Another example of why Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Ag, and the enforcing arm of the shadow government, the CIA, are allowed to edit Wikipedia to their liking might be their large donations to the Wikipedia Foundation. A couple of the major donors include the Rothschild Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation ($3 million donation in 2008 alone), both tied to one or more of these big industries.
Here’s examples of history 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:
- James H. Fetzer: Is Wikipedia Stifling 9/11 Truth?
- James Bacque: Why is Wikipedia Censoring Me?
- Wade Frazier: The Biases of Wikipedia — A Case History
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:
- John Borland: See Who’s Editing Wikipedia — Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign
- J. P. Mroz: Will the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up?
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.
- One of the comments here says:
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.
- The ‘dark arts’: Bell Pottinger caught rewriting its clients’ Wikipedia entries
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.
- The Dangers of Wikipedia
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.
- Edwin Black: Wikipedia — The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge
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 …
You can’t trust anything you read on Wikipedia, and anyone who cites a Wikipedia article as authoritative simply reveals their own ignorance and naivety. Here are two scholarly alternatives recommended by Edwin Black:
- Citizendium “can do better”
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.
- Scholarpedia “differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways:”
- 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:
- New World Encyclopedia
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.
Deception on Nutrition
Wikipedia wants us to believe the entries in its “encyclopedia” are truthful, fair, and balanced. However, a comprehensive analysis of its nutritional articles reveals a plethora of factual inconsistencies and a clear and present bias against the very idea of nutritional supplementation. Even though almost every nutrient page admits most Americans don’t consume the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of that particular vitamin or mineral, the pages’ editors still categorically discourage supplementation. Wikipedia’s main article on vitamins declares that supplements are “thought to be of little value in healthy people,”1 adding “no clear justification exists for recommending supplementation for preventing many diseases” with vitamin D, so much so that “further research of similar design is unneeded in these areas.”2 That certainly sounds final.
Wikipedia would have you believe the science is 100% settled on nutritional supplements, but what are their qualifications for making such declarations? Attempts by qualified professionals with over 40 years of experience in the nutritional field to edit these articles to reflect accurate information are merely changed back in accordance with the beliefs of the core group of Skeptics who exercise an iron grip on Wikipedia’s health and nutritional pages. Editors, whose qualifications are lacking, are nevertheless given free rein to lead readers astray who might otherwise find information beneficial in their search for better health.
A thorough study of thousands of scientific articles in peer-reviewed literature suggests that the Skeptics controlling the flow of information aren’t telling us everything we need to know, whether about the negative effects of consuming too little or the benefits of supplementing with these nutrients. Wikipedia and its co-founder Jimmy Wales have much to answer for. Their insistence on replacing the truth with inaccurate, scientifically-reductionist Skepticism is contributing to global ignorance.
Here are just a few nutrients where our Wickedpedia covers facts you won’t find in the Wikipedia entries for essential vitamins and minerals, randomly selected from hundreds of thousands of scientific research papers whose conclusions contradict those of the Wikipedia cognoscenti. Mouse over each nutrient for a brief description of the documented health benefits:
- Vitamin A
- Vitamin B1 (Thiamine)
- Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin)
- Vitamin B3 (Niacin)
- Vitamin B5 (Pantothenic Acid)
- Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine)
- Vitamin B7 (Biotin)
- Vitamin B9 (Folate)
- Vitamin B12
- Vitamin C
- Vitamin D
- Vitamin E
- Vitamin K
- Calcium
- Copper
- Iodine
- Iron
- Magnesium
- Potassium
- Selenium
- Zinc
This does not represent an exhaustive list of vitamins and minerals, merely a sampling of nutrients where the scientific literature sharply contradicts Wikipedia’s claims regarding the uselessness of nutritional supplements. Wikipedia presents itself as the final authority on nutrition with its entries. However, hundreds of thousands of studies suggest that not only are most Americans deficient in many of these nutrients but that healthy individuals can also benefit from supplementing their intake. What responsibility do the ultra-Skeptic Wikipedia editors bear for discouraging readers from taking supplements that could markedly improve their health and quality of life? Why are they so determined to discourage the consumption of nutritional supplements? Why are nutritional supplements held to a higher standard of proof than other scientific theories and particularly pharmaceutical drugs, which go unmolested in Wikipedia’s pages despite less research backing them up?
In general, adults consuming a Standard American Diet take in markedly less than the RDA of the essential vitamins and minerals even as they consume too many calories overall. They thereby put themselves at greater risk of cellular weakness and disease, depending on which nutrients they lack. Even the adequacy of RDA-level consumption as a national standard for nutrition is questionable. Many European countries recommend higher levels of the essential nutrients for optimal health. Supplementation is a cheap and easy way to make up for dietary deficiencies, avoiding negative health repercussions and maximizing the benefits of these essential nutrients. By discouraging such an inexpensive and sensible route to mental and physical health, the arch-Skeptic editors on Wikipedia are leading readers astray. They must answer for their inaccurate presentation of the nutritional landscape and the repercussions it has for readers’ health.
The single most important factor in evaluating the nutritional science is how the information is used. Clinicians, doctors, nurses and other medical professionals are using the information contained in these thousands of scientific studies to treat patients – to improve their health and improve their lives by integrating nutritional supplements into their practices. Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales are doing nothing of the sort. To deny the benefits of clinical experience is to deny the basis of all treatment programs. Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales’ scientific-reductionist edifice is based on no qualifications, no experience, and no real-world application of the knowledge they claim to possess, and this is the Achilles’ heel of the skeptic approach. Discounting the clinical real-life experience of experienced medical professionals in favor of unfounded assertions from individuals who have never attempted to apply their opinions in the field shows the worst kind of bias.
Source: https://www.naturalblaze.com/2018/08/wikipedia-deception.html
Conservapedia also documents some examples of Wikipedia’s liberal bias as does Wikispooks
Sources:
Alternatives to Wikipedia:
