| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Update from Anne Crockett: Yalto points out he did not originate the Islamic Christian Forum postings. My mistake. He more recently added, "Frankly, I am disgusted by Spencer and the hypocrisy that he practices. I find the level of pure hatred and bigotry expressed on the JihadWatch site, by both "commenters" and staff, to be disgusting and un-American." Kind of proves my point about Wikipedia's lack of objectivity.
Yalto when exposed, took his marbles and went home (although what is to keep him from coming back under another name I have no idea). In his whining “Farewell Address”, he said, “On the issue of bias, at least I can admit mine but still feel compelled to make changes try to make the article more fair to Spencer.” Clearly he is not as clever at hiding his opinions as he thought. His edits looked biased, he was called on it, and he finally admitted it.
Before leaving he complained that several changes which I thought were his were not. The point of this article is about Wikipedia, not the august person of Yalto who is only a screen name. If you really care about Yalto his oeuvre can be found here: You can see that editing Islam in the United States and Robert Spencer take up most of his time. How about that?
By clicking on the link marked “diff”, you can see which changes Yalto made. For example, in his first signed edit, he took it upon himself to change the correct spelling of denunciation, take out Spencer’s words, add in Hugh Fitzgerald’s while attributing them to Spencer, to change the neutral phrase “Spencer's Jihad Watch features unmoderated forums, with a disclaimer by Spencer” to the insinuating “Spencer claims…” and to bring the defunct Christian Islamic Forum back to life.
However, I am happy to remove Yalto's screen name where he was only taking up an argument begun by someone else. The point is not who said what, but that it was said at all.
Jihad Watch News Editor Anne Crockett, who many of you may remember for her superb work on the site while I was out of the country in November, has informed me that she has been engaged in a series of pitched battles at that bastion of objectivity and pillar of truth, Wikipedia -- over my own biography. I appreciate her kindness and persistence in tilting at this particular windmill, and thought her caveat emptor about her experiences and Wikipedia in general was worth sharing with you:
Bravo for life’s little ironies: Wired News reports recently that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has edited his own biography -- in spite of Wikipeida’s policy that “You should not write about yourself, since objectivity on the subject is hard — but you can assist by providing references, by challenging unsourced statements, and by assisting other editors.”Why do I mention this at Jihad Watch? Because some time ago I noticed some odd things about Mr. Spencer’s Wikipedia entry. Not only the strange entry about imaginary sephardic ancestry, but also odd diatribes about his Inside Islam coauthor Daniel Ali that had also -- in a coincidence that strains all credulity -- popped up on other web sites at the same time. The other web sites with accountable editors noticed them and deleted them as irrelevant, but not Wikipedia. Once I noticed them I tried to correct the record, only to have my changes reverted and various accusations thrown about suggesting that I was in fact Robert Spencer (last time I checked I was both beardless and female so I rather think that I am not) by people seemingly unfamiliar with the concepts of a routers or computer networks. Yet even as a volunteer at Jihad Watch, I was warned by “editor” and Wikipedia scribbler “Yalto,” who was bickering with “editor” “Chalko,” that I was probably too close to the subject to post. After checking the above policy I more or less confined myself to comments on the talk page. When I asked “Yalto” what exactly his interest was in the subject, he of course, declined to answer.
A choice snippet from the discussion page:
“His religious affiliation is Roman Catholic. But his handlers don't want anyone talking about it or his board membership in a Catholic Group (the Christian-Islamic Forum) that works to convert Muslims to Christianity.”Handlers? Come on. But the more important issue (aside from another opportunity to make merry at the expense of the terminally paranoid) is this: Wikipedia’s own rules enforce the kind of shoddy research that would get any journalist fired. According to Wikipedia, the one thing you absolutely must not do is contact a source. Not even Spencer’s own website is considered as reliable as third party sources that write about him. What nonsense!
Mr. Spencer is no longer on the board of the Christian-Islamic Forum, which is a group more or less defunct while Mr. Ali pursues some new avenues that opened up for him. As anyone can see, the FAQ on the Jihad Watch site explicitly disavows any religious agenda. But when I posted a note about this, as well as the information that the group was defunct, both were removed. You would think that Mr. Spencer’s bio would be a pretty authoritative source, but no. Some Wikipedia editor thinks that the affiliation with the group is all-important to reveal Mr. Spencer’s true motivations, even if Spencer has denied this. This person repeatedly emphasizes that the Christian-Islamic Forum is “a Christian group that targets Muslims for conversion to christianity (sic).” “Targets” is a pretty provocative word for a neutral commenter. He further demonstrated his neutrality by posting long quotes from Daniel Ali, “out of concern that the information will disappear” (I guess he fears Mr. Spencer’s mysterious “handlers” could go down to Virginia and threaten Marcus Grodi of the Coming Home Network, to whom Mr. Ali spoke the quotes in question). Yet he seems not to have noticed that the quotes from Ali are not about the Christian-Islamic Forum at all, and are in fact about Ali’s reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks, which occurred a month after the founding of the forum and so could not possibly have played a role in his motives in founding the group. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story? The fact that there is no evidence of any activity by the group at all -- no references to activity, no website, no nothin’-- does not, to the conspiratorial mind, suggest that it is inactive, but rather that it has successfully cloaked its insidious designs in secrecy.And while the actual question of fact whether or not Mr. Spencer is still on the board of the Forum is sort of silly, it demonstrates the worst flaws of Wikipedia and its stated bias for cyberspace references to research and fact checking. To quote their policy, “Original research refers to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source.” Thus an error once published will take on a life of its own. (P.S.: Wikipedia asks that you think carefully before editing that policy I just linked to, but anyone can. Thus tomorrow morning the policy might well read, “Only original research is acceptable at Wikipedia,” or “Editors who have not smoked sufficient quantities of marijuana in the past 24 hours are discouraged from posting,” and so on).
All this would be a silly joke except that, astonishingly enough, newpapers and schools have been using Wkipedia as a reference. Accuracy in Media reports:
Martin E. Marty, professor emeritus of religious history at the University of Chicago, and an ordained Lutheran minister for more than 50 years, had just written his 55th book, "When Faiths Collide."The Post article said that "talk of religion's role in the disaster irks Marty. Following the devastation in Lisbon in 1755, priests roamed the streets, hanging those they believed had incurred God's wrath. That event 'shook the modern world,' he notes, changing people's idea of a benevolent, all-caring God."
That sure sounds like Marty was making the claim that priests were roaming the streets and hanging people who they believed had incurred God's wrath. But in fact he never said that, though he was interviewed for the article. The author of the article, Jose Antonio Vargas, has admitted that Marty never said that, and that his source was Wikipedia.
When John Seigenthaler took exception to being falsely implicated in JFK’s assassination on Wikipedia, a number of people wisecracked, “Didn’t he see the Edit button?” Aside from the fact that editing an article about yourself is frowned upon, what would have been the point? A persistent prankster would revert changes time and time again, and if he access to a source of dynamic IP addresses he couldn’t even be banned. A more potent question is, “How can anyone use this as a source? Don’t they see the edit button?”
When visiting a Wikipedia site, the reader can look up previous versions if he likes. But the main article is just the product of the latest “editor.” Any Stalinist who wants to come along and airbrush out comments he doesn’t like can do so. Unlike a blog’s comments where the best cure for bad speech is more speech, Wikipedia editors can simply wipe away viewpoints with which they disagree. The most persistent wins.
Google is a far better way to get information, all though you do have to go to all that horrible trouble of thinking and evaluating sources for yourself when you use Google. On the plus side, because Google lists page according to how many people have found them to be possible answers to the questions they are asking, you will get exactly what Wikipedia claims to offer: an internet consensus. In addition, you will probably find some alternative points of view you can evaluate, if you feel up to the rigors of making decisions for yourself in a marketplace of ideas.
There were other problems with the Wikipedia article. It quoted CAIR and ADC charges against Mr. Spencer, but when I added his responses to those charges Yalto informed me that no one, but no one, had responses to criticism of them on their Wikipedia pages. So I guess you can write that someone claims that Mr. X or Mr. Y likes to knock over banks to raise extra cash, but no one is allowed to write, “He denies the charge.” Also the Spencer “biography” quoted Hugh Fitzgerald and Daniel Ali extensively, and guess who hardly at all? (Let me give you a hint: his initials are R.S. and he is the putative subject of the article). Nor did it quote Hugh or Mr. Ali writing about Robert Spencer, but rather about Islam, Christianity, immigration, and whatever else got the editor’s knickers in a twist. I pointed out that this was bad writing and that if Hugh or Mr. Ali deserve such full length treatment, they should each get their own article instead of having the bulk of the Robert Spencer article be guilt-by-association quotations about and from them. I am still waiting for a response.
I myself am no longer involved in the discussion between Wikipedia editors Chalko and Yalto. When I told Mr. Spencer about the whole controversy, his reaction was, “‘Chalko’? ‘Yalto’? What is this, an episode of Star Trek?” But he agrees that there is no use correcting what is essentially a book of sand. Whatever form a Wikipedia article takes today might bear no resemblance to what it will be tomorrow.
Our Jihadist friends have been using the internet to spread their propaganda for some time, and Wikipedia gives them an ideal platform. Even if their changes don’t last forever, any Typhoid Mary who is dopey enough to use Wikipedia as a source can spread the disinformation. Only yesterday a page came up in the referrer page on Jihad Watch from a Wikipedia entry tagged “marked for deletion” about the Islamist-Nazi Alliance in World War II. Yes indeedy, let’s flush that down the ol’ memory hole. Two Jihad Watch readers also wrote in complaining that they had been barred from editing Wikipedia for being “anti-Palestinian,” or “anti-Muslim” -- so it seems that contrary to their slogan, Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia “anyone” can edit, just those who do not commit thought crime.
Without some sort of quality control implemented, and soon, Wikipedia will go the way of 1990’s dot-bombs like Pets.com, Value America, and e-toys. I would urge anyone to be extremely skeptical of Wikipedia as a source, and to be very vocal in demanding accountability from them. Until we get that accountability, caveat emptor, and remember, Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, is worth exactly what you paid for it -- or even less.
Posted by Robert at December 24, 2005 11:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Muslim duplicity.
On another forum a Muslim posted a wikipedia article "Islamic Economics" (basically it is a propaganda piece promoting the false idea that Islamic banks don't lend at interest - they use a subterfuge by front loading the interest, thus sticking you with unpaid interest if you pay off the loan early, or they call it rate of return or profit rate or some other euphemism, but not interest).
Subsequently I posted a link to a Wikipedia article that put Islam in a bad light, and of course the same guy used the ad hominem on wikipedia.
These are the most dishonest people on the planet.
Time and again they use their own prejudiced sources, but immediately attack the source of your info if it is unsavory and puts Islam in a bad light.
There was once an article on IslamoNazi, it had great links and pictures (which I had the foresight to save the links), but the article is now gone. See this discussion here about deleting the article and reference at Factbites
They had no problem deleting that article, so I think they can be forced to delete the article on Robert.
Posted by: Nariz![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 24, 2005 12:55 PM
wiki was one of the first places I tried to reform after I discovered what Islamic scripture said.
It didnt take long to realize it was fruitless trying to promote a historically accurate view of Islam bases on Islamic scripture.
OH well.
Merry Christmas
at December 24, 2005 1:14 PM
Makes you wonder if the Saudis have a controlling interest in Wiki, doesn't it?
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at December 24, 2005 1:22 PM
Thanks for posting it!
Wikipedia gets a lump of coal this year.
Posted by: AnneCrockett at December 24, 2005 1:25 PM
No mystery about that Meretrix -- in all senses, including the original -- Wikipedia. Think about the tens of thousands of people who come to this website. Think of their desire to learn, and help others learn, certain home truths. Then think about the hundreds of thousands of Muslims or non-Muslim apologists in for Islam, in this country alone, who are doing everything in their power to prevent any of those home truths, even the most obvious remarks such as -- "well, perhaps our leadrs should read the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira to find out what Muslims are taught to believe" or "perhaps the practice of Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque ought to be looked into" or "perhaps the definition of what constitutes a 'moderate' Muslim that is satisfactory and useful needs to be analyzed") -from reaching a broad public.
Meanwhile, all sorts of people continue to donate money to their unworthy (because often participants in, or passive observers of, the collapse of proper training in literature, and other fields)) alma maters, their local symphony or art museum (instead of thinking of the affect on music and art if Western Europe is islamized), and all sorts of things, including monuments to this and that, when they ought -- let's face it -- be sending their 501(c)(3) dollars to you know where, if only they thought carefully, and figured out what's good for them. And their children, and their... far into the future.
Posted by: Hugh at December 24, 2005 1:39 PM
Yes it is Editor, Chalko. No I am not Yalto, but I did want to be Spock growing up. Wikipedia a book in the sand. That is a good analogy. Somehow I feel compelled to tilt at windmills.
Anne WP is a strange place, not sure If I will want to stay there, but it is an OK hobby to waste a little time when I want to.
Let me try to set the record strait. If you want the background on me follow the link or Google Nick Chalko. I am the only one. But no I did not fix the election for President Bush using a magic aggregator. I am doing my part to fight Jihadists, but wikipedia is just something I am playing with.
So do I have the patience to keep the Robert Spencer Article from turning into a rant. Probably not. But I am sad to see you give up. As I said on WP create an account and comment.
at December 24, 2005 1:43 PM
One way to deal with Wikipedia is to keep going back to correct this or that entry. Tedious, world-without-end task.
The better way is to mock, deplore, attack the very idea of this "make-your-own-encyclopedia" which is merely the apotheosis of the degraded Democratic Dogma, where everyone is right, everyone has an equal claim to be listened to, and all those other crazed notions that mass pseudo-education, and a misinterpretation of legal equality before the law, and the disappearance of self-confident cultural elites, has led to.
In schools, in those classes where intelligent teachers are trying to teach the notion of weighing, balancing, judging competing "authorities," the best example of a phony and dangerous "authority" is certainly Wikipedia. It should be the subject of article after article, and schools should make it a point to teach students how to weigh the value of such websites. It used to be enough to teach them how to look up articles in "The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature." Now it's the whole damn Internet.
If Gates wants to recycle his Microsoft money for causes that have more to do with mental than with physical health, he might consider donating money to schools all over the United States for special units, or courses, on "How to Use the Internet Correctly." That would be money well spent, even if it doesn't rate a picture, and Time Magazine applause, side-by-side with the Irish millionaire and self-promoter, Bono.
Posted by: Hugh at December 24, 2005 2:03 PM
Wikipedia comes up 14 in the Google results for the search phrase "Robert Spencer", so it is on page 2 for most viewers. Hopefully, the first 13 results will be informative enough so they rarely get down to result 14. For "Daniel Pipes," Wikipedia comes up number 7--on the first page.
If you want a bio to be the top result, just type up a bio page, and request people link to it. Google will then see that a lot of people linked to that one page, and it will come up in the top of the results.
Posted by: markjames at December 24, 2005 3:39 PM
I've noticed good entries go the way of Stalinist / Islamist propaganda after one person comes in and wrecks everything. It's a great idea IF the most agenda-driven folks weren't the most interested in producing it. Controversial definitions should be opened periodically, with monitoring. Otherwise it's a mess.
Posted by: Beagle at December 24, 2005 3:45 PM
Chalko, I do admire you for hanging in there.
I think Wikipedia is an idea that is interesting but without a group of final editors who can both approve submissions and whose judgement can be evaluated by the readers, it will not ever be really useful.
at December 24, 2005 4:08 PM
Robert, wasn't there a great line in the blues brothers where the Elwood boys(John Belushi and Dan Ackeroyd) stood in their black coats, white shirts, shades and tophats outside of some business . . . some lady took a look at them and said, "there's two sephardic jews outside to see you."
Posted by: biorabbi at December 24, 2005 6:46 PM
Sigh. Such a noble concept, such a world full of idiots with agendas. I had forgotten about the hatchet-job bio of Robert Spencer.
There's definitely a common thread emerging. They can slap a disclaimer ("the objectivity of this article is disputed") on interpretations of events or cultural works, but this is at least the second instance of defamation of character in a very short period of time.
They need to start vetting their contributors, or brace for a wave of defamation/libel lawsuits. They've certainly lost any shadow of legitimacy.
It's free... and you get what you pay for.
Posted by: Shinoliite at December 24, 2005 7:33 PM
Oops. Should've said, to paraphrase Robert's quip above, it's free, etc.
It's not the egg nog. ;)
Posted by: Shinoliite at December 24, 2005 7:36 PM
Those who haven't already seen them might find the following two articles on Wikipedia of interest in this context:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/
Posted by: Durandal at December 24, 2005 8:56 PM
From the search engine of Wikipedia
Jesus
Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" not being a name but rather a title meaning "Anointed". He is also considered a very important prophet in Islam.
004.157 They said in boast, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; but they killed him not
Muhammad is one lone accuser [and not an eye witness] who, according to his 'allah' - there are martyrs:
003.170 They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them in their bliss, the Martyrs glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they cause to grieve.
Muhammad also claims:
004.095 Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home. But those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit at home by a special reward.
Who is 'Isa' then? Are those who 'fight and slay' better than the Great Prophet - Jesus?
From the Bible
Rev 13:6 And he [Satan - the accuser ] opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Posted by: Beth at December 24, 2005 9:03 PM
Hell wikipedia is a not worth your time... I was fired this June as a wiki administrator for "display of anti-Muslim bias through my postings". Wikipedia is filled with self-important and self-delusional super-mods who invariably side with Muslims on sensitive issues. Most glaring example is the famous public spat between Hindus and Muslims (supported by mods) on Rajput article where admins are fighting on behalf of Muslims to include their POV that Rajputs can be Muslims. Rajputs are a martial caste in Hinduism famous for their stiff resistance to Islamic invaders thus saying that they can be Muslims, negates their contribution to Indian history. Wikipedia is filled with similar hogwash... of course Pakistan is in middle east, jihad in Kashmir is a "secular and legitimate freedom struggle"... various articles like "Islamic Invasion of South Asia" have been sanitised for Muslim sensitivities.
Whats more wikipedia is 4th most visited website. We cant ignore wikipedia's history denial and revisionism, we have to fight it.
Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at December 24, 2005 11:04 PM
If, out of the hundreds of billions spent by the Defense Department every year, 1% -- no, make that 1/5 of 1% -- were to be spent on an Office of War Propaganda, and that Office of War Propaganda were to make sure that all such sites with a history of having been targetted for misuse, as part of a campaign of Muslim desinformatsiay, or disinformation, were either constantly interfered with, or a full-time staff kept busy constantly offsetting the work of the Muslim posters (and if there is no Office of War Propaganda, there must be one set up, with "the war" defined as that of "self-defense against the Jihad"), things would be much better.
Imagine World War II without Allied propaganda. Not in Occupied Europe, to give people hope. Not in the Axis countries, to demoralize the enemy, to make the people who believed in Nazism or Japanese militarism based on emperor-worship (Kodo) to become disoriented, confused, even resentful of their own allies. Not in England and the United States, in order to maintain the kind of resolve, based on high morale, that was necessary for the fewer than four years of that war, and will certainly be necesary for the many decades, or longer, or perhaps forever, that the war of self-defense against the Jiihad will have to be conducted.
Where is the government in all this? Why, just because some of the most effective websites are run by people whose idea of a fund-raiser is to hold out their hands in Eleemosynary Position #1 and shyly, or boldly, proclaim a need -- in other words, completely innocent of how to do this -- not taken in hand by some inistitution or well-wiwhser. Why must things continue on a shoestring and a prayer, while one waits for the government to realize that just as in the Cold War, when funds were channeled to support all sorts of ventures (e.g., the Congress for Cultural Freedom), they should be doing similar things now. Possibly there is fear of doing such, because CAIR and others have been so successful in intimidating others to believe that, since "Islam is a religion" (but it is far more than that) it violates the First Amendment to discriminate against it. If the Pentagon and the C.I.A. won't or can't help, surely they have contacts in various foundations, or possibly with individuals, who can in some small way offset the tens of billions that Saudi Arabia has put into propaganda to protect and promote and spread Islam over the past 30 years.
The calendar year is running out. The special "Katrina" provisions that make charitable giving especially attractive will also run out. What's holding back those who can afford to give -- from giving? If there is a reason we should know about, let us know.
Operators are standing by. And no, your call will not be monitored for quality control.
Posted by: Hugh at December 24, 2005 11:35 PM
Vikrant_Camberleykar said
Whats more wikipedia is 4th most visited website. We cant ignore wikipedia's history denial and revisionism, we have to fight it.
If that is true then perhaps each person here should pick one or two pages on wikipedia, and do the boring tedious task of cleaning up the garbage left by others. It's still easier than standing a post with a rifle. Stop complaining, "ohh they are unfair", "ohh they are more persistant", whine, whine. DO SOMETHING. Now perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere. But me personally when I see a piece of trash on the ground I pick it up.
What are all of you going to do?
Posted by: Nick Chalko at December 25, 2005 12:24 AM
Wikipedia is like the United Nations. Tinkering with it won't do. It is hopeless. It must be mocked, delegitimized. The one is "Everyman His Own Encyclopedia Writer" where Sinister Fool A writes, with all sorts of parti pris, what Silly Fool A then reads and believes, without any doubts (or perhaps includes the material on his term paper), and meanwhile Wise Man C, after having tried once or twice to unwrite the lies, finally gives up.
The U.N. nowadays is a vehicle mainly for what may be termed the Islamintern International. It cannot be reformed. It is based on such silly ideas, or mechanical phrases, as the "international community." It doesn't exist. There is no "international community." There are states. Some of them are decent, and do not threaten us. Some of them are indecent, and their peoples, if not the states qua states, are a permanent menace to all others. That is -- Islam. The canonical texts are there -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. They spell it all thought. Nothing is left to the imagination. Nor does the history of Islamic conquest do anything except offer lesson after lesson of those texts, those tenets derived from those texts, being put into action.
No way to reform the U.N. No way to fix Wikipedia. And in both cases, not the only problem, but the main problem, appears to be Muslims, intent on exploiting the two -- an Internet Encyclopedia, and a so-called "world body" that both deliberates and acts, and is supposedly devoted to promoting peace and comity among nations and peoles.
Neither should be taken seriously.
And now, since some things can be taken far more seriously than either the U.N. or Wikipedia, I must go set out the milk and cookies.
at December 25, 2005 12:31 AM
"wikipedia is 4th most visited website. We cant ignore wikipedia's history denial and revisionism, we have to fight it."
I agree with Hugh that a better way to fight it is to try to delegitimize its very nature, rather than try to patch up its thousands of holes that keep popping up anew.
However, that doesn't mean that delegitimizing Wikipedia will be easy. It will be nearly impossible, in fact, given the PC climate in which a Wikipedia flourishes in robust health, holes and all.
PS: Where did it get its stupid name? A better name -- for the good version of it that doesn't exist yet -- would be Interpedia.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 25, 2005 1:16 AM
The term comes from the type of software used to run the site called a "wiki". The term was originally for the WikiWikiWeb and derived from the Hawaiian Wiki Wiki, which means "quick".
Posted by: Nick Chalko at December 25, 2005 2:09 AM
Battle of Wikipedia
Combatants
Persistent hordes of Muslims from all over the world hopelessly outnumbering the defendants.
Commanders of the Defendants
Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzerald
The Battle
Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzerald chose to begin the battle in a defensive, phalanx-like formation. According to the Muslim sources they drew up in a large square. Certainly, given the disparity between the armies, in that the Defendants were mostly infantry, against mounted and occasionally armored horsemen, the commanders fought a brilliant defensive battle. In a place and time of his choosing, he met a far superior force, and defeated it.
For years, the two armies watched each other with just minor skirmishes. Neither of them wanted to attack. The Defendants were well dressed for the cold(Technology), and had the terrain advantage. The Muslims were not as prepared for the intense cold(Technology), but did not want to attack what they thought was a superior Defendant army. Essentially, the Muslims wanted the Defendants to come out in the open, while the Defendants, formed in a tightly packed defensive formation, wanted them to come uphill, into the trees, (negating at once some of the advatages of their cavalry). It became a waiting game, which the Defendants won. The fight commenced on the third year, as Muslims did not want to postpone the battle indefinitely.
Posted by: Sandracottus at December 25, 2005 2:51 AM
Nick Chalko wrote:
DO SOMETHING. Now perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere. But me personally when I see a piece of trash on the ground I pick it up.
Well thanks to your fatuous analogy I now know to ignore links to and quotes from Wikipedia.
And damn those who foist their arguments on me with trash from Wikipedia.
at December 25, 2005 8:39 AM
Here's the PC interpretation of the virtue of Wikipedia:
"the idea that the published encyclopedias and all the books written over the centuries edited and published by publishing houses are true knowledge is inaccurate. Instead official books and encyclopedias present the version of the world as seen and propounded by the ruling elite or the class of people who possess wealth in a society. They commission books and encyclopedias to propagate a version of the world that is conducive to them and impose it on the majority of the masses (who do not have wealth to commission encyclopedias and official volumes). Wikipedia is finally threatening that tradition of age old dominion and partisan official version of the world, sponsored by the ruling class and the wealthy."
-- an opinion posted at http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/03/16/wikipedia_and_the_future_of_social_computing.php
And isn't it a snug little coinkidink that this new radical social phenomenon, this democratic Pedia, happens to be hostile to criticism of Islam?
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 25, 2005 1:05 PM
"The term was originally for the WikiWikiWeb and derived from the Hawaiian Wiki Wiki..."
I'm so relieved that it doesn't have a "white" "Western" origin.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 25, 2005 4:59 PM
Nick, I am with you for fixing Wikipedia, but I think it will either have its own systemic overhaul, or get eaten alive by a competitor that can figure out how to allow people to rate writers (as ebay does sellers) or how to monitor massive numbers of submissions as effectively as amazon does.
Posted by: AnneCrockett at December 26, 2005 4:53 PM
I think I should give up on wikipedia see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great
But for me the bottom line is somebody owns it and makes the decision, and do I have any reason to trust that the owner will choose good people.
I don't.
As for a competitor. You reference amazon. Perhaps amazon could do a wikipedia and provide the level of control it takes to have a good product.
Amazon would of course make money having the refernce link to books they SELL.
Capitalism.
Posted by: Nick Chalko at December 31, 2005 2:07 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)