I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating "criminal versatility" with corporate mergers. That's just too propagandistic to stand.
I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here. I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda? I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.
-- JimboWales
This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view? Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter. Tell me if you change your mind but under the present circumstances I don't see the point to contributing.
Tim was spreading outright lies on a topic he knows very little or nothing about; the situations are not comparable. The same applies to TraditionalAnarchism where I introduced facts that become obvious to most people once they are pointed out and also to DemocracY where I pointed out the actions of the typical anti-democrat. (Yes, authoritarians have valid arguments with respect to racism and whatnot but since they never raise these issues, one cannot credit them with selfless motives.) Finally, Tim suppressed alternative points of view while I did not. Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists. -- RichardKulisz
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)