Speaking of that, my favorite "contrary to public opinion" was the term MGTOW. Men going their own way
This MGTOW motto is the main motto picked up by most mens rights groups. The MGTOW page was deleted multiple times by feminists who said it wasnt notable, even though it was referenced in main stream press and published books and then the numerous websites and groups. But still deleted, over and over and over.
So what did the feminists do? They created page called MGTOW for maximum gross take off weight that is just a REDIRECT to mgtow. The actual term is MTOW in aviation, so why the redirect and fight in the talk page? Politics.

This was almost 10 years ago since this happened, and still happens today.

History only goes back to 2009, but this MGTOW war is good example of the feminists of wikipedia fighting mens rights. Lucky now that enough mens rights groups and non profits using the term, almost 600,000 websites returned with a simple google search.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:MGTOW
Limited history due to many deletions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_takeoff_weight&offset=&limit=500&action=history

There are more wikipedia censoring going on than this one topic, but I'd say this is the perfect example of editors censoring. Also why I think they dont deserve government money with these oppressive and biased editors that seem to be backed by the foundation.

I think my favorite comment by an editor on wikipedia was "we dont have the room for a mens rights page, we cant have a page for everything". Amusing when every episode of very popular shows does.

The more you know!

Any information thats not progressive or trendy will be deleted also. Cant have conservative, right wing, religious, pro capitalism or anti-socialist propaganda. And if anything is any way slightly anti-feminist will be deleted on the spot.

They Who Write History Control History and thus Control the World....

"citation needed", post deleted due to wikpedia rules biased viewpoint. /s

If he tried to use the wikipedia procedures to correct some information and the editors would put the false facts back in, sounds like text book libel. If someone keeps fighting him on corrected information that sounds malicious to me...

Anything to make wikipedia factual and not opinion of a few editors is good, sad it takes a lawsuit. Too many editors are using wikipedia as a political tool and not an encyclopedia. I have no love lost for the shenanigans going on over there by some editors.

As a season pass holder, I stopped playing a long time ago, what a waste of money. I avoid EA games as far as can, the only one that kept me coming back was BF series. Meh, burned their bridge.

I'm rather enjoyed the story line, but the last mission is hard, they throw all the cops at you.

But does this game have replay value like gta5? It might, but I doubt I will continuing playing after a few more online skirmishes and finish this last mission.
So was the game worth 60 dollars? I have over 30 hours of gameplay for 60 bux, does seem expensive to me but it was enjoyable.

The problem isnt plan facts, its the missing facts editors delete. And the issue are not what facts are deleted, its the reasons behind the deletions.

Take politics, the theme now is to direct the narative in news. This is what is being done in articles, its not facts, its a view of the facts from a group with interests. This is the reason they dont want paid editors, they change the narative.

One mans terrrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Its the narative.

We have wars going on all over wikipedia due to different views and beliefs that far outweigh the business and pr companies.
Many non paid editors have very in-depth political viewpoints, and they attack other groups reporting on information in articles they disagree with.

The worst I've seen are the feminists against male rape statistics and anything male related. I can only assume its because colleges promote such a militant viewpoint on feminism it runs over into other areas of sexual statistics and thus becomes political.

I've seen many editors who are members of originations who delete anything that could be considered a counter argument with the established, but can often be incorrect due to education and their circle of influence related to their school or organization.

Another example. An amateur historian who would find common misconceptions and provide articles to show the common viewpoint is not correct by using government links. Many editors that are enrolled in college history courses would remove his work. He finally just used his personal page and put up the corrections so at least they are online. The point was he was correction known flaws taught in higher education with GOVERNMENT backed evidence.

It sickens me, that the truth can be deleted by editors with agendas. I've seen the history re-written due to lack of publications of news and tv reportings that are from the early 80's and older. But we can have entire animated tv show episodes articles with great detail, as thats the level of knowledge as historically important.

This is why we need all magazines and newspapers online also, the history and reporting of opnion is harder to argue when the only source is wikipedia.

if that were true you'd have been able to get a cool name on slashdot. And "were" would actually be spelled the way you spelled it.

You are ignoring the fact that it seems like one highly intelligent and technology-developing species could probably not evolve in coexistence with another one on the same planet, at some point one would win and kill off the other one.

I'm sure it's been proposed/discussed many times before, but I don't know if this concept has an "official" name or not.

They would laugh when they learned that our supposed evidence of the big bang was actually just us picking up their interstellar music streaming service.

Directionality is a mostly irrelevant consideration.

The fact that an antenna is 9db or 30db higher in one direction quickly becomes irrelevant with the vast distances of space. Antennas don't work like flashlights. They are more like a light bulb with a two-way mirror on one side that reflects 50% of the light and lets 50% of it through out the back. At VHF and above, things like mountains act like mirrors that reflect signals straight up (among other directions), as well.

You are somewhat wrong about AM... at least broadcast band AM is mostly only directional in the sense that there's dead zones straight off the ends of the dipole. They are shooting quite a bit of signal upward. Our ionosphere does strongly reflect and attenuate what would make it out to space in those bands though.

This goes toward your comment about the 50s and 60s... we have far more powerful transmitters in operation now (some VHF TV the better part of 1 megawatt!), and in bands that aren't reflected by the ionosphere. If anything we are getting louder and louder.

Unfortunately the first thing they might see of humanity is free-to-air broadcast TV, and just assume that we are all complete idiots.

I had the same problem with netflix on comcast, used my AWS instance as socks proxy and was back up to HD speeds. I finally bought a vpn service and problem was solved. Also came in handy for content that was geographically limited. Amusing how I can bounce my netflix through multiple VPNs, Socks proxies and always get HD, but when it was straight to netflix over comcast it was crappy quality. Also, no idea why, but apple tv on my buddies comcast would always get HD but his browser wouldn't.

Just pass a law and let the states or local federal courts deal with it. The government doesnt need anymore power.

Any company that bans gun related stuff does have a political agenda.

Agreed. It's incredibly stupid and shortsighted for kickstarter to ban "weapons and weapons accessories".