Why You Should Never Use Wikipedia

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The latest report about Wikipedia’s corruption comes from the great investigative journalist Craig Murray, who had been in the UK’s Foreign Service from 1984-2004 and who was forced out in 2004 because, having been since 2002 UK’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan, he decided to whistleblow instead of to accept the corruption by his own and Uzbekistan’s Governments.

Wikipedia’s article about him says that his immediately prior posting had involved participating in enforcement of the prior economic sanctions against Iraq, and “His group gave daily reports to Margaret Thatcher and John Major. In Murder in Samarkand, he describes how this experience led him to disbelieve the claims of the UK and US governments in 2002 about Iraqi WMDs.” So, his disenchantment with UK’s foreign policies seems to have grown over the years, instead of suddenly to have appeared only during the two years in which he was an Ambassador.

On May 18th, he headlined at his much-followed blog, “The Philip Cross Affair”, and reported: 133,612 edits to Wikipedia have been made in the name of ‘Philip Cross' over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for 'Philip Cross’s' Wikipedia activity is astonishing ... if it is one individual."

He presents reasons to question that it’s a one-person operation, then states that,

the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel…

“Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. Jimmy Wales has actively spoken against Jeremy Corbyn, supports the bombing of Syria, supports Israel, is so much of a Blairite he married Blair’s secretary, and sits on the board of [the neoconservative and neoliberal] Guardian Media Group Ltd alongside Katherine Viner.

The extreme defensiveness and surliness of Wales’ twitter responses on the “Philip Cross” operation is very revealing. Why do you think he reacts like this? Interestingly enough. Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.

In response, many people sent Jimmy Wales evidence, which he ignored, while his “charity” got very upset with those questioning the Philip Cross operation.

Wikimedia had arrived uninvited into a twitter thread discussing the “Philip Cross” operation and had immediately started attacking people questioning Cross’s legitimacy. Can anybody else see anything “insulting” in my tweet?

I repeat, the coincidence of Philip Cross’s political views with those of Jimmy Wales, allied to Wales’ and Wikimedia’s immediate hostility to anybody questioning the Cross operation – without needing to look at any evidence – raises a large number of questions.

“Philip Cross” does not attempt to hide his motive or his hatred of those whose Wikipedia entries he attacks. He openly taunts them on twitter. The obvious unbalance of his edits is plain for anybody to see.

Among the hundreds of reader-comments to that article, one seems to have come from a Wikipedia-insider, and is abbreviated here:

Andrew H

May 18, 2018 at 18:49

… Wikipedia is a source of information, and so cannot peddle alternative theories of any kind. …[and] no doubt there is some political bias that comes into this process. If you look at the article on the Skripal’s – it is not unreasonable – almost all statements are supported by references to main stream media articles or statements from official organisations such as the Russian government, OPCW or UK authorities. This is what it has to be. (you wouldn’t seriously be suggesting that Wikipedia should have links to craigmurrary or info from RT?).

I haven't done any scientific study of the sources that are cited in Wikipedia’s many footnotes and whether sites such as Murray’s and RT are banned from them, but this article by Murray does suggest that the bias in favor of mainstream, and against small, ‘news’media, does adhere to the pattern that’s succinctly stated by “Andrew H." Murray presents remarkable documentary evidence that this is Wikipedia’s pattern. “Andrew H” seems to believe that it’s the right pattern to adhere to. 

The present writer also has personal experience with Wikipedia that confirms the existence of this pattern. Among my several articles on that, was “How Wikipedia Lies”, in which I reported that “Smallwood,” the Wikipedia overseer on Wikipedia’s article “United Airlines Flight 93” about the 9/11 plane that came down in Pennsylvania, blocked stating in the text of the article an important fact that was documented even buried within some of the article’s own footnote sources - all coming from mainstream media - that Vice President Dick Cheney had ordered that plane to be shot down and that, therefore, the article’s (and the ’news’media’s and ‘history’ books’) common allegations that resistance on the part of heroic passengers on that plane had had something to do with the plane’s coming down when and how it did, are all false. “Smallwood” blocked me from adding to the text a mention that Cheney on the very day of 9/11 admitted that he had ordered that plane to be shot down and stated his reasons for having done so, and that the order was promptly fulfilled; and “Smallwood” refused to say why my addition of Cheney’s role was blocked, other than that to say that that fact “did not appear constructive.” (He refused to say how, or why.)

Back on 8 July 2015, I had headlined, "Wikipedia As Propaganda Not History — MH17 As An Example”, and reported and documented regarding the MH17 Malaysian airliner shot down over Ukraine, that “Wikipedia articles are more propaganda than they are historical accounts. And, often, their cited sources are misleading, or even false.” The Wikipedia article on that was anti-Russian propaganda, not a historical account.

As I mentioned in those articles, even Britain’s own BBC had previously headlined, "Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits’.” What both Murray, and I, in my latest article about Wikipedia, add to that information regarding some of the people who “edit” Wikipedia, is that Wikipedia itself, in the individuals whom it hires to nix or else to accept each editorial change that is being made to a given article, actually also, in effect, writes Wikipedia articles - and that it does so consistently filtering out facts - no matter how conclusively proven to be true - that contradict the ‘news’media’s (and CIA’s) boilerplate ‘history’ of the given matter. In other words: Wikipedia is a perfect embodiment of the type of society that was described in the fictional 1949 allegorical novel, 1984.

This is the reason why I never link to a Wikipedia article unless I have independently confirmed that, regarding the fact for which I cite the given article, that article is honestly and truly representing that matter, or that given detail of it. I do not exclude truths that happen to be included in the standard account; but neither do I (as Wikipedia does] exclude facts which contradict the standard account.

Comments

verumcuibono cheka Sun, 05/27/2018 - 22:47 Permalink

I see Wiki as MSM "fact checking" disinfo propaganda. VERY important to the MSM machine.

I have--and know others who have repeatedly contributed content which was promptly removed from Wiki entries.

Even Snopes has been compromised. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-sno…
Snopes was founded by a couple who ran it as an authentic grass-roots research and information platform. A few years ago it was infiltrated, the couple was split up and it’s now part of the propaganda machine.

It was discovered the Snopes was partly funded by an entity associated with CIA’s Psych Hop operation that sends a flock of people to sites like Wiki to control information that is placed there, which is entirely the opposite of the “open source” that Wiki advertises itself to be.

Ironically but not unsurprisingly, Snopes partnered with Facebook in it’s fake anti-“fake news” campaign, which is really just shutting down anything that disagrees with the establishment’s official narrative, which involves YouTube and Twitter other social media platforms.

This is in part why propaganda legislation was passed: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/senate-quietly-passes-counteri…

FAKE NEWS (excerpt from Richard Dolan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn18bAEPpmk&t=11s)
A recent literacy project is an effort to help teach students how to distinguish what’s real and what’s fake in the age of digital communications.
“That was a time when students used the internet to do research and struggled with recognizing truth from fiction. It was well before “fake news” was mentioned and the country found itself facing real questions about whether “fake news” existed, what it was or if it affected the results of the 2016 presidential election." For those who pay attention only to MainStreamMedia, the “fake news” noise during the 2016 election was their introduction to "fake news”.
Countries all over the world have recently enacted legislation against fake news with high fines and prison sentences (Malaysia, Egypt, Brazil, Honduras, Italy, Germany, France, UK).
We are now told that “fake news,” specifically in the form of alternative media (and primarily “alt-right” media) is the great new danger facing the public.
A signal to us is the extreme campaign against the alternative and inconvenient “fake” media. But the charges of "fake news” are being used as an excuse to tighten censorship in the US and all over the world.

Dolan's pieces on censorship and hate speech in the vid above are also really great.

In reply to by cheka

Escrava Isaura techpriest Mon, 05/28/2018 - 08:53 Permalink

My view is that Christians would be happier under socialism than capitalism.

Second, I personal think that Jesus was a creation because there are no Roman written records or archeological evidence of a Jesus. The Jewish Bible uses the word Jesus even before his birth, and in which they spell and say it in two different ways over 100 times, because it was a common name back them.

My take is that the Catholics of the first century were the true gospels, but they were killed by the Romans. Roman Catholics are not real Catholics because they favored the kings, you know the rich.

The first Protestants had a chance to change Christianity but they too blew it.

In 1962 the Pope try to reverse the church back to the poor leading President Kennedy to change the mission of the Latin American military from “hemispheric defense” to “internal security.”* Internal security means something. It means war against your own population.

 

Hope that clarify.

 

In reply to by techpriest

Theosebes Goodfellow Faeriedust Mon, 05/28/2018 - 13:15 Permalink

~"You are obviously better-educated than the average Hedgie."~

Whoops, sorry dusty, but I'm gonna' have to toss the Bullshit flag here on ya'.

[BULLSHIT!!!!]

You do not have enough access to the kind of information required to make that statement true. You have absolutely zero way to determine the education levels of anyone here nor the ability to know just how many there are, (there be lurkers in them thar' woods). Lastly, you also lack the ability to discern intelligence from education levels of those in question. (Having been educated does not correlate with being smart.)

Nice try, though.

In reply to by Faeriedust

Decolat tmosley Sun, 05/27/2018 - 23:34 Permalink

The cat lady of my neighborhood, while growing up, fed dozens of strays, kept dozens more in filth, ate cat food herself and nothing else, (judging by what she bought at the store), muttered incessantly, and stank.

Cat ladies are real. We don’t want them to be real, but they’re real.

She earned a place of high rank in the spiritual caste of our town. When in doubt of our place in life, she was there, to remind us - that it can always be worse.

In reply to by tmosley

OverTheHedge Jballsquared Mon, 05/28/2018 - 01:02 Permalink

More fun: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Zero_Hedge

The editing is constant - what can all these people be changing, day after day? At some point, facts ought to be confirmed as facts, and set in stone. At least, you would think so, anyway.

I have started following Craig Murray's blog since I found him during the Scripal nonsense - apart from his lefty leaning politics, he writes well, and is not afraid of the establishment. His posts about "Philip Cross" have some interesting graphics which shown just how industrial the guy's editing is - quite obviously Philip Cross is a team of propaganda officials working day after day to keep the internet safe from democracy.

In reply to by Jballsquared

ChaoKrungThep Dr.Strangelove Mon, 05/28/2018 - 00:28 Permalink

This is simply the ongoing Operation Mockingbird of the 1950s. All mainstream media have been penetrated, influenced or controlled by the CIA, except perhaps Chinese and Russian media. Wikipedia is an obvious target. No surprise, except for the gullible or lazy. One must still root around the net to connect the dots, sort chaff from seeds, lies from truth. Only Snowflakes complain, not real journalists. Next... 

In reply to by Dr.Strangelove

HedgeUrBet Dr.Strangelove Mon, 05/28/2018 - 08:54 Permalink

Of course, you are being sarcastic...right? Look up any conservative political figure on Wikipedia and you will find blatant smears in the first couple of paragraphs. Alex Jones, Infowars=“fake news” for example or try a Trump advisor and you will find derogatory remarks. Look up Stephen Miller, go down a couple paragraphs, read how Wikipedia is basically declaring Miller a liar. But Jim Acosta or Joe Scarborough? They seem like ultra professionals with no negatives. Fake encyclopedia.

In reply to by Dr.Strangelove

Decolat LetThemEatRand Sun, 05/27/2018 - 23:53 Permalink

Stick to empirical facts on Wikipedia, like chemistry. 

Accept that many subjects, such as history, have and forever will be fabricated, blatantly and subtly, no matter where you go for info. The simple placement of one word in a book or website somewhere can color an entire chain of events leading up to who you see in the mirror each morning. What even is Truth? Nobody knows what is really going on. It blows my mind every time I think about it.

In reply to by LetThemEatRand

Dickweed Wang Sun, 05/27/2018 - 22:32 Permalink

I have to laugh when some "important" guy at Wikipedia says in effect that the only trustworthy sources that they'll allow are the main stream media outlets. You know, those same organizations that are controlled by a handful of multinational conglomerates . . . those same organizations that have been shown time and time again to lie outright or by omission . . . those same organizations that are nothing more than propaganda arms of the government.

The same people that count on Wikipedia as their go-to source for documentation on a subject are the same people that rely on Facefuck, Twatter and Gagool for their internet content. In other words, completely clueless.

jmack Sun, 05/27/2018 - 22:32 Permalink

information wants to be free, information is power. The two great hacker motto's of the 80's.

 

Well, information has been enslaved, and its masters are using it to enhance their power and wealth.  The fact, in 2018.