 |
| The Philip Cross Affair | |
| Ron Paul Banned |
|
| The Philip Cross Affair | |
| Ron Paul Banned |
As is by now well-known, Wikipedia presents itself as an online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, and whose entries anyone can edit. The idea is that people who are experts in their field will contribute articles, suitably augmented by others who are equally knowledgeable. This is a nice idea but in practice Wikipedia is unreliable, because anyone can edit articles, and in many cases the main aim of those editing articles is not to present the truth but rather a biassed interpretation. Wikipedia has no effective defense against this (especially since its privileged editors are among the worst offenders) and is thus unreliable.
This flaw in Wikipedia manifests itself most often in articles dealing with history or contemporary events, in particular those relating to World War II and its aftermath, and to the events of September 11, 2001, and their consequences. There are people who are determined that certain facts should not receive publicity, and whenever an "unapproved" fact appears on Wikipedia some editor will come along and remove it. In fact there seem to be teams of such trolls, perhaps paid to do their work of censorship and their presentation of particular interpretations of history which their masters want to be the public "truth". Although this falsification occurs mainly in connection with historical articles, there is no guarantee that it does not occur in non-historical articles also, such as those dealing with medicine, psychiatry, pharmacy and environmentalism (e.g., the ban on criticism of the poster-child Rachel Carson). Because of this lack of defense against censorship and misrepresentation by determined bands of trolls, Wikipedia cannot (and should not) be trusted. Anyone citing Wikipedia as an 'authority' simply reveals their own ignorance and naïvity.
Actually Wikipedia was never intended to be an 'objective' and 'neutral' encyclopeda — its purpose has always been to "control the narrative", which (so far) it has been quite successful at, with a lot of help from Google (which usually displays an extract from Wikipedia at the top of any search results page). But its credibility is fading, as more and more people come to understand that it is replete with misinformation and propaganda. Although it is a parody of an encyclopedia (and an evil one) it hopes you won't notice.
Here's an example of censorship at Wikipedia:
A well-placed British source informed WMR that Rahm Emanuel's father, Benjamin Emanuel, specialized in the terrorist bombings of buses carrying British troops and policemen during the British Mandate in Palestine. ... Wikipedia deleted Benjamin Emanuel's entry in 2008, shortly after Rahm Emanuel was designated as President Obama's chief of staff. Wikipedia is a favorite device for the perception management goals of Dr. Cass Sunstein, Obama's director of the White House Office of Regulatory Affairs. — Wayne Madsen, Rahm Emanuel's father specialized in bus bombings in Palestine
Here are articles by three eminent authors, knowledgeable in their fields, whose attempts to publish the facts on Wikipedia have been thwarted by the trolls:
A person attempting to contribute to Wikipedia (using the name "Posturewiter") concerning Da Costa's syndrome sent the following message to this editor:
I spent twelve months in Wikipedia and came to the conclusion that it is probably a reliable source of information about boring, routine, non-controversial topics. However, there are some existing editors who know all of the policies and use trickery to ensure that the only point of view that gets presented is their own, and anything else is deleted and the new contributors who put it there will be banned. The result is that the readers only see what is presented, and not what is deliberately missing, but they will get the false impression that they are seeing everything. I have reviewed the methods used by two of the editors here:http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa%27sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor175354
There was once an article on Wikipedia entitled "New York Times controversies". On July 4, 2010, the page was suddenly deleted. The next day the page was restored, but without the article itself, with this "explanation":
This page was deleted from Wikipedia, either because an administrator believed a consensus was reached among editors that it is unsuitable as an encyclopedia entry, or because an administrator felt it met one or more conditions for speedy deletion.
When the matter was discussed (see Articles for deletion/Criticism of The New York Times) there was NO consensus. In fact there were more calls to keep the article (4) than there were to delete it (3). But the deletion was made anyway, because "an administrator" (presumably someone anxious to maintain the illusion of the credibility of the NYT) felt like deleting it.
In the interests of documenting censorship at Wikipedia, the Wikipedia page "New York Times controversies" has been archived as a ZIP file which can be downloaded from this website by clicking here. You can thus read what the administrators at Wikipedia (or perhaps just one of them) do not want you to read.
The New York Times, like Wikipedia, is a covert propaganda machine. Its lies were well documented during 1990-1994 by Edward Herman in Lies of our Times. See also his The Propaganda Model Revisited and Wade Frazier's Lies I Was Raised With.
See also:
Which brings us to the central focus of this article: disinformation within JFK research data. But more specifically, a provable purveyor of such disinformation: that self-described "free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project," aka, Wikipedia. ... And as we shall see, such a blind eye at the top [Jimmy Wales], whether intentional or not, fosters an army of equally blind and biased Wiki-worker-bees whose collective anonymous swarm provides the cover of obfuscation for what, on certain controversial subjects, can be called a disinformation machine.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry on SiteAdvisor has been sanitized (by a self-identified McAfee employee) to remove all references to problems and false positives. Classic Wikipedia, too, now that I think about it.
Evidence seen by The Independent and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) shows the company [a UK-based public relations agency] made hundreds of alterations to Wikipedia entries about its clients in the last year. Some of the changes added favourable comments while others removed negative content.
On his website www.truth-hertz.net Stan Winer writes
Wikipedia, in its purest optimal state, is sometimes a correct, accurate and reliable compendium of fact on arcane historical subjects such as the history of railroads; but as author Edwin Black discovered, the American-based Wikipedia can easily be degraded by individuals with hidden agendas and by outright intellectual frauds — without readers ever knowing. Were it not for the fact that the Google algorithm currently elevates Wikipedia to the highest stature in search visibility, the impact of this so-called "online encyclopedia" would be vastly less important. It would just be trite and fatuous. Without Google, Wikipedia would probably achieve only a fraction of its reach. But as it now stands, the rapid ascent of Wikipedia has helped contribute significantly to the dumbing down of world knowledge, especially knowledge of modern military history.
Like most academics, historians, teachers and journalists, I rejected Wikipedia as a mish-mash of truth, half truth, and some falsehoods. Late last month [March 2010], Wikipedia's unseemly nature came to my personal door. It was then that IBM advocates chose to launch a systematic elimination of references to IBM's role in the Holocaust in the Wikipedia article entitled "History of IBM." The willing role of IBM in co-planning and organizing the identification, pauperization, and extermination of the Jews of Europe was documented in my book IBM and the Holocaust. ...... IBM advocates on Wikipedia edited the "History of IBM" entry to gloss over, dilute, or outright delete the company's involvement. ... [A Wikipedia editor declared] that it would be better to replace several paragraphs of detailed information drawn from the book, including specifics about IBM's machines at concentration camps and gas chamber codes, with text closely lifted from an IBM press release issued some nine years ago when the book first came out. ... Eventually, individuals who called for fairness and restoration of the original text were denigrated for their views [and] barred from further comment by senior Wikipedia administrators who blocked their IP addresses. Hence, they were censored ...
Many Wikipedia articles are written amateurishly; often they are disconnected grab-bags of factoids, with no coherent narrative — and many have errors. In some topics, there are groups who "squat" on articles to make them reflect their own biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles, so even if an article becomes very good, in time it is often degraded by many minor ill-judged tweaks.
- Each article is written by an expert.
- Each article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable information.
- Each article has a curator — typically its author — who is responsible for its content.
- Any modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before it appears in the final, approved version.
And here is another alternative to Wikipedia:
The New World Encyclopedia is an ever-expanding body of knowledge that currently contains thousands of carefully selected articles. The New World Encyclopedia is intended for use by teachers and students who are drawn to the ease of use of Wikipedia, but are concerned about quality, consistency, and core values.
Except to quote a national police chief describing Anders Behring Breivik as "pro-Israel", the Wikipedia page (as at 2011-07-26) on the "2011 Norway attacks" does not mention either Israel or Norwegian support for the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign, despite the plausibility of the massacre being an Israeli false flag terrorist attack intended to punish Norway for its support of justice for the Palestinians. This is to be expected from Wikipedia, which is a Zionist-controlled propaganda machine masquerading as an encyclopedia.
What the trolls at Wikipedia don't want you to know.
The trolls also voted to delete a page on Archetypal Astrology, which included this:
Archetypal astrology is a branch of astrology, influenced by Jungian and post-Jungian depth psychology, that studies the connection between the changing positions of the planets in the solar system and archetypal patterns in human experience. It is practiced by a growing number of archetypal astrologers and by some Jungian therapists. It is different from archetypal psychology and some forms of psychological astrology in that the archetypes are seen as cosmological, rather than merely psychological principles.In archetypal astrology, planetary configurations in the solar system are thought to bear a significant and coherent correspondence with archetypal themes and patterns evident in human experience. Archetypal astrology combines techniques drawn from conventional forms of astrology with an understanding of archetypes and the psyche emerging from the psychological theories of C. G. Jung, James Hillman, and Stanislav Grof.
Regarding this vote-to-delete a dissenter wrote:
No discussion of this deletion is necessary. According to the way that WP:FRINGE has been interpreted in regards to astrology, there is no possibility for this article to have non-fringe notability. If this topic were covered by a reliable source, then that reliable source is by definition a fringe source. If the enforcers of WP:FRINGE wish to remove any content, then there is simply no policy argument to limit their desire. They may remove any content that they wish; no argument is needed other than that they wish to remove it.The Wikipedia trolls also managed to get a later page on Archetypal Cosmology deleted, despite the protests of dissenters.
What you read on Wikipedia is only what the troll clique decides that you should be allowed to read.
Oh, and if you are curious about what Wikipedia doesn't want you to know about, go here: Archetypal Astrology
|
| If you try to add a link on any page of Wikipedia to any page on this website you will receive this message: "http://www.serendipity.li ... is currently blocked." |
Or perhaps Wikipedia is run by Zionists, who dislike Serendipity's page on Zionism or its page on Israel as a Terrorist State. Or perhaps, since most of Wikipedia's administrators are Americans, they dislike Serendipity's characterization of the U.S.A. [also as] a Terrorist State. Or perhaps, since Wikipedia's administrators are shills for the official story of 9/11, they don't like it that Serendipity exposes the events of 9/11 as a hoax and as an inside job, thus making them look like the liars and fools that they are.
Wikipedia has even banned any link this page about a respected Indian sadhu: Ganesh Baba
Serendipity has over 1100 web pages, and the administrators at Wikipedia have not only used their god-like powers to ban all of them (regardless of how relevant they may be to pages at Wikipedia) but have also banned any web page which may ever be published on this site. Of course, the author of this website is not the only person whose writings have been censored at Wikipedia. There are several others (probably very many), as you can see from the above.
Wikipedia's Serendipity (disambiguation) page lists a film, a character in a file, a book series, an episode in TV series, a singing group, two albums and four songs. But this website, which has been online since 1996, has over 1000 pages and is admired by many, is hated by Wikipedia's editors. Try adding a link to this website at the disambiguation page and see how long it takes to be deleted.
Wikipedia is a wonderful idea, brilliantly implemented, but it was always bound to have weaknesses as regards hot topics. ... In one area, the problem is much more serious, covering far more articles than any other, and that is the Israel-Palestinian topic. Basically, Wikipedia was holed below the waterline as soon as editors such as Jayjg became firm personal friends of Jimbo Wales and set about writing history the way they wanted it to be. Jayjg was eventually told to knock it off, but only after most articles within the topic were heavily contaminated by the activities of him and his numerous cronies, great and small. Towards the end of 2010, one can still see a few very high-quality editors left and a huge amount of the most utter dross, editors who should, in very many cases, have been identified and stopped within days of their first appearance. The content of this page is intended to demonstrate the bias within Wikipedia brought about, ultimately, by the selective promotion of Zionists such as Jayjg to all administrative roles.
The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects, has signed an agreement that will allow Israeli propagandists to promote apartheid Israel and its racist, Zionist policies through the pages of Wikipedia, the world’s largest and most popular free encyclopedia.The agreement was signed by Rabbi Shai Piron, the Israeli education minister, Jan-Bart de Vreede, the chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Itzik Edri, the chairman of the Wikimedia Israel Board, and Michal Lester, the executive director of Wikimedia Israel.
... all we can say is RIP Wikipedia! Your credibility will now stoop to that of Mark Regev (real name Mark Freiberg), Israel’s Australian-born Joseph Goebbels.
Target Patton, written by Robert K. Wilcox and published by Regnery Press, runs over 450 pages, with an extensive bibliography and nearly 700 footnotes. The many years spent by the author on this project are clearly reflected in the contents, which include numerous personal interviews and the careful analysis of an enormous amount of primary and secondary source material. I’ve seldom encountered so detailed and seemingly exhaustive a work of investigatory journalism ... I personally found the evidence for Patton’s assassination quite persuasive, even overwhelming ...For years I’ve emphasized to people that Wikipedia is absolutely worthless as a source of reliable information on any relatively “controversial” topic. Given Patton’s enormous historical stature, it is hardly surprising that his Wikipedia entry is exceptionally long and detailed, running over 15,000 words, with nearly 300 references and footnotes. But this exhaustive exposition contains not the slightest suggestion of any suspicious aspects to his death.
[T]here is an account which has been making edits to Wikipedia entries for many years called “Philip Cross”. In the last five years this account’s operator has not taken a single day off — no weekends, holidays, nothing — and according to their time log they work extremely long hours adhering to a very strict, clockwork schedule of edits throughout the day as an ostensibly unpaid volunteer.This is bizarre enough, but the fact that this account is undeniably focusing with malicious intent on anti-imperialist activists who question establishment narratives and the fact that its behavior is being aggressively defended by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales means that there’s some serious fuckery afoot. ...
As outlined in the articles by Murray and Five Filters [see below], the evidence is there in abundance. Five Filters lays out “diffs” (editing changes) in black and white showing clear bias by the Philip Cross account, a very slanted perspective is clearly and undeniably documented, and yet Wales denies and aggressively ridicules any suggestion that something shady could be afoot. This likely means that Wales is in on whatever game the Philip Cross account is playing. Which means the entire site is likely involved in some sort of psyop by a party which stands to benefit from keeping the dominant narrative slanted in a pro-establishment direction.
A 2016 Pew Research Center report found that Wikipedia was getting some 18 billion page views per month. Billion with a ‘b’. YouTube recently announced that it’s going to be showing text from Wikipedia articles on videos about conspiracy theories to help “curb fake news”. Plainly the site is extremely important in the battle for control of the narrative about what’s going on in the world. Plainly its leadership fights on one side of that battle, which happens to be the side that favors western oligarchs and intelligence agencies.
[T]he 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.This matters because, an ordinary reader who comes across an article questioning (say) the official narrative on the Skripals, is very likely to turn to Wikipedia to get information on the author of the article. Simply put, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is to make certain that if that reader looks up an anti-war person such as John Pilger, they will conclude they are thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy, whereas if they look up a right wing MSM journalist, they will conclude they are a paragon of virtue and entirely to be trusted.
The “Philip Cross” treatment is meted out not just to left wingers, but to all sceptical of neo-conservatism and who oppose “wars of intervention”. A list of Cross’s victims includes Alex Salmond, Peter Oborne, John Pilger, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Hayward, Diane Abbott, Neil Clark, Lindsey German, Vanessa Beeley, and George Galloway.
For over ten years, Wikipedia has been a key focus of right-leaning, pro-Israel groups that have effectively weaponized the online encyclopedia as a means of controlling the narrative when it comes to the state of Israel’s more than 50-year-long military occupation of Palestine.
Wikipedia is the authority — Facebook is the operation. That means that ... they have been working hard to create a disinformation system so intelligent it is disguised as a 'free open sourced encyclopedia' that anyone can edit. Nothing can be further from the truth. Wikipedia is a tool of the Establishment to suppress free speech and defame political opponents. It is a tool for big business to control information on controversial products, such as drugs that can have fatal side effects.
It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one. It might be better to embrace a "credibility" policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases. Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.
Now former Texas congressman Ron Paul, 85, has been blocked from using his Facebook page for unspecified violations of "community standards." Paul's last posting was linked to an article on the "shocking" increase of censorship on social media. Facebook then proceeded to block him under the same undefined "community standards" policy. ...
The move against Paul, a long champion of free speech, shows how raw and comprehensive this crackdown [on free speech] has become. ... These companies [Facebook, Twitter, etc.] are moving in unison but not necessarily with direct collusion. The [Capitol Hill] riot was immediately taken as a green light to move against a huge variety of sites and individuals. As we have seen in Europe [beginning in the Nazi era], such censorship becomes an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech control. ... Yet, most law professors and media figures in the United States remain silent.
Last week's massive social media purges — starting with President Trump's permanent ban from Twitter and other outlets — was shocking and chilling, particularly to those of us who value free expression and the free exchange of ideas. The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense and the process was anything but transparent. ...
Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independent of US government interests are ignoring reality. The [fascist] corporatist merger of "private" US social media companies with US government foreign policy goals has a long history and is deeply steeped in the hyper-interventionism of the Obama/Biden era.
"Big Tech" long ago partnered with the Obama/Biden/Clinton State Department to lend their tools to US "soft power" goals overseas. ... [The] big US tech firms were happy to partner up with the State Department and US intelligence to provide the tools to empower those the US wanted to seize power and to silence those out of favor.
In short, US government elites have been partnering with "Big Tech" overseas for years to decide who has the right to speak and who must be silenced. What has changed now is that this deployment of "soft power" in the service of Washington's hard power has come home to roost.
Wikipedia openly repudiates neutrality, and therefore it is shamelessly hypocritical in how it continues to pay lip service to its "neutral point of view" policy. Wikipedia's editors embrace their biases sometimes so fervently that their articles emerge more as propaganda than as reference material. ...
For these reasons, it is not too far to say that Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree. Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy. Democracy requires that voters be given the full range of views on controversial issues, so that they can make up their minds for themselves. If society's main information sources march in ideological lockstep, they make a mockery of democracy. Then the wealthy and powerful need only gain control of the few approved organs of acceptable thought; then they will be able to manipulate and ultimately control all important political dialogue.
| Censorship | Serendipity Home Page |