Why hasn't Sup Forums attempted to colonize Wikipedia?

Why hasn't Sup Forums attempted to colonize Wikipedia?
It's the go-to source for information on the internet and there's a heavy internal political dispute concerning many, many articles

>let's go into a (relatively) unbiased information source and work to censor articles to say what we want them to
Fucking cancer

That's not what I said at all, and you're very naive if you think there isn't bias on Wikipedia. Check the edit history for Trump's article, for instance lmao

wikipe dia is controlled by leftards, that push their multic narrative........... so, just question everything that it's there.
But your ideia is good.

bump

Hump di bump this is a good idea

Changes with citations to the Holocaust Denial page should be made.

We will then see how jewed the site is, and how strong our medicine must be.

>m-my team
>o-our side

Fuck off partisan wankers

It is relatively unbiased with a small colony of marxist shitfucks (read about Swedish wiki). They are trying to remove the marxists so no need for stormweenies to interfere and fuck shit up.

Because they have a core editor clique that is impenetrable
That core editor clique is rabidly Neo-lib

Because all the mods on wiki are kikes, marxists, and other leftists who religiously spend their time (((controlling the narrative))) and removing any edits you make.

Unironically this. No matter what any of the autists here say, Wikipedia is actually relatively unbiased except for a few of their pages (like their page about the Holocaust, for example).

the left/progressives and jews are way ahead of you. Check out the cultural marxism page and history.

If you go to wikipedia for political information you're an idiot.

>unbiased
Look up black pride.
Then look up Asian pride.
You can look up any sort of pride and it will say the same thing.
Now look at white pride, and watch the 180-turn of the century.

>Wikipedia is actually relatively unbiased except for a few of their pages (like their page about the Holocaust, for example)
wew lad, the only time wiki isn't biased is when it's a subject that can't possibly be political. Only time you'll get an unbiased wiki article is if its something like "water" or "electricity" or "cesium 137"

We've infiltrated Wikimedia Foundation to the core. You'd need about 30 or so coordinated and highly autistic anons to begin steering editorial tone of Wikipedia. Fewer if the anons have development skills.

Collegiate SJW degenerates/pedophiles pretty much run the show, so they're organized but easy to ruse. Hide your power level, fool them into thinking you think like they do, gain their confidence, then feint some weakness. The wikipedo will offer his hand in friendship, it's your choice what to do next but the rabbit hole is deep and disturbing.

I've been trying to edit the same article for about a week now; I always provide solid reasoning for my edits on the Talk page and, all the time, some older user comes up and reverts my edit without any reasoning behind it. It's really retarded

I don't believe you, because I've never seen a wiki article on anything even slightly political that wasn't pozzed to the core. For fucks sake, they even have articles that are literally lists of "antisemitic canards" and then try to fallaciously debunk all the facts about jews.

They play this catch-22 game. "Original research" isn't allowed, even if it's not you doing the research, and you're just citing primary literature and raw data. And "right wing sites" don't count as valid citations, so the only allowed sources you can site are all leftist ZOG media. And meanwhile, it doesn't matter if something is actually false, because as long as ZOG media says something, then the claim is true and the source is valid.

Look at articles like Seth Rich and see what I mean. Wiki will say it's been debunked, and cite washington post or something. Washington Post doesn't ACTUALLY debunk anything, but they SAY it's debunked (without evidence of such), so therefore it's valid for wiki to say. The whole system is designed to prevent any wrongthink or hatefacts from ever showing up.

If you try to edit a lefty article they'll just change it back

On the other hand, right wing articles could be extremely compact.
>Karl Marx
>Harbinger of the end times ideology that slaughtered over 100 million innocent civilians
>Kike

Because JeWikipedia is already colonized by radical leftist scum. They list as "credible sources" trash like Salon, Mother Jones, Huff Post...

This is a good idea, we should make an attempt.

>Look at articles like Seth Rich and see what I mean. Wiki will say it's been debunked, and cite washington post or something. Washington Post doesn't ACTUALLY debunk anything, but they SAY it's debunked (without evidence of such), so therefore it's valid for wiki to say. The whole system is designed to prevent any wrongthink or hatefacts from ever showing up.


This is accurate.

Wikipedia is just another part of the death cult.

Does anyone know about the user who creates insects species on wikipedia and never got caught because his articles are extremely well documented to be considered fakes

once I went to the article on the Bogdanoff Twins after reading a thread on pol seeing the ultimate redpill. Had stuff like they were physicist, worked on memetics with Richard Dawkins and all that. Went on their the next day and all that info was gone. Then I went to look at the edit history and realized it was false.

i was banned from wikipedia for adding CNN, MSNBC and Politifact to the list of fake news websites