>“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
How does it feel knowing that left wing users practically control Wikipedia, which is the main source of information in the 21st century?
In theory Wikipedia is a great thing, but in reality it has a huge user base of left wing supporters and SJWs that are actively changing history and politics to suit their views.
Should there be an alternative to Wikipedia?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
chronicle.com
reddit.com
reddit.com
lmgtfy.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
That's probably the key. I don't think you can ever get enough motivated right wing and crentrist people to work for these sites, and we're reaching a point where alternatives may be possible.
Of course, the media will circle the ideological wagons and declare anything new to be "dangerously right wing", but I think we've seen that there is such a growing backlash to the PC and SJW left that that no longer matters. There's so many people willing to get on board. If Trump can have that many supporters, we can create a better Wikipedia without the bullshit.
The leftist will try their usual Shane tactics that have worked for decades, and, just like with Trump, they'll futilely cry that "they can't keep getting away with this! Why are they able to have their own opinions! This isn't happening!"
Now you just got to find a way to create the damn thing in the first place.
yeah but most of the stuff we take for granted was probably warped in its own time too
if you think wiki is bad remember that before the printing press all the world's knowledge was literally contained in a few select libraries
If you try to clone Wikipedia with the sole intent of avoiding leftist revisionism, you end up with a complete shithole like Conservapedia.
Meh, I find wikipedia to be staunchly neutral like 95% of the time, and I browse news articles on stormfront, for reference. Focus your energy elsewhere, this is pretty low priority.
Yeah it's fucking amazing how blatant they are and no one is doing anything. I mean just look up the alt-right article.
>yeah but most of the stuff we take for granted was probably warped in its own time too
This is true too, thing is now we have the means to not let that happen. Or maybe we don't and I'm just being delusional. But yeah an alternative would be helpful.
I have modified finnish wikipedia many times. For some reason bad things aren't mentioned on cities pages etc
I don't see how wikipedia is remotely left leaning. If you can give some examples of leftists bias within wikipedia I would be pleasantly surprised, and im talking featured and good articles here since those are the ones supported by the wikipedia administration.
en.wikipedia.org
Nowhere in this article does it mention paedophilia.
I have found this quite a bit when reading wikipedia
Look at this shit.
>The Gamergate controversy centers on the harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, revolving around issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it, and the loosely organized movement that emerged from the hashtag.
en.wikipedia.org
The Left has come to dominate all forms of information consumption in the last decade. It's planned and discriminatory in its nature.
are you fucking kidding me?
see Go look at any article on jews for good measure
en.wikipedia.org
>Historically some Jewish people owned and traded slaves.[3] Several scholarly works have been published[4] to rebut the antisemitic canard of Jewish domination of the slave trade in Medieval Europe, Africa, and/or the Americas,[5][6][7][8] and that Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery.[7][8][9][10] They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every Spanish territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades.[11]
It's an orchestrated attempt to stifle the flow of information using jewish sources. These biased articles will become the next generation's tool for learning history
Look up the article on gamergate.
They deleted the wiki page on cultural marxism despite being incredibly detailed and well sourced.
>which is the main source of information in the 21st century?
Why don't you faggots just sign up and edit it yourselves?
>“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
But that just means that he who controls the present controls the future, which happens to be fucking obvious.
What's with this retarded quote, who said that?
They just edit it back and ban you. Even if your entries are sources and theirs aren't.
satan has spoken
Right wingers are notoriously dumb so good luck even figuring out the basics haha.
That's just a proverb from fiction though, it's not real. You might like the way it sounds, but that does not mean that it has any bearing upon reality at all.
I'm pretty sure that he who maintains a massive arsenal ensuring abject annihilation for anybody against it in a state of total war while simultaneously retaining and utilizing military and economical force projection objectively controls the future, and the present as well, and it doesn't matter one single bit what anybody reads or thinks about anything.
Also, Wiki is only a source for lazy/hobby laymen. It's useless to anybody seeking a full understanding of any given topic. There are no shortcuts to knowledge, anybody who is serious about a subject must still crack books.
Orwell of course. Whenever some half-cocked youth acts like they've just discovered some magical truth, it's always going to be Orwell or Nietzsche.
Stop using the term ''right wing'' as if it was something positive.
Right wing = conservativsm, liberalism, globalism, capitalism.
All of these things are anti-white.
Right wing =/= Nationalist.
Oh, and if you're not a nationalist.... Then what the fuck are you doing on Sup Forums?
Adolf Hitler
National Socialism
Nationalism
Vladimir Putin
Viktor Orban
George Soros
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
My favorite article
en.wikipedia.org
>OY VEY IGNORE TH EVIDENCE
>WE JEWS ARE INNOCENT
>WE DIDN'T REALLY TAKE OVER RUSSIA AND KILL 60 MILLION PEOPLE
>IT'S ALL JUST A CONSPIRACY
Nothing on that page is inherently leftist, leftism denotes how power is theoretically derived and exercised.
Also, some of us were here when it started, it was basically a re purposing of previous raids to false flag feminists by pretending to be minorities, and this raid was themed about Zoe Quinn, all of the early gg posts were all about her and her nudes and laughing at her.
Autists spammed it until it got banned
(enraging newfags who had not been around long enough to know that Sup Forums has always occasionally banned stuff that gets spammed to fuck, such as the statement "prove me wrong" which used to result in an auto-ban) and the the newfags exploded into a movement and basically became chanology 2.0.
If anything, the wiki is just milqtoast garbage as it does not adequately describe how vapid and mindless gamergate's origins actually are.
I get why you lie and PRfag on rddit, but there's no point doing so here, at ground zero, since we're the fucking ones who created it in the first place.
>Part of a series on: Antisemitism
And btw, it's not ''leftists'', it's the CIA. They have masses of people who work full time ensuring no ''dangerous information'' gets published on Wikipedia. A prime example is the 2014 ''ukrainian revolution'' article, it's basically nothing but 100% parroting of U.S/EU/NATO propaganda, with zero facts about what happened. Not a single mention of Soros, State Department or NUDELMAN
>Nothing on that page is inherently leftist, leftism denotes how power is theoretically derived and exercised.
I do not accept your premise. To it, I say: no.
That is a lawyer tactic and I will not let it prosper. You will not put something forth as truth, then quickly switch subjects in the exchange to prevent any discussion on it. You will not define "leftism" like that.
Also just look at all these legitimate, non-biased, and actually backed up sources on the page.
>Conservapedia
What's wrong with it, ahmed?
I use wikipedia daily in my work as an engineer. It is a great tool because it is supported by Sources.
If you search feminism you will find feminist viewpoints.
However if you search bernoulli Equation you will find truth.
Dont search obvisiously stupid terms like scientology or sjw
>it is supported by the Sources that are permitted to remain on the page by the SJW crowd who watch the page for every change.
It is real and is an issue. I've a few examples I'll post. But first to be clear it isn't only a left wing bias. Companies pay editors to keep their pages free of anything toxic. A guy who did this made a thread on here though didn't give too much away. So yes, You have people paid to edit wiki for companies or governments. This is one kind of wikijew. The other common variety is those who do it for free. They focus autistically on SJW related stuff and cultural marxism related. The SJW stuff they always go with the pro-sjw narrative, see articles on gender pay gap, gamergate and related. The second group who do it for free are much more involved. They are generally Marxists who's main objective is to censor anything that dares mention cultural marxism, even when said article makes clear that there is contention over the issue.
Most recently relating to the last group mentioned above, I linked somebody to a page of the 'Long March through the institutions', a term for bringing about change within the current (socioeconomic) system by working from within it. This quote and approach was endorsed by a Frankfurt School theorist. Wiching half an hour of posting said page it was deleted and merged into another page. It still shows up on google and the URL given is
en.wikipedia.org
I actually just checked again now and it is back up, so watch this space. But if you click on 'view history' on the wiki page you can see it was edited 27th March, merged with another page. It has since been restored.
pic related.
Other examples are cultural marxism and creeping fascism.
Where did I say right wing was positive? Or any of those things you're projecting?
You're arguing from the perspective that the absence of ''right wing'' in Wikipedia is ''bad''. You didn't explicitly write the sentence: ''I think Right-Wing is good!'', but that's the undertone of what you replied to OP with.
Let's make one and call it whiteypedia
The absence of objectivity in Wikipedia is bad. Read this:
>Let's make one and call it whiteypedia
You're not white enough to contribute, sorry.
This page is delete.
Ok Mr Chang
''Left wing'' and ''right wing'' are not a set of rigid ideologies that balance eachother out, creating objectivity.
Jesus christ, the battle is fucking lost isn't it? When even people are who supposedly against the madness are this fucking stupid it must be fucking lost.
Would it not be better to destroy it or take it over? Find out who are the major moderators, see if they are committing a crime ie piracy, drugs or any such thing (Leftists dont pay for anything if they dont have to and most of them are criminals)
Then report them.
Easier said than done. Many of them go to lengths to hide their true ID. There are many accusations of socket-puppetry too.
Reddit is actually doing pretty well in this, at least as far as documenting it goes.
reddit.com
reddit.com
So, should i try to fight and be stomped on and ridiculed or just switch to the side that is winning in hope i will get some Vaseline to smoothen the assfucking?
The article on black wall street desperately tries to save face about niggers summoning up white pride and as a community attempting to protect a rapist.
lmgtfy.com
Just go to that homie and read the picture.
Yes, but that is a superhuman walking propaganda symbol from the 60-80s (can't remember).
And it isn't real
Good finds. The bias is often pretty subtle, for example Jewish myth of King David is treated as fact. You must read pretty closely to discover this is just mythology. Now look at King Arthur. Made very clear from the outset that it is a myth or at least mythological. The same holds true of most articles on Jewish history, often taking the bible as a primary source.
This isn't exactly left-leaning bias but a nice example of how the language used in an article can misrepresent the facts.
The above holds true of many articles related to marxism, socialism, sociology, social liberalism and general other quackery that is treated by teh wikijews with far more credence than it should be, while things perceived as even potentially right leaning are held to much higher standard.
>It's an orchestrated attempt to stifle the flow of information using jewish sources. These biased articles will become the next generation's tool for learning history
You absolutely put your finger on it here. But it's not just jews that do this.
>Right wing = conservativsm, liberalism, globalism, capitalism.
kek. You're a leftist right? Why didn't you just go for the old fallback of right wing = fascism. And how about you define 'left wing'? Go on. Humor me.
>Oh, and if you're not a nationalist.... Then what the fuck are you doing on Sup Forums?
Are you for fucking real lad? We've been driven off every other site on the net. Go fuck yourself.
>kek. You're a leftist right? Why didn't you just go for the old fallback of right wing = fascism. And how about you define 'left wing'? Go on. Humor me.
Are you retarded? The so called 'Right wing' IS conservatism, liberalism, capitalism and globalism, these are ideologies and philosophies associated with the political term ''right wing''.
Sup Forums is a nationalist board, nationalism is in opposition to all ''right wing'' ideals, philosophies and ideologies.
>We've been driven off every other site on the net.
Yeah and you'll be driven off from here too, fuck off back to Tumblr or Reddit where you belong, anti-white.
It is bad. Any time when a single ideology controls history, that's bad. And yes, the people who are in control of Wikipedia have the same ideology. A left wing ideology of social justice cultural Marxism.
Oh, I didn't realize I was dealing with political illiterates.
Now I see why the gov is going to ban memes
They tell history better than wikipedia.
Do colleges still discredit wikipedia as an unreliable source?
We read your post the first time. When someone asks you to explain you shouldn't just repeat what you said
There's nothing to explain? ''Right wing'' is a political term that acts as an umbrella term for various schools of thought and ideologies. Such as for example conservatism and liberalism.
>le right wing meme
Right wing capitalism mixed races and created globalism, but now it blames left wing.
>implying left wing vs. right wing is even relevant in EU/USA
Switzerland is pretty mixed, more than Sweden and it got Christian wing.
What ideology do you think this is here? Traditional right wingery in the terms you describe it? Couldn't be further from the truth. You forgot to define leftism too.
The sheer number of shills ITT saying there is no left wing bias is pretty impressive.
>The sheer number of shills ITT saying there is no left wing bias is pretty impressive.
No one said anything like that, you are just being a retarded child reacting to something because your fee fees got hurt and then you inject an additional million different meanings into what said person wrote to begin with.
All I've said is that retardedly using the terms ''left wing'' and ''right wing'' for good and bad, without actually understanding the terms and what they refer to and mean, and the fact that BOTH refer to ideologies that are ALL anti-white, makes people stupid.
First of all, going back 100 years or so the liberal party were the ones that pushed for social change against the tories over here. Secondly today's leftism is explicitly globalist in approach. IN fact from what I've seen every leftie aside a few tankies is internationalist to the core. See how the terms you're using are problematic? You're looking at a bunch of shit you disagree with then ascribing it to what you see as your political opposition.
And I ask you to define leftism. Because only then can we know if your definitions are impartial or full of shit.
Are you retarded?
>going back 100 years or so the liberal party were the ones that pushed for social change against the tories over here.
Yeah, and the tories were not national socialists who wanted to preserve the UK's racial and ethnic purity, they were globalist capitalists who cared more about profit through free trade than about preserving the genetic integrity of the british peoples, i.e capitalist and globalist.
Liberals are the same, they are also capitalists driven by greed for profit through free trade in a globalized world.
So because some people who supported multiculturalism were right leaning on a political spectrum that means all right leaning people are in favour of multiculturalism?
Typical leftist trick of blurring definitions to make arguements difficult
You're still refusing to define leftism. Is it cause you're definition will be something along the lines of 'all that is good and right in the world'?
I don't even understand why you're fixated on me ''defining leftism'' which is not even possible because ''left-wing'' is an umbrella term.
You also seem like a complete political illiterate if you expect me if I had tried to ''define left wing'' that I'd say it was ''all that is good and right in the world'', which is a clear sign of your inability to read another human being, I suggest you scroll up and look at my older posts and look for clues as to where I could possibly stand politically, I believe I made it abundantly clear in the post before this one.
>So because some people who supported multiculturalism were right leaning on a political spectrum that means all right leaning people are in favour of multiculturalism?
Of course they are. The only ideology that isn't anti-white is national socialism, which is neither ''left wing'' or ''right wing'', it is nationalist and socialist, by and for the people, and Adolf Hitler proved what wonder National Socialism is for the people, until world jewry had enough and decided to destroy Germany.
>The only ideology that isn't anti-white is national socialism
Pretty much any anti immigration anti outsourcing and non privatised banking system would be the same.
>How does it feel knowing that left wing users practically control Wikipedia,
actually thats an insult to classical libs
those who control WP now are the latest gen of psycho campus-libs
big difference
like from traditional 70s feminists to current schizo genocidal feminists
I forgot I found this peach.
en.wikipedia.org
Syrian civil war history pages. This appeared before the war even started.
So you can define right wing, the umbrella term but won't leftism? figures.
>I believe I made it abundantly clear in the post before this one.
No you're just talking all over the shop. You're anti-nationalist, apparently anti-what you consider right wing. Not leaving a lot of space. What kind of commie are you?
>Of course they are. The only ideology that isn't anti-white is national socialism, which is neither ''left wing'' or ''right wing'', it is nationalist and socialist, by and for the people, and Adolf Hitler proved what wonder National Socialism is for the people, until world jewry had enough and decided to destroy Germany.
So wait are you NatSoc? Why deride the other nationalsts then? Jesus fuck Sweden.
Yeah, today's term is 'progressives'. Even the left will disown them. But I think this is some kind of jewish trickery. Cause when it really gets down to it most lefties do support the critical theory, deconstructionism of their culturally focused fellow travelers.
To be fair that's also just really poorly written.
>You're anti-nationalist, apparently anti-what you consider right wing. Not leaving a lot of space. What kind of commie are you?
You must be a literal retard.
>They say meanny things about Hitler!!!!! It's a leftist conspiracy!!!!!
I find wikipedia quite neutral. If you actually bothered to read anything about WW2, you would know that the Hitler bad fame is totally deserved
''Right wing'' is not a ''nationalist ideology'', you stupid fucking political illiterate, just shut the fuck up if you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, jesus christ.
It is but it checks out. It was published the day before the first protests calling for said protests. This is probably more an example of alphabet agencies being on the case.
is can be, and often is, just not always
Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question. That's two now you've avoided.
>literally everyone and their grandma constantly saying you can't trust what anyone says on the internet and that you can't trust or source info from wikipedia
>can't use it as a source for homework in any academic setting
>suddenly kike shit starts happening harder than usual
>nobody acts like wikipedia isn't a super terrible source for information anymore
NO you fucking retard.
RIGHT WING = CONSERVATISM, LIBERALISM, CAPITALISM AND GLOBALISM
THESE THINGS ARE NOT NATIONALIST, THEY ARE ANTI-NATIONALIST
Okay, I'm a communist national socialist, you're such a smart boy!
Portugal shut the fuck up before we sink you, you nation of ghoulish fuckboys.
Jews have boiler rooms where they troll & edit shit like wiki.
Alternative is metapedia but not enough people to run it
Wikipedia can still help you with a lot of different things.
personal soldier request. lol.
anyone with a wikipedia account could have fun with this:
the bruce jenner article is very careful to never say "he"; all of his athletic achievements were by "Jenner".
ahem.
Walter Carlos did the music for A Clockwork Orange, years before he switched to Wendy Carlos. And yet, "his" wikipedia article says "she" composed the music, "she" did this, "she" did that, all during the years that she was a man.
So! Go change one or the other articles to make them consistent. I'd change the Jenner article to say "she" won the decathlon in the olympics, for example. Be subtle, not a vandal. and watch them squirm as they try to defend the inconsistency.
again, no
there is overlap
dont shoot the messenger
You're just lying here
Wikipedia pushes agenda on anything even slightly political and the editors are roughly 95% left wing activists
There are a few concepts which are absolute lynchpins of the modern "whatever it is liberals are now" worldview which are policed to a hilarious extent. The articles on Scientific Racism, Climate Change Denial and Holocaust Denial read like some genuinely raw and buzzing pieces of contemporary totalitarian propaganda.
If you see here they already call Wu a female despite being a disgusting he-she freak that looks like a monster out of a horror book.
If there was an alternative to wikipedia it would suffer from the same problems. It would be a right wing only site run by faggots who force their own propaganda.
It's human nature.
The closest thing to a truly neutral information source is Encyclopedia Dramatica. They're so open about being biased and unreliable that it actually ends up being more honest and reliable than Wikipedia.
Your quote would make sense if wikipedia was the only source of information on all topics. As it stands, it's so widely understood to be unreliable that not only can you not cite it as a scholarly source, mentioning you learned something from reading it is colloquially taken to mean "we both understand this is probably at least partially bullshit",
The reason that quote was so relevant in 1984 was because he was speaking about a state run media that controlled all information. Wikipedia is nothing even remotely similar to that and on top of it anyone can edit it, it's not some limited cloistered few. And finally once and for all it most certainly is NOT controlled by the jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews 923g$558123)]\!~%$8264444*@?,{==+jews
...
Holy fuck, is that how hard they've managed to seal the deal with Gamergate and claim it was a ''harassement campaign''? Jesus christ, how fucking disgsuting these jews are.
I skimmed through the article a bit, everywhere it's all just insinuations that it's a ''harassement campaign'' and ''misogynists'' etc. .
It's the paid shills of the U.S/EU/NATO system that did that, to suppress reaction to jewish infiltration and subversion of gaming industry to create and spread anti-white propaganda.
>nobody acts like wikipedia isn't a super terrible source for information anymore
Because it's not.
Only fucking autists care about anything as autistic as gamergate.
>there is overlap
What does this even mean? Right wing =/= nationalism, it's that simple.
>THESE THINGS ARE NOT NATIONALIST, THEY ARE ANTI-NATIONALIST
So where on the spectrum do you place nationalsim?
Plus metapedia is explicitly white supremacist. Not ideal if you want to show somebody something. Rational-wiki still has the cultural marxism page up.
>editors are roughly 95% left wing activists
you are free to edit the articles, But you are dumb as fuck and they don't accept stormfront infographs as sources
>Part of a series on: Antisemitism
that's a big article, bigger than other articles about other types of xenophobia, complete with lots of links.
Also
en.wikipedia.org
This a fairly new article, with one editor for all of it seems.
but thats fucking objective you retard
gay pride organizations dont beat and murder people
>So where on the spectrum do you place nationalsim?
There IS NO spectrum. The notion of a ''political spectrum'' was created by smart people to control stupid people. Liberalism is liberalism, capitalism is capitalism, there's no ''spectrum'' upon which you can place ideologies like that.
If socialism was leftist, then national socialism would be a ''le leftist ideology xD'', right? But it fucking isn't considered to be because the smart people who want to control the goyim want to associate the term ''left wing'' with = good, and ''right wing'' with = bad, hence they call nationalists ''far right''.
can you explain true story vs. how wiki tries to frame it? not trolling - legitimately want to know
what does this mean?
the sets are not mutually exclusive
(like in a circle-set visual model)
>its that simple
yeah, and PI is exactly 3, because text on internet
where nationalism is pervasive, ubiquitous tradition, it would necessarily be right wing in that place by meaning of the terms
neither do whites
niggers and muslims do
fuck off nigger