Home » blog, Featured, Headline, The Arab World

Lies, Damned Lies, and Wikipedia

30 May 2012 47,792 views 16 Comments

By the Editor.

How many times have you used Wikipedia when trying to find out the basic facts surrounding an unfamiliar event or topic? How many times has Wikipedia been your first port of call? When one seeks information online relating to a divisive, confusing, or hotly debated topic, nine times out of ten the first port of call will be a search engine, most likely Google. Resultingly (as we will see), the online encyclopedia ‘Wikipedia‘, now a household name, has become the chief first source of information for a huge majority of people.

Though Google and other search engines are very useful and powerful tools for finding information, one must employ extreme care. Due to the nature of search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo, Internet users must be very wary of censorship by way of result ordering and filtering. Furthermore, the popularity of a website can result in it being listed higher than other sources even when they are more relevant and reliable.

The search engine specialist comScore’s January 2012 report(1) spells out the search engine ‘market’ in the United States. In terms of the US online search market, the leaders are Google (with 66.2% share of search queries performed), Bing (with 15.2%), and Yahoo (with 14.1%). Ask and AOL are in distant fourth and fifth places with 3% and 1.6% respectively.

To illustrate a problem inherent with the way these search engines serve us information, let’s consider the example of the 2011 war on Libya, using the top three search engines – which cumulatively monopolise 95.5% of all search queries performed in the United States.

Visit Google, Bing and Yahoo, and search for the term “2011 Libya war”, or “Libyan civil war”. Go on – try it now. What do you notice? At the time of writing, in all cases the first result is the Wikipedia article for the ‘Libyan civil war‘ (read: the decimation of Libya by belligerent foreign powers). All of these search engines serve Wikipedia to us as the first source of information – thrust in our faces at the top of the results page.

Since Wikipedia can be edited by anybody (and anonymously at that), it is fundamentally flawed as a source of reliable information. Making matters worse, organised groups have mobilised in order to systematically manipulate the information published on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia: Zionist Lie Factory

In April 2008, the Electronic Intifada published an expose(2) of pro-Israel pressure group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America). CAMERA had been found to be orchestrating an organised campaign to recruit, train, and manage pro-Israel Internet users who could work as editors of Wikipedia. The CAMERA emails published by the Electronic Intifada reveal the dishonest nature of their highly organised campaign, wherein their operatives would seek Wikipedia ‘Administrator‘ rights before using these privileges to edit, delete, and manipulate information. This writer personally witnessed the outright deletion of the Wikipedia page for the ‘Sayan’ (unofficial helper/operative for the State of Israel) a number of weeks ago – undoubtedly done at the hands of Israel partisans such as CAMERA. At the time of writing however, the article for Sayan is accessible on Wikipedia.(3) Reading ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky’s definition of the Sayanim, it is easy to see why Zionists would want this information hidden from the general public.

In August of 2010 two other Israeli groups (‘The Yesha Council’, and ‘Israel Sheli’) began an initiative to train an ‘army‘ of Wikipedia editors; the objective of this ongoing initiative, like that of CAMERA, is to ensure Wikipedia’s content has a pro-Zionist slant. Several mainstream news outlets picked up on this story including the Guardian,(4) Haaretz,(5) Israel National News,(6) and The New York Times.(7)

According to the UK Guardian’s report, the Yesha Council as of August 2010 had 12,000 members with an estimated 100 new sign-ups each month. Coupled with efforts from other Israeli groups as well as the US State Department’s ‘sock puppet’ initiative to manipulate the flow of information online,(8) it’s not a good time for truth on Wikipedia and in the online space.

The fact that these groups even exist demonstrates that, with brute force and sheer numbers, Wikipedia’s content can be manipulated and redefined. Any and all Wikipedia articles can be edited by anybody anonymously, which makes the site fundamentally flawed and not to be relied upon. For politically charged, hotly debated, and divisive topics, this flaw becomes much more significant as nefarious groups specifically seek to mislead readers.

The level of disinformation present on Wikipedia becomes painfully clear when reviewing the article for the war on Libya; it is a narrative of pure mythology, constructed on all of the popular lies that have characterised this ‘humanitarian intervention’ fraud.

Libya: Lies, Damned Lies, and Wikipedia

The deception begins with the article’s title, which characterises the war as the ‘Libyan civil war (also referred to as the Libyan revolution‘.(9) Readers are immediately misled as the war on Libya is framed as an indigenous ‘civil war’ between Libyan groups. In the opening paragraph, NATO powers are deceptively referred to as “those seeking to oust [Muammar Gaddafi's] government“. This is pure fantasy meant to uphold the mythical ‘humanitarian intervention’ narrative. The supposedly indigenous ‘uprising’ was a foreign import in every respect. Libyan opposition groups wholly controlled by and headquartered in London and Washington, planned the February 17 ‘Day of Rage’ from their comfortable positions in exile(10) long before the war on Libya. Though it can be argued that Muammar Gaddafi was somewhat unpopular in parts of the east of Libya, there was no broad popular movement to overthrow the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya – instead only small armed groups with arms coming from the Gulf dictatorships,(11) with the support of NATO powers.

An armed insurrection began as these armed groups attacked policemen and soldiers, stormed arms caches, and sowed terror across Libya. This operation was mounted by NATO-aligned al-Qaeda mercenaries and NATO special forces contingents. The entire global mainstream media circulated unfounded atrocity propaganda and stories about the Feb17 ‘protests‘ being attacked by the Libyan army, and global public indignation was channelled into justifying the war. In reality what was referred to as ‘protests‘ was actually this armed insurrection carried out by ‘rebel forces‘. And ‘Rebel forces‘ here is Orwellian code language which euphemistically refers to a number of parties: al Qaeda affiliated elements,(12) extremist terrorists, mercenaries bankrolled by NATO and using NATO weaponry,(13) as well as NATO special forces themselves. Wikipedia puts forth a romantic narrative of the ‘rebels’ being the driving force behind the war:

The Gaddafi government then announced a ceasefire, but failed to uphold it,[47] though it then accused rebels of violating the ceasefire when they continued to fight as well.[48] Throughout the conflict, rebels rejected government offers of a ceasefire.

In August, rebel forces began a coastal offensive, taking back territory lost weeks before and ultimately capturing the capital city of Tripoli,[50] while Gaddafi evaded capture and loyalists engaged in a rearguard campaign.

Though popular wisdom indeed says that the ‘rebels’ were the chief actor in the so-called ‘revolution’, and that they single-handedly achieved all of their strategic and military objectives, truth holds that the ‘revolution’, the war, was a NATO operation at its very core. Months of relentless and deadly bombing (with over 26,500 air sorties flown) by NATO warplanes and gunships eliminated any ground opposition to the ‘rebels’, while special forces from the British SAS, the CIA, and even Qatari regulars fought the ground war, coordinating airstrikes from the ground. Even the taking of Tripoli in August – which Wikipedia touts as a ‘rebel’ gain – was a NATO operation at its very genesis – largely carried out by Qatari troops supported by NATO aircraft.(14)

The ground aspect of the war was led by foreign troops present on the ground in Libya from the war’s very advent.(15) SAS forces, CIA spies, and thousands of Qatari troops led the charge and coordinated the so-called rebels’ every move. The ‘rebels’ were nothing more than a media show, and the Wikipedia article seeks to paint a romantic picture:(16)

The rebels are composed primarily of civilians, such as teachers, students, lawyers, and oil workers, and a contingent of professional soldiers that defected from the Libyan Army and joined the rebels.

This emotive hogwash constitutes one of the many myths of the Libya War. It will come as no surprise then, to learn that Wikipedia’s sole source(17) for this information is an Israel-based journalist who started her career with the BBC World Service and Voice of America(18) – the official propaganda arm of the U.S. Government. Her article referenced by Wikipedia constitutes an emotive plea for war, and was published mere days before NATO bombs began to fall. These are the types of pro-empire, pro-war, pro-Zionist sources that uphold the narrative published on Wikipedia, and it is surely no surprise whatsoever.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article for the Libya War admits that the Libyan government was facing an armed insurrection:

Protests took place in Benghazi, Ajdabiya, Derna, Zintan, and Bayda. Libyan security forces fired live ammunition into the armed protests

The article uses deception and Orwellian language to refer to the insurrection however, using the term, ‘armed protests’. Identical language has characterised mainstream reporting on the Syria War – which operationally is a carbon copy of the Libya War: an example of fourth generation warfare carried out by belligerent foreign interests, coupled with a deceptive media war intended to paint the events as an indigenous, popular revolution.

Fantastical casualty figures were invented by the likes of the BBC who provided zero evidence, and only nameless ‘eyewitness accounts’ in sensational and dramatic language. Reminiscent of the utterly invented ‘incubator babies’ propaganda from the Iraq war, the Wikipedia article claims that Gaddafi’s troops ‘stormed hospitals‘, executed patients, and removed other patients from their drips and monitoring equipment. The sources for these grand claims? One is the BBC article which offers no evidence whatsoever,(19) other than an account from an anonymous hospital worker, and the other is a News 24 article which cites Sliman Bouchuiguir,(20) head of the Libyan branch of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) – based in Switzerland. Staying true to Wikipedia’s aversion to the facts, these sources are of the most spurious nature possible.

Sliman Bouchuiguir was exposed as a habitual liar by Julien Teil’s stellar documentary ‘Humanitarian War’.(21) The must-see video reveals how NATO-appointed NTC officials and the FIDH invented dramatic stories of atrocities being committed by Gaddafi, and concocted casualty figures from thin air. When challenged to provide verification of the claims of massacres by Gaddafi’s forces, Bouchuiguir could not provide any proof. Another crucial point that is revealed in the documentary is the baseless nature of the ICC case against Gaddafi; the vast majority of the alleged evidence was redacted from the public report, and mainstream media reports constituted a great deal of the sources for the alleged atrocities.

Even more significantly, the FIDH is known to be tied to the Israel lobby in France,(22) and is closely linked(23) to the Zionist ‘democracy promotion’ group The National Endowment for Democracy. Furthermore, the FIDH is closely linked to UN Watch – the Zionist lobby group that played a central role in pushing for the war on Libya – whereby they wrote letters to the US, EU, and UN, repeating the massacre fantasies that they themselves had concocted. Needless to say, Sliman Bouchuiguir was the second signatory to these letters,(24) amongst 90 other NGO/individual co-signers.

Wikipedia’s chronicle of events in Libya repeats these verified lies as fact, and unashamedly references the aforementioned liars as its sources.

Once the fraudulent humanitarian narrative had been established, the ensuing war and genocidal decimation of Libya began. It was carried out entirely by foreign powers who fought a deadly ground and air war using, as I have discussed, foreign special forces and soldiers, jet fighters, helicopter gunships, and naval craft. Tomahawk missiles, cluster bombs, and Brimstone missiles(25) rained down on Libyan targets as depleted uranium was scattered all over the country, contaminating the environment and water supply. British SAS forces(26) coordinated ‘rebel’ movements and called in airstrikes from the ground as the whole world bought the idea that the rag-tag ‘rebels’ were calling the shots, and the ‘revolution’ was a popular movement spearheaded by Libyans. The notoriously incompetent ‘rebels’, being nothing more than a media spectacle for Western eyes and ears, were also commanded(27) and supported on the ground by the CIA,(28) as well as thousands of Qatari troops. On the 26th October 2011, Qatari chief of staff Major General Hamad bin Ali Al-Atiya arrogantly admitted the presence of his troops in Libya:(29)We were among them and the numbers of Qataris on the ground were hundreds in every region“.

The ‘Mercenaries’ Myth: a Catalyst for the Division of Arabs & Africans

Revolutionary Leader of the Great Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Muammar Gaddafi, was a champion of pan-African unity. Merely two months before his people were brutally attacked by international criminals masquerading as the “international community”, he had pledged $90 billion to the unification of Africa(22) and its resistance to colonial infiltration and aggression (note: this information will not be found on Wikipedia).

The cruel, criminal, and genocidal attack on Libya is a not only an attempt to abort Arab-African unity (a central tenet of Israel’s ‘Yinon plan‘), but it is a microcosm of what is designed for Africa and the Middle East as a whole. We are seeing this wider strategy play out all over Africa,(30) from Libya to Sudan, and from Nigeria to Egypt. This strategy aims to force Christians and Muslims, black Africans and Arabs, to live in their own sectarian enclaves out of fear for their own lives. This strategy has cleansed Christians from Iraq – achieved by a sustained and devilish campaign of Mossad black ops and false flag bombings.(31)

During the war on Libya, a seed was planted with the intention of furthering this nefarious agenda in Libya. As a result, innocent blacks were lynched, beaten, imprisoned, murdered(32) and decapitated in hate-fuelled attacks all over the country.(33) A principle cause of this venomous hatred towards Libya’s black African population (who before the war constituted a third of Libya’s total population) was the myth that Gaddafi had hired African mercenaries to put down ‘protests’.

The Wikipedia article devotes eight paragraphs(34) to these spurious allegations, supported by reports from pro-war, pro-Zionist, state-organ media outlets such as CNN, Al Jazeera, ABC, Time Magazine, and The Washington Post. The sources used here, which form the backbone of Wikipedia’s ‘mercenaries’ claim, are of such laughably spurious nature that they deserve closer inspection.

One of these sources is a series of anonymous text messages(35) purportedly sent by an unnamed ‘Libyan economist’! Another of Wikipedia’s sources herein is a report from ‘Save the Children’,(36) based on nothing but pure hearsay, claiming that Gaddafi’s forces had raped children as young as eight. Another source mentions admittedly “not yet confirmed” reports,(37) and claims that mercenaries were offered $12,000 to $30,000 each. Amongst the sources used for this article are tweets from a US NGO named Democratic Underground. This source(38) touts information from a spokesman of the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) – a propaganda mill established and run by the aforementioned compulsive liar Sliman Bouchuiguir. The LLHR is affiliated to the FIDH, which is intimately linked to the Zionist National Endowment for Democracy.(39)

Upon the most cursory inspection Wikipedia’s sources, and therefore its narrative, disintegrates like a house of cards in a hurricane.

At this stage it is important to note that even Amnesty International – responsible for spreading much of the atrocity propaganda in the first place – has gone on record to say that there is no evidence for these allegations, nor is there any evidence for the claims that Gaddafi’s forces were using rape as a weapon of war.(40) The Wikipedia article fleetingly acknowledges the fact that there is no evidence for the mercenaries claim, albeit after its eight-paragraph sales pitch:

In June 2011, Amnesty International said it found no evidence of foreign mercenaries being used, saying the black Africans claimed to be “mercenaries” were in fact “sub-Saharan migrants working in Libya,” and described the use of mercenaries as a “myth” that “inflamed public opinion” and led to lynchings and executions of black Africans by rebel forces.

Needless to say, the damage has already been done as Libyans of black African descent are fleeing their homeland in droves. This strategy of division is termed by Mahdi Nazemroaya(22) as “an attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity“, and it is a strategy which is planned for the entire Arab and Muslim world. It is a strategy which Nicolas Sarkozy – key mover behind the Libya war – even offered his support to; it was reported in October 2011(22) that Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi – head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch (the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches) – met with Sarkozy in Paris. During this meeting Sarkozy told Sheikh Al-Rahi that the Syrian regime will collapse, and that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union.

As imperialist powers supported by a network of so-called human rights groups deliberately create the conditions of danger, instability and fear for specific ethnic, religious, and racial groups in the Middle East and North Africa, they also are providing the means to move them out of their native homelands, effecting the segregation and division of such groups permanently. The vicious attack on Libya is merely a beginning to this renewed strategy to divide, pulverise and weaken Africa. The Israeli-prescribed division of Sudan(41) is a case in point.

Instead of shedding light on this destructive and deadly strategy, Wikipedia, marching in lockstep with the controlled media, merely perpetuates the myths that enable it. More than ever, this underscores the desperate need for us to seek out information from other, more independent sources.

Conclusion: Wikipedia is Written by the Victor

Not only is Wikipedia merely a representation of the ‘official’ narrative for important events such as the War on Libya, but it is served to us as the first result by all major search engines (cumulatively having a 95.5% market share of search queries in the United States).

Even more worryingly, you will see the exact same behaviour if you enter other search terms such as “the Holocaust“, “9/11“, or “Syrian uprising“. Give it a try right now.

Being presented as the first search result for these important topics (and a myriad more – simply visit these search engines and try as many different topics as you like), Wikipedia demonstrably has a monopoly on information exposure, and has the chance to set its narrative in information-hungry minds. Millions of Internet users are literally being fed a pack of lies as soon as they initiate their search for information.

Deaths and casualties constitute without a doubt, the most important human aspect of any and all wars. With this in mind, let us type “libya war deaths“, or “estimates of libya war casualties” into any of the aforementioned search engines. Go ahead – do it now. Surprise, surprise, we are presented – in all cases – with the Wikipedia article for ‘Casualties of the Libyan civil war‘.(42) What we see are gross underestimations of the deaths caused by a protracted, deadly, and sustained bombing campaign carried out by the world’s most powerful militaries. In addition to this, every single source used here – without exception – is globalist and pro-war in nature:

  • The NED-linked International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR);
  • The World Health Organisation;
  • The UN Human Rights Council;
  • Al Jazeera English (Qatari-owned and run cheerleader of the Libya war, co-created by Libyan NTC Quisling(43) Mahmoud Jibril);
  • The National Transitional Council (NATO’s council of stooges);

How can we expect the masses to gain even a basic geopolitical understanding of anything when Wikipedia is thrust in our faces during practically every Internet search we do? Wikipedia verily is nothing more than a black and white representation of the ‘official narrative’ of the war on Libya, and the same can be said for other highly-propagandised events such as the so-called Syrian uprising, the false flag terror attacks of 9/11, and the ‘Holocaust’.

Wikipedia is the very manifestation of the old African adage ‘until the lion can write his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter‘. The disinformation presented on Wikipedia is nothing short of criminal. We must always check the sources for the information we consume, and for all matters political, we must look upon Wikipedia with the same utter contempt that we do with all controlled media.

Notes

(1) comScore Press Release February 9, 2012: comScore Releases January 2012 U.S. Search Engine Rankings

(2) EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group’s plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia. The Electronic Intifada 21 April 2008

(3) ‘Sayan (Mossad)’ – Wikipedia.org

(4) Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups – Guardian.co.uk, 18 August 2010

(5) The right’s latest weapon: ‘Zionist editing’ on Wikipedia – Haaaretz, 18 August 2010

(6) First Ever: Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course – Israelnationalnews.com, 18 August 2010

(7) Wikipedia Editing for Zionists – The New York Times, August 20, 2010

(8) ‘USCENTCOM buys software to impersonate social networkers & bloggers; blogosphere shows tell-tale signs amid war on Libya’ by Martin Iqbal

(9) ‘Libyan civil war’ – Wikipedia.org

(10) ‘Libya: The Rest of the Story’ by Tony Cartalucci

(11) ‘An Imperialist Springtime? Libya, Syria, and Beyond: Samir Amin Interviewed by Aijaz Ahmad – http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org – 28 April 2012

(12) ‘US NATO Commander Admits Al-Qaeda Linked To Libyan Rebels’ by Steve Watson

(13) ‘Libya Photo Investigation’ – Youtube.com

(14) ‘NATO paves the way for civil war & foreign occupation as Western oil giants pounce on Libya’ by Martin Iqbal

(15) ‘Libya: full-scale US invasion planned for October; special forces on ground since February’ by Martin Iqbal

(16) ‘Libyan civil war’, section: ‘Composition of rebel forces’ – Wikipedia.org

(17) ‘As Tide Turns, Rebels’ Dream Of ‘Free Libya’ Dims’ – NPR.org, March 16, 2011

(18) Bio: Lourdes Garcia-Navarro – NPR.org

(19) ‘Tripoli mortuary eyewitness: ‘Haunted by Libya deaths” – BBC.co.uk, 16 June 2011

(20) ‘Gaddafi forces execute patients’ – news24.com, 24 February 2011

(21) ‘The Humanitarian War’ by Julien Teil

(22) ‘Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”’ by Mahdi Nazemroaya

(23) ‘Libya and the Big Lie: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars’ by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

(24) ‘Urgent Appeal to Stop Atrocities in Libya’ – UNWatch.org – 21 February, 2011

(25) ‘Libya: RAF carries out biggest raid yet on Gaddafi forces’ – The Telegraph, 16 September, 2011

(26) ‘Crack SAS troops hunt Gaddafi weapons inside Libya’ The Mirror, 20 March, 2011

(27) ‘A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels’ – WSWS.org – 28 March, 2011

(28) ‘Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels’ – Reuters, 30 March, 2011

(29) ‘Qatar admits sending hundreds of troops to support Libya rebels’ – Guardian.co.uk, 26 October, 2011

(30) ‘The Zionist Infestation Of Africa: Zimbabwe To Uganda, Congo To Somalia And Beyond’ by Jonathan Azaziah

(31) ‘Occupied Iraq: New Year, Same Zionism’ by Jonathan Azaziah

(32) ‘Libyan rebels massacre black Africans’ by Wolfgang Weber

(33) ‘Libyan rebel ethnic cleansing and lynching of black people’ – HumanRightsInvestigations.org

(34) ‘Libyan civil war’, section: ‘Mercenaries’ – Wikipedia.org

(35) ‘Text message from a house in Libya: We are being slaughtered here’ – The Telegraph, Calcutta, India. 23 February, 2011

(36) ‘Fuelled ‘by Viagra’, Gaddafi’s troops use rape as a weapon of war with children as young as EIGHT among the victims’ – Daily Mail Online, 25 April, 2011

(37) ‘Civil War In Libya: Gaddafi Uses Pak And BD Mercenaries?’ – eurasiareview.com, 21 February, 2011

(38) ‘Libya, Chad row over “mercenaries”‘ – Afrol News, 2 March, 2011

(39) ‘America’s Conquest of Africa: The Roles of France and Israel’ by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya and Julien Teil

(40) ‘Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war’ – The Independent, 24 June, 2011

(41) ‘Israelis can tell the whole story of Sudan’s division – they wrote the script and trained the actors’ by Fahmi Howeidi

(42) ‘Casualties of the Libyan civil war’, section: ‘Deaths overall’ – Wikipedia.org

(43) ‘Wadah Khanfar, Al-Jazeera and the Triumph of Televised Propaganda’ by Thierry Meyssan

16 Comments »

  • 1776blues said:

    Great article. I hate searching on Google and when I do I skip past wikipedia on issues the mainstream media tries to pass off as true!

  • JT said:

    Excellent article, will download and read again when I get behind my pc. Keep up the good work :)

  • Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg said:

    The story WIKIPEDIA tells of the life of my father, Edward Duke of Windsor, is conventional, PC, and completely false because the true facts have never been revealed.

    The cause of death of George the Fifth has never even been questioned. The reason Edward chose to flee rather than serve has never come up. The fact his wife was a double-agent for Germany was something he found out very late in his life. How he happened to meet her is a non-topic for discussion. The whole story smacks of confabulation.

    I don’t utilize Wikipedia for anything because it is so totally contrived out of PC-facts.

  • groupuscule said:

    Hi there. Good analysis. As a conscientious user of Wikipedia, I understand your frustration with these pages. Also consider, though, that Wikipedia represents real *possibility in terms of democratic communication online. And although some stories are skewed, some parts of Wikipedia have great information.

    Most importantly, if you think there’s something wrong on Wikipedia: you can change it! Jump in there and start editing. Sometimes you’ll meet less resistance than you think—stories become biased *thoughtlessly*, just because people happen to be picking up what the mainstream media are putting down. If you do get into a big edit war with a biased user, that’s a great opportunity to appear to the larger community, and to expose some of the things that are going on.

    Really, give editing a try! I hope to see you on there… and please backchannel me if you want more information or help getting started.

    Love,
    –User:groupuscule

  • Sean Mulligan said:

    You make some good points but what do you mean about the Holocaust?

  • UAZ said:

    Excellent article, though I’d take exception to this particular statement:

    “Since Wikipedia can be edited by anybody (and anonymously at that), it is fundamentally flawed as a source of reliable information.”

    The rules for editing are actually very strict and well-defined. If you try to edit something, as a commenter above suggested, it’ll be almost immediately reverted, unless you can provide what Wikipedia calls a “reliable source”. RSs in Wikipedia terms means a MSM source. Wikipedia IS mainstream media; it is in fact more mainstream than the MSM.

    Wikipedia is a great resource for all non-controversial subjects; the anonymous community contribution model works extremely well for everything from mathematics to chemistry to biology to psychology to city guides to you name it. But for any topic subject to agendas and interpretations, as you put it, “[t]he disinformation presented on Wikipedia is nothing short of criminal,” as it is with the rest of the MSM.

    So, to be more precise, that “Wikipedia can be edited by anybody” is true, but only if you follow its strict rules (read the articles describing its 4 core rules: Verifiability, Reliable Sources, No Original Research, Neutral Point of View).

    Wikipedia also has strongly-enforced “guidelines” against “conspiracy theories” under its policies “Undue weight” and “Fringe

  • 1776blues said:

    Wikipedia is owned and ran by a Jew. Most official stories are not true and would actually qualify as a conspiracy theory. People have their own pages filled with lies or had parts of it deleted. The fact that Israel began training Jews on how to edit Wikipedia pages that criticize their criminal state should be proof enough that Wikipedia is a propaganda site concerning important events in history.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.


× 1 = two