Wikipedia is just another feeble arm of the status quo.
While researching the US government directed media suppression of certain details of the current diplomatic crisis in Pakistan involving a CIA agent
known as 'Raymond Allen Davis', I stumbled across an older media coverup that was just as fascinating to me.
On November 10th 2008 the New York Times reporter David S. Rohde was kidnapped in Afghanistan. A media blackout and manipulation campaign was then
launched, which included the manipulation of Wikipedia.
On November 12th, Michael Moss of the Times started to edit Rohde's Wikipedia page, adding information that made Rohde appear more sympathetic to
On November 13th, An unknown person dared to add this blacklisted news to the Wikipedia article;
Addition of kidnap news
It was, of course, quickly removed, and on the second time an excuse of 'Pajhwok [news agency used for source] doesn't appear to be reliable'.
Wikipedia has a policy on 'Reliable Sources' which essentially mean that only approved information can appear within its pages. When all so called
Reliable Sources are involved in the coverup of information, just how reliable are they? This policy reminds me of Herman and Chomsky's work
'Manufacturing Consent'. Even if the Reliable Sources policy is not deliberatly designed as a gatekeeper, this is what it does in effect, by only
allowing sources that are manipulated by big business and government.
A revert war continued for a couple of hours, the information being re-added by the anonymous user, and being pulled out quickly by others, until a
Wikipedia adminstrator moved in and locked the page. After the time limited lock ran out, the information was added again, and the page was again
quickly sanitized and locked. This cycle continued for some months, until finally on June 20th 2009 upon Rohde's escape it was finally deemed
acceptable by the elites to report on the matter.
This was not just a few editors warring as often happens on Wikipedia. This censorship went right to the top. Jimbo Wales himself ordered his cabal
to keep this information off Wikipedia, and was proud to have done so, as shown in this tweet:
In this particular instance, the mainstream media and Wikipedia were proud of what they had done, and chose to brag about it after the fact, but how
many cover-ups do they engage in that they do not show such hubris about?
Sources and additional information:
Christian Science Monitor