Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed. Options

[Joseph100]

Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed. I've made numerous attempts to try to work with them in order to edit and correct glaring factual mistakes, as well as blatant boldface bias on various biographies of Republican officeholders from Illinois.

What I have found is Wikipedia is a complete totally filled with hate filled Marxists children, and tin pot, petty dictators drunk with power, whose concept of fairness is distorted and corrupt and with out control.

So, I am looking for advice on how to go about to diminish, destroy and neutralize Wikipedia.

Any reasonable suggestion will be taken under advisement.

For those who are pro-Wikipedia. All I have to say is this... there is nothing that you could say, do, or argue which would convinced me that Wikipedia has any merit, or good for the body politic or the Internet at large.
It is my sworn belief that Wikipedia is absolutely a cesspool of evil.

Thank you

This post has been edited by Joseph100:

[dtobias]

Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed.

I'm sure you'll fit right in and be warmly welcomed into this forum with an attitude like that.

Now, whether whatever suggestions you might get on how to destroy Wikipedia are "reasonable" depends, I suppose, on what definition of "reasonable" one holds. However, the attitude that "there is nothing [pro-Wikipedia people] could say, do, or argue" to change your opinion seems to better fit the definition of "dogmatic" than "reasonable".

[Joseph100]

Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed.

Now, whether whatever suggestions you might get on how to destroy Wikipedia are "reasonable" depends, I suppose, on what definition of "reasonable" one holds. However, the attitude that "there is nothing [pro-Wikipedia people] could say, do, or argue" to change your opinion seems to better fit the definition of "dogmatic" than "reasonable".

It's like this, you try to argue that the Earth is flat, even know, though facts, personal observation, and critical reading, that, in absolute fact, the Earth is round. Believing the earth is round is dogmatic?

So, it is with Wikipedia. Is that Dogmatic, as the wikidick leaders are found of saying... If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. My personal experiance and exposure to Wikipedia as well as others collaborate my assertion. My statement is factual and not Dogmatic, as you say.

DOGMATIC -characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts

The key word is "FACTS" and the fact is Wikipedia hurts, misleads, people. The leaders and administors of wikipedia are people, see Essay incident, who have no respect for facts, or turth and only concern with the power.

PS: The context of the term "reasonable" means not entertaining any suggestion that would entail murdering assassinating jimbo, and/or his merry band of henchmen or burning down the server farms that hosts Wikipedia or any other illegal or immoral acts. That type of suggestion is not reasonable and I will not entertain them.
Thank you.

This post has been edited by Joseph100: