ON CONTACT: Wikipedia – A Tool Of The Ruling Elite

submitted by fred_red_beans from youtube.com

all 4 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Mnemonic 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hmm everyone knows wikipedia is biased right? There are some things like (for example) historical things that are written how the mainstream west sees the history.

Computing theory articles are sometimes BETTER than 50 euro books in explaining some fundamental (and higher up) stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction It's usually on these subjects wikipedia has is a great synopsis. Wikipedia as a source for personal, wars after WWII, and other shizzle people REALLY don't like to be known as biased.

A bigger problem is that people don't look at the sources and check if the cited source is good and/or even mentions what it's cited for.

Wikipedia is supposed to be 'that' family member who works in the branch for which you have a question (though they are usually honest when they are not sure) it can help but as final source in anything more than a chat or bar-dispute resolver shouldnt be something you use it for.

It's very hard to manage a site/service as wikipedia especially when there are SO many people complaining about very small things. The big things get snowed under. 11 years Ago I wanted to join, because I was studying a history course about history and it just wasn't really present, when I saw the Talk page and the 'b*itching' going on, I decided that watching anime with my gf was time better spend (and it was a shitty anime).

I watched untill +- 18-19 minutes, it's a lot of obvious things and she seems only concerned with political articles of which not one source is to be trusted anywhere anytime anyhow.

[–]fred_red_beans[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My motivation for posting this video is to help show that WikiPedia was corrupted as an information source by those who have money and resources long ago. It's the same thing that is now happening to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit.

I agree there are technical/scientific articles that are decent references and/or can get you pointed in the right direction. I certainly use those.

True, people do not check sources. Seems that often when I check source links in a WikiPedia article, they often aren't even on the web anymore. People now don't even read more than fits on their dumb phone's screen. The lack of critical thinking and lack of desire to search for alternative points of view or accounts is a problem. By only listening to and accepting the information that is given to you by an "authoritative" source, you forfeit your own sovereignty.

I do not think that WikiPedia's issues are simply from too many cooks in the kitchen. Some of those cooks are there to make sure the meal does or does not turn out in certain ways.

While most people do realize that WikiPedia is not the source of all things true, they may not realize what information they may not be clued into. They also may not realize that Wikipedia can be used in character assassination, such as in the Phillip Cross Affair.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/

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.

[–]Mnemonic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I agree, in those optics wikipedia is like any other 'open' platform, vulnerable to these kind of things.

[–]fred_red_beans[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Chris Hedges speaks with investigative journalist Helen Buyniski