Wikipedia is quietly scrubbing Epstein's dem connections

submitted by hennaojisan from (lulz.com)

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

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

For more on Wikipedia censorship:- https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Wikipedia/Censorship

[–]hennaojisan[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I will check that.

[–]hennaojisan[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

An alternative to Wiki but I can not guarantee it is not also biased: https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page

[–]Robin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Reading https://infogalactic.com/info/September_11_attacks doesn't give me confidence in their content.

For another alternative, written from outside the corporate media bubble: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11

[–]hennaojisan[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I checked a few topics on Infogalactic and didn't see so much difference. I guess we have all noticed the editing on wiki since it's been going on for many years. Remember when Rosie O'Donnell said on TV that 9/11 was an inside job? It was a first. When I checked her bio on wiki a couple of years ago, it had been edited down to a stub, didn't mention 9/11 and the last sentence was, "She was never popular anyway" I was no fan but clearly she was very popular back then. I will check out your link.

[–]hennaojisan[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Will try it. Thanks.

[–]hennaojisan[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for recommending wikispooks.com. It is a treasure trove of info. As several commenters have pointed out, infogalactic is apparently as riddled with inaccuracies and revisionism as wikipedia.

[–]sodasplash 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Of course they are. I never visit Wikipedia for any reason.

[–]Robin 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I wouldn't go that far. It can be a very useful reference -- case in point when writing an article about internet censorship :-)

[–]sodasplash 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

fuck wikipedia

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Epstein&oldid=877051238

I just checked and I didn't notice much of a difference except for the newer stuff on the allegations, I'm not noticing much that could be a cover up, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?