Hey guys I think I found the problem

submitted by ChimpGoyGirl from pic8.co

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

How? Why?

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

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

    I think it's OK to use WIkipedia on Saidit, especially because editors at Wikipedia often correct previous data with updated data, and in the case of mass shootings, these are just numbers and factual data, no nuance. Nothing much to scrub in this case. Moreover, Saidit is - we can safely say - not prone to sharing academic research. I can probably find an academic study of murder rates, but in a communty like Saidit, I suspect it would be ridiculed to hell, unless of course it offers disproportionate evidence of murders by blacks (which is unlikely). Why should one work to find good academic sources at Saidit? Because of Saidit's control by a few intollerant right wing people, it will remain small and unimportant. There is however the basis here for a thriving website.

    [–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    You'd Most people would be shocked and amazed at how they control the message there. They have elaborate systems and rules and an esoteric culture to back it all up.

    If you dislike SaidIt why not migrate to Wikipedia?

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

    You don't know me Jason.

    It also helps to provide links to one's sources, which would help me with the shock and amazement. I am not surprised that Wikipedia is manipulated. We can question their sources and information, but there are still ways to use what's published there.

    [–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Corrected. I'm shocked and infuriated every time I delve into the Wikipedia corruption. AND every time they beg for money.

    Wikipedia's primarily acceptible sources are the corporate media - but only those they consider valid. They also have some grey areas. Everything else they question - even if you have many sources. They'll say that you're overdoing it with the sources and cut them out. Then another will come in and say not enough validation. It's all gamed.

    I often use their information, and often contribute to it. Doesn't mean I'm not aware of the bullshit.

    [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Only 13 50 stat is the truth, ask u/happy_face_caller

    [–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    Wikipedia is biased as hell. Completely controlled. The CIA and Mossad have armies of people who gatekeep and rewrite content there. The narrative is completely controlled and rigged with stupid limitations and rules. It's beyond corrupt. They mirror only the "official" narratives. All others are considered "fringe" even if they are anything but fringe.

    Wikipedia is ONLY the starting point to see what the official narrative is. Sometimes that's enough for very basic information. It's rarely enough for anything remotely political.

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

    OK - I'll look into this. I would think that intelligence agencies can easily hire editors to delete and change information. Much of the rest of the site might not be of interest to them.

    If in due course there is a reliable link that can offer some evidence of this, I would welcome it. I don't need to see it at the moment.

    Moreover, the KGB manipulated much of wikileaks.org several years ago. For example, specific information about the 'Panama Papers' is missing. A lazy link on wikilinks role in publishing them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

    [–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    It's not just about changing information. It's also about keeping views out or limiting the context and information enough to be virtually useless. Not to mention the way they gang up on users to kick them out.

    I was banned in 2016 for a year for being "another polite truther". I wasn't trying to change the 9/11 page or even the 9/11 conspiracy page. I was simply trying to correct major errors on the 9/11 Truther Movement page. If authoritative sources say you were born in 1870 you can't correct the page unless you have another authoritative source to validate the correction. That's just one of the ways they keep lies going.

    There's no shortage of documentation on the rigging and corruption of Wikipedia - but you won't likely find much of it in the corporate media. It's mutual masturbation.

    Russia had self-interest reasons to mess with the Panama Papers. Not legit reasons, so far as the truth goes. Do not be confused though. WikiLeaks is VERY different than Wikipedia. Just as WikiSpooks is different than both of them.