It's easy to find examples of Crocker's influence on Wikipedia . This fascinating exchange, very early in wikipedia's history, is about systemic bias . It appears that Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales wished to deny that any such thing could exist! (amazing). Some LOL points:
- "biodiversity begins in your gut, where it takes 13 species of bacteria to keep you alive. This is not a "pet" subject - rather, you are yourself a "pet" of this subject." - 24
- "killing trees from tree farms is far less a sin than killing them from rainforest basins. When you understand that, I've broken the cycle of destruction by commodification... if only in your own mind." - LDC
- [some] "discussions *aren't* fruitful - they are at best a source of fertilizer." - 24
- "It's also amazing that you say that Wikipedia isn't a community. You certainly are behaving as if you believe it isn't one." - Larry Sanger - isn't he just saying he is personally amazed? He quit Wikipedia soon after.
The whole debate is wonderful to read and it's difficult not to find something to agree with vehemently from every single debate participant.
The last word does indeed seem to be the last word:
"I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a real definition of "neutral point of view" that isn't just "because we say it is". It seems like there are roving bands of Orwellian truth monitors enforcing a left wing orthodoxy here. The systemic bias I see isn't just in what IS said in wikipedia articles, but what ISN'T said. Minority views are expunged, suppressed from history by militants intent on enforcing their idea of what "neutral" is. Whole pages are voted for deletion by people who want to suppress the information those pages communicate. Deleters don't even give editors time to put together a decent article before they descend en masse to make the editor conform to the left orthodoxy or be depersonated out of wikipedia.
There would be much less strife in wikipedia if different factions were allowed to post their view of what "neutral" is for a given topic, and the reading public was allowed to rate articles. Particularly for topics that are generally in dispute in the world at large, either politically or with regard to other things, the idea of reaching consensus in wikipedia on a topic when there is no consensus in the world at large smacks of elitist arrogance and pretentions to tyranthood. User:Citizenposse"