I am a physiology student that was working on a report about human emotions and how they relate to terrorist attacks and Islamic extremism. I had around 50 Wikipedia links in this area saved. I come back a month later to check on these links and 70% of them are completely wiped. Example below, some of these pages had existed since at least 2007, but now getting the wipe? What's going on here?
> NOW
en.wikipedia.org
>THEN
web.archive.org
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
web.archive.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
heterodoxacademy.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Virtually all pages from (Terrorism) to (Islam) have been severely scrubbed by the admins.
en.wikipedia.org
web.archive.org
>What's going on here?
The narrative is being shaped.
It's always being shaped.
You'll have to use the wayback machine or something. Rich democrats fund groups to rewrite public information 24/7
Remember to donate your monies, plebs.
Bump I suppose.
Upon more research it's even bigger than I thought. The Wikipedia admins have not only whitewashed the criminal-psychology articles, but also the racial, genetic and religious articles.
Can you elaborate?
Not to out-leaf a fellow leaf, but
>using wikipedia as academic source
>ever
>I mean seriously, ever
We really need the wiki-tables more than ever.
Tabulated data is the most neutral for of information, hard to manipulate or hide.
Fuck articles, they are all subjected to propaganda. We can generate really pure articles by using templates filles from the tabulated data.
Someone invent this, please!
Just use the wayback machine and search Wikipedia articles that are controversial. From the looks of it SJWs are flagging and editing massive amounts of information, and the admins are allowing it.
I use the sources of Wikipedia, plus it's just another source of information where it's getting increasingly hard to find such information.
using wikipedia for an academic paper
don't do this
I use the sources of Wikipedia, plus it's just another source of information where it's getting increasingly hard to find such information.
>Go to references section of article
>Click on links to get actual sources
Why not? If the professor lets me I use it all the time, it's better than 90% of the shit you can find, and if the teacher doesn't allow it, I use it anyway and just cite the sources listed at the bottom of the wiki page :^)
Is there a way to make a Kiwipedia or some shit and repost all the wayback shit and then meme it to the top of google to blow the lying wikijew out of the fucking water?
Better question: Why aren't the NEET Sup Forumsacks acting to start becoming Wikipedia editors themselves?
Each passing day, they control the narrative a little more. Fight back maybe?
Considering the damage everything would have to be done by hand, which would take lots of money and a lot of hands.
Because everything will get reverse and you will be banned. Nowadays virtually anything you do on Wikipedia has to be cleared by an admin/mod, and the entire SJW administration will approve virtually anything if it conforms wih them, and deny/ban anything that doesn't.
Wiki old guard would never allow it. When it comes to Internet communities that exist in a vacuum with heads set firmly in anus, seasoned Wikipedia editors are among the staunchest and most horrible
As of right now the SJW admins are in the process of trying to remove
en.wikipedia.org
Were they all deleted by this user?
Then don't do it right away. Get high enough into the ranks, until you have a good reputation already? Focus on fixing outright facts with reputable sources for now
No, I don't know Wikipedia very well but I assume the deletion (approve/disapprove) process goes to the first active admin to view it.
contact this people:
they might help you publicize what wikipedia i doing. I suppose wikipedia wants to keep the image of unbiasedeness to a good measure is publicize what they are doing.
The right wing should fund efforts to raise money for collecting public domain data about crime tied to immigration and religious and racial groups.
This data is harder to scrub.
Wikipedia is shit
look for "Reality hacking", it redirects you to Hacktivism
Not only they censor, they are retarded and fuck and because of it they lost against Donald Trump's pepe bois
en.wikipedia.org
found one of the many massive wipes.
"psychobabble bullshit"
User:Altenmann:This user has been on Wikipedia for 13 years.:This user has created 5,030 of the 5,324,909 articles for Wikipedia..
Oyy veyy
Well Soros,doesn't have to fund Hillary at prior levels.So,he has money to burn on new projects.
NOOOOOOOOOOO YOU STUPID GOYIM
DELETE THIS NOW YOU STUPID GOYIM.
ILL GET MY BOYS AT UNIVERSITY TO FAIL YOU IF YOU DONT
Have seen youtube lie about views and 'likes'.
>I use the sources of Wikipedia
That's called being lazy.
If I were marking your paper, I'd deduct marks after checking relevant wiki pages to see if you used them as a "source for sources". You should be reading through whole fucking books.
I do. It also doesn't hurt to check all bits of information. When sourcing, I would use anything I found on the internet as my last choice.
>Is there a way to make a Kiwipedia or some shit and repost all the wayback shit and then meme it to the top of google to blow the lying wikijew out of the fucking water?
>Considering the damage everything would have to be done by hand, which would take lots of money and a lot of hands.
>Then don't do it right away. Get high enough into the ranks, until you have a good reputation already? Focus on fixing outright facts with reputable sources for now
whatre you guys talking about? sounds like a good idea and hard to achieve. which content would be focused on first?
...
ChNge your report to how people of power use emotional and moral bias to dictate there own beliefs against reality
CNN
Wikipedia
Hufingtonnpost
I can go on
Bump
bump for awareness
