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 is a Conspiracy!

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Wikipedia is run by a monolithic cabal of intelligence agents in the UK, US, and Israel which acts as a block to control information presented to the public. While Wikipedia is notorious for its leftist bent, this is only part of a cover. In the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability (people): en.wikipedia.org..., porn actors are given precedence over painters. Moral concerns aside, this is a faulty hierarchical assessment--unless you have a design in place for social subversion.

During the traumatic, lengthy, soul-destroying AfD (Articles for Deletion) process, "Newbies" are tortured, lambasted, attacked, accused of "sock-puppetry" and bullied into giving up their attempt to create a new Wikipedia page for a given subject. The deeply disturbing behaviour exhibited by long-time Wikipedia editors is usually explained away as that of middle-aged British and American male fuddy-duddies and failed scholars seeking revenge against society for their not being recognised as the literary luminaries or genius software programmers that they think they are.

The truth, however, is much darker and perhaps even more painful: Wikipedia is run by intelligence agencies! MI5/6, CIA, and Mossad. Doubt it? Then ask yourself this question: Why wouldn't intelligence agencies have the most deeply vested interest in manipulating the world's primary source of intelligence: Wikipedia?




posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by violenttorrent
 


Only the english speaking version? Or in every language?
Okay, I am just joking. I agree that the start is a very nerve-breaking case of rejection, rewriting and re-rejection until finally overcoming the flaws others found in your work.

But as I said, there are oh-I-don't-know 176 different versions of the wikipedia, each managed by a different team (usually, I don't know for every language). There aren't enough cabals on this planet to manage this for every version of wikipedia..

I think you are just de-illusioned about your work which was constantly denied and rewritten. True or not?



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Wikepedia is main stream media
There is no question it is controlled



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


English language Wikipedia is definitely what I'm talking about


Anyways, yeah you're right I'm frustrated to hell by their sinister bureaucracy control structure designed to kill all information they deem a risk.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Wikepedia is main stream media
There is no question it is controlled


Yes I believe your words are wholly in line with the truth.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by violenttorrent
 


I don't doubt it completely but there is more to it than that. It does serve some good purposes but when it comes to controversial subjects it becomes political and this is invertible considering how it is set up and managed. Even if it is, as you say controlled by the espionage agencies, which I don't refer to as intelligence, they would want to make it seem legitimate and let many people participate and get there way when it does oppose their interests.

It provides an enormous opportunity for social research and psychologists are almo0st certainly doing that; the CIA has also been involved in that with the help of some presidents of the American Psychological Association so no doubt they're doing this.

It also allows for political people to promote their views. If the management wanted to do a good job they could and would. I encountered this a few years ago and haven't kept up since. For my experiences, if your interested see Wikipedia Censorship



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by violenttorrent

Why wouldn't intelligence agencies have the most deeply vested interest in manipulating the world's primary source of intelligence: Wikipedia?


Wikipedia is just information. I would not say its the worlds primary source of information. Its not even an academic source.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Everything that has happened up to this very day is a conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Came to see this thread around, I'll make a comment to it. I'm doing so as a courtesy of readers and for any follow-up posts.

Agree with all of you in this thread. Wikipedia is a lost cause, and a conspiracy.

Let's compare some comments from BatteryIncluded to comments from Dennis Brown and AGK:

Dennis Brown (from Russavia subject to community ban on the administrator's noticeboard)


That would be improper. I did not endorse a ban, I endorsed a block. I have reverted the ban listing. If you want to start a ban discussion, WP:AN is the place to do that. I know this may seem bureaucratic, but we have process for a reason. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 22:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
My singular preference is to allow a few days to pass before starting ban proceedings, so the decision isn't a knee jerk affair but a weighted decision. In a nutshell, I prefer to treat everyone the same, regardless of my personal opinions. That doesn't mean you can't, only that I think it is wise to wait. Dennis Brown | | © | WER 22:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


AGK (from Series of unilateral actions taken by AGK)


... The only outstanding issue—at least for anybody who wishes to assume a degree of good faith—is the block of MZ, and whether MZ will continue to link to the article on WO [Wikipediocracy] that so flagrantly outs another contributor. AGK [•] 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


BatteryIncluded (from User talk:BatteryIncluded/Archive 5)


... What you need is to create a personal blog with low verifiability standars; please consider that. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Please double your medication dose. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
... Please triple your medication dose and step back from your computer. Really. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Please note the misleadingness, threats, fabrications and distortion, as well as references to preferences and unilateral actions. This compares people on Wikipedia who have developed an accompanying set of rules that are so extreme, heavy-handed, and (not surprisingly) unevenly enforced are comparable to a regime that killed countless civilians, treated women as subhumans and mutilated people for transgressing religious laws - which makes Wikipedia a conspiracy - A conspiracy to stifle people's activities on the computer and increase their medication dose and reduce a number of computer users in the world to nothing but dying mental patients. Please see the article about my Bryan Seecrets WP sock handle Starkiller88 on Encyclopedia Dramatica for information on the "conspiracy".
edit on 16/3/2014 by bryansee because: Ending [/url] tags are fixed.

edit on 16/3/2014 by bryansee because: Corrected AGK heading.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Don't forget, the image shows Wikipedia's inept in covering up all of its atrocious activities shown in the image on KnowYourMeme.com:



This shows that this was unilaterally done by Dennis Brown, who proves to be bad and atrocious like people on Wikipedia, such as BatteryIncluded.

However, we do hope that Russavia (Scott Bibby) is still fine and is still fighting, and maybe contribute some of his information here, perhaps?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
And, the blog post by Didymus Judas Thomas explains how Scottish arbitrator AGK could do all that in a 24-hour day, clearly illustrating unilateral actions being taken. Finally, last August a Wikimedia Foundation employee was stripped of administrator rights, with AGK leveled the seventh straight unopposed vote to remove the administrator tools from Mr. Keyes.
edit on 17/3/2014 by bryansee because: Corrected spelling.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

edit on 17-3-2014 by swanne because: never mind



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Wait a second here, do we have any proof wikipedia is ran by intelligence agencies in an attempt to control information?

I use wikipedia from time to time and I think they can be a great resource, outside of whatever internal fighting or drama that may be occurring. Sure, sometimes they can have their facts wrong, but it's pretty easy to contact them and let em know what's incorrect....and I have a few times in the past.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by violenttorrent
 


So... am I correct in deducing that your self serving autobiographical article was deleted on the grounds that you are less noteworthy than a porn star?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

sheepslayer247
Wait a second here, do we have any proof wikipedia is ran by intelligence agencies in an attempt to control information?

I use wikipedia from time to time and I think they can be a great resource, outside of whatever internal fighting or drama that may be occurring. Sure, sometimes they can have their facts wrong, but it's pretty easy to contact them and let em know what's incorrect....and I have a few times in the past.


Anything that does not support a persons crazy theories has to be run by the NWO, CIA or Aliens. That is the way things work around here.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
If you acknowledge the fact that anyone can manipulate information here and there, and that it has an academic-intellectualist (some call it leftist) bent and that no "alternative views" (considered to be "pseudoscience") are allowed, then it can be used as a wonderful and quick research tool for writers. That is, I love Wikipedia, despite its shortcomings.

The "censorship" you speak of does not come from Intelligence Agencies, imo, but from the fact that it needs to stay focused on mainstream academic level of knowledge, which is essentially scientific-materialism, the cult of our times. Hence we see this limitation in all Encyclopedias and in mainstream news and mainstream books and mainstream TV Shows. Thats nothing new. Thats why we have ATS...for all the "alternative" angles to life.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
So much is point of view. I was looking at the article on Crimea yesterday, and its talk page, and although I don't think the three letter agencies get involved there sure is partisan bickering over use of words and descriptions and segmentation of pages on the big stories, and then eventually it gets settled down into the murky neutral middle.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The point of view not just applies to every topic on Wikipedia, such as Crimea, MH370 and Phobos-Grunt, but also those people who built a wiki encyclopedia as well. One of the most obnoxious aspects of Wikipedia that offends my sense of justice is that indefinite blocking is used to prevent disruptive edits and once the threat of disruption is removed (by death of someone who causes this), then the block becomes unnecessary. In this case, the block of Bryan Seecrets sock Starkiller88 and Russavia (Scott Bibby), the former has a fabricated and highly misleading block summary, and Dennis Brown and Boing! said Zebedee made a personal attack and incivil and insane remarks to ban me (I believe AGK has did the same while trying to file appeals to BASC, now I am already banned from it), on behalf of BatteryIncluded. These two blocks are overwhelmingly supported by the community ever since, but they are not bans because they didn't support a ban. They are weighted decisions. However, my personal-attack based ban on Wikipedia did not stop me, but in any event an unblocking action is made by other administrator, the individual will be immediately desysopped and banned. This what happened last March when Kevin unblocked Cla68.

Furthering the conspiracy even more is that the signal that the Wikipedia community do not wish my interaction with that project to continue from 2012 onwards has been sent. This would have an ever-lasting and far-reaching ripple effect through various linked projects and communities, websites, ISPs, institutions and even friends, families and co-workers, causing them or their management to take any robust approaches to any actions I'm taking therein that are aimed at Wikipedia itself. This may be atrocious given BatteryIncluded's misleading advice to die.

Regarding the controlling of information, I support the fact that Wikipedia is really a lost cause and a conspiracy - a conspiracy to eliminate the lives of the very producers of the encyclopedia.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The evidence that Wikipedia is a conspiracy is that Scott Martin explains of sending a clear signal back in January when dealing with Russavia and possibly me for that matter.



This project needs to terminate any remaining association that this person has with it forthwith... A ban here wouldn't stop Russavia's [and my, for that matter] activities elsewhere, no. The best we can do is send a clear signal that we as a united community do not wish his interaction with this project to continue. Hopefully that will have a ripple effect through our various linked projects and communities, causing them or their management to take a more robust approach to any actions he takes therein that are aimed at us.


And, a shocking secret: The only way to make indefinite blocks unnecessary is to remove the threat of disruption. And this means death of someone who causes it. And achieving death is taking a medication to supposedly cure people's mental health and their paranoia. This is exactly what BatteryIncluded and his cohorts are wanting to do to me. If this continue, then it will make all of humanity a victim.



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

borntowatch
Wikepedia is main stream media
There is no question it is controlled


This.

My guess is that (just like every other MSM) the influence is subtle enough that even most of the major players are probably not really aware of what's going on. A lot of corruption can be done with a very gentle tough if someone is really well positioned and knows what they're doing.
edit on 29-3-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join