Changes

One of the quality problems with [[Wikipedia]] is that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/her own point of view thus then becoming a stated Wiki fact. These Wikipedian facts then become a promotional tool for political agendas. This then brings up all sorts of moral and ethical issues.  

]One of the quality problems with [[Wikipedia]] is that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/her own point of view thus then becoming a stated Wiki fact. These Wikipedian facts then become a promotional tool for political agendas. This then brings up all sorts of moral and ethical issues.  

Wikipedia itself states that all articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This neutral point of view approach, which is fine, seems to be disappearing from Wiki’s agendas. Content bullies are simply more and more moulding the articles. Controversial historical articles are becoming targets and are showing outright bias. If we use the Encyclopedia Britannica and BBC History as a yardstick for qualified encyclopedic work, certain articles in Wikipedia seem dated.  

Wikipedia itself states that all articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This neutral point of view approach, which is fine, seems to be disappearing from Wiki’s agendas. Content bullies are simply more and more moulding the articles. Controversial historical articles are becoming targets and are showing outright bias. If we use the Encyclopedia Britannica and BBC History as a yardstick for qualified encyclopedic work, certain articles in Wikipedia seem dated.  

A series of articles are appearing on Wikipedia that are reflecting the propaganda of the former '''Communist Party of Yugoslavia'''. One would assume that this would be a problem, as matter of fact Admin at Wikipedia doesn’t have a problem with this at all. It is a disturbing phenomenon.

A series of articles are appearing on Wikipedia that are reflecting the propaganda of the former '''Communist Party of Yugoslavia'''. One would assume that this would be a problem, as matter of fact Admin at Wikipedia doesn’t have a problem with this at all. It is a disturbing phenomenon.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, certain historical factual information has come out into the open portraying the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and its leader Josph Broz Tito in a totally different light. It seems to be much more Stalinist [http://books.google.com/books?id=3WLxbI1EhFAC&pg=PA312&dq=Josip+broz+tito+Cult+of+Personality&lr=#v=onepage&q=Josip%20broz%20tito%20Cult%20of%20Personality&f=false] in nature than the image that was portrayed to the people of Yugoslavia and to the West during the Cold War. Josph Broz Tito Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII oversaw some of the worst war crimes know to mankind. The notorious Bleiburg [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_massacre] and Foibe massacres [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foibe_massacres] were two of these. There are books, articles (writtem by professionals) as well as TV documentaries (some were aired on BBC 4) in which people testified to the truth  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x88zm3k_vP4] of these historical events.  

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, certain historical factual information has come out into the open portraying the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and its leader Josph Broz Tito in a totally different light. It seems to be much more Stalinist [http://books.google.com/books?id=3WLxbI1EhFAC&pg=PA312&dq=Josip+broz+tito+Cult+of+Personality&lr=#v=onepage&q=Josip%20broz%20tito%20Cult%20of%20Personality&f=false] in nature than the image that was portrayed to the people of Yugoslavia and to the West during the Cold War. Josph Broz Tito Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII oversaw some of the worst war crimes know to mankind. The notorious Bleiburg [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_massacre] and Foibe massacres [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foibe_massacres] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6360429.stm]were two of these. There are books, articles (writtem by professionals) as well as TV documentaries (some were aired on BBC 4) in which people testified to the truth  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x88zm3k_vP4] of these historical events.  

The editors who wrote these articles, expressly the Dictator Josip Broz Tito are written in a child like manner. Actually the articles are very similar to a Yugoslav primary school textbook from the 1970s. Additionally from the late 1960’s to the 1970’s, economic decisions that were made by Josip Broz and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, put the country in a disastrous political situation. Ironically the article on Tito does not even mention the fact that he was a Dictator or his Cult of Personality [http://books.google.it/books?id=TjOsyebOTS8C&pg=PA152&dq=yugoslavia+tito+cult&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=yugoslavia%20tito%20cult&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=AajCaf34k3oC&pg=PA94&dq=yugoslavia+tito+cult&lr=#v=onepage&q=yugoslavia%20tito%20cult&f=false]. None of this information is presented in a professional encyclopedic fashion and when qualified references are presented to prove otherwise, Wikipedia Admin meets it with silence. Why is this the case?

The editors who wrote these articles, expressly the Dictator Josip Broz Tito are written in a child like manner. Actually the articles are very similar to a Yugoslav primary school textbook from the 1970s. Additionally from the late 1960’s to the 1970’s, economic decisions that were made by Josip Broz and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, put the country in a disastrous political situation. Ironically the article on Tito does not even mention the fact that he was a Dictator or his Cult of Personality [http://books.google.it/books?id=TjOsyebOTS8C&pg=PA152&dq=yugoslavia+tito+cult&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=yugoslavia%20tito%20cult&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=AajCaf34k3oC&pg=PA94&dq=yugoslavia+tito+cult&lr=#v=onepage&q=yugoslavia%20tito%20cult&f=false]. None of this information is presented in a professional encyclopedic fashion and when qualified references are presented to prove otherwise, Wikipedia Admin meets it with silence. Why is this the case?