It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation?

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation?
This article bears a read if you are interested in deep state bias built into the internet. Think about the fact that 1% of the editors produce almost all the content and these folks are largely anonymous. The links to big tech, big government, the deep state, and intelligence agencies can hardly be ignored when analyzing this article on this issue.




posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

It's good for general info on anything non political or involving major companies. I've found blatant misinformation in there on those topics so I stay away from it.



posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I guess this is the reason why Russia is creating their very own wikipedia, and internet aswell. They want reliable information available to the public. Atleast, that's what they say. I'm really Pro-Russia, but even I got to admit it is more than likely Russia will use their version pretty much the same way as the Western variant.

Still, it'll be interesting to see how this information war develops on both sides.



posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Seriously, does anyone think that Wiki's poop doesn't stink? But I do agree that it's useful for a bunch of non-flammable contents.



posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence



Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation?


It's interesting that you mention that. The following is an article I read a few days ago. Specifically it points to the radical change in the statistics for the Spanish Flu.

Wikipedia Slashes Spanish Flu Death Rate



The global mortality rate from the 1918–1919 pandemic is not known, but an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio). About a third of the world population was infected, and 3% to 6% of the entire global population of over 1800 million[51] died.[2]

This is how the same paragraph reads now:

It is estimated that one third of the global population was infected,[2] and the World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio).



posted on Mar, 11 2020 @ 11:35 PM
link   
In many cases , history has been re-written there.
Can't stand the site anymore.



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Very good thread thanks!
Super interesting stuff!!



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I've read thousands of wikis lol, and I agree it appears to be a little too dedicated like someone's getting paid to write and research all this stuff.

There are probably hundreds of agencies and institutions involved and a lot of bias but it is still very provocative and valuable. You just gotta think for yourself and question things.



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: myselfaswell

have you actually tried read the actual wiki page ????????????????



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I have read the first few paragraphs, beyond that my care level is pretty low. Why do you ask?



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Pretty much anything on history, geography, and politics is suspect there. Lots of axes being ground.

The site is infiltrated by nationalist and corporate agents who have their narratives to spin. The English-language Wikipedia is hard-hit. Since it is among the most widely read of the various versions of Wikipedia, there are all kinds of operators from all over the world determined to write selected articles according to their tastes.

Compound that with the activism of certain "protected personalities" at Wikipedia and their pet agendas ... and, yeah, it is a mess.

Cheers
edit on 12-3-2020 by F2d5thCavv2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

If you don't like it don't use it.

no one is making people use wiki.



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
In many cases , history has been re-written there.
Can't stand the site anymore.


Are you incapable of critical thinking?

If you understand how Wikipedia and its contributors work, then any material from it is easily verifiable through other sources, no?

History may be rewritten, but only in your own brain


Additionally, a main contributing factor to any written piece is the reference materials used, this is usually found at the bottom of a piece of a work, just so you know

edit on -180002020-03-12T11:46:07-05:000000000731202007032020Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:46:07 -0500 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Theres tons of bias and misinformation in wikipedia.

Their "creed" is supposed to be "unbiased" information and sources.

B.S.

Ive personally edited atleast 100 entries, from the Federal Reserve to Israel/Palestine, many of which are reverted back within minutes.



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

When I am researching a subject the wiki page often comes to the top of the search returns. It is not a matter of like or dislike. If you read the article it is well referenced that bias is an issue. It is an observation of what it is to point this out.



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: Gothmog
In many cases , history has been re-written there.
Can't stand the site anymore.


Are you incapable of critical thinking?

If you understand how Wikipedia and its contributors work, then any material from it is easily verifiable through other sources, no?

History may be rewritten, but only in your own brain


Additionally, a main contributing factor to any written piece is the reference materials used, this is usually found at the bottom of a piece of a work, just so you know





Are you incapable of critical thinking?

No , but I now know someone who is.



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

I don't think wiki is the only place to find information.

Stop giving them power by using them. If you don't like them.



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

A mean if you cannot trust Wikipedia, who can you trust?

Aside from a Nigerian prince of course.



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I’ve found Wikipedia to be extremely helpful re: a huge number and variety of topics — except for those involving Trump and any other issue especially important to folks on the left. But when it’s a subject not involving politics or social justice issues, I’m often very impressed with and fascinated by the content.

Frequently, I’ll start out seeking info on a subject and click on a link to a related subject, where I click on a link to a subject related to the related subject, etc. There’s no telling where I’ll ultimately end up! I think it’s hilarious.



posted on Mar, 12 2020 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: machineintelligence

If you don't like it don't use it.

no one is making people use wiki.


Just like a Christian bakery shop?

Didn’t think so



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join