Wikispooks:Editorial Policy
The editorial policy of deep state wiki is very similar to that of Wikipedia and for the purposes of acceptable composition and editing style, the "Guidelines, Help & Resources" section of the Wikipedia Community Portal Page should be followed.
Where deep state wiki differs
It is over the definitions of "bias" and "Neutral Point of View" that dsWiki parts company with Wikipedia. The whole of the Wikipedia document Neutral Point of View is worth reading in this context but some brief extracts will suffice to illustrate the differences.
Quote: "In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the super-majority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
The problem with that formulation is that it equates majority with accuracy. To focus on the specific example, it is quite likely that many non-Western Establishment scholars would reverse the relative Wiesenthal/Irving super-majority/minority proportions stated here. Add to that the propensity of certain western countries to imprison people like Irving for simply expressing a minority opinion, and the mainstream assumption that we have anything approaching freedom of expression, speech and research becomes risible. Which is not to defend Irving's opinions but merely to illustrate the ways in which 'The majority' imposes absurd orthodoxies which define the boundaries of allowable debate and are thus reflected in all mainstream media - including Wikipedia.
Much madness is divinest Sense To a discerning Eye Much Sense- the starkest Madness 'Tis the Majority In this, as All, prevail Assent-and you are sane Demur-you're straightway dangerous And handled with a Chain -Emily Dickinson (poem 435), c. 1862
Quote: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority."
Same problem - plus "reliable sources" and "significant viewpoints" themselves involve superlative value judgments. To illustrate, wind the clock back some 450 years and replace 'flat-earth' with 'Heliocentric'.
dsWiki has no intention of maintaining a spurious neutrality as between so called "reliable sources/significant viewpoints... in proportion to their prominence", and solid evidence-based minority viewpoint however small. The entire quoted phrase is loaded with value judgments - even when said sources are claimed to to be purely scientific - let alone if they are government/political. The inevitable result of such neutrality is to give grossly disproportionate weight the "The Establishment view" or "The Official Narrative".
There is a lot more in this quoted Wikimedia document. It strives valiantly for the impossible. The result is a sort of bland establishment approved "neutrality" that further entrenches the status-quo. It is akin, for example, to the absurdity of the BBC refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza in January 2009). It is no doubt appropriate for a mainstream encyclopedia striving to avoid having an opinion on anything, but NOT so for dsWiki.
As a general guideline, the following are to be substituted everywhere where establishment value judgments are clearly in evidence in the Wikipedia guidelines:
- The veracity and accuracy of official announcements, documents, press releases etc should be treated as inversely proportional to the Power, Wealth, Statutory (or other claimed) Authority of their source.
- Any such information should be assumed to be in furtherance of a hidden - if more or less obvious - agenda and thus designed to mislead rather than to inform.
- Reputation, Position, Rank, Place etc., in Establishment hierarchies and protocols should be treated as pretentious conceits serving Establishments agendas (hidden or otherwise) and deserving attack.
