Why is Wikipedia so anti-conspiracy & pro-establishment?

Post by **Winston** » November 6th, 2011, 5:35 am

I've noticed a pattern about Wikipedia.

Why does it seem to be against everything related to conspiracies and paranormal phenomena? It seems to be saying that everything outside of mainstream science and establishment views are false, and that conspiracies, cover ups, and the paranormal don't exist.

How did it come to be so prejudiced and one-sided? Who owns and operates Wikipedia and who are the people who censor/edit it so that it's endorsement of everything official remains? Does Wikipedia itself reveal who its editors are?

It claims to be neutral and unbiased, but on controversial issues it is clearly heavily biased and one-sided.

And how did it get to the top of all the search results? It's not easy at all to get that kind of ranking that is on par with Google, Yahoo, and Amazon.com.

Does anyone know?

odbo · Post by **odbo** » November 6th, 2011, 8:01 pm

The purpose of JewPedia is to better control the flow of information. Just like the patent office or the EdJewcAsian system.

If you want free speech then create your own encyclopedia like this guy:
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/

Post by **Winston** » November 6th, 2011, 8:26 pm

But why is Wikipedia so popular? How come other Wiki sites don't rank at the top in search engines like Wikipedia does?

If you look up simple topics like zebras or dogs, Wikipedia will give factual accurate information about them. It's only conspiracy/paranormal topics that Wikipedia shows its bias in.

Repatriate · Post by **Repatriate** » November 6th, 2011, 8:29 pm

Winston wrote: If you look up simple topics like zebras or dogs, Wikipedia will give factual accurate information about them. It's only conspiracy/paranormal topics that Wikipedia shows its bias in.

Most people who look things up in Wikipedia are concerned with sourced information. That's why they are big on references. Wikipedia certainly isn't accurate though it's just more or less a loose collection of sourced facts based on published material.

If you want to claim aliens exist then you should link it to sourced material. Personal essays and such have little credibility in most cases.

Post by **Winston** » November 6th, 2011, 8:43 pm

But there is sourced material to support paranormal/conspiratorial topics. Plenty of it. The many books on such topics contain plenty of citations and sourced references.

But the question is, why is Wikipedia heavily biased against every paranormal topic or conspiracy arguments? At the end of every entry on alternative researchers or claims, Wikipedia claims that "there is no evidence to support any of them, and credible experts dismiss them", which is not true because many credible experts, including Nobel Prize winning scientists, support conspiracies, cover ups, and the existence of psi.

Plus, we all know that scientists and professors who hold out of the box views are in danger of jeopardizing their careers, so they are not exactly free to freely speak their minds without consequence. There is definitely censorship in media and academia, which compromises objectivity and instills a group think hive mind. You don't deny that do you?

I mean, after all, people who depend on receiving funding from government or establishment institutions CANNOT speak their mind freely without consequence. You know that right?

For example, many credible climatologists and scientists think global warming is BS. But Wikipedia, even if it presents their arguments, will always at the end of the article say that the establishment view is ALWAYS right and the dissidents have no real evidence to support their side, which isn't really true, but Wikipedia will always claim that, which reveals their bias.

Haven't you noticed that?

Post by **Winston** » November 6th, 2011, 8:49 pm

Here is an example of bias and disinformation from Wikipedia.

The human origins researcher Lloyd Pye wrote this long article debunking many errors and disinformation about him on Wikipedia, which Wikipedia's editors refuse to correct. See here:

http://www.lloydpye.com/lloydpyewikipedia.htm

There are rumors that Wikipedia's mysterious editors work for government intelligence, based on their IP's and other patterns.

Repatriate · Post by **Repatriate** » November 6th, 2011, 8:57 pm

Winston wrote: For example, many credible climatologists and scientists think global warming is BS. But Wikipedia, even if it presents their arguments, will always at the end of the article say that the establishment view is ALWAYS right and the dissidents have no real evidence to support their side, which isn't really true, but Wikipedia will always claim that, which reveals their bias.

Haven't you noticed that?

I'm actually not disagreeing with you on this. I have seen biases in the way various historical events are presented on wikipedia as well. I'm just saying that all wikipedia is, is an imperfect repository of sourced information. The editors can certainly be biased but I don't think wikipedia has ever claimed to be a balanced overview. For instance I know most universities prohibit listing wikipedia links as a "reference" in itself.

You also have to consider who the majority of editors on a site like Wikipedia are. For the primary site chances are high they are probably all middle class white American males or from mostly english speaking countries. As such their views will be biased heavily towards mainstream consensus or what is culturally acceptable according to American or other primarily anglo orientated value systems.

Post by **Winston** » November 26th, 2011, 11:38 pm

How does Wikipedia make money? There are no ads on it. So who pays for all its massive bandwidth and articles? It must cost a ton of money to run.

How can there be so many volunteer writers who are experts on every topic and word? Who has that kind of time?

odbo · Post by **odbo** » November 26th, 2011, 11:52 pm

Winston wrote:But why is Wikipedia so popular? How come other Wiki sites don't rank at the top in search engines like Wikipedia does?

Who created the internet? Who controls the internet? Who runs Wikipedia and Google? There's no prize for figuring this one out Winston...

Winston wrote:How does Wikipedia make money? There are no ads on it. So who pays for all its massive bandwidth and articles? It must cost a ton of money to run.

How can there be so many volunteer writers who are experts on every topic and word? Who has that kind of time?

More info here: viewtopic.php?p=59011#59011

Post by **Winston** » November 27th, 2011, 12:37 am

If the government controlled the internet, then how come millions of conspiracy videos and websites are allowed to stay online?

odbo · Post by **odbo** » November 27th, 2011, 2:44 am

Winston, before answering another one of your toddler-like framing questions, let me give you a taste of your own medicine. Do you actually believe the internet is totally free and there is no control of the flow of information nor manipulation of peoples' perceptions using google, youtube, wikipedia, yahoo news and so on?

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... e-picture/

A Zionist hasbara (propaganda) body based in North America is trying to recruit â€œvolunteersâ€� whose main job is to distort the input of the internetâ€™s most visited websites in Israelâ€™s favor.

Propaganda efforts are reportedly focused on popular sites such as Wikipedia, the huge on-line encyclopedia which can be edited by anyone

CAMERA, which calls itself a â€œcommittee for accuracy in Middle East reporting in America,â€� already has a team of dozens of paid Jewish propagandists who regularly and often scandalously distort basic data pertaining to such themes as Israeli apartheid, Zionism and its ideological similarity to Nazism, Israeli state terror and ill-treatment of Palestinians as well as other issues related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

"Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America"

momopi · Post by **momopi** » November 27th, 2011, 2:55 pm

Winston wrote:If the government controlled the internet, then how come millions of conspiracy videos and websites are allowed to stay online?

See: Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957).

onezero4u · Post by **onezero4u** » November 27th, 2011, 4:49 pm

just like george soros the communist cocksucking billionaire funds SNOPES.

ALIBABA · Post by **ALIBABA** » March 30th, 2012, 9:18 am

everything on the internet is controled. every single thing that anyone posts, anywhere in the world, has to pass through nsa headquarters. if they dont like something, it will be taken down imediately. the reason why wikileaks seems more controled than others is because it is viewed by more people. the more hits a website gets, the more controled it is. google is absolutely controled by the u.s establishments. in order for wikipedia to get the top slot for google searches, they have to conform to the rules, meaning it must publish things that the establishment likes, usually pro establishment, pro capitalist, pro imperialist stuff, etc. millions of conspiracy videos are online, but none of them expose anything that the establishment disaproves of. most of it are limited hang outs, disclosing partial truths, and dont show anything that would hurt the establishment. even the hacker group anonymous is controled oposition. you don't hear about a lot of the people who get beaten by the fbi for political things they say. you dont hear about people that get asasinated by the cops. you dont hear abount most people who get thrown in prison in western countries for having a political opinion. the ones you do hear about are leonard peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Marshall "Eddie" Conway, huey newton, but i guarantee you there are a lot more. you hear only what the liberal media wants you to hear, and what the liberal media wants you to hear is always the official line from the oligarchs. real media has not been around for decades, not since cointel pro. one guy got tazed on camera for mentioning skull and bones. now tell me, how many people are going to dare to question authority after that incident. how many critics did that silence?

Post by **Winston** » March 30th, 2012, 11:19 am

ALIBABA wrote:everything on the internet is controled. every single thing that anyone posts, anywhere in the world, has to pass through nsa headquarters. if they dont like something, it will be taken down imediately. the reason why wikileaks seems more controled than others is because it is viewed by more people. the more hits a website gets, the more controled it is. google is absolutely controled by the u.s establishments. in order for wikipedia to get the top slot for google searches, they have to conform to the rules, meaning it must publish things that the establishment likes, usually pro establishment, pro capitalist, pro imperialist stuff, etc. millions of conspiracy videos are online, but none of them expose anything that the establishment disaproves of. most of it are limited hang outs, disclosing partial truths, and dont show anything that would hurt the establishment. even the hacker group anonymous is controled oposition.

Get real. The government can't monitor millions of websites and blogs. It doesn't even care about them. They are just words to them. No one has the manpower to keep up with everything on the internet.

How can the NSA control websites without controlling the owners of the sites?

What is your explanation for why David Icke and Alex Jones are allowed to speak to millions without anything ever happening to them? How does what they say serve the interests of the NSA?

Come to think of it, how do you know this site isn't part of the "controlled opposition"? Maybe the NSA took me into a back room and made a deal/partnership with me, and that's why this site continues to grow? I mean, seriously, how do you know? LOL