The “Wikilaundering” scandal is finally blowing wide open...(Wikipedia) articles manipulated by the highest bidder, billionaires, PR firms, and woke activists...London-based PR firms like Portland Communications

X.com ^ | March 4, 2026 | X Freeze @XFreeze

[ransomnote]

X Freeze
@XFreeze
The “Wikilaundering” scandal is finally blowing wide open and it’s worse than we thought

A massive investigation by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism just exposed the ugly truth: Wikipedia is corrupt to its core

You do not get information. You get propaganda.... articles manipulated by the highest bidder, billionaires, PR firms, and woke activists

Here’s exactly how the rot works:
📍 Shadow Network: London-based PR firms like Portland Communications run secret “black hat” editors and middlemen to bypass every rule

📍 Reputation Scrubbing on Steroids: They delete scandals, human rights abuses, and even controversial Epstein files for powerful politicians...... while scrubbing migrant worker deaths and slave labor scandals for Qatar, covering up ties to terrorists, and burying corporate crimes for billionaire clients

📍 The Price of Truth: Billionaires and corporations pay huge money to bury failures and push lies while their “achievements” sit at the top

📍 Gatekeeping at Scale: A tiny insider group controls what billions see as “fact”

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia
It’s a bought-and-paid-for propaganda brochure run for the elite and woke activists

This is exactly why Elon was hell-bent on creating Grokipedia.......the exact opposite: information that can’t be corrupted, altered by price, and is written by real AI that delivers raw data and unfiltered truth instead of the sanitized woke lies sold to the highest bidder

Stop trusting the laundered version of reality

---

TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: censorship; freespeech; gaslighting; internet; wiki; wikilaundering; wikipedia; wikipediatruth

[JesusIsLord]

Wikipedia is corrupt to its core.

NO! Say it ain't so!! /s

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“”””Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia
It’s a bought-and-paid-for propaganda brochure run for the elite and woke activists

This is exactly why Elon was hell-bent on creating Grokipedia.......the exact opposite: information that can’t be corrupted, altered by price, and is written by real AI that delivers raw data and unfiltered truth instead of the sanitized woke lies sold to the highest bidder

Stop trusting the laundered version of reality””””

---

This is too early in the morning to mess with my brain cells.

Next up will be 5 minutes of hate as portrayed in 1984.

(sarc)

[Skwor]

I abandoned Wikiganda years ago, saw in real time how they changed articles to conform to political narratives. Being at least somewhat informed I used to edit pages associated with Nuclear Power only to see the fact edits I added re-written to support an anti-nuclear slant at the time.

[Phoenix8]

I wrote one small wiki article or rather I added to it.

I had proof a US army unit participated in the early Guadalcanal campaign in WW2. My grandfather was a bulldozer driver in a USAF engineering battalion and his battalion newsletter mentioned a small section being sent there.

Most history books only mention the combat units sent from the army Air Force.

Anyway they deleted it after a few weeks with no explanation why.

[The Louiswu]

WikiTrash

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

Wiki -- of which Wikipedia is a subset -- is just an supposedly interactive user-manipulated website. We're using one now, in a way.

I would use Wikipedia for "old" stories which can align with other forms of info, like Britannica and my favorite Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( edited by many, but not by all ). Wikipedia is its own problem, because there are "editors" who can override, and because political activists work so diligently to manipulate pages. So all the "new" stuff should be suspect.

I'll add a personal anecdote. A certain page addition I "wiki'd" in Wikipedia became the subject of three or four of those "editors" years ago, and their internal discussions on which I stumbled was most interesting. Not scholarly nor factual; pure politics.

Wikipedia can be used with caution, and much on it is accurate -- and sometimes accurate enough. But one should always "look behind the curtain" to see who's manipulating the levers. Skepticism is much is warranted.

[Flavious_Maximus]

The UK again. Just like the Russia Russia hoax paid by Hillary Clinton to a UK propagandist.

The filthy leftist scumbags in the UK, the ones destroying their own country with unbridled MooseLimb replacement of Anglo-Saxons. The limp-wristed Keir Starmer and his love for anything trannsexual, homosexual, pedophilia depravity leading the country to ruin.

When Russia drops the big one on London, it will be a well deserved verdict. /spit

[Semper Vigilantis]

Does anyone (besides the MSM and college professors) use Wikipedia anymore?

[GingisK]

Internet media is, by in large, destructive.

[Rappini]

I wonder if Smantha Guthrie’s husband could be involved in this, he was a cleaner for the Klintons.

[daniel1212]

My relatively little experience in the past indicated that a cadre of experienced liberal editors could justify deleting content they did not like by citing one or more of the multitudinous WP policies and guidelines according to their interpretation.

[AZJeep]

I know how to read between the lines, so I like Wikipedia (it has lots of info and like the links), but it has huge WOKE slant.
Lots of misinformation, allegations, etc.
Communist dictators are presented like philanthropists while conservatives are always evil.
One has to just filter that bias out and what’s left is OK.

[Reily]

And people are surprised by this?

[OldCountryBoy]

I once spoke to a person that said he couldn’t make content changes to his Wikipedia biography because Wikipedia claimed “he was not a subject matter expert.”

[zeestephen]

In recent years, Wiki has become much more strict about sources.

If you add information to the Wiki bio of a well known person in 2026, you are required to foot note every thing.

It is not unusual to see more than 100 foot notes for famous people or famous events.

Also, it is often an excellent source for science and engineering information, and for historical issues.

[catnipman]

“exposed the ugly truth: Wikipedia is corrupt to its core”

in other news: water is wet ...

[catnipman]

i almost never look up anything anywhere anymore: I just ask grok ... nonetheless, grok will just parrot the prevailing dogma in a lot of situations because that’s pretty much all grok can find on the Internet ...

AI search has little discrimination about what is true and what is not true, but it still beats searching for hours only to find the same results ...

[Salman]

No surprises here.

Still a good resource if you want to find out if someone famous is Jewish or openly gay { snicker }

[cgbg]

Wikipedia is very biased in the sources it uses and the way it uses them.

If they like a source they will accept every word from it without question.

If they do not like a source they will ignore it (most likely) or attack or deconstruct it.

Think of them as like the drunk braggart at the bar.

The braggart is probably lying about a lot of things—but you have to do all the digging to separate fact from fiction.