That's why when I want an encyclopedia, I go to those old fashioned ones in book form. There might be some inaccuracies in them too, but they're generally more reliable.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 28, 2006 9:19 AM

During the past demonstrations in France the youth throwing rocks were shouting Allahu akbar.
But I heard that the media tried to cover that up.
The Pakistani cricket players also shout something when they bowl against India in international matches. Hate-filled cries.

Posted by: rocky at September 28, 2006 9:23 AM

Anne

The Guardian link that you provided above did one thing good for a change - it provided the link for wikipedia-watch.org. Maybe in future, instead of fixing wikipedia smears on Jihad-Watch, you and others who try to defend Robert there could open up that case on wikipedia-watch, since currently, if you google Robert Spencer there, it gives you no results.

It is okay for use if one just wants to refresh ones memory on facts learnt long ago, or for scientific references. Aside from the issues of anyone being able to edit an encyclopedia, the whole issue of a GPL being applicable to this is a joke. Except for the subject that ends up being tainted.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 28, 2006 12:22 PM

I see more and more people on the net routinely referring to and using Wiki as if it were a reference source equivalent to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although it may have started out as a warm and fuzzy, egalitarian, "its a small world after all" project that assumed good will and ernestness on all sides and made its founders feel all warm inside, the fact is that it is no more a reference tool to be relied on, especially solely relied on, than the well-used sign-up sheets for tours at Disney World.

Lets think about this for a moment. From what I understand, anyone, and apparently this really means anyone, can initiate an article on any subject or person. There is apparently no overall editorial review or fact checking of all articles in this almost exponentially expanding, free, cooperatively-created online encycylopedia. Finally, anyone, and this apparently again means anyone, can edit or change the original posted article.

Does the idiot down the hall who plays the same Lester Flat and Earl Scruggs cut over and over again each night want to write an article about the history and evolution of country music? Looks like he can do it.

Does the insanely partisan hack who hates the political opposition want to blame all the world's ills on them? Looks like he can write an article that does it.

Does a not very bright. drug-addled college student want to write an article on the theories behind Jungian Analysis, which he doesn't really understand at all? Looks like he can do it.

Does anyone who hates a particular public or not so public figure want to sabotage them by writing a slashing biography, or perhaps one that is subtly slanted, or maybe they just want to insert incorrect information or edit out positive information in an existing biography? Maybe they want to erase the fifty articles and books a scholar has to his credit, say, and diminish his credibility? It looks like they can apparently do it.

How about survey articles on controversial subjects like the History of Islam, the Crusades, the content of the Koran, the mainstream Muslim understanding of the meaning of Jihad or the Middle East Peace Process, Abortion or Animal Rights?

I guess you can hope that some altruistic and informed individual who comes across an incomplete, slanted or just plain wrong article recognizes it as such and will take the time to correct it but, do you really want to rely on this totally voluntary corrective mechanism to assure that what you are reading is accurate, complete and corresponds in any way to reality or history? While you're at it, you can also hope that such corrections aren't promptly erased.

To quote Orwell's 1984, "He who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the past controls the future."

Do you want to take a chance that the quick Wiki overview article on a concept, historical event, or person, whose understanding is critical to your experiment, article, business venture, review for a test, preparation for a meeting, or understanding of current events is wrong, misleading or incomplete because some ill-informed or agenda-driven dolt wrote the Wiki article?

Brittanica tries to find the best experts it can to write authoritative articles, with the lack of control and editorial supervision that apparently characterizes Wiki, it could be Homer Simpson who wrote the Wiki article that you are assuming is complete and correct.

Posted by: GaryK at September 28, 2006 1:43 PM

The Kaybar chant is equal to the massed green flags, the wrapped-up faces, the AK-47s and M-16s (CIA supplied) being fired into the air with howls about "Mine's bigger than yours"--or some such thing. It is not threatening.*

“Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, jaysh Muhammad sawfa ya‘ud” (Khaybar Khaybar, Oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return.)

*The "army of Muhammad" DID return, several times already--and each time had their asses kicked by the yahuds. One can expect the same were there to be the final encounter So far, there ain't too much for the chanters to be proud of. The score is not in their favor.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 28, 2006 2:03 PM

I've been using it because it was convenient to cite and generally gave relevant info. I did not know is was being used in a nefarious fashion.

Posted by: squire at September 28, 2006 2:14 PM

Wiki is free - I think that explains much of the problem. Anything can be changed for the better if you put the work in.

A few years back there was a horrible PC anti-British article on the Black Hole of Calcutta, full of half truths and lies. I had to really fight to get changes made to it: in the end, they could not argue with a copy of an official 18th century casualty list I had found (which no other 20th century historian seems to have bothered with) and I clarified certain archaic terms upon it - all of which could be verified.

Anyway, my point being the changes were made and the entire thrust of the article was reversed, from one that disputed the incident to one that generally supported it - including the casualty list. This was quite a minor coup for me because the same half truths and lies are still quoted as facts in some books and other websites. The 250th anniv. of the incident happened in June this year, so I was happy to have done something in their memory through Wilkipedia. (I also had a book published in Calcutta about the subject)

I don't think the writer of the article truly understands the way the site works. Everything can be changed - but it gets changed back (reverted) by internal forces very quickly if it isn't good.

My point is – with effort articles can be changed.

Now I'm quite happy with the Black Hole article and it's been largely untouched for over a year. Also - on any article that you feel nettled by, you can leave comments for all to read so you can always give your point of view. Reading between the lines here, I guess they did a hatchet job against somebody in or around JW/DW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_of_Calcutta

Posted by: Timbo at September 28, 2006 10:35 PM

I consulted wikipedia about the ancient library of Alexandria ( to find out whether or not the Muslims destroyed it)and found that several contributors with completely different takes on the subject were in full dispute. Each article has a discussion room / thread attached to it and if you're the sort of person who likes to see claws flash and fur fly, i suggest you look in at that one.

Posted by: wallyUK at September 29, 2006 1:11 AM

Having been around the Internet since the design and construction of it began, and having written a couple of books on the subject, not saying I'm a know-it-all on the subject cuz it's come to bore me, but I can tell you this about the Internet:

Wiki is free - I think that explains much of the problem. Anything can be changed for the better if you put the work in.

The Internet is a whole new realm. It's chaos but at the same time it's self-limiting, for several reasons:

1) It's too big to quality control, who's gonna watch it? A UN SWAT team with Kofi Anan at the helm? Haa. A great comic book premise: the Web, where the Stupid met the Impossible.

2) It's too anonymous to quality control, any bullshit artist can wheel and deal there.

3) It's too unreliable to quality control; Microsoft's reprehesible cheapness, laziness, craven greed, and stupidity has left the Internet a difficult and dangerous environment.

4) It was beautifully architected from the outset. It was designed 30 yrs ago, but work on the Internet architecture stopped over 20 yrs ago (to illustrate, one of its principle engineers, a UCLA alum, died a 57 yrs of age two years ago.)

5) It was spawned by Pentagon architects working with grad students from USC, U of Minnesota, UCLA, and U of Illinois, but since then the Pentagon has gone flaccid and the academy has gone Marxist.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 29, 2006 3:03 AM

Microsoft's reprehesible cheapness, laziness, craven greed, and stupidity has left the Internet a difficult and dangerous environment.

Also, Microsoft, despite Internet Explorer, has had little to do with the Internet. (And sorry, Microsoft's work in embedding HTML, Java, ActiveX, Javascript, XML, C# was not the reason the Internet became popular.) Much of the backbone there - be it TCP/IP and all the various other protocols, the routers, hubs, et al was work originally done in Unix based environments, and other mainframe/mini computer sytems. In fact, other than (besides derailing Netscape's monopoly on browsers) making TCP/IP a part of Windows, there is little Microsoft did to make the Internet popular - that happened on its own strength courtesy ISP's that chose to compete with AOL and Compuserve (remember those days?) on the cheap, whereby they wouldn't need to maintain bulletin boards of their own.

And so the Internet spread.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 29, 2006 3:26 AM

Also, Microsoft, despite Internet Explorer, has had little to do with the Internet.

Pride, I don't give a damn about IE, I'm talking about MS's totally incompent implemention of W3C. Where the rubber meets the road is the OS on the C: drive.

What counts when you're dealing with the Intenet is the host operating system. Now, again, I'm not a know-it-all, but I worked side-by-side for years with dudes who fed directly into the creation of MS-Windows, which is by most accounts an abject product engineering failure.

The total unmitigated lack of security and integrity on the Internet is directly attributable to Windows, a half-assed, sheeny, cheap-ass, embarrasing software engineering failure that has no intention whatsoever of correcting itself in light of the governement sponsored MS monopoly.

And that's good for Islam, and all other con artists. But the only con artists who matter in this quarter century are Moslesm, mostly Pakis and intensely offended Bosnians.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 29, 2006 4:24 AM