the first hit on a web search. Many people look no further. There are even people in the regular media who read Wikipedia before they write their stories. In the case of a person on death row, it makes a big difference if the article contains the facts of the crime and trial as opposed to only reciting information that backs up a claim of innocence. The anti-DP activists want those articles purged of the facts of the crime and only to contain information that would lead someone to believe the condemned is innocent.

  6. #6
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Richard86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wiltshire, England
    Posts
    500
    Welcome to the forum ablephd.

    I found this website because one death penalty related google search returned this website as the top hit.

    I try to cite murderpedia articles on wikipedia, particularly if they contain court decisions. I've made some edits to the Ellis Wayne Felker article (which was a particularly outrageous example of bias) that have stuck on this basis.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    239
    Hi ablephd,

    Good luck on editing the wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is I think useful for relatively non-controversial entries like "the Spanish Armada" or if you want to know what year Thomas Mann was born or died. But my experience with Wikipedia on any issue about which there is controversy is that it is worse than useless, because fanatics will make sure that the page is skewed toward their direction. My introduction to that was when I tried to point out that a writer who was being valorized on Wikipedia had written child torture pornography, and had been an open proponent of pedophilia. I also pointed out that this writer had once carved a swastika on the arm of a bound Jewish "lover"/victim during sex. I provided citations, etc. When I went back to the page a few weeks later my entry on the talk page had been deleted. I kept putting it back up and the pro-pedophile lobby (which is very strong on Wikipedia) kept taking it down. They started accusing me of libel and all sorts of other crap, even though I was providing citations for everything I said. But no matter what I said or did they kept deleting everything, and insulting me to boot. I know some people who are real wikipedia editors, who hate pedophilia as much as I do, and they tried putting in something about the author having written child torture porn and also explicitly supporting pedophilia, and the same thing kept happening to them. This was all months ago. I just happened to look at the entry about a week ago, and it's even worse than it ever was, saying this writer has written so many amazing things about sexuality, but no mention at all of pedophilia, child torture porn, or any of the other awful stuff this writer has written. For crying out loud, if you're going to say the writer writes about sex, wouldn't you think it's okay to mention _what_ they say about sex? But no. That's not allowed.
    I looked up the entries of some other authors who have supported child porn and/or pedophilia, and their entries on wikipedia are just as whitewashed. The same thing has happened. The pro-pedophile fanatics have worn everyone else down. And so they get their way.

    Of course I'm not saying that anti-DP people are pro-pedophile. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that if you want to fight a battle on wikipedia with _any_ fanatic of any sort, good on you for trying, and I wish you luck, but my bet is that they will wear you down. At least that's what they did with me and my friends, and we all feel very strongly against pedophilia and other forms of abuse. Anyway, I'm sorry if I'm a downer here, but I've come to hate Wikipedia because of that. Good luck.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •