So can someone explain to me how governments and corporations haven't made greater attempts to suppress Wikipedia? In this age of social control via entertainment, politics, media and advertising, it seems odd that such an easily accessible and (relatively) reliable source of information hasn't received way more molestation than it's had.
So can someone explain to me how governments and corporations haven't made greater attempts to suppress Wikipedia...
Aaron Robinson
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
theguardian.com
techcrunch.com
markbernstein.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.metapedia.org
en.metapedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
latimes.com
motherboard.vice.com
archive.is
en.wikipedia.org
mashable.com
archive.is
cnet.com
archive.is
salon.com
archive.is
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
David Cooper
>why haven't these leftist institutions run by (((globalists))) tried to suppress this other leftist institution run by (((globalists)))?
Jeremiah Watson
They use it to promote leaftist ideals
Brandon Perry
You really think the FBI, CIA, NSA, MI6, etc. are all "leftist globalists?"
Elijah Perry
Where have YOU been?
Under a rock?
Jews propagandizing Wikipedia
youtube.com
Austin Watson
Wikipedia is the worldview dispenser.
The 'facts' are moderated by status-quo scientific community fanboy mods. They lose their position if something doesnt match with the worldview.
Just look at how many amendments are made to articles that are taken down. There are records for each removed article but you can't see that cached version, only the record of its removal.
Wiki is social control as you put it. Read it with a pinch of salt because history is written by winners and the worldview by technocrats.
David Cook
Yes they are, since bush sr. took the wh.
Jose Sanders
Look at the article for Trump and tell me it isn't propaganda
Carson Bailey
Why supress when you can misinformate the whole world? WIKIWIKI
Cooper Ross
Ok, I guess I should've clarified. I'm not talking about the contemporary political or social articles - I would avoid any wikipedia article on the EU, the US government, etc. like the plague. What I'm instead referring to is all the articles on subversive, counter-cultural, and esoteric stuff.
Depending on what you search and the artices you read, spending even just an hour on it is enough to give you an idea that the world doesn't operate the way society teaches it does and that there's so much more to existence than this globalist, materialist society believes. I've more or less "redpilled" myself on a lot of things involving history, society, religion, etc. just by reading the countless thousands of articles available on it.
Kevin Rivera
wikipeedia is obviously controlled, bu some people , and they are leftistis and usually anti-european identity... so question everything that's there, because it could only a version of the story
Dominic Thomas
Okay on that front...
They think all of the interconnecting historical and religious/spiritual and esoteric stuff is sufficiently hidden behind superstition and allegory that it is fine to put lengthy articles up about this stuff.
It's there so that someone in uni studying classical civilization or politics or something can find the specific stuff they're meant to analyze in the context of a controlled thought environment (i.e Class)
When you come to your own conclusions and they get attention there's an army of people trained to use that same info to shut down the worldview.
Isaiah Watson
I suppose that makes sense. People will just naturally ignore things that go against their ingrained worldview, even if that information is super clear and obvious.
Justin Russell
They already have. Wikipedia is 100% a leftist subversion tool now, just like rationalwiki.
Mason Morales
wikipedia is propagandized to hell.
Jacob Campbell
Wikipedia IS propaganda you fucking idiot.
Dylan Carter
you sound exactly like my history teacher
Brayden Miller
Sharyl Attkisson has exposed how astro-turfers mess with Wikipedia
youtube.com
Mason Baker
Yeah it's pretty blatant.
>four separate fact-checking organizations (Politico, New York Times, Washington Post, New York Post) have repeatedly pointed out false statements made by him
Goddamn kikes.
Zachary Edwards
You have to go to 3:13 to see her begin the relevant part of her talk about astro-turfing, and that leads into her talk about Wikipedia.
Jeremiah Sanchez
anything in Wikipedia that goes outside of hard science or history(to a certain degree), if not worth the bits it takes on hard drives.
Oliver Rogers
wikipedia can totally red pill. I will never understand why Sup Forums attacks wikipedia. how do Sup Forumsacks think people become redpilled? by only going to Sup Forums? if you read plutarch's parallel lives you can see that no leader of humanity was ever a leftist communist SJW. wikipedia documents criticisms of post modernism pretty well. wiki the sokal affair. wiki romantic nationalism--which lead to 20th century nationalism.
tl;dr this is not 1984, this is a brave new world. wiki actually isn't propaganda and censored. the redpills are there, but hidden under entertaining distracting irrelevant garbage
Evan Cox
>reliable source of information
>Wikipedia
Aussie bantz have made it to the next level
Ryan Russell
this
Wikipedia is a terrible source of information
It gets hard facts pretty much right but misses most points completely by trying to be "impartial"
Wikipedia has also destroyed higher education by making most academic papers carbon copies of each others
Finally, having knowledge just a click away has actually made people dumber since they don't have to remember anything now
Tyler Fisher
please give an example of how wikipedia is biased and specifically promoting leftist ideals. because i have no idea what you are talking about.
Andrew Watson
You guys do realize you can go and edit any article you disagree with? Follow the rules, post sources, state what changes you made, why, etc. If your edit is removed, argue with the people for why you think you're right. Most likely you'll get shot down faster than a paper airplane.
MUH OPPRESSION GLOBALIST SITE exists because your only interaction with Wikipedia is homework assignments and petty vandalism
Joshua Taylor
>You guys do realize you can go and edit any article you disagree with?
As was pointed out in
you pretty much can't. If your edit goes against the designed and ordered narrative, you will see it suppressed by Wiki.
Jordan Hall
> You guys do realize you can go and edit any article you disagree with?
> Most likely you'll get shot down faster than a paper airplane.
Didn't you just contradict yourself ?
Zachary Nguyen
The two phrases are not interchangeable. If your edit has bad sources your changes will be undone. It's as simple as that. They have an entire section dedicated to this. en.wikipedia.org
Carter James
>bad sources
Mason Lopez
You can. An encyclopedia is not meant to have a narrative. Impartiality is not a buzzword or a leftist concept. Paragraps that are highly controversial or ambiguous are marked as such, and you can see the discussion that goes behind them. Only stuff like straight up vandalism and jokes are swiftly deleted, since the editors don't stick around,
Thomas Gonzalez
>bad sources
>anything we're told to disagree with
Robert Parker
>bad memes
Carson Bell
Some days ago a thread here showed the terrorism attack list conveniently omitted the religion of the attacker. A quick look at the article's story revealed some libtard had tried to delete that column more than once, but couldn't as it was not justified.
Also most articles like the "black supremacist" vs "white supremacist" paints the minority like the poor little guys who dindu nuthing whereas the other are literally worse than Hitler.
Last example I read there: the Weimar Republic society went full retard on degeneracy: underaged street prostitution because of the economic recession, supposedly transvestite only bars, heavy drug abuse by the population, and so on. At the same time, Germany was one of the beacons of culture revolution, with intelectual condemning capitalism, innovative street teathre, heavy drug abuse (again). That was SO good it's called the Golden Age.
Brandon Butler
>An encyclopedia is not meant to have a narrative.
We're not talking about an encyclopedia here, we're talking about Wiki.
There hasn't been an even remotely honest encyclopedia published since 90% of all media in the U.S. was gobbled up by just 6 corporations, with all the control in the hands of just 6 (((CEO's))) which was roughly 35 years or so ago. With the advent of the (((EU))) don't expect an honest one to emerge from the west, at all.
Nathaniel Torres
Do I have to repeat to you that an encyclopedia doesn't have a narrative and just tries to present information as objectively as possible?
Nolan Rodriguez
Go right ahead, there's no law against repeating bullshit.
Adam Reed
>A site anybody can edit
Gee I don't know why they won't try to suppress it. It's already a leftest hell hole.
Nolan Baker
> since the editors don't stick around,
Actually, most normal, average editors get topic b& or indeff'ed if you challenge the worldview of the gate-keeping admins, who quickly revert any changes that add criticism or dissent to ideology pushed by Wikipedia admins.
Austin Rivera
Wikipedia has been suppressed for years.
>>>/tumblr/
James Torres
>drinking Pabst
Stupid dog.
Jacob Gray
Is this just an impression or you do have some evidence to back up those claims? Oppression that can't be proved is just a conspiracy.
Josiah Stewart
You do realize Wikipedia has millions of non-English articles? Not everything revolves around the US and their business.
Joshua Mitchell
If repeating the definition of what Wikipedia aims to be is bullshit then I don't know what world you live in.
James Powell
>governments and corporations haven't made greater attempts to suppress Wikipedia?
How would you know about it if it succeeded?
Jeremiah Brown
You do realize those 6 corporations are international?
I haven't seen how much of the foreign market they control, but I'm betting it's a huge chunk.
Not to mention that those that control media all over the world are all brothers in globalism.
Ryder Bailey
>what Wikipedia aims to be
>aims
Like hell.
Brayden King
bingo
Colton Lopez
en.wikipedia.org
You mean these guys? Can't wait for you to prove me how they manipulate Wikipedia and for what purpose.
Dylan Reed
> Can't wait for you to prove me ....
Bishonen ?
Robert Morales
Like how Einstein's theory of relativity aims to describe gravity as accurately as possible among other things?
Ethan Morris
You're naive. You think they don't bribe Wikipedia?
Nolan Lee
are you 12 or what?
go and learn the history of (((wikipedia)))
Luis Morgan
>an encyclopedia
Yeah, supposedly those shouldn't have narratives. Go on read the three examples I used in my post about the text going against that.
If you want more, then go on reading anything about eugenics, be the article itself, people who talked about the issue or just tangential articles touching it. It's almost always instantly discarded as wrong, evil and pseudoscientific, even when great minds in their fields supported it.
Other examples are modern topics like movies, books, TV series and basically current pop-culture. If the topic itself was way too leftist, like the Ghostbusters remake, then the "Critics" part of the article goes on spewing bullshit on how the so called fans weren't actually fans but trolls or whatever, and that's why the movie bombed; if it was "good" or "average" then it's overly lauded. The sources are also leftist journals reporting this, maybe even some tweets.
If the topic isn't leftist then the "Critics" usually lasts a short paragraph was reported at time, not only by journals but individual people, maybe other producers or directors, or people who talked with the original film crew.
I truly want (and need) wikipedia to be objective, but the truth is it isn't, and it hurts the site and it's goals.
Also learn to fucking reply.
Connor Barnes
Prove it to you?
Do what your bosses tell you to do, or you won't be editor very long.
And have you never heard of style books? Editors are constrained to follow them.
You sound like the judge at Nuremberg that shut down the defense every time the defense demanded proof that the "holocaust" happened at all. The judge knew they couldn't prove it really happened (because it didn't) so he opened the "trial" by stating he would disallow any evidence that it didn't.
Circle jerk.
William Rivera
Feminists openly hold Wikipedia edit-a-thons.
Wikipedia is complete horseshit.
Lucas Long
The burden of proof is on you buddy. You make claims you back them up. I'm not interested in strawmen or analogies.
Ayden Peterson
Wikipedia is full of jewish propaganda just search for Bolshevism and read away oy vey
Logan Gonzalez
Have you tried looking for your brain? It seems it's been lost for a long time now.
Colton Walker
> have some evidence to back up those claims?
Wikipedia votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles
theguardian.com
Tyler Morris
Subversion works better than suppression.
Colton Hernandez
> manipulate Wikipedia and for what purpose
Wikipedia Bans Hundreds Of “Black Hat” Paid Editors Who Created Promotional Pages On Its Site
techcrunch.com
Brody Bennett
What's wrong with the eugenics article? "Go and read it and figure out what's wrong" is not proof that information is manipulated.
And what's wrong with relaying reception about movies? If you believe the paragraph is not impartial or 'diverse' enough jut add some more quotes from more critical reviews.
Wyatt Gonzalez
Have you tried looking for some logic in your life? You seem to have never had any in the first place.
Ryder Murphy
OP, all the information is on the internet, out in the open for who wants to find it.
But do people want that? Do they want to take the redpill, do they want to look at harsh truths?
I think instead they mostly want to live in their comfortable lies and even if you pop some redpills to them, they will deny it because it would ruin their weak serenity.
David King
Thanks for proving that you are a paid shill.
Michael Campbell
Reminder : You can't find any redpills in Wikipedia, since Correct the Record cleansed Wikipedia since before the election.
Josiah Foster
Okay, now tell me how Comcast, Disney, 21st Fox, Time Warner and National Amusements are involved in this? All they did was ban "shills" (the irony).
Charles Ward
>fpbp
Don't believe me?
Go edit something political.
Elijah Kelly
Look up Pizzagate.
Wikipedia is very leftist.
Matthew Edwards
What's wrong with trying to stop an edit war? It banned a tiny number of editors from involving themselves in articles which they brigaded. You know what's the best part? MARK BERNSTEIN disagreed with their decision and called it "worse than a crime" (markbernstein.org
The very founder of Wikipedia said “Gamergate has been permanently tarnished and hijacked by a handful of people who are not what you would hope.”
Also this: "This article was amended on 28 January 2015. An earlier version gave the impression that the bans had been finalised, and a quotation suggested that no pro-gamergate editors had been banned from the site, and that no feminist editors remained active."
Yeah, so much for the ban. Great oppression right there.
Kayden King
> edit war
What's an edit war ? That sounds like a technical term, or jargon.
Owen Wright
Exactly what it sounds like (en.wikipedia.org
Editors constantly rewriting each others edits in a short time-span, refusing for a compromise, tipped off with occasional vandalism or brigading.
Nathan Wright
Is everyone you disagree with a shill?
Zachary Reed
en.metapedia.org
>In general Wikipedia has a leftist, politically correct, and anti-White bias.
Ryder Gutierrez
KEK (en.metapedia.org
"This needs to be completely revised. An article discussing the bias of Wikipedia which is this biased itself is senseless, especially considering that some of it seems to be based on the authors personal experiences with certain WP admin..."
Caleb Campbell
>how they manipulate Wikipedia and for what purpose
if you can't comprehend what purpose the most powerful information manipulation organizations in the world, all of which have deep connections to the same political groups, could possibly have for manipulating the main source of general information on the internet, I just don't know what to say to you.
Gavin Scott
Please use proper punctuation and better phrasing. Your whole phrase is world salad.
>if you can't comprehend what purpose
I can imagine for what purpose they might do it. I can fantasize. But I can't comprehend, something that is not based on evidence. What you're referring to is conspiracies.
>the most powerful information manipulation organizations in the world
Such as?
>all of which have deep connections to the same political groups
Which groups?
>could possibly have for manipulating the main source of general information on the internet
Wikipedia works as a bibliography. The real sources of information are marked at the bottom of each article as sources. News outlets, scientific papers, government papers, etc. Can you manipulate all of them?
>I just don't know what to say to you.
Me neither.
James Jones
Look up discretionary sanctions like that cover the men's right movement. There are strict rules like only 1 revert, and any non-feminist will be ganged upon, wikilawyered and blocked if they dare to add non-leftist viewpoints.
TParis is a very long-time conservative Wikipedia adminstrator who has pretty much given up Wikipedia because leftists control it and bully everyone else out.
Leo Brooks
That's because they're controlling it via bots
Michael Thompson
> TParis is a very long-time conservative Wikipedia adminstrator who has pretty much given up Wikipedia because leftists control it and bully everyone else out.
But how many progressive editors have been topic b& or indeff'ed, bc they challenged the neoliberal, corporate shilling that makes up most of Wikipedia's politics articles ? Moreover, it hasn't just been conservatives, who are walking away from Wikipedia. Everybody gets bullied out if they challenge the gate-keepers guarding the Wikipedia party line.
Josiah Gutierrez
So because one administrator is SEMI-RETIRED that means Wikipedia is "controlled by leftists who bully everyone else out". Do you realize English Wikipedia has 1255 administrators, each one living their own lives with different interests? Please prove to me that TParis retired because your mentioned reason. His profile page does not mention anything of the sort.
Thomas Campbell
> Wikipedia is "controlled by leftists who bully everyone else out"
Be nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC
latimes.com
Aaron Bailey
They already have. Take a look at any article that can have any sort of political slant, and you'll notice that it almost always has a leftist stance.
Jaxson Diaz
Literally paraphrased what said. I'm clearly not American and I don't care about American politics.
Samuel Baker
> I'm clearly not American and I don't care about American politics.
You literally keep shilling for Wikipedia here, saying that there's no political slant to American political articles, and now you invoke ignorance of American politics ?
Jacob Lewis
Wikipedia aint shit til its open-sourced and publicly funded by the american tax dollar.
Until then its just another blog.
Juan Hill
> Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Resigns Amid a Community Revolt
motherboard.vice.com
Parker Rogers
Yes.
Noah Evans
Nice try
archive.is
Owen Sanchez
...
Lucas Baker
>You literally keep shilling for Wikipedia here
Two memes a day keeps the shill away.
I am defending Wikipedia from your baseless generalizations. I never even said I am an editor.
>saying that there's no political slant to American political articles,
Where did I say that?
>and now you invoke ignorance of American politics ?
I said I don't care about American politics. Do you know what a strawman is? (en.wikipedia.org
Austin Moore
> Where Do Wikipedia Donations Go? Outgoing Chief Warns of Potential Corruption
mashable.com
archive.is
Bentley Lewis
...
Luis Russell
> Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia
A Wikipedia trustee and a Wikipedian In Residence have been editing the online encyclopedia on behalf of PR clients. Add the discovery of an SEO business run on the side, and this tempest is out of its teapot.
cnet.com
archive.is
Michael Gutierrez
They did it here. Look at us. Would you do it?
Jackson Rogers
> Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia
The unmasking of a writer who took extraordinary advantage of online anonymity to pursue old vendettas
salon.com
archive.is
Sebastian Morgan
implying they havent already
Ayden Ortiz
It's already open-sourced. (en.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia also works as an NGO through donations; so no public founding, now or ever. You trust Big Government™?
Connor Ross
> I am an editor