I chose to edit the "History of the Federal Reserve" rather than try to touch the actual "The Federal Reserve" article (which was roughly 15 pages long).
Hopefully my changes will stand, I found that earlier edits had been removed by a ghostwriter.
You can read about the history of The Creature From Jeckyll Island here.
This is an interesting link to an article regarding John F. Kennedy and a bill he signed months before his death.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Off with its Head
Very, very, very difficult to keep my opinions out of Wikipedia. This must be because I hate the Federal Reserve this much ------ oh. You can't see how wide my arms are stretched. They're stretched pretty wide. I look like I'm being racked. Sideways.
The info on the lackeyes at the Fed is extremely long-winded within Wikipedia. I made it about halfway through before I gave up (for now). Check it out if you dare (minor edits) here:
FucktheFederalReserveForeverandEveryIdiotAdvocate
When those who do not wish to expose their finances to fractional reserve banking are not forced to do so at the end of a barrel of a gun, it will be a very good day in the Desert.
The info on the lackeyes at the Fed is extremely long-winded within Wikipedia. I made it about halfway through before I gave up (for now). Check it out if you dare (minor edits) here:
FucktheFederalReserveForeverandEveryIdiotAdvocate
When those who do not wish to expose their finances to fractional reserve banking are not forced to do so at the end of a barrel of a gun, it will be a very good day in the Desert.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The FED owns Wikipedia
A List of Rational and Reasonable Demands for Those who Contribute to and Utilize Wikipedia:
* Reason trumps feeling. Always-- when encyclopedias are concerned.
* Random quotes which may seem to give weight to academic research but actually carry no
weight in and of themselves are not welcome.
* History of subject should be included. Within subjects inclusive of government practices,
history of subject in its entirety should be acknowledged. This would be pertinent to central
banking, for instance.
* Peer review of all information, before it becomes public. I realize that Wikipedia is
peer review. However, there ought to be an economically feasible system in place which
either provides peer review for all edits of material, or a system which acknowledges self-
proclaimed peer review for submissions.
* Classified headings/user friendly.
* Bibliography and links to all research.
* Criticisms may be grouped under their own subheading. However, research presented
in an academic manner ought naturally to also include criticisms within the body of
research pertinent to its topic.
* For institutions, philosophies (including say, Buddhism, Veganism, Christianity, Democracy)
and practices which exist solely by the grace of hypothesis, alternate systems, philosophies,
etc. ought to be listed as much as possible. Contrasts of each to be noted.
* Do not edit simply to edit.
* Be grammatically correct. Spell like your life depends on it. Spell check. Edit. Spell check
again.
I will be editing the information on the Federal Reserve System within Wikipedia. I found this article to be severely biased and the lack of discussion regarding its history warrants a closer look. There were several grammatical and spelling errors, the content is disorganized (not to mention very boring in the way it is presented); while I will not attempt to revamp the entire thing as the subject is quite extensive and the information is very long-winded, nevertheless I'd like to at least include the history of central banking and how the Fed Reserve came into being.
* Reason trumps feeling. Always-- when encyclopedias are concerned.
* Random quotes which may seem to give weight to academic research but actually carry no
weight in and of themselves are not welcome.
* History of subject should be included. Within subjects inclusive of government practices,
history of subject in its entirety should be acknowledged. This would be pertinent to central
banking, for instance.
* Peer review of all information, before it becomes public. I realize that Wikipedia is
peer review. However, there ought to be an economically feasible system in place which
either provides peer review for all edits of material, or a system which acknowledges self-
proclaimed peer review for submissions.
* Classified headings/user friendly.
* Bibliography and links to all research.
* Criticisms may be grouped under their own subheading. However, research presented
in an academic manner ought naturally to also include criticisms within the body of
research pertinent to its topic.
* For institutions, philosophies (including say, Buddhism, Veganism, Christianity, Democracy)
and practices which exist solely by the grace of hypothesis, alternate systems, philosophies,
etc. ought to be listed as much as possible. Contrasts of each to be noted.
* Do not edit simply to edit.
* Be grammatically correct. Spell like your life depends on it. Spell check. Edit. Spell check
again.
I will be editing the information on the Federal Reserve System within Wikipedia. I found this article to be severely biased and the lack of discussion regarding its history warrants a closer look. There were several grammatical and spelling errors, the content is disorganized (not to mention very boring in the way it is presented); while I will not attempt to revamp the entire thing as the subject is quite extensive and the information is very long-winded, nevertheless I'd like to at least include the history of central banking and how the Fed Reserve came into being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
