The perennial problem: Who watches the Watcher?
The Founder of Wikipedia reveals to Glenn Greenwald that he’s shocked at the bias and that CIA and FBI computers have been used to edit Wikipedia and that the intelligence agencies pay off “the most influential people to push their agendas” or they just develop their own talent within the [intelligence] community.
This is the problem: create something great, and powerful people can take it away, unless checks and balances stop them. But what stops the FBI and CIA — Who do the intelligence agents with guns fear?
Wikipedia Founder Larry Sanger to Glenn Greenwald: “CIA and FBI Use Wikipedia for Information Warfare”
Richard Abelson, Gateway Pundit
Speaking to Greenwald, Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger said that Wikipedia “used to be kind of anti-establishment” but “between 2005 and 2012 or so, there was this very definite shift to Wikipedia becoming an establishment mouthpiece. It was amazing. I never would’ve guessed that in 2001,” when he first founded the site, Sanger said.
Wikipedia became just another version of the left-wing media:
“By the time Trump became President it was almost as bad as it is now”, Sanger said. “No encyclopedia to my knowledge has been as biased as Wikipedia is now. It’s over the top.” The “rank and file Wikipedians” take their cues from CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times, and had declared “80% of the major news sources on the right to be unreliable. Officially It’s in the policy. A lot of people don’t realize that, but it’s true,” Sanger remarked.
What do the Deep State want you to believe?
Sanger noted that Wikipedia had become an instrument of “control” for the CIA, FBI, and other US intel agencies. “We do have evidence that, as early as 2008, that CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia,” Sanger said. “Do you think that they stopped doing that back then?”
A programming student named Virgil Griffith first revealed the activity of the CIA and FBI on Wikipedia in 2007, Sanger said.
Alternatives to Wikipedia as suggested by Larry Sanger:
A good, “explicitly neutral” political encyclopedia is “Balletopedia” and, on the right “Conservopedia”, Sanger said. “Or go to encyclosearch.org or encycloreader.org.”
Or there is InfoGalactic, set up by Vox Day.
Spread the word. The more people who know, the weaker the influence the manipulators have.
Watch the full two hour interview on Rumble.
Wiki logo by Wugapodes – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,
I remember William Michael Connolley and his thousands of edits of Wikipedia’s climate-related articles. He is the reason why I no longer contribute to Wikipedia.
360
I woke up during the Climategate scandal when it surfaced that U of East Anglia et al had “moderat0r” status and spent their time altering what they didn’t like. Others were limited in what edits they could make.
280
The only time I put anything on Wikipedia it got removed straight away, so I never bothered again.
And I think we all knew about William Connolly.
40
This post no doubt reveals the situation for that platform, Wicki.
The wider issue is that the people of the world are mired in, submerged in and overwhelmed by the continuous, multifaceted, stinking Swamp.
The Swamp, such an appropriate word, penetrates every moment of modern life and distorts reality.
I was fortunate enough to live reality as a youngster, no TV, just the radio, feeding the chooks, “dressing” them for Sunday lunch and watering the vegetable garden.
Today I see people being led by their mobile phones as they walk along the pathway next to the beautiful ocean view.
The modern mind has been entrained by the Swamp.
We need change from this dire situation.
400
KK this goes with that IMO
“A lack of basic skills – what happened? ”
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2023/08/a-lack-of-basic-skills-what-happened.html
110
Yes, we need to build from the ground up.
Getting a degree means little in the workplace where work skills and are the essential preliminary and the cream on top is the high level study.
50
I was a Wikipedia user up until about 2010 when the leftist bias became noticeable, the same year I canned the US favourite geo magazine for the same reason. Now wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole. Also of note, absurd rubbish being pumped out by archaeology websites now. Hard to believe anything much now, everything seems tainted by the left.
310
I suspect that AI will be using this type of site for its information so will be highly unreliable, but the average person wont know this.
80
I had every copy of National Geographic from 1964 up to 2006. I loved the stories and the pictures but then they started the Global Warming BS and evn though Jo hadn’t started her blog (I hadn’t found it maybe) I knew something was off. I cancelled shortly after a particularly horror causing issue, red cover from memory.
150
Wikipedia once offered the potential to become a repository of all human knowledge.
It was a truly marvellous creation.
But, then, the Left/Deep State infiltrated it and came to dominate it and like everything the Left touches, it was ruined. Rudi Dutschke’s der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen in play, yet again.
Anything of a political nature or that involves politicised “science” such as “climate change” or covid generally doesn’t carry any view beyond the Official Narrative (or if it does such a viewpoint is trashed).
Also, information about skeptical proponents (individuals) of any view that doesn’t follow the Official Narrative, is generally extremely unfavourable, if not outright libellous. And I am not just talking about views of politicised science but any generally conservative views, including viewpoints on moral and economic issues, or any view that is supportive of the achievements of Western Civilisation (for example, there are many).
Apart from the alternative encyclopedias Jo mentioned, Britannica is also very good and impartial.
As time goes on, I am finding more and more Wikipedia articles are being rewritten to incorporate a Leftist bias, either as part of the Left’s ongoing war against truth, or because the few remaining conservative and/or impartial editors are bullied into leaving.
Yet again, the Left see Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four as an instruction manual, not a warning.
As Donald Trump said:
https://youtu.be/IvJybdKZTf4
(Everything woke turns to [excreta].)
191
If doing a search the wiki link is prominent. Can one instruct the search engine to default to another encyclopedia?
120
No, the results you get are what they want you to see and think.
152
Another thing is that Wikipedia is favourably treated by Goolag’s search biases which strongly favour the Official Narrative and strongly oppose conservative or other views not in agreement with the Narrative.
This means that for any subject, the Wikipedia article usually comes top or near the top on a Goolag search inquiry.
You have to ask why they do that. Companies and organisations usually pay Goolag for the top search result and Wikipedia is a not-for-profit so who’s paying Goolag?
Goolag itself is part of the problem. People think it gives impartial search results but their ranking is highly determined by the conformity of said material with the Official Narrative. Often certain views won’t appear at all, but you will find them on other search engines.
Take Tony Heller for example. You will find that most of the top ranked results are critical of him. He doesn’t follow the Official Narrative on climate therefore doesn’t get favourable (i.e. impartial) treatment by Goolag. And there is no Wikipedia article on him. He has been unpersoned by Wikipedia (and he is not under Steve Goddard either).
Also, children are no longer taught to be critical thinkers, and neither are their “teachers”, so they will have a tendency to believe anything they read in Wikipedia as authoritative. This the cycle of indoctrination continues.
191
How bizarre.
An explicit search for Tony Heller on wikipedia.org returns the page “Tony heller” does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.”
And an explicit search for Steve Goddard is something else altogether. After saying the page “Steve Goddard” does not exist it then lists things you might be interested in. The list starts with a link to “Steve Goddard” the football referee at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Goddard.
Strange days indeed. Most peculiar mamma.
152
Ed Dowd has been deleted from Wikipedia. This webpage shows that one previously existed. If you search his name on Wikipedia, the site asks “Do you mean Ed Dodd?”
https://en.everybodywiki.com/Edward_Dowd
10
I did a quick study on Google search a few years ago. If you search on a skeptic that is among the 350 or so DeSmog listed you get (1) the DeSmog hit even though it is over ten years old and (2) at least half negative hits on the first page. I just did me and the DeSmog hit piece is #2.
81
The hit piece on Jo is at:
https://www.desmog.com/joanne-nova/
DeSmog seems like a real stalker site.
And they constantly use the term “climate change denier”.
“Denier” to describe someone with a particular scientific viewpoint is strictly a political term, not something a genuine scientist would use.
52
Their genius is not so much in the capture of mechanisms to alter historical record, but their ability to convince half the public, the half consisting of primarily the young, that the corrective cleansing of history is a just and moral cause.
120
I’ve never trusted Wiki for info about Climate etc, but I do use it for a bio of someone, unless I’d expect politics to creep into their answer.
But they now have an anti western stance and their left wing political bias is very easy to find.
But I always use my BS meter whenever I use it and I always will. BTW I’ll now try some of the other examples listed by Jo and check them for accuracy.
151
Nev, any chance you can tell me where you got your BS meter? I need a supplier because I was thinking of selling them on ebay. Should make a fortune – there’s so much BS around at them moment, I’ll be able to sell thousands of them.
60
I’m sorry Ross but Dad and Mum somehow managed to install my meter over a period of years and it’s between my ears.
And I’m sure their installation was performed by by their parents as well.
I’d like to be able to hand on a kit for our blog donkeys, but I can’t find anything on the NET or in the shops. Very sad but true.
70
I pinched the government’s one.
https://media.tenor.com/uw_HNT7K8bIAAAAM/bullshit-detector-off-the-scale.gif
30
Wikipedia on JoNona:
As soon as you see the words “scientific consensus” you know you are reading dogma. Only climate “scientists” get to make their own laws of phiisics and vote on the applicability.
I gave up in Wkipedia as a factual source around 2007.
240
Yes, as soon as you see that term, you know it’s junk science they are promoting and you can stop wasting your time reading any further.
Real scientists don’t decide scientific fact by “consensus”.
From Britannica.com:
180
Quite right David except that I wouldn’t dignify “scientific consensus” with the term junk science. Just plain “junk” is enough to convey the anti-scientific gibberish.
110
Consensus, on anything, is a political answer to any question.
Mobs have consensus. That doesn’t make them correct.
Richard Feynman summed it up: “I’d rather have questions without answers, than answers without questions.”
Consensus only means that “those who are allowed to speak, have agreed upon the answer”.
Objective Truth requires no consensus, as it stands above all things, by itself. Anyone relying upon a “consensus argument”, is devoid of rational recognition. Objective Facts and Truth, define all rational debate and argument, Belief, however, is a subject of Faith, not of fact, reason or Truth, but rather of personal views.
70
Wikipedia actually has an article on “scientific consensus”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DScientific_consensus_is_the_generally%2Cstudy_at_any_particular_time.?wprov=sfla1
My reading of the article is that it seems to support establishing scientific fact by consensus. Let me know if you disagree.
For example, here is the caption of a figure they use as an example.
So, in post-modernist “science”, scientific fact is determined by consensus, and consensus is established by Leftist propaganda.
Thus, the process of science, developed over the last 3000-5000 years or so of Western Civilisation has been corrupted. And “science by consensus” is what they now teach in the indoctrination centres once known as “schools” and “universities”.
190
Replace “scientific” with “alarmist” and they’re pretty close. Or perhaps the term “professional alarmist” would be more apt.
80
Yes, and Lynch Mobs have near 100% consensus, be they correct or not.
Consensus is the refuge of Liars, Charlatans, Politicians, and Mobs, but I repeat myself.
80
“Joanne Nova is an Australian writer, blogger, and speaker. Born Joanne Codling, she adopted the stage name “Nova” in 1998 when she was preparing to host a children’s television program.[2][3] She is prominent for promoting climate change denial.” There you go, Jo denies climate change.
What a lie!
42
I still use Wikipaedia for convenience if the subject is not political or Climate or Woke.
I have a print copy of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica ca 1970 which is excellent for anything which has not changed recently!
150
Another possibility is the Britannica DVD.
70
Britannica is only available today in a limited free online edition or a premium online subscribed edition.
The last DVD was 2015.
40
Best hang on to it if you still have one.
90
What happened?
00
FWIW – fits here IMO
“Shellenberger Exposes The Fear, Arrogance, & Greed Behind ‘News Rating’ Organizations”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/shellenberger-exposes-fear-arrogance-greed-behind-news-rating-organizations
100
A follow on from your link talks of the increased risk for insurance companies insuring EVs. Looks like there are a lot of reasons not to buy an EV, more than the reasons to buy an EV. Not buying one will also save the planet more effectively than buying one. BONUS.
40
It will come as no surprise that Goolag and Microsloth are amongst the biggest donors to Wikimedia Foundation.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/donors/#section-1
Also see:
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-next-time-wikipedia-asks-for-a-donation-ignore-it/
100
The Tides foundation is a George Soros funded organization, they fund everything bad about our society, BLM, Antifa, the LGB alphabet people, Andani mine protestors, abortion funds. They are affiliated with the Master Card foundation and the open society foundation (Soros’s personal foundation) and fund the immigration crisis happening around the world.
70
The Tides Foundation is a hard-leftwing social justice political organization with charity status. Note that social justice means socialist justice which by definition is not justice at all, else it wouldn’t need the qualifier.
Figures that they would have taken it over and got their hands on the money.
10
Wikipaedia never had any credibility and has even less now. How many universities accept quotes from Wikipaedia in students work?. Students that I know are fully aware that if you want to pass don’t use Wikipaedia.
90
The only times I have read anything om Wikipaedia I had a laugh and then gave up in disgust.
It was so obviously biased or outright telling lies.
Wikipaedia reminds me of the “fact checkers”. I wonder whether they are related?
90
Wikipedia is not so bad on factual matters. It is on matters of opinion that it is truly hopeless to the point of being evil.
102
The total takeover by the Left of one of the world’s most-used information sources, that is widely regarded as authoritative by members of the non-thinking community, demonstrates the huge effort being put into promoting the Marxist agenda.
71
Watch a flock of birds or a herd of cows. There is a coordinating mechanism in play but it is hard to identify a leader or director.
The closest analogy might be how a sheep dog herds sheep. It does not apply a huge effort. A good sheep dog’s work is almost effortless and the sheep aren’t particularly fussed about being herded.
The analogy fails though because a sheep dog is always listening for commands from the farmer. Get behind I say!
51
Or as they say in Scotland “get in a’hint” – If I’d said “get behind” the wee dug wid just have stopped and looked at me with its heid on wan side waiting for a command it could understand. Border collies – the best!
10
Border collies, truly man’s ( and serfs’) best friend…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-axoEocnxg&ab_channel=It%27sMeortheDog
20
It’s quite hilarious to see people continually quoting Wikipedia on social media and even blogs like this. But probably worse, is when they still quote ” The Guardian”- then you know they really are a “boiler”.
91
I dont mind sourcing some info from Wikepedia and I think it depends on what search engine you use. I would say 90% of the time the information supplied is quite accurate, it’s only when you get to “disputed” topics, that I use a grain of salt. But the most annoying thing is when you do a search for some info, uppermost is usually Wiki. So, you click on that. Then if you decide you may want to do that search again, hit back and the search string has disappeared, forcing you to type it in again. So, after reading this article I’m wondering if that’s a deliberate ploy by “they” to force you to use Wikipedia, because most people cant be bothered typing in the search string again.
32
My “go to” knowledge base for all things specific is Wolfram. https://www.wolfram.com/
Specifically, Wolfram Alpha, in which you may engage an AI search engine for near anything
https://www.wolframalpha.com/
Wolfram created “Mathematica” https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/
One might spend days on that site, discovering new things.
40
If I want a synopsis of the French Revolution, I’d trust Wikipedia to give a reliable account but when it comes to recent history I’d be less confident on the reliability of their info. I think Thomas Borody’s Wikipedia page illustrates how their contributors can skew and omit facts to fashion a page that suits their ideology. After a brief bio, his page features a paragraph on his treatment protocol for peptic ulcers, one paragraph on his development of fecal microbiota transplantation then three paragraphs on a Covid-19 false “cure”. Wikipedia states the Covid protocol he used (ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc) was dismissible because of a “blatant conflict of interest” as he applied for a patent on the combination. Aside from not mentioning that Borody’s belief in the treatment was based on a successful trial conducted with Robert Clancy, the page neglects to mention that he holds 180 patents. Seems holding patents (except for Big Pharma) was acceptable before the pandemic
https://centrefordigestivediseases.com/about-us/professor-thomas-borody/
20
What happened?
.”
41
Conservatives and fellow rational thinkers remained silent.
And if the Left perceive an opportunity, they’ll take it.
Those on the right tend to be want to be left alone and get on with their lives.
Those on the Left want to alter society for their own benefit and are active and will ruthlessly exploit any opportunity. Plus their leaders can rely on a vast slave army of useless idiots.
90
Sort of ‘on topic’, but related.
I first read the original Foundation Trilogy in the early 70s, and considering they were originally just short stories compiled into that trilogy, that original three book series still stands the ‘test of time’ today.
Considering it was first written back in 1942, Asimov’s introduction of the Encyclopedia Galactica in that first novel of the Trilogy always intrigued me as such a novel and clever idea, and so far ahead of its time.
I was also interested above where David mentions the premium online version of Britannica, something I’m going to look into.
I would think Britannica way superior to the Wiki ‘shadow’. I use Wiki for music and sports (well, Cricket really) related entries, as they would have less of a chance of being ‘manipulated’.
Incidentally, the TV Series of Foundation (streamed on Apple TV) isn’t too bad really. Having read the Trilogy, and also the four prequels and sequels as well, you ‘imagine’ what the characters look like in your minds eye, so that was a little disconcerting at the start of the TV iteration, but actually, I’m enjoying watching it now, after persisting, and it’s part way through Series Two now.
Tony.
90
SEE LINK FOR REST
40
Always follow the money.
https://wikimediaendowment.org/
Our benefactors
Thank you to our benefactors for their generous donations to the Wikimedia Endowment and for providing free access to knowledge to the world. Gifts that support the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual operations are recognized here.
* denotes deceased donor
$5 million+
Amazon
Arcadia, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin
Wikipedia readers and supporters
$2 million+
Google.org
Musk Foundation
George Soros
$1 million+
Craig Newmark Philanthropies
Facebook
Jim Pacha*
$100,000+
Alan Bauer
Vivek Basrur
Annette Campbell-White
Dalio Philanthropies
Pitch and Cathie Johnson
Richard Jay Seidel and Caren Kaplan*
Estate of Karl Pfenninger*
Estate of John Robert Phillips*
Sigrid Rausing Trust
$50,000+
Estate of Evan C. Bacon*
Antoine Bello
The Rothschild Foundation
Christopher Seiwald
40
What’s old is new again (storywise). Lol..
Wikipedia was influenced by the CIA back in 2005 as stated.
I searched through my archives on the topic – over a hundred entries.😄
eg:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
Be sure not to confuse Wikipedia with Wikileaks (famous for Vault 7) though. Much more useful. 😎
30
The CIA have their dirty hands in everything.
The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House
21
So there’s an online encyclopaedia that can be edited by almost anyone? Wow. What could possibly go wrong?
00
AP (Advanced Placement) courses at the high school level do not allow Wikipedia to be used as a citation source because it is open-source and constantly evolving.
That, in and of itself, should tell you how reliable the information contained therein actually is.
10
The Philip Cross Affair
https://web.archive.org/web/20201101085513/https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
I think people have got to stop trying to see issues as a right/left problem. That is just the illusion of choice that the Globalist fascists want you to fight over. In essence they are just two cheeks of the same backside. Follow facts wherever they come from. Britannica can also be biased at times, try searching for- Massacres of Poles in Volhynia & then try the same search in your browser.
And on climate a breath of fresh air from Neil Oliver :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvvBp25eh0U
20
CIA & FBI Investigating about on wikipedia. Scared. Thank you information.
10
[…] Founder says CIA & FBI control Wikipedia and made it “the most biased encyclopedia” […]
10
[…] Founder says CIA & FBI control Wikipedia and made it “the most biased encyclopedia” […]
10