Wikipedia and Social Engineering / Subversion

[FCD]

As some of you may have noticed, of late I have been studying Wikipedia for a variety of reasons.  You have probably heard me say in the past how terrible of a source Wikipedia is, and it IS a terrible source.  So, my purposes in studying it more carefully are not because I like it, but because of what it is and what it represents in today’s society.

Most of know Wikipedia is a open collaborative website which represents itself as a web based ‘encyclopedia’.  I’m not going to go into a lot of Wikipedia history here other than to say it started off as an innocent enough concept, but it has now turned into a social engineering tool, and a pretty dangerous one at that.  The main problem with Wikipedia, aside from the fact it gets roughly 10 BILLION views per MONTH, is the fact that it gets 10 BILLION views per MONTH!  In other words, regardless of its actual accuracy and reliability millions upon millions of people every day rely on it like it was absolute fact.  The reality is, because Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor, it is only as accurate as its contributors.  And, who are these contributors anyway?  And what qualifications do they have, and what prerequisites are there for becoming a contributor?

The answers to these questions are pretty disturbing.  The contributors, “Wikipedians” as they are called, can be anyone.  You and I can sign up to be ‘wikipedians’ with a simple email address, a user name and a password.  The qualifications required are zero.  Boom!...you’re an instant wikipedian.  That said, these wikipedians do seem to do a pretty thorough job at policing what they consider to be garbage out of Wikipedia.  Therein lies the problem…’what THEY consider to be garbage’.

Every Wikipedia page has a “Talk” tab right at the top left of the page.  If you click on this ‘Talk’ tab you will be switched to a history page which shows all of the discussions associated with that page.  Now, these ‘discussions’ aren’t like a forum, they are technical discussions about edits which are taking place on the page.  This is also where disputes get resolved.  It’s very informative.  More on this in a moment.

The “Talk” page should not be confused with the “History” of a page.  The edit history of a page can be found at another link also at the top of a page on the upper right.  There you can see every edit which has been made to a page since it’s creation.  Again, in the interest of keeping this short(er), I’m not going to go into a lot of Wikipedia history here, but when a topic gets edited back and forth a number of times, it usually results in an entry on the “Talk” page, addressing the dispute directly.  So, to fully understand a Wikipedia page, you have to look at both the “Talk” page and the “History” page (they’re different pages).  Sorry if you knew all this already, but it’s just background for what I am about to say next.

Over the past few months, I have been researching the accuracy of Wikipedia, and let me start by saying…it’s pretty bad.  I’ve also been looking into what I call ‘Wikipedia Bias’, and it’s REALLY bad, like scary bad!  I’ve wanted to write this piece for quite a while, but I wanted to get some of this research behind me first because there were a few things I wanted to say and I wanted to be sure I had the facts to back them up.  I can see now, after writing only this far, that this piece will wind up being more than one part, so I’ll call this “Part I”.

If you look at Wikipedia today you will see an overwhelmingly left leaning bias.  If you look at the talk and edit histories of any given page, you will get a flavor of who the “wikipedians” are who are the ones editing Wikipedia.  It doesn’t take long to have a pretty clear picture come into focus.

Wikipedians are using the platform to shape social fabric…to brainwash you! 

If you look up some mundane non-political topic like, I don’t know, say ‘hydrogen peroxide’, you will get an overview of the chemical substance hydrogen peroxide.  No harm no foul.  If, on the other hand, you look up a subject like the word “republican” and/or “democrat” you will get a far, FAR, different picture!  If you look up just about any person (alive or dead), you will now almost always see a section on what their political ideology is/was.  And…if it was right leaning, then the slant of the whole page will be negative.  If their ideology was left leaning, then the whole page will sing their praises.  Pick any subject, topic or person, and the closer it gets to having any political implications you will see this heavily left leaning bias become more and more prominent up to and including being downright extreme.

When you walk down the street and ask a perfect stranger to answer a difficult question, where is the first place they go on their phone to answer you?  Google and/or Wikipedia, right?  Society has been conditioned to use these tools as an easy reference.  They’re quick, and they’re easy…and they’re totally BIASED.  I think you can see the problem here.

Now days, you can see the level of intelligence in editing Wikipedia pages has surprisingly gone up in some areas, particularly political ones.  You only have to look at the history and talk pages to see it.  What this tells us is, Wikipedia is being used as a tool by people who are consciously attempting to change how people think, consciously manipulating people to think a certain way…and that way is far left of center ideologically.  These people aren’t just people off the street making edits, oh no, these people are intentionally creating and disseminating propaganda to manipulate people’s minds.

I am going to stop here as this is too long already, but in the future I will add to this with a Part II and possibly more.  Take a moment an think about what I’ve posted here and the implications it has on our society today.

Pick some topics to look up on Wikipedia to see some examples of what I'm talking about. Pick some controversial ones and some mundane ones, but pick them in pairs (one left and one right). Then look at the talk and edit pages (and be sure to look at the "Archives" in the Talk pages too). Look at how many edits have been done recently; you're going to see a huge uptick from 2020 onward. Look at some topics like:

-Donald Trump
-Joe Biden
-Republican
-Democrat
-Kurt Russel
-Robert DeNiro
-Kid Rock
-Ryan Reynolds / Brad Pitt

[MykeNukem]

As some of you may have noticed, of late I have been studying Wikipedia for a variety of reasons.  You have probably heard me say in the past how terrible of a source Wikipedia is, and it IS a terrible source.  So, my purposes in studying it more carefully are not because I like it, but because of what it is and what it represents in today’s society.

Most of know Wikipedia is a open collaborative website which represents itself as a web based ‘encyclopedia’.  I’m not going to go into a lot of Wikipedia history here other than to say it started off as an innocent enough concept, but it has now turned into a social engineering tool, and a pretty dangerous one at that.  The main problem with Wikipedia, aside from the fact it gets roughly 10 BILLION views per MONTH, is the fact that it gets 10 BILLION views per MONTH!  In other words, regardless of its actual accuracy and reliability millions upon millions of people every day rely on it like it was absolute fact.  The reality is, because Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor, it is only as accurate as its contributors.  And, who are these contributors anyway?  And what qualifications do they have, and what prerequisites are there for becoming a contributor?

The answers to these questions are pretty disturbing.  The contributors, “Wikipedians” as they are called, can be anyone.  You and I can sign up to be ‘wikipedians’ with a simple email address, a user name and a password.  The qualifications required are zero.  Boom!...you’re an instant wikipedian.  That said, these wikipedians do seem to do a pretty thorough job at policing what they consider to be garbage out of Wikipedia.  Therein lies the problem…’what THEY consider to be garbage’.

Every Wikipedia page has a “Talk” tab right at the top left of the page.  If you click on this ‘Talk’ tab you will be switched to a history page which shows all of the discussions associated with that page.  Now, these ‘discussions’ aren’t like a forum, they are technical discussions about edits which are taking place on the page.  This is also where disputes get resolved.  It’s very informative.  More on this in a moment.

The “Talk” page should not be confused with the “History” of a page.  The edit history of a page can be found at another link also at the top of a page on the upper right.  There you can see every edit which has been made to a page since it’s creation.  Again, in the interest of keeping this short(er), I’m not going to go into a lot of Wikipedia history here, but when a topic gets edited back and forth a number of times, it usually results in an entry on the “Talk” page, addressing the dispute directly.  So, to fully understand a Wikipedia page, you have to look at both the “Talk” page and the “History” page (they’re different pages).  Sorry if you knew all this already, but it’s just background for what I am about to say next.

Over the past few months, I have been researching the accuracy of Wikipedia, and let me start by saying…it’s pretty bad.  I’ve also been looking into what I call ‘Wikipedia Bias’, and it’s REALLY bad, like scary bad!  I’ve wanted to write this piece for quite a while, but I wanted to get some of this research behind me first because there were a few things I wanted to say and I wanted to be sure I had the facts to back them up.  I can see now, after writing only this far, that this piece will wind up being more than one part, so I’ll call this “Part I”.

If you look at Wikipedia today you will see an overwhelmingly left leaning bias.  If you look at the talk and edit histories of any given page, you will get a flavor of who the “wikipedians” are who are the ones editing Wikipedia.  It doesn’t take long to have a pretty clear picture come into focus.

Wikipedians are using the platform to shape social fabric…to brainwash you! 

If you look up some mundane non-political topic like, I don’t know, say ‘hydrogen peroxide’, you will get an overview of the chemical substance hydrogen peroxide.  No harm no foul.  If, on the other hand, you look up a subject like the word “republican” and/or “democrat” you will get a far, FAR, different picture!  If you look up just about any person (alive or dead), you will now almost always see a section on what their political ideology is/was.  And…if it was right leaning, then the slant of the whole page will be negative.  If their ideology was left leaning, then the whole page will sing their praises.  Pick any subject, topic or person, and the closer it gets to having any political implications you will see this heavily left leaning bias become more and more prominent up to and including being downright extreme.

When you walk down the street and ask a perfect stranger to answer a difficult question, where is the first place they go on their phone to answer you?  Google and/or Wikipedia, right?  Society has been conditioned to use these tools as an easy reference.  They’re quick, and they’re easy…and they’re totally BIASED.  I think you can see the problem here.

Now days, you can see the level of intelligence in editing Wikipedia pages has surprisingly gone up in some areas, particularly political ones.  You only have to look at the history and talk pages to see it.  What this tells us is, Wikipedia is being used as a tool by people who are consciously attempting to change how people think, consciously manipulating people to think a certain way…and that way is far left of center ideologically.  These people aren’t just people off the street making edits, oh no, these people are intentionally creating and disseminating propaganda to manipulate people’s minds.

I am going to stop here as this is too long already, but in the future I will add to this with a Part II and possibly more.  Take a moment an think about what I’ve posted here and the implications it has on our society today.

Pick some topics to look up on Wikipedia to see some examples of what I'm talking about.  Pick some controversial ones and some mundane ones, but pick them in pairs (one left and one right).  Then look at the talk and edit pages (and be sure to look at the "Archives" in the Talk pages too).  Look at how many edits have been done recently; you're going to see a huge uptick from 2020 onward.  Look at some topics like:

-Donald Trump
-Joe Biden
-Republican
-Democrat
-Kurt Russel
-Robert DeNiro
-Kid Rock
-Ryan Reynolds / Brad Pitt

Here's an interesting article I found: Ideological bias on Wikipedia  . 

Seriously though, this will only get worse as the war on information continues, most people don't even want the truth anymore, they're quite happy living in a bubble (that's about to burst).

It's amazing that with access to more information than ever we can collectively be so stupid.

[FCD]

Here's an interesting article I found: Ideological bias on Wikipedia  . 

Seriously though, this will only get worse as the war on information continues, most people don't even want the truth anymore, they're quite happy living in a bubble (that's about to burst).

It's amazing that with access to more information than ever we can collectively be so stupid.

It really is shocking.  In fact, this is what interested me so much.  Anymore, it's not about accurate, it's about easy.  We talk all around it in various conversations...people's short attention spans now, and things like Tik Tok and their influences...but I wonder if, as a society, anyone ever looks at the larger picture about how broad spectrum it is in their world.  I wonder if people see how things they accept as reasonably accurate aren't accurate at all, but are wildly biased by design...with the specific intent of changing their view, or reinforcing their view to the point to radicalization, at every step along the way.

Part of this boils down to who these people are who edit things like Wikipedia.  Just think about it; most of them are people who are either in the academic world (as a student or teacher) or someone shortly out of it.  They've been indoctrinated by these institutions into a liberal mindset, and now they're editing what people perceive as the 'world's encyclopedia'.  They see this as a perfect opportunity to set out upon a mission of "revisionist history" which is exactly what they are doing (if anyone takes the time to look). 

Imagine for a moment a skilled tradesman coming home from work and logging into Wikipedia to correct these lies.  That's not going to happen.  Imagine a conservative with a difficult job doing the same.  Not going to happen either.  But all those 40 year old couch sitters in mommy's basement, man, they're all over that shit!  Plus, and this is a kicker, they also get an ego bump for looking smart by writing big nonsensical 'word salad' in to non-political Wikipedia stuff (like hydrogen peroxide, in my first example).  They can make a simple article on hydrogen peroxide so complicated it's non-intelligible, just by one-upping each other with clever "smart" sounding language.  These are the kinds of things you see when you study Wikipedia, and they clearly round out who is running the site from an ideological perspective.

Wikipedia is liberal central...and they're loving the notion of winning the World's hearts and minds.  19 Bones often talks about wanting a better 'psy-op'; in fact, it's in his avatar.  Well, here it is!  Wikipedia!

(Mic drop)

[Theatreboy]

Great post.

I admit to being bored during gigs and going to Wikipedia and surfing the random page button.

It NEVER brings up a right wing person, place, or thing.

I will use it as a jump off point in my research, but rarely use it in any way it would need to be cited.

I actually laugh a lot reading it.

[19Bones79]

As some of you may have noticed, of late I have been studying Wikipedia for a variety of reasons.  You have probably heard me say in the past how terrible of a source Wikipedia is, and it IS a terrible source.  So, my purposes in studying it more carefully are not because I like it, but because of what it is and what it represents in today’s society.

Most of know Wikipedia is a open collaborative website which represents itself as a web based ‘encyclopedia’.  I’m not going to go into a lot of Wikipedia history here other than to say it started off as an innocent enough concept, but it has now turned into a social engineering tool, and a pretty dangerous one at that.  The main problem with Wikipedia, aside from the fact it gets roughly 10 BILLION views per MONTH, is the fact that it gets 10 BILLION views per MONTH!  In other words, regardless of its actual accuracy and reliability millions upon millions of people every day rely on it like it was absolute fact.  The reality is, because Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor, it is only as accurate as its contributors.  And, who are these contributors anyway?  And what qualifications do they have, and what prerequisites are there for becoming a contributor?

The answers to these questions are pretty disturbing.  The contributors, “Wikipedians” as they are called, can be anyone.  You and I can sign up to be ‘wikipedians’ with a simple email address, a user name and a password.  The qualifications required are zero.  Boom!...you’re an instant wikipedian.  That said, these wikipedians do seem to do a pretty thorough job at policing what they consider to be garbage out of Wikipedia.  Therein lies the problem…’what THEY consider to be garbage’.

Every Wikipedia page has a “Talk” tab right at the top left of the page.  If you click on this ‘Talk’ tab you will be switched to a history page which shows all of the discussions associated with that page.  Now, these ‘discussions’ aren’t like a forum, they are technical discussions about edits which are taking place on the page.  This is also where disputes get resolved.  It’s very informative.  More on this in a moment.

The “Talk” page should not be confused with the “History” of a page.  The edit history of a page can be found at another link also at the top of a page on the upper right.  There you can see every edit which has been made to a page since it’s creation.  Again, in the interest of keeping this short(er), I’m not going to go into a lot of Wikipedia history here, but when a topic gets edited back and forth a number of times, it usually results in an entry on the “Talk” page, addressing the dispute directly.  So, to fully understand a Wikipedia page, you have to look at both the “Talk” page and the “History” page (they’re different pages).  Sorry if you knew all this already, but it’s just background for what I am about to say next.

Over the past few months, I have been researching the accuracy of Wikipedia, and let me start by saying…it’s pretty bad.  I’ve also been looking into what I call ‘Wikipedia Bias’, and it’s REALLY bad, like scary bad!  I’ve wanted to write this piece for quite a while, but I wanted to get some of this research behind me first because there were a few things I wanted to say and I wanted to be sure I had the facts to back them up.  I can see now, after writing only this far, that this piece will wind up being more than one part, so I’ll call this “Part I”.

If you look at Wikipedia today you will see an overwhelmingly left leaning bias.  If you look at the talk and edit histories of any given page, you will get a flavor of who the “wikipedians” are who are the ones editing Wikipedia.  It doesn’t take long to have a pretty clear picture come into focus.

Wikipedians are using the platform to shape social fabric…to brainwash you! 

If you look up some mundane non-political topic like, I don’t know, say ‘hydrogen peroxide’, you will get an overview of the chemical substance hydrogen peroxide.  No harm no foul.  If, on the other hand, you look up a subject like the word “republican” and/or “democrat” you will get a far, FAR, different picture!  If you look up just about any person (alive or dead), you will now almost always see a section on what their political ideology is/was.  And…if it was right leaning, then the slant of the whole page will be negative.  If their ideology was left leaning, then the whole page will sing their praises.  Pick any subject, topic or person, and the closer it gets to having any political implications you will see this heavily left leaning bias become more and more prominent up to and including being downright extreme.

When you walk down the street and ask a perfect stranger to answer a difficult question, where is the first place they go on their phone to answer you?  Google and/or Wikipedia, right?  Society has been conditioned to use these tools as an easy reference.  They’re quick, and they’re easy…and they’re totally BIASED.  I think you can see the problem here.

Now days, you can see the level of intelligence in editing Wikipedia pages has surprisingly gone up in some areas, particularly political ones.  You only have to look at the history and talk pages to see it.  What this tells us is, Wikipedia is being used as a tool by people who are consciously attempting to change how people think, consciously manipulating people to think a certain way…and that way is far left of center ideologically.  These people aren’t just people off the street making edits, oh no, these people are intentionally creating and disseminating propaganda to manipulate people’s minds.

I am going to stop here as this is too long already, but in the future I will add to this with a Part II and possibly more.  Take a moment an think about what I’ve posted here and the implications it has on our society today.

Pick some topics to look up on Wikipedia to see some examples of what I'm talking about.  Pick some controversial ones and some mundane ones, but pick them in pairs (one left and one right).  Then look at the talk and edit pages (and be sure to look at the "Archives" in the Talk pages too).  Look at how many edits have been done recently; you're going to see a huge uptick from 2020 onward.  Look at some topics like:

-Donald Trump
-Joe Biden
-Republican
-Democrat
-Kurt Russel
-Robert DeNiro
-Kid Rock
-Ryan Reynolds / Brad Pitt

Nicely said!

The talk pages is where you get a real feel of Wikipedia behind the sterilized info they churn out. 

I have as I'm wont to do looked at all the players behind social media apps and it's quite eye opening as to the players involved there's definitely a connection to be made. 

Most of these things either did start of as being well intentioned or that was the lure until enough people got on board. 

But if we look at the 'evilution' of social media apps the product almost always follows a route of becoming more sinister in my opinion. 

This is a bit of a drift but I want to add looking at all the evil in the world and the word that immediately comes to my mind is satanic, there is no other way to describe it not only because of the deceitfulness of the tactics and the effort to poison, pervert and destroy but also because of who it targets.

Biblical evil is very easily identifiable in this world I only wish that biblical good was even 1/10th this easy to spot. 

I remain hopeful but again, I have trust issues that are warranted. 

[19Bones79]

Wikipedia is liberal central...and they're loving the notion of winning the World's hearts and minds.  19 Bones often talks about wanting a better 'psy-op'; in fact, it's in his avatar.  Well, here it is!  Wikipedia!

(Mic drop)

You're right most people won't use Wikipedia in a way that makes them question this monolithic narrative machine. 

As they say knowledge is power and we the people have none collectively which is why divisionary tactics and class warfare will never go out of fashion. 

To elaborate further on my previous reply the same people that are trying to destroy Christianity are basically drawing attention to Christianity by being so obviously satanic which does seem counterintuitive to me although the keep your friends close but your enemies closer strategy does seem to be in play.

Wrt deserving a better psy-op I'm over the whole 'people will more readily believe a big lie' sphiel.

I'm ready to return to an era of sweet, little lies whenever that truly was.

[FCD]

Nicely said!

The talk pages is where you get a real feel of Wikipedia behind the sterilized info they churn out. 

I have as I'm wont to do looked at all the players behind social media apps and it's quite eye opening as to the players involved there's definitely a connection to be made. 

Most of these things either did start of as being well intentioned or that was the lure until enough people got on board. 

But if we look at the 'evilution' of social media apps the product almost always follows a route of becoming more sinister in my opinion. 

This is a bit of a drift but I want to add looking at all the evil in the world and the word that immediately comes to my mind is satanic, there is no other way to describe it not only because of the deceitfulness of the tactics and the effort to poison, pervert and destroy but also because of who it targets.

Biblical evil is very easily identifiable in this world I only wish that biblical good was even 1/10th this easy to spot. 

I remain hopeful but again, I have trust issues that are warranted. 

I guess my refusal to chalk this up to Biblical prophecy is that it lets people off too easy.  I don't want to let the 'people' who are behind this mind fuck off so easy.  That's almost like a free pass..."oh, the devil got inside his head, let's pray for him."  And perhaps it's the kindness and forgiveness angle of Christianity which makes me refuse to give these evil doers such an easy way out; no, I want some blood first.  The real stuff, the stuff they beat their drum about preventing all day long only to secretly mastermind all manner of violence and death from behind their curtain of their lies.  Yeah, I want some good old school retribution, you know, heads on a pike at the edge of the village, kind of stuff.

These people are calculated; they know exactly what they're doing.  They sit there all smug in their seemingly insulated basement banging away on keyboards night after night, believing they are changing history while everyone looks the other way.  I want them exposed, exposed for who they are and what they are.  They'll get no free pass.

And just to be perfectly clear; not all wikipedians are purveyors of evil, far from it.  There are millions of contributors who have no ill will toward anyone and simply wish to contribute to a collaborative community.  And this is perfectly fine.  I wish them no ill will.  But those are not the ones I refer to here.  There is a large subset of these people who are bent on revising history to their suiting, and thus changing the path of the future.  Those are the ones I want exposed.  This is so much more than just being conservative or liberal, or any ideology for that matter; no, what this is about is lies, manipulating people's perception of the past to remember things which never happened so they will use those thoughts in shaping the future.  Those are the people I want exposed.  That false reality leads to a very dangerous place for mankind, and they don't realize this; they are blind to it.  Perhaps satan has a hand in blinding them, but satan is not the one who motivates them; their motivation comes from other mortals, just more calculating ones.

[FCD]

I'm ready to return to an era of sweet, little lies whenever that truly was.

If I could turn the page
In time then I'd rearrange just a day or two
Close my, close my, close my eyes
But I couldn't find a way
So I'll settle for one day to believe in you
Tell me, tell me, tell me lies

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies
Tell me lies
Tell me, tell me lies
Oh no-no, you can't disguise
You can't disguise
No, you can't disguise
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

In context, it's almost a shame the song was about a person and not a concept.  But then again, maybe it was.

[FCD]

On a rather funny side note; it appears we may have some wikipedians lurking here! LOL!

Seems they don't seem to approve of my OP. :)



edit - I wonder who would be down-voting this OP?? (it was a 5 star initially, but now it has been reduced to 4 stars. This would take a negative vote to make happen).

So, who could this person be?...

- A person who is objecting to not being able to use Wikipedia as the gospel truth and an absolute reference for everything? OR...

- A person who wants to be able to continue to manipulate the public's understanding of the facts with agendas, false truths, misleading innuendo, and ideological biases.? In other words, a person who is worried their gig is up.

[FCD]

Citing credible sources is 'stated' to be a big deal for editors of Wikipedia.

So, it's pretty ironic, pretty comical, and pretty telling when Wikipedia cites Wikipedia as a credible source!

Pretty convenient, eh? Especially when you want to twist the truth...just cite yourself as a source.

Now, if you look in Wikipedia's editing guidelines, they say you're not supposed to do this, but it happens all the time. It's not usually a direct citation, but it's more clever than this. Another publication will cite Wikipedia as a reference, and then a Wiki page will cite the publication as a source. Thus, Wikipedia is citing Wikipedia as a source, but it's done behind a veil of seeming legitimacy.