Posted on 11/24/2019 4:38:35 AM PST by robowombat
More important than the article topic is how soon we forget what a huge propaganda information influence Wikipedia truly is. Everyone refers to it for facts, and those facts are “adjusted” as liked to fit a chosen narrative. Much of it is just as personally opinionated and skewed as the MSM and manipulated like Google.
True, the further back in history and the further away from the US the more reliable. It’s operational coverage of the Sino-Jap War is outstanding, as one example.
I ran across and run across this editing on most climate related issues - yes, in favor of the catastrophists. Yesterday, I was trying to get a simple list of the 2016 Presidential results by State and noted that almost every article on Trump included a lengthy comment on Russian collusion! Somebody has been busy and very naughty. Wikipedia is colluding in its own demise.
Once he realizes that admirals leave skid marks in their skivvies, and that Obama's O-5 and above thugs are still screwing things up, Mr. Trump will do the necessary.
I noticed that also, no harm in telling the truth if it is at arms length and and won’t directly affect us. Aside from how they edit and adjust history depending on the current trending narrative, especially with political characters and situations. Just like our current indoctrination education system they change history as needed on the fly and most take it as fact without question. The cover ups for the left and bias against the right on Wikipedia have been just incredible over the years. I used to have a database of screenshots documenting these changes they have made over the years but unfortunately I lost it. But they are just as bad about “scrubbing” stuff and steering opinion as Google is.
Wikipedia is heavily edited in favor of the left with articles related to the problems in Europe between the World Wars; communists were good, and the traditional nationalist movements opposing them were bad. Their atrocities are downplayed, while those of their opponents are front & center.
” ran across and run across this editing on most climate related issues - yes, in favor of the catastrophists. Yesterday, I was trying to get a simple list of the 2016 Presidential results by State and noted that almost every article on Trump included a lengthy comment on Russian collusion! Somebody has been busy and very naughty. Wikipedia is colluding in its own demise.”
Yep... Been watching it for years.
If you can provide a reference citation refuting the statement, you, that is you, can revise and correct the article
Many of the “editors” of Wikipedia have .gov addresses. That means that editing Wikipedia is a part of their job.
Hmmm—I wonder which agencies they work for....
Yep. Look in Wikipedia at various social subjects, and you’ll see it’s blatant leftist orientation.
And they’re proud leftists, proven by the not-so-subtle phrasing in many of their pages. Pick a subject where left and right disagree and see for yourself. And, there’s more:
Wikipedia
Snopes
MediaMatters
FactCheck
RationalWiki (quite the oxymoron)
The problem with “reference citations” is that Wikipedia has turned them into a circle jerk—with “approved” publications defined as those that support their biases, and “fringe” publications defined as those that do not.
When you add intelligence community infiltration of both the cited mass media outlets and Wikipedia, the circle becomes a closed loop of bias and propaganda on controversial topics.
Operation Mockingbird is alive and well—it just has new names and new players.
“Many of the “editors” of Wikipedia have .gov addresses”
Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting!
“...Wikipedia has turned them into a circle jerk...”
As have news outlets, so often quoting and ‘interviewing’ other news people and pundits.
They still have an “approval” board that chooses what can and cannot be submitted. And they allow a LOT of edits that have absolutely no basis in fact or source. Or they will not allow facts that might conflict with their chosen narrative. Know how many conservatives that have been “convicted” before they have actually been convicted there are on Wikipedia? The false propaganda is just incredible and allowed to stay up as “creditable” fact by their biased review board.
Yep... Now it is so obvious they don’t even make an effort to prevent it anymore.
Yep, we are up against 95% of the internet. It is a real and true conspiracy.
They won’t admit Dan Rather lied and FR posters caught him red-handed—a great example of Wikipedia bias in opposition to clear facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.