And this is how Wikipedia attains impartiality
By Aleksander Boyd
London 11.01.06 | For some time now I have been extremely wary of the stuff that Wikipedia publishes. The fact that anyone from anywhere can log in and contribute, modify or, simply, create content is, although extremely democratic, highly suspect. The page of Hugo Chavez has undergone a thorough face lift. The PSFs (Pendejos Sin Fronteras otherwise known as the international armchair revolutionaries that can't get enough of Chavez) having discovered such a facility, are having such an incredibly wonderful time by reinventing Venezuelan history. I took issue with Wikipedia long time ago and decided to write to its creator Jimmy Wales. Enclosed an email exchange followed by some additional information.
From: alek boyd
To whom it may concern,
We have strict policies against political partisanship, and I am personally no fan of Chavez, so if you can point me to a particular link to illustrate what you are talking about I can perhaps help.
From: alek boyd
I have tried in countless ocassions to edit the page of Hugo Chavez, only to see how my editions time ang again are deleted. The latest edition that I have made is in regards to the comment vis-a-vis the propagandistic film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, so prominently praised in the page. There's an ongoing legal dispute over the film with the BBC and Venezuelan film experts have documented evidence of the misleading and factually inaccurate content of the film. Besides what's the relevance of commenting upon a film given the tragedy that unfolded? I see no comments in regards to the fact that due to the actions of that day Hugo Chavez and 22 of his closest collaborators have been sued before the International Criminal Court for "crimes against humanity" whose chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has met in four ocassions already with Mohamad Merhi (father of a vicitim, victim himself and representative of others). Furthermore the Spanish National Audience ruled that there existed enough grounds to prosecute Chavez, but declined to do so for economic and political reasons.
My second message was not replied, but roughly two months after I wrote again.
From: alek boyd
Chávez was briefly deposed and arrested after the top commanders of the army decided to disobey his order to implement "Plan Avila", emergency military plan which sought to deploy troops to placate a huge rally heading for Miraflores. On April 12, 2002, after commander in chief Lucas Rincon Romero announced to the nation that Chavez had resigned (http://www.11abril.com/index/videos/abril_2002_1.asp), Fedecámaras president Pedro Carmona was appointed by the military ("Junta Militar") as interim president. This event generated a widespread uprising in support of Chávez that was repressed by the Metropolitan Police. A sentence (http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/tplen/agosto/sentencia%20de%20los%20militares.htm) of the Plenary Hall of Venezuela's Sureme Tribunal of Justice acquitted the generals in charge of the alleged 'coup' establishing that what took place was not a 'coup' but a "vaccum of power" that had been generated by the announcement of Chavez' resignation made by Gral. Lucas Rincon Romero. According to an arrest notice contained in the sentence Chavez was not held in a secret place but in a cell in Fort Tiuna. The unconstitutional actions of Pedro Carmona, led the very same military command to remove him and devolve power to Chavez.
I don't personally get involved in editing very much, but I'll try to keep an eye on this. Thanks so much for your work.
After a year I sent Jimbo Wales another message.
From: alek boyd
The same message was re-sent two days after, alas Jimbo has not replied. So I took it upon myself and head for the 'discussion' page where different contributors debate upon the issues. My concerns could be summarised thusly:
As I knew, many contributors are not even Venezuelan citizens, but rather misinformed people opining about a topic they haven't got the slightest clue about beyond the obvious infatuation for Castro's lapdog. However the worrying aspect is that a frequent collaborator of Chavez apologist Daniel Burnett -known as 'Pulpo'- has had the gall to even boast about his contributions to Wikipedia*:
So the question remains. In light of such an obvious manipulation of facts, the very many sources directly funded or related to the Chavez regime, the lack of accuracy and the rather evident bias of the article; how can Wikipedia claim to upheld a publishing policy spousing 'absolute and non-negotiable neutral points of view'? The chutzpah of some...
*no need to erase comments Burnett, I've saved them for future reference.
© by Vcrisis.com & the author