for sure I could also be modded troll or whatever mod you might through at me
Heck, hatred and slander of religions (Catholicism most certainly included) is common on Slashdot
first and formost, wikipedia is not slashdot. slashdot have been created with a mindset that a person have to read all the posts of all the users (at least most) to get the
general opinion of the readers, most of the
/.-ers know this while
/.-ing. This is not the same for wikipedia, it was designed to be a source of rather
neutral information, which, to wikicultist irony, is proving that is not true.
For ex; if I say "$society suxxx" on slashdot, it will be considered opinion and most of
/.-ers will not start hating the persons of that $society (being net-savvy, they could go to religios/social hate sites which already have tonnes of such info (with made-up facts) if they like). Not similar with wikipedia, where moms and pops (who open every spam-mail they think is coming from their bank and supply their uname/passwd) will go and (many times) honestly believe the thing about that society/religion/groups as said there.
Same response.
yeh, well, "Same response".
bla... bla... first amendment bla... bla...
For you and GP, This is not a question of any amendment of any country, this is internet we are talkinig about, a global thing (or atleast most of the countries where freedom of speech is OK). PERIOD
yes, I know wikipedia have done a great task by attaching the "NNPOV" tag, but what good could it be if many of the articles have this tag. I have been a regular contributor in there previously, but believe me, even if a topic is even slighly controversial, I may find thousand sites supporting that one side of the claim and modify to page as if it is true along with links to those controversial sites, making it "YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ME" type page.
So wikicultists, act like true scientologists, and mod me troll into oblivion before any fact could be talked and discussed about. I am sure my wife's cat would not die
...