As is by now
well-known, Wikipedia presents itself as an online encyclopedia to which anyone
can contribute, and whose entries anyone can edit. The idea is that people who
are experts in their field will contribute articles, suitably augmented by
others who are equally knowledgeable. This is a nice idea but in practice
Wikipedia is unreliable, because anyone can edit articles, and in many cases
the main aim of those editing articles is not to present the truth but rather a
biassed interpretation. Wikipedia has no effective defense against this
(especially since its privileged editors are among the worst offenders) and is
thus unreliable.
This
flaw in Wikipedia manifests itself most often in articles dealing with history
or contemporary events, in particular those relating to World War II and its
aftermath, and to the events of September 11, 2001, and their consequences.
There are people who are determined that certain facts should not receive
publicity, and whenever an "unapproved" fact appears on Wikipedia some
editor will come along and remove it. In fact there seem to be teams of such
trolls, perhaps paid to do their work of censorship and their presentation of
particular interpretations of history which their masters want to be the public
"truth". Although this falsification occurs mainly in connection with
historical articles, there is no guarantee that it does not occur in
non-historical articles also, such as those dealing with medicine, psychiatry
or pharmacy. Because of this lack of defense against censorship and
misrepresentation by determined bands of trolls, Wikipedia is not to be
trusted.
Here's
an example of censorship at Wikipedia:
A well-placed British
source informed WMR that Rahm Emanuel's father, Benjamin Emanuel, specialized
in the terrorist bombings of buses carrying British troops and policemen during
the British Mandate in Palestine. ... Wikipedia deleted Benjamin Emanuel's
entry in 2008, shortly after Rahm Emanuel was designated as President Obama's
chief of staff. Wikipedia is a favorite device for the perception management
goals of Dr. Cass Sunstein, Obama's director of the White House Office of
Regulatory Affairs.
— Wayne Madsen, Rahm Emanuel's father specialized in bus bombings in
Palestine
Here
are articles by three eminent authors, knowledgeable in their fields, whose
attempts to publish the facts on Wikipedia have been thwarted by the trolls:
·
James
H. Fetzer: Is Wikipedia Stifling 9/11 Truth?
·
James
Bacque: Why is Wikipedia Censoring Me?
·
Wade
Frazier: The Biases of Wikipedia — A Case History
A
person attempting to contribute to Wikipedia (using the name
"Posturewiter") concerning Da Costa's syndrome sent the
following message to this editor:
I
spent twelve months in Wikipedia and came to the conclusion that it is probably
a reliable source of information about boring, routine, non-controversial
topics. However, there are some existing editors who know all of the policies
and use trickery to ensure that the only point of view that gets presented is
their own, and anything else is deleted and the new contributors who put it
there will be banned. The result is that the readers only see what is
presented, and not what is deliberately missing, but they will get the false
impression that they are seeing everything. I have reviewed the methods used by
two of the editors here:
There
was once an article on Wikipedia entitled "New York Times
controversies". On July 4, 2010, the page was suddenly deleted.
The next day the page was restored, but without the article itself, with this
"explanation":
This page was deleted
from Wikipedia, either because an administrator believed a consensus was
reached among editors that it is unsuitable as an encyclopedia entry, or
because an administrator felt it met one or more conditions for speedy
deletion.
When
the matter was discussed (see Articles for deletion/Criticism of The New York Times)
there was NO consensus. In fact there were more calls to keep the
article (4) than there were to delete it (3). But the deletion was
made anyway, because "an administrator" (presumably someone
anxious to maintain the illusion of the credibility of the NYT) felt like
deleting it.
In
the interests of documenting censorship at Wikipedia, the Wikipedia page
"New York Times controversies" has been archived as a ZIP file which
can be downloaded from this website by clicking here.
You can thus read what the administrators at Wikipedia (or perhaps just one of
them) do not want you to read.
The
New York Times,
like Wikipedia, is a covert propaganda machine. Its lies were well documented
during 1990-1994 by Edward Herman in Lies
of our Times. See also his The
Propaganda Model Revisited and Wade Frazier's Lies I
Was Raised With.
See
also:
·
John
Borland: See Who's Editing Wikipedia — Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign
·
J.
P. Mroz: Will
the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up?
Which brings us to the central focus of this article:
disinformation within JFK research data. But more specifically, a provable
purveyor of such disinformation: that self-described "free, web-based,
collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project," aka, Wikipedia. ... And
as we shall see, such a blind eye at the top [Jimmy Wales], whether intentional
or not, fosters an army of equally blind and biased Wiki-worker-bees whose
collective anonymous swarm provides the cover of obfuscation for what, on
certain controversial subjects, can be called a disinformation machine.
·
One
of the comments here says:
Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry on SiteAdvisor has been
sanitized (by a self-identified McAfee employee) to remove all references to
problems and false positives. Classic Wikipedia, too, now that I think about
it.
Evidence seen by The Independent and the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism (BIJ) shows the company [a UK-based public relations
agency] made hundreds of alterations to Wikipedia entries about its clients in
the last year. Some of the changes added favourable comments while others
removed negative content.
On
his website www.truth-hertz.net
Stan Winer writes
Wikipedia, in its
purest optimal state, is sometimes a correct, accurate and reliable compendium
of fact on arcane historical subjects such as the history of railroads; but as
author Edwin Black discovered, the American-based Wikipedia can easily be
degraded by individuals with hidden agendas and by outright intellectual frauds
— without readers ever knowing. Were it not for the fact that the Google
algorithm currently elevates Wikipedia to the highest stature in search
visibility, the impact of this so-called "online encyclopedia" would
be vastly less important. It would just be trite and fatuous. Without Google,
Wikipedia would probably achieve only a fraction of its reach. But as it now
stands, the rapid ascent of Wikipedia has helped contribute significantly to
the dumbing down of world knowledge, especially knowledge of modern military
history.
·
Edwin
Black: Wikipedia
— The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge
Like most academics, historians, teachers and journalists, I
rejected Wikipedia as a mish-mash of truth, half truth, and some falsehoods.
Late last month [March 2010], Wikipedia's unseemly nature came to my personal
door. It was then that IBM advocates chose to launch a systematic elimination
of references to IBM's role in the Holocaust in the Wikipedia article entitled
"History of IBM." The willing role of IBM in co-planning and
organizing the identification, pauperization, and extermination of the Jews of
Europe was documented in my book IBM and the Holocaust. ...
... IBM advocates on Wikipedia edited the "History of
IBM" entry to gloss over, dilute, or outright delete the company's
involvement. ... [A Wikipedia editor declared] that it would be better to
replace several paragraphs of detailed information drawn from the book,
including specifics about IBM's machines at concentration camps and gas chamber
codes, with text closely lifted from an IBM press release issued some nine
years ago when the book first came out. ... Eventually, individuals who
called for fairness and restoration of the original text were denigrated for
their views [and] barred from further comment by senior Wikipedia
administrators who blocked their IP addresses. Hence, they were censored ...
You can't trust
anything you read on Wikipedia, and anyone who cites a Wikipedia article as
authoritative simply reveals their own ignorance and naivety. Here are two
scholarly alternatives recommended by Edwin Black:
·
Citizendium
"can do better"
Many Wikipedia articles are written amateurishly; often they
are disconnected grab-bags of factoids, with no coherent narrative — and many
have errors. In some topics, there are groups who "squat" on articles
to make them reflect their own biases. There is no credible mechanism to
approve versions of articles, so even if an article becomes very good, in time
it is often degraded by many minor ill-judged tweaks.
·
Scholarpedia
"differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways:"
o
Each
article is written by an expert.
o
Each
article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable
information.
o
Each
article has a curator — typically its author — who is responsible for its
content.
o
Any
modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before it
appears in the final, approved version.
And
here is another alternative to Wikipedia:
The New World Encyclopedia is an ever-expanding body
of knowledge that currently contains thousands of carefully selected articles.
The New World Encyclopedia is intended for use by teachers and students
who are drawn to the ease of use of Wikipedia, but are concerned about quality,
consistency, and core values.
Except
to quote a national police chief describing Anders Behring Breivik as
"pro-Israel", the Wikipedia page (as at 2011-07-26) on the "2011
Norway attacks" does not mention either Israel or Norwegian support for
the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign, despite the plausibility
of the massacre being an Israeli false flag terrorist attack intended
to punish Norway for its support of justice for the Palestinians. This is to be
expected from Wikipedia, which is a Zionist-controlled propaganda machine
masquerading as an encyclopedia.
What the trolls at Wikipedia don't want
you to know.
The
trolls also voted to delete a page on Archetypal Astrology, which included this:
Archetypal
astrology is a branch of astrology, influenced by Jungian and post-Jungian
depth psychology, that studies the connection between the changing positions of
the planets in the solar system and archetypal patterns in human experience. It
is practiced by a growing number of archetypal astrologers and by some Jungian
therapists. It is different from archetypal psychology and some forms of
psychological astrology in that the archetypes are seen as cosmological, rather
than merely psychological principles.
In
archetypal astrology, planetary configurations in the solar system are thought
to bear a significant and coherent correspondence with archetypal themes and
patterns evident in human experience. Archetypal astrology combines techniques
drawn from conventional forms of astrology with an understanding of archetypes
and the psyche emerging from the psychological theories of C. G. Jung, James
Hillman, and Stanislav Grof.
Regarding
this vote-to-delete a dissenter wrote:
No discussion of this
deletion is necessary. According to the way that WP:FRINGE has been interpreted
in regards to astrology, there is no possibility for this article to have
non-fringe notability. If this topic were covered by a reliable source, then
that reliable source is by definition a fringe source. If the enforcers of
WP:FRINGE wish to remove any content, then there is simply no policy argument
to limit their desire. They may remove any content that they wish; no argument
is needed other than that they wish to remove it.
The Wikipedia trolls
also managed to get a later page on Archetypal Cosmology deleted, despite the
protests of dissenters.
What
you read on Wikipedia is only what the troll clique decides that you should be
allowed to read.
Wikipedia is a
wonderful idea, brilliantly implemented, but it was always bound to have
weaknesses as regards hot topics. ... In one area, the problem is much
more serious, covering far more articles than any other, and that is the
Israel-Palestinian topic. Basically, Wikipedia was holed below the waterline as
soon as editors such as Jayjg became firm personal friends of Jimbo Wales and
set about writing history the way they wanted it to be. Jayjg was eventually
told to knock it off, but only after most articles within the topic were
heavily contaminated by the activities of him and his numerous cronies, great
and small. Towards the end of 2010, one can still see a few very high-quality
editors left and a huge amount of the most utter dross, editors who should, in
very many cases, have been identified and stopped within days of their first
appearance. The content of this page is intended to demonstrate the bias
within Wikipedia brought about, ultimately, by the selective promotion of
Zionists such as Jayjg to all administrative roles.
The
Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia and
other free knowledge projects, has signed an agreement that will allow Israeli
propagandists to promote apartheid Israel and its racist, Zionist policies
through the pages of Wikipedia, the world’s largest and most popular free
encyclopedia.
The
agreement was signed by Rabbi Shai Piron, the Israeli education minister,
Jan-Bart de Vreede, the chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,
Itzik Edri, the chairman of the Wikimedia Israel Board, and Michal Lester, the
executive director of Wikimedia Israel.
...
all we can say is RIP Wikipedia! Your credibility will now stoop to that of
Mark Regev (real name Mark Freiberg), Israel’s Australian-born Joseph Goebbels.
One time I added missing filmography info (in the English wikipedia) of an italian actor who starred in those 1970s films(genre of the films is erotica/thriller/pornography) and used all my sourcing from another wikipedia page (Italy's Wikipedia of just the film). Since Italy's wikipedia has plenty more info & profile of the artist I added in the parts that was missing into the English wikipedia(I am fluent in Italian & English). BUT later in the next few days an editor took down a whole ENTIRE section that I only added 2 films that was missing from the list and he put his reason because "my sources were entirely from wikipedia"....but when I go on other majority of wikipedia pages, most of there sources for actors/films was mostly wikipedia itself & some from IMDb (even in the page I edited in all sections, almost all of the sources was wikipedia links as sources).
ReplyDeleteSo It is just pure facts because he starred in them and I think it should be added to the filmografia. I even added in IMDb link with it too but he just deleted the whole section down.
Maybe it was because of an Adult film?
I simply added two films that was the only missing from his filmography(notice those two films have nudity in them) but usually european films have nudity in them, and wanted to add the 2 films because They are quite known in europe's "giallo" era and he was the main character/ starred in those films.
Delete