Wikipedia

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A vast, one of a kind, multi-language, multi-editor encyclopaedia.

Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg
Website.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki   History Commons Sourcewatch WikiquoteRdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
"The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"
Started: January 15, 2001
Founders: Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger

Owner: Wikimedia Foundation
 

Sub-Pages

          Page Name          SizeDescription
Wikipedia/Censorship9,429Wikipedia claims not to be censored. However, wikipedia's policies don't back this up. Their notions of 'reliability' and 'notability' are particularly suspect.
Wikipedia/Gaps1,575Some of wikipedia's most notable gaps.
Wikipedia/Hasbara46,459Systematic gatekeeping for Jewish interest on Wikipedia
Wikipedia/List of COVID-19 conspiracy theorists3,105The people and groups that Wikipedia consider COVID-19 conspiracy theorists.
Wikipedia/Notability5,610Wikipedia's supposedly impartial test used to censor topics, ideas and evidence from Wikipedia, while easy admission of disinformation sourced from commercially-controlled media.
Wikipedia/Problems21,324An analysis of Wikipedia's problems, which suggests that its failure to challenge the establishment is rooted in its subservience to organised money-power and is the fatal flaw from which a host of other symptoms arise.
Wikipedia/Protection1,760Wikipedia protects sensitive pages, to prevent anonymous edits which are deemed unwanted. Such protection is an indication that a page may be of deep political relevance.
Wikipedia/Reliability3,434Wikipedia deems some information sources as "reliable" and some as "unreliable", which provide an easy mechanism for blacklisting anyone who contradicts or questions the concensus trance promoted by commercially-controlled media. This website, by contrast, insists that wherever the source, information should be subject to critical scrutiny.
Wikipedia/System gamers5,076Wikipedia accounts accused to manipulate content.

Wikipedia has an impressive 36 million or so articles in around 300 languages. However, once over 50 thousand, the number of active English-language editors Wikipedia has been in decline since 2007, and stood by Summer 2013 at around 30 thousand.[1]

Official Narrative

Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

Centralisation

Wikipedia is a website, and therefore of necessity centralised. WikiScanner has shown that media organisations, PR companies, agents of the deep state and CIA are systematically editing pages of personal interest to them.

Hierarchical Control

Anyone can edit the site, but reverting people's edits is easy, and so is blocking users or IP addresses. Not everyone can do that. Who decides who can and who can't? Wikipedia editors are kept in line with what has been called "a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere"[1], one which gives special permissions to a very select group of editors - privileges that can be revoked if someone's decisions are deemed 'out of line' with the Official Narrative. Wikipedia is not as radically unbiased and fair as it purports to be, and increasingly reflects the agendas of those with deep pockets who have invested in shaping it to suit their commercial purposes.

Infiltration by Intelligence Agencies

Craig Murray has suggested that GCHQ and other spooks are "embedded" in Wikipedia,[2] which would explain their failure to challenge even the most facile official narratives. In 2018 he suggested that the "Philip Cross" account was either a "morbidly obsessed" individual, or more likely was being used by multiple people for a campaign to support the UK establishment's pro-war official narrative.

Professionalisation

Wikipedia for Pay.png

Wikipedia is not controlled by a grassroots organisation of volunteers. The number of individuals editing it has been in decline for years[1] and nowadays it receives multi-million dollar donations from companies and grant giving foundations such as from the Ford Foundation, Omidyar Network and Google, some of which have been linked to seats on the board of the Wikimedia foundation[3]. The business of paid edits is harder to document, but many professional wikipedia editors choose to voluntary report conflicts of interest.[4]

Use in Wikispooks

Full article: Wikispooks:Importing From Wikipedia

Wikipedia has a lot of good material, but importing large chunks from Wikipedia into Wikispooks is not recommended, since the deep political content of most articles is diluted and obscured with material of little relevance. Hand written pages are strongly preferred. If you use Wikipedia pages as references, the page version number should also be used.

Problems

Full article: Rated 4/5 Wikipedia/Problems

The core problem of Wikipedia is the problem of establishing reliability. In accordance with its increasing professionalization, its decision to depend on "reliable secondary sources such as mainstream media", echoes the pattern of commercially-controlled media the world over. It is therefore inevitable that at least on commercially or politically sensitive topics, Wikipedia tends to display a predictable pattern of symptoms:

Wikipedia's
Problems
:
Wikipedia-logo-Bias.png Bias Wikipedia-logo-Censorship.png Censorship Wikipedia-logo-Gaps.png Gaps Wikipedia-logo-Spin.png Spin Wikipedia-logo-Obfuscation.png Obfuscation


Censorship

Full article: Wikipedia/Censorship

Wikipedia is subject to censorship, either by swiftly reverting edits which expressed unwanted views (however factually based)[5], or by disallowing edits on certain, particularly sensitive, topics by the page protection system. Page history is also increasingly subject to censorship.


 

Related Quotations

PageQuoteAuthorDate
'Feliks'“Wikipedia is not just what it appears to be. It is more than a lexicon. It is also a bogus encyclopedia, a small but effective opinion manipulation machine. In certain areas, the encyclopedia becomes a pseudo-encyclopedia and has for years been dominated by a small group consisting of approx. 200 people. The only thing remaining is something that looks like a reference book, but is in the hands of dogmatists and people who write in Wikipedia non-stop, but have no qualifications in the areas they write about.”Dirk Pohlmann
'Feliks'
Markus Fiedler
24 December 2018
Rosa KoireMinistry of truth: If you are like me you use Wikipedia along with lots of other sources and find it helpful with many fact-based questions. It's the 'peoples encyclopedia'. That is, until you decide to update the Agenda 21, Communitarianism, Sustainable Development, or Asset Based Community Development listings. Then you'll find yourself censored and pounding at the gates. I was successful with a few of these, for a while, but then the gatekeepers found my additions and censored them. They said I was a conspiracy theorist and if I persisted in posting I'd be barred from making any changes or posts to Wikipedia in the future.”Rosa Koire
Frederick Lugard“Read the Wikipedia page on Frederick Lugard and you'd hardly know you were reading about one of the great monsters of history. There isn't even the inevitable Wiki "Notice of Quibbles" or whatever they call'em. The same Anglo academics who comb every Central European writer's works for suspect nouns completely fail to notice their own genocidal horrors. So far, only a few writers from the Subcontinent (Sen,Tharoor) and Africa (Achebe) have sliced through the Empire's post-mortem PR armor. The damn thing's been dead for decades and it still intimidates or bamboozles these American academics (with a few honorable exceptions like Caroline Elkins).”Frederick Lugard

 

EventDescription
Omidyar Network"A philanthropic investment firm"

 

Related Documents

TitleTypePublication dateAuthor(s)Description
Document:Combatting Russian DisinformationreportJune 2016Avisa PartnersA truly astonishing II document, with a lot of dirty methods. It is written by an established covert French propaganda network, spreading more than a 1000 stories a month, offering to work for II. "our ability to publish articles across hundreds of credible media outlets means that any campaign we undertake will have far more sway than the content published only on state-sponsored outlets RT and Sputnik, and their local few allies."
Document:Larry Sanger is right, Wikipedia has become the establishment thought police - just look at my entry on thereArticle12 July 2021Eva BartlettEva Bartlett in an op-ed for RT, writes about the problems with Wikipedia.
Document:Wikipedia & the Spooks – The Remakeblog post22 May 2018Ludwig De BraeckeleerIn a video interview with George Galloway, journalist Neil Clark explains that "SlimVirgin" is back and teaming up with "Philip Cross". That is subtle or what?
Document:Wikipedia - J'AccuseArticle1 December 2018Helen Buyniski“If you’re not paying for something, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.” Our in-depth investigation has found that everything we’ve been led to believe about Wikipedia is a lie. Wikipedia serves as a warning that if something sounds too good to be true, it isn’t true. Scratch the surface of the “free encyclopedia anyone can edit” and you find a finely-honed propaganda machine manipulated by experts and used to destroy the reputations of those who dare question the status ...
File:Wikipedia Conflict Dynamics.pdfreport20 June 2012Taha Yasseri
Robert Sumi
András Rung
András Kornai
János Kertész


See Also

References