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 is a Conspiracy!

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by Redarguo

Well considering a lot a academic studies are so amateurish they are close to fraudulent. That might be a good thing.

Just citing rubbish studies does educate people.

posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 03:59 PM
As pointed out before, WikiHow and the CIA have close proximity on the internet map:

Link to the internet map

posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by violenttorrent

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.

That any idiot with internet access and edit.....

do you have any evidence to support your claims.

posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 04:51 PM
Oh, Wikipedia - the root of all evil! Come on. Wikipedia is a way for thousands of people who have some knowledge about a topic to develop that content. There are mistakes and distortions, but Wikipedia is not run by the US, UK and Israel. It's a predictable conspiracy without any foundation. Come on OP. Any real evidence? Any editor turned whistle-blower?

I have edited Wikipedia, by the way.


posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 08:10 PM


do you have any evidence to support your claims.

ATS is a conspiracy forum. Asking someone on a conspiracy forum for evidence is like asking Obama to tell the truth.

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:20 AM

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

Zacherystaylor is right. Wikipedia's inept of covering this up, including last year's attempt to hide any information about the identity of the now-banned editor "Russavia" (aka Scott Bibby), blacklisting any website about their activities (such as what happened with linking Wikipediocracy and other webistes for that matter by Scottish arbitrator AGK, whose unilateral actions and decisions are on the spot with Dennis Brown, BatteryIncluded, William V. "Stanistani/Zoloft" Burns, and Boing! said Zebedee) and possibly the takedowns of the website and the domain. I believe this act of censorship is like deleting comments made by other users, which is the hallmark of BatteryIncluded and Ryulong; so there is a conspiratorial cabalism behind it.

Take a look at the unilateral revert to Scott Martin's ban listing of Russavia last June, which shows censorship.


This looks bureaucratic, but this kind of unilateral action was completely sidestepped by Dennis himself in favour of his preferences which was "to allow for a few days to pass before starting ban proceedings" and "treat everyone the same", both of which mean it will be a cold day in hell before any ban discussion about Russavia and me being started. Yet it was met with overwhelming community agreements. This shows his tendency of using personal attacks, insane fact-finding to ban people.

That's not just all. According to Archtransit in his last responses before his ban:

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.

Therefore, I suspect that, in conjuction with the fact that the Wikipedia community has a tendency to act like a mob and coupling with Wikipedia's insane culture and policy, the censorship was made to keep the fabricated facts and the re-written histories intact by people on Wikipedia and BatteryIncluded himself. Although the full extent of the goals by the conspiracy and cabal, which involve not just Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipediocracy, Wikipedia Review and their linked projects and communities, is unknown, activist group Anonymous and its subcultures will surely hear about this and take action against them, ultimately fulfilling the objectives of Russavia and mine. And this action will have a profound impact if planned and coordinated properly.
edit on 9/4/2014 by bryansee because: Sorry, I just came by this thread weeks ago. I deleted the introductory sentence.

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:27 AM
I never 100% trust Wikipedia in politics ,history,culture and ideology topics.But its a good place to check scientific names.

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:01 AM
Funny thread.

So if I want to look up let's say, the theory of relativity or a list of Nobel Prize winners I'm going to receive a boatload of disinformation.....references and links to whatever particular subject included? Come on folks, Wikipedia can be a great informative tool generally speaking but not necessarily catered towards delving into the obscure mysteries that plague humanity. That much should go without saying.

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by violenttorrent

..wikipedia is a great source of info as long as you arent researching controversial issues, people, events, or corporations. Many people can and do edit articles with incorrect information. Others try to keep that in check and their efforts generally work on non controversial topics, but on controversial topics the people with the agenda push back at a rate thats impossible to keep up with.

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:06 AM
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.

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

But now, there are fewer and fewer people having the courage to edit the Wikipedia any more. Why? The answer is prevalent. There is a conspiracy. By who? 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, and a computer virus that sends out false error messages, notifications, and other misleading information that puts your personal and private data at a high risk. Wikipedia's community is bizarre in the way that it not only creates an entire world of rules for both site veterans and novices to follow, but it then worships those rules, even to the point of eliminating the very producers of the encyclopedia, so that trolls and ne'er-do-wells are preserved.

The events of my interaction with BatteryIncluded after the crash of the Russian Phobos-Grunt spacecraft in 2012, the outing of Russavia, Russavia's alleged campaign of sexual "harassment on Jimbo Wales" did signal an even more disturbing development, however: the emergence of a rogue element within the Wikipedia. It is long suspected this cell has made use of incivility, personal attacks, fact-inventing, POV-pushing, and history-rewriting for unknown intentions. However, the secrecy surrounding these, including its censorship as well as takedowns of websites with contradicting information (that's what happened to OhInternet and the domain) have impeded further review and inquiry.

The conspiracy is not confined to a rogue element within Wikipedia, but involves all members on that site, its linked projects and communities, its review sites, and any site even it is affiliated in any way, direct or indirect. Although their objectives remain unclear, I believe the conspirators intend to kill humankind and disallow access to the Internet and every computer in the world for that matter.

I think Gregory Kohs and Wikimedia Foundation's director Sue Gardner should read this thread, probably getting some review on the problems with Wikipedia and WMF, so that Russavia can continue fighting on. Do you all agree with this?

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:32 PM
To me, wiki is nothing more than the experiment where you put a bunch of people in a big circle and have one person tell the person next to them a short story and then you see how HAMMERED it gets by the time it gets back to the original teller, even funnier when the test subjects have had a few libations! Wiki is convienent, but flawed. If it's being "run" by a bunch of nefarios people bent on evil, there are a couple of great models I can compare it to, the Senate, The House, The Executive Branch , The Spreme Court, any website tha ends in ".gov" ! it's just an electronic zorp log ...

posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:45 AM
a reply to: tencap77

Indeed, tencap77. Last March, Wikimedia Foundation software developer Ryan Kaldari for four years, got accused for "sockpuppetry" (as what violenttorrent noted in the first post in this thread) after making his confession at an "Administrators noticeboard" on Wikipedia, and was defrocked of his administrator status. Thus, he became the second WMF employee in as many months to come under fire for breaking Wikipedia's own set of rules that govern good behavior on the site. Sarah Stierch was let go in January after she was discovered to have been taking money on the side to edit Wikipedia articles. I think these tight control over the rules the English Wikipedia community creates and worships comparable to an oppressive regime.

Truth to be told, Wikipedia is going to develop a program that, once installed on the computer, encrypts the hard drive contents, blocks access to the Internet and the computer, disables input devices connected to the computer, shuts down the infected system and accuses people behind them for breaking good behavior it "governs" over the Internet, much like ransomware and CryptoLocker. I think this is part of a plan by BatteryIncluded, and it may be called the "BatteryIncluded computer virus", the "Dennis Brown Virus", the "Stanistani/Zoloft computer Virus", and the "Boing! said Zebedee Virus". In addition, they would have signed a treaty with anti-virus and anti-malware vendors as well as IT communities such as Bleeping Computer, causing them to take any robust approach to any actions made therein that are aimed at Wikipedia itself.

Any thoughts?

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:49 AM
Forgot to post one more thing. Wikipedia could not be more clear about the "WP:OUTING" policy and the section of the "WP:BAN" deals with other considerations of banned editors.


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.

WP:BAN other considerations

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.

So, that is how I, and Russavia got banned, without me listed, and mocked, baited, abused by Boing! said Zebedee, [url=]AGK (who speedily and unilaterally declined my appeals to BASC without any further reason and without making an announcement on any of my user talk pages and the ArbCom noticeboard, and kept on baiting me to "filing further appeals" to the point of banning me), Dennis Brown (who refused to list me on the list of banned users, preferring to personal-attack me and others and act unilaterally, having reverted the ban listing for Russavia), and BatteryIncluded, who makes use of weighted unilateral decisions, fact-inventing, rewriting histories of people. In any event I am unblocked or made it into a bans page on Wikipedia, they'll be reversed, as it will be a cold day in hell before any two can happen. If this is an unblocking action made by some admin, then the admin will have his administratorship removed by order of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, and if possible, banned by the community.

Separate from above, I have discovered plans to blacklist every website and block any mention of them on Wikipedia and its linked projects, from the "Administrator's noticeboard" about external sites on WP. Not just Wikipediocracy, but also ATS, and others for that matter. I believe this is part of Wikipedia being a conspiracy, and also fits in their censorship as well. The following is quoted from a post made by MZMcBride on his talk page on March 12 last year when he was blocked from Wikipedia by AGK after posting a link to the website Wikipediocracy to this thread at the ArbCom noticeboard discussing ArbCom's return of Kevin's administrator rights.

Today, AGK:

1. has indefinitely blocked a long-time user without providing a block summary;
2. has added 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.

AGK subsequently undid his addition to the blacklist, but this kind of unilateral action made is on the spot with BatteryIncluded and others themselves. Challenging him (and possibly Dennis Brown, BatteryIncluded, William V. Burns aka Stanistani/Zoloft, and Boing! said Zebedee) will result in an immediate de-sysop, ban and death of all administrators on Wikipedia, and then emergency requests for adminship for "any user with greater than 2 edits on the English Wikipedia, to be moderated by either the Stewards who are active on the Esperanto Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales".

I must conclude that there are plans to blacklist the enitre Internet, so the outing websites are taken down, no blacklist is necessary. My conclusion, as well as the articles on Examiner about Wikimedia Foundation employees let go, parallel to various members' views that Wikipedia is a lost cause and is a conspiracy, and may have involved in the taking down of OhInternet and Encyclopedia Dramatica to cover up its activities, much like censorship.

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:57 AM

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.

Wow, have you been living under a rock? The Rockefellers, probably the worst but most powerful social engineers of the 20th century, with their hooks into everything from healthcare to education, bought the Encyclopedia Brittanica in 1911, and re-wrote history according to their benefactors' agenda (the Rothschild's).

Please examine your long cherished assumptions and read and understand the ramifications of the truth of the words in my signature.

edit on 19-4-2014 by PlanetXisHERE because: correction

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:08 AM
a reply to: violenttorrent

"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."

Yes I agree but Google is just the same and much more dangerous as they tailor search results to hide most of the internet and only show links to controlled sources and hide others using "Safe Browsing" by saying the sites may contain a virus.

Wikipedia is nearly always the first link in Google results and some browser download the link in the background on the pretense that you might click the link so we cached everything for you just in case you did and yeah, we also ran all them spyware scripts from Wikipedia.

No wonder Google is building some super fast, super safe new network backbone because it will be used by all the big internet names to share our data between themselves in a way so that no one can catch them.

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:21 AM

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,

Yes just like Twitter, millions of people having a say on a level playing field

No you are wrong and them days are gone.

If you tweet more than a few bad words about certain corporations (fee paying i suspect) or Google then you will be left tweeting to yourself and I know for a fact that a web-site that I unloaded to a free host company was blocked by Twitter within the hour with some message about the site having a virus or was sending out spam emails.

Two years ago I would had been more on your side of the fence but the days of the wild west internet are coming to a very fast end and you will see it happening if you start to look.

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 08:43 AM
a reply to: bryansee

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,

Seriously? Not letting you use Wikipedia to express your personal opinion is the moral equivalent of genocide? With that attitude, it is no wonder you are no longer permitted to post there.

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:34 PM
I dislike the medical section of wiki.

There is a lot of bad information there that hurts people.

Case in point the listing for fibromyalgia

And this can not be changed as its being posted by people who are not medical people but seem to have the Administrators of wiki believing they are.
There is a belief among people with fibro that the insurance industry has a lot of power in posting what is on wiki about fibromyalgia.

They still use key phrases like "functional somatic syndromes and major depressive disorder"
"but instead a physical response to depression and stress"
"Fibromyalgia, a central nervous system disorder, is described as a "central sensitization syndrome""
"central sensitization". "psychosomatic"
"Some research suggests that these brain anomalies may be the result of childhood stress, or prolonged or severe stress"


I am a member of a group of men with fibromyalgia.
And we disagree with all of the "ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD" Bu**sh*t.
And have found that about 80% of us have Sleep Apnea.
A number of us have autoimmune disorders.
Many of us develop Peripheral neuropathy within a couple years.

Research has shown that in 40 to 60 % of people with fibromyalgia have small fiber polyneuropathy.
Small fiber polyneuropathy can be caused by sleep apnea. autoimmune disorders and is listed as a autoimmune disorder in many cases and diabetes.

Yet none of this is shown on wiki fibro site. And the Administrators of wiki will not allow it to be posted.
edit on 21-4-2014 by ANNED because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in