Wikipedia founder aims to 'fix the news' with crowd-funded website

a reply to: soficrow

Hmm. I guess someone searching for the truth is a conspiracy theorist from the definition.

But lots of conspiracy theories seem to be false, almost as if they are being created to make people not believe in anyone who questions the scientific interpretations, ones that people who benefit by us believing in them, create and tout as real.

I don't consider that a conspiracy myself though, that is part of the deceptive reality we live in. I have been trying to analyze what is happening overall and have not found that there is always someone trying to deceive others too. It is like our society is messed up, consensus of the time is way off track from reality. The doctors are trying to do good, at the same time they are trying to make sure they support their coworkers in the field. The majority of the time they are not being greedy. The same with the people running the economy, they are not trying to mess things up, they are just on the wrong path. Science is being steered in the wrong direction, most of the people do not even realize they are chasing their tail. Technology is going overboard, it is taking away all the jobs and eventually nobody will be able to afford to buy the technology since they are not working. People cannot see the whole picture, they are so busy examining all the pieces of the puzzle they cannot see it all needs to fit together correctly.

Is that a conspiracy or is it a problem with society being on the wrong path?

a reply to: TonyS

...politics taints everything in the media and its all fake politics.

Ya think?

I think it's money and profit that control the show. In the past, big corporations owned the editorial boards, pulled the strings and controlled the content. Facebook and Google changed that, so now big money is into news-bots and social engineering.

Wikitribune just might short circuit the process - like underground newspapers, tracts, playbills and flyers did in the past.

Depends on the "factcheckers".

The wikpedia crowd aren't exactly open to anything the MSM deems "CONSPIRACY THEORY". And they seem to fall in line with the PC sort of slant there days has been the impression I've been getting the last year...

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Depends on the "factcheckers".

The wikpedia crowd aren't exactly open to anything the MSM deems "CONSPIRACY THEORY". And they seem to fall in line with the PC sort of slant there days has been the impression I've been getting the last year...

We'll have to see. ...But it's not just the 'facts' that count - it's the spin.

a reply to: soficrow

If we hold up the ethics and standards of news organizations to their journalism, we can see that they rarely abide by them. The fundamentals are there, but the adherence to the fundamentals is sorely lacking. Yes it is true that maintaining advertising dollars leads to vying for the attention of consumers, leading to sensationalism, but that doesn't end yellow journalism. Ethical considerations and journalistic integrity is what finally led the NYT to out-live the sensationalist news organizations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

a reply to: soficrow

Well...........I certainly hope your correct, but I seriously doubt this Wiki guy DOESN'T subscribe to some political ideology he'll want to push in the relentless social engineering campaign and guessing he does, don't you suppose he'll use the platform to push his ideas?

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: soficrow

Well...........I certainly hope your correct, but I seriously doubt this Wiki guy DOESN'T subscribe to some political ideology he'll want to push in the relentless social engineering campaign and guessing he does, don't you suppose he'll use the platform to push his ideas?

I'm hoping not. Or at least, not as much as other, similar 'experiments.'

Full Press Court

I don't know how this particular endeavor will work out, but when it comes to news, the more voices and more sources, the better.

Jim Wales can point a wagging finger at "clickbait" sites, but I think we can more accurately thank the "mainstream" corporate media for backhandedly inspiring more competition in response to their flagrant political and financial biases.

They have their reasons for abandoning the last pretenses of objectivity, but none of them good enough to justify ruining reputations built up over generations. Alas, that train has sailed.

Fortunately, the Internet makes it easier to not only spot "fake news", but to find more credible sources for news, and compare them to others -- ideally many others, and in several different countries.

Online, as everywhere, caveat lector.

Let me rain a little on this parade. Just a little shower.

I like Wiki I know it’s not perfect but it serves a function adequately. In fact, this week was the first time I actually sent them a little money.

This is a good development but the problem is that they will have a hard time staying independent from the US intelligence agencies sure attempt to co-opt them.


Also on most vital issues, they will be dependent on the same news services that are already owned by US intelligence.


So indeed this is a good development but don’t think it will be easy, it wont...to remain not only independent but effective.


Case in point. How will they report on a story like the sarin gas lies coming from the west?


They lie directly and openly. Will Wikitribune really challenge the deep state lies embedded in the US news media?

The problem with news is not fake news but US government or any government control of news.

Sure, they all may tell objective news that Kardasian was robed in Paris but who cares.

It’s the vital issues that are being controlled by the US intelligence propaganda news outlets: CNN, MSNBC, and Fox that are at issue here.

They’ll never tell us the truth about Russia or any real-time conflict which involves the US hegemony project

Or on N. Korea, do we ever hear how the US literally killed millions of people and destroyed the entire country in the 50’s. We never here that perspective.

We never hear the Palestinian side of the ME issue.

We never hear in the mainstream stories that go against the Syrian propaganda of the US news outlets.

Sure, they’ll tell us when it’s going to rain, when the Yankees win but the vital issues are all controlled in the US Intellegence

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Nationwide internet, so that those deep red areas have access to the information they are missing by not having anything but Limbaugh and Jones on their AM radios. Market reports matter to farmers and ranchers who are stuck where they are. They need news. If the only news they hear is RW hysteria, then that is what will motivate them.

You are a joke.
The "deep red areas" have that fancy interwebs you enlightened metropolitan people enjoy, the fact that they choose to listen to limbaugh and jones just burns you up. It is 2017 no one is "stuck" where they are. Cell phones, tablets, and laptops do exist outside the boundaries of your beloved urban sprawl. People do enjoy free choice in this country, and even in the "sticks" are able to find media they enjoy. Your disgusting elitist snobbery has only increased since last november, and people just like you are part of the reason trump is in office to begin with. People in the "deep red areas" are educated no matter what you believe and spread, and it turns out they are far more accepting and tolerant than you will ever understand.

We Are The World

a reply to: Willtell

U.S. government power over media is strong indeed, but moreso over U.S. media than most other places. In saying that, I'm not suggesting it isn't strong worldwide, but globally there are cracks in the facade.

One of the inherent problems faced by government propagandists is that they can rarely tell every audience the same story. Sometimes they want different people to believe different things, and sometimes different people won't believe the same things. That's why drawing from and comparing broad international sources is so important.

I can attest that once I started doing that myself, I've never looked at any media the same way again. It's a real eye-opener.

Wikipedia tends to be pretty good about leveraging international resources, so hopefully Wikitribune will do likewise. If they don't, their efforts will almost certainly prove pointless, and I think they know that.

Ideally, they will do the right thing and inspire "copycats" to do the same, thus further increasing the diversity and variety of news sources overall. And even if they don't do the right thing, they can still serve as a case study from which others can learn.

Meanwhile, the Internet continues to accelerate the evolution of humankind. There's no shortage of trials and tribulations ahead, but if we don't end up annihilating ourselves in the next few decades, there may well come a time when hiding the truth will not only become virtually impossible, but unnecessary.

Until then (and after, for that matter), I recommend trusting no one and suspecting everyone.

a reply to: Majic

All we ask for is a modicum of honesty and truth.


Instead we get superficial coverage, outright distortion and lies and deep state propaganda, censorship and conditioning.


Certainly the web is a worthy development but is a two-edged sword. What they’ve done is saturate the news so much that it is no longer effective in moving people to change.


It’s an information overload; probably a planned deliberate action to create this state of stagnation. When anything is overloaded or fed what amounts to mental junk food it ceases to function (stagnation) and ceases to operate developmentally (devolution) so people will default to what they know as easy—i.e. the present spiritual, mental and political state of the world.

a reply to: soficrow

I found it interesting that his inspiration for this little crowd funded venture came from the outrage he felt when he heard Kellyanne Conway use the words 'alternative facts.'

originally posted by: Majic
We Are The World

a reply to: Willtell

...drawing from and comparing broad international sources is so important.

I can attest that once I started doing that myself, I've never looked at any media the same way again. It's a real eye-opener.

Yes! Check out every side of every fence.

Wikipedia tends to be pretty good about leveraging international resources, so hopefully Wikitribune will do likewise. If they don't, their efforts will almost certainly prove pointless, and I think they know that.

Ideally, they will do the right thing and inspire "copycats" to do the same, thus further increasing the diversity and variety of news sources overall. And even if they don't do the right thing, they can still serve as a case study from which others can learn.

Meanwhile, the Internet continues to accelerate the evolution of humankind. There's no shortage of trials and tribulations ahead, but if we don't end up annihilating ourselves in the next few decades, there may well come a time when hiding the truth will not only become virtually impossible, but unnecessary.

Until then (and after, for that matter), I recommend trusting no one and suspecting everyone.

Great post. Thank you!

I heard a 'news' report on ABC radio this morning.
The 'news' was that Sean Spicer stated that Hitler never even used chemical weapons on his own people.

That actually occurred on April 11th, over two weeks ago.

How is that news?

It got plenty of press (as it should have) back when it happened.

a reply to: soficrow

I am all for this.

The news media has become a joke, all corporate owned, all biased one way or another. Time for the truth to get told, finally!

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Sounds like a good idea.