Nazi Scum Attack Wikipedia

Wow.

I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to my death for your right to say it*

Is the single most important phrase I have ever heard and Neo Nazi or other extremists owe their ability to say what they want to who they want partially due to the fact that the Nazis were defeated in WW2.

I'm happy for them to say what they want as the lack of them being able to say it means that Simon fought in vain.

* Commonly attributed to Voltaire but is more accurately attributed to "friends of Voltaire" as this is an Anon comment

Doesn't Wikipedia show the IP addresses of editors? Wonder if anyone has done a DoS attack on the person that edited it yet.

It's a shame that people like this exist, but as J says it’s definitely a tribute to all involved in WW2 that we live in a world that allows free speech.

I didn't think the neo-Nazi's were literate enough to write their own names..

Sometimes, articles that are abused on wikipedia are locked so they can no longer be edited. The one example I saw of this was with the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which BTW is a real scream..)

I am surprised, however, that the Wiesenthal article is still able to be edited.

Who decides at Wikipedia what is the "truth"?

Anyone can make changes there. The information is not usually very trustworthy. Extreme abuse like this usually gets caught and corrected quickly, but you have to pretty much know your subject matter very well before you can be sure that a Wiki article (as it appears today) can be trusted.

I only use it for quick reference on an occasional basis.

I don't link to Wikipedia. There is no point.

Extreme abuse like this

Thats sort of my point, who decides it is untrue?

That's actually a good question, NFFC. All I know is that I clicked "Edit" on the Flying Spaghetti Monster article and it said "This article has been locked due to abuse."

I don't know though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

The community does look to administrators to perform essential housekeeping chores that require the extra access administrators are entrusted with. Among them are watching the Articles for deletion debates and carrying out the consensus of the community on keeping or deleting these articles, keeping an eye on new and changed articles to swiftly delete obvious vandalism, and meeting user requests for help that require administrative access. Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information.

When it comes to Nazis I expect it's pretty easy to draw conclusions about the consensus of the community, but I would think that there have to be examples where consensus isn't clear.

I wonder if in those cases the admins go with their gut, or if there's some method for finding out how the community feels.

From reading that rather long debate they were having about the Al Quida page. I believe they try to remove all subjective information and remain factual/objective. From my study of history, that is almost impossible - facts are subjective to the person writing it. One person's freedom fighters are another person's terrorists etc. The admins are there to mediate between the different people disputing content on the page.

Of course once a debate is settled it can be reopened again and edited - repeating the process. I walked away with the feeling that this is more history by politics than consensus. For example as a strong conservative thinker you can strike in debating and re-editing everything you disagree with. I'm with Micheal, I'll take my history from those qualified to write about their specialism. At least with a single author their bias is more transparent.