It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wikipedia as a source?? Not so sure anymore

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 11:42 AM
FACT: Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet.

Zero credibility period...

originally posted by: aBlueRAY
From a psychoanalytical point of view, I have to assume deep in your heart you know wikipedia would be the number one piece of propaganda available online for the masses.

In U.S. Army Intelligence, I was trained that the truth most often lies in the exact opposite direction of the public rhetoric. You must learn this technique if you are to successfully glean the truth from news reports.

One fact I was taught was that, in order to arrive at the truth, one had to develop "Opposite Direction Thinking"; in other words, truth in many situations, especially strategic planning, was to be found in the opposite direction of the public rhetoric.


"Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence."

Who Controls Wikipedia? (George Soros)
Wikipedia Disinformation & Propaganda

It is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence. There's a reason Soros supports it. Because his vast minions can manipulate it. And manipulate it they do.

Who Controls Wikipedia?

The problem with Wikipedia is not that it exists, but that it has become the cornerstone for researchers scanning the Internet for information and blindly copying from Wikipedia entries, wrongfully assuming that they are neutral and correct.

It has become the "Ministry of Information", the "one-stop information shop" of the Internet, but no one should fall for the "Newspeak" of a title. Wikipedia has made the task for those seeding disinformation and removing dissenting views easier, more direct and even more anonymous. °

Wikipedia Lies:Online Disinformation & Propaganda

Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the Internet - Staffers of the Wikipedia online "encyclopedia" - now one of the most dominant media websites in the entire world - show signs of being CIA-type operatives, directly engaged in US-funded propaganda operations against US and world citizens.

How US Agents Can Embed in Wikipedia, Plant Propaganda, Deceive Citizens

posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 12:44 PM
TinySickTears and everyone, there is definitely a propaganda element in Wikipedia. So be careful out there when reading their articles. In recent years, independent health researchers have questioned the independence of its pharmaceuticals section, for instance. In doing fact checking for articles on nuclear science, I noticed a subtle bias ... Wikipedia is not so much pro-nuclear as it is pro-technology.

The fundamental problem with the accuracy of Wikipedia may be its reliance on anonymous editors. What do you get when you give editing power to a stranger? "Nothing good?"

On the other hand, the best early reporting I saw worldwide on the southeast Asian tsunami was from their WikiNews ... incredible and praiseworthy use of graphics for that disaster. Bravo, WikiNews.

posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:43 PM
If you can't be bothered to click the reference numbers and backtrack the info to it's source, then you're a lazy asshat. Wikipedia is an a-ok reference, just like any other reference source is. The onus is on YOU as the user to trace the info back to it's origin source from prior to a Wikipedia page and VERIFY IT if you're suspicious. If it doesn't add up, you look elsewhere for valid material. If it does pan out as valid, swallow your pride & deal with it.
edit on 12/29/2017 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 06:09 AM
a reply to: TinySickTears

Its fine for understanding basic stuff. But it can be heavy edited for political or power gains.

posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 09:16 AM
a reply to: Nyiah

well you dont have to be a total dick but whatever

my whole thing was i was wondering what people thought about usenet as a source with the poster being called a author.
ive only asked 10 #in times but people like you are too busy being a dick to actually have a conversation.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in