It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wikipedia: The Source of All Knowledge?
Nevertheless, some web sources are more reliable than others, and nothing illustrates this better than the phenomenal growth of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia written by unpaid, anonymous volunteers. Wikipedia aspires to be a source of information on everything, literally everything, from nuclear physics to the latest movies. It is self-correcting, with readers posting comments on inaccurate content and gradually clearing up mistakes. So pervasive and convenient are Wiki articles that some academics have begun citing Wikipedia as references. This is a bad idea.
Shortcomings of Wikipedia
As an avid user of Wikipedia I find its articles to vary greatly in quality. Some are scholarly, impartial, and well researched. Others are sloppy, superficial, and full of errors. Well, what do you expect for nothing? I am fine with using Wikipedia to check on the atomic weight Cesium or to get a quick overview of electron spin resonance, but that is about all. I have found chemical equations listed that were wrong—the formula for oxygen balance, for example, does not include halogens, although it should. The self-correcting aspect of Wikipedia works better in theory than in practice. More than a year ago I saw a mistake in the biography of a recent American president, George H. W. Bush. I signed on to Wikipedia and posted a correction to an article, writing up the revised paragraph and citing references to support my correction. Nothing happened. The mistake is still there.
Valid Uses of Wikipedia
Wikipedia does have its uses for an academic researcher. It often provides a good starting point for further research, particularly on recent events and publications. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain original research and its references and citations often excellent and can give a researcher a head start for digging deeper. By all means use Wikipedia. But no citing Wikipedia in research. And take everything you read there with a large dash of salt.
4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined. The number of active Wikipedia editors (those who make at least five edits a month) has stopped growing. It remains to be seen whether the current number of active editors can maintain and continue updating Wikipedia.
3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute. According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever.
Did you know that Jimmy Wales was a porn king who sold online pornography before launching Wikipedia – the world’s online trove of collective knowledge? Wikipedia was started with revenue from soft-core porn. Did you know that Wikipedia is anti-science and is actually edited by corporate-paid trolls on important topics such as GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals, and not by anonymous volunteer editors as claimed?
Jeff Merkey, a former Novell chief scientist, accused Jimmy Wales of extortion. He stated that Wales agreed to place him under his “special protection” as an editor in exchange for a substantial donation and other financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.
Jimmy Wales traded Wikipedia edits for sex by exploiting his editorial position over a female editor, ordered the intimidation and harassment of Wikipedia editors who attempted to maintain a truly “neutral point of view” about Jimmy Wales himself, and exploited his position within the Wikimedia Foundation to attempt to bury details about his own past.
10 Facts About Wikipedia Founder That Will Shock The Hell Out Of You
One editor openly accepts payments for his editorial efforts on Wikipedia. He works for notorious folks who have problems with what Wikipedia says about them. He's a hired gun who fights to modify entries in his clients' favor.
One editor described life on the inside as an all-out turf war. Wikipedia is anything but an open collaboration. It's a dog-eat-dog battle for precious internet real estate. And it's the fat cats who sit back and win, time and time again.
Things Wikipedia health editors have told me
It might not be news to everyone that Wikipedia has issues with editors using Wiki articles to spread political propaganda and libeling innocents, sometimes being bribed to do so. Most of Wikipedia readers should have noticed that articles related to anything controversial are heavily biased if not purely propagandistic.
Well, now there is compelling evidence proving Wikipedia has a problem with wild, biased, and even bribed editors. This is pretty much the equivalent of letting Benito Mussolini and his black shirts write the article on Fascist Italy; of course it’s going to be a bunch of propaganda. But as evidence of bribed editors appeared around the web, Wales ultimately decided to side with the editors instead, for the sake of defending Wikipedia.
Corruption and bribes in Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a major source of propaganda and disinformation. If you correct some bankster propaganda (lies) on Wikipedia, it is perverted right back into its original lie within a day or two ~ usually word for word ~ and sometimes within an hour or two. WIKI is merely a net extension of lame stream press propaganda and cannot be trusted whatsoever.
Wikipedia exposed as a blackmail racket that extorts small businesses while publishing corporate propaganda
Jimmy Wales attended Soros birthday party. Wales also sits on the board of the Soros funded Sunlight Foundation.
George Soros and the corruption of Wikipedia from within
Wikipedia is a prime target for spin-doctoring. A new identification program on the site reveals that some of the most prolific contributors to Wikipedia are the CIA, the British Labour Party and the Vatican - and they are not just updating their own entries. The Wikiscanner site shows the CIA has edited entries on many issues relating to the United States Government, including presidential biographies and descriptions of military operations.
And among the usual list of companies and celebrities spinning their online image are some unusual mentions, including the British Labour Party, the Church of Scientology and the CIA. Mr Byrne says proof that the CIA is editing on Wikipedia will fuel internet conspiracy theories. He says Wikipedia is just one place where government agencies are watching people.
Program shows CIA behind Wikipedia entries
Like National Geographic, the Washington Post and WebMD, Wikipedia publishes bias to suit its own agenda and the corporate sponsor platforms of Western Medicine, “Junk Science” and Big government.
Now that the truth about Wikipedia being a blackmail extortion racket has emerged, people are starting to connect the dots on the criminality and corruption that dominates the discredited disinfo site. Not only was Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales a “porn king” who sold online pornography before launching Wikipedia, we also know that wikipedia deliberately censors large categories of truthful information on natural healing, the dangers of vaccines, the crimes of Hillary Clinton, the corruption and criminality of the biotech industry and much more.
Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder
It is also heavily influenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias.
It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known." Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia