It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
do you have any evidence to support your claims.
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
There are valid concerns raised by outsiders about Wikipedia which we Wikipedia insiders never seem to address. For example, several months ago, there was a discussion about possibly writing down what things administrators should never do. They seemed like sensible things. The user was prompted indefinitely blocked and his/her comments removed.
Look at Ryulong. He's removed comments on ANI and blocked people indefinitely, nothing happened. I read somewhere that an ArbCom request for arbitration was filed against him and he reverted it, indefinitely blocked the user and ArbCom did nothing.
Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. ...attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.
Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor. The English-language Wikipedia does not have authority over the Meta-Wiki, Wikimedia sister projects, or Wikipedias in languages other than English. As such, bans issued by the Wikipedia community or by the Arbitration Committee are not binding on other projects.
1. has indefinitely blocked a long-time user without providing a block summary;
2. has added wikipediocracy.com to the spam blacklist with a highly misleading edit summary;
3. did not log his addition to the spam blacklist, as directed on both MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist in large, red, bold font; and
4. added the blacklist entry in direct defiance of consensus from an explicit discussion about this particular site.
originally posted by: Astyanax
reply to post by violenttorrent
You've been trying to promote conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. Well, that cock won't fight. Encyclopaedias are for facts, not tall tales.
"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."
originally posted by: paraphi
Wikipedia is a way for thousands of people who have some knowledge about a topic to develop that content. There are mistakes and distortions,
The people who built Wikipedia. They are comparable to both a regime that killed countless civilians, treated women as subhumans, and mutilated people for transgressing religious laws,