On the Sudden Disinformationalization of Wikipedia

29  2015-12-11 by 911bodysnatchers322

I noticed something disturbing over the last 3 months. Gradual and remarkable edits, removals, omissions and reinterpretations of wikipedia articles having to do with conspiracies and various deep state techniques deployed in the information war against its citizens.

Most recently it's with the Strategy of Tension article. I recall reading this article and it made me unhappy. It sent me on a quest to figure out in what other ways our gov has been lying to us. I recall crawling the 'related topics' notably Propaganda Due and Gladio and these opened a big can of worms for me. Which is why--I postulate--they they removed the article and replaced it with an inferior, information-lesser article that reads as if "strategy of tension" is a hoax, that USA never used it, that they are culpable of no such strategy and that it's a pernicious conspiracy theory. This made me mad because it is so clearly horseapples. So I decided to post about it:

22 comments

6  hydragorgon 2015-12-11

Here's an article from December 1 explaining how Wikipedia has begun to use 'AI to Expand Its Ranks of Human Editors'. I have noticed exactly what you're talking about, and I believe the process has been so thorough it has to be automated.

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/wikipedia-is-using-ai-to-expand-the-ranks-of-human-editors/

2  azzazaz 2015-12-11

Yeah.

The ai thought i made .malicious edit and immediately reversed it recently.

I corrected it but the ai is definitely editing.

3  hydragorgon 2015-12-11

Yeah, even the feel as the website loads is different. There's like a lag now. I used to add sources to wikipedia, but half the time they were taken down despite multiple scholarly sources. I've given up on wikipedia as anything but a basic primer on historical subjects. Almost anything controversial in modern times follows the company line. I'm glad you also noticed this increase in censorship.

1  911bodysnatchers322 2015-12-11

Since 2006 I've not been able to make even legititmate edits. I recall posting fully referenced info on a recording company and it was reversed and I battled a mod over it and gave up, deciding that they are shitty gatekeepers and I won't ever contribute again.

1  azzazaz 2015-12-11

Wow.

Yeah moderation is the beginning of the end of any crowdsourced project. The two are completely incompatible.

1  911bodysnatchers322 2015-12-11

That is fascinating. Great catch, hyradgorgon. I can attest just from my own meanderings on wikipedia that stuff is shifting before our eyes. I think it's disgusting. I had this idea in my mind at one time that wikipedia was a great thing that we were building a tower of truth, now I realize there is no truth but it's not from a lack of deep state attempts to undermine it. I think we're in a downward spiral into the downfall of all civilization

1  hydragorgon 2015-12-11

I got you. I too used to refer to wikipedia, with the hope that the vast majority of people would keep it honest through strength of numbers. Those days are long gone, if they ever existed at all. I don't think western civilization will hit rock bottom, but extremely scared of a bloodshed on the French revolution level. Worse, actually. And if we do lose, you can be pretty sure wikipedia will have a whole topic branch just to damn us. as a single man, I'm willing to go down with the ship.

5  anarchopotato 2015-12-11

9 syllables

3  toneii 2015-12-11

Almost as bad as antidisestablishmentarianism

1  911bodysnatchers322 2015-12-11

What's funny is that antidisestablismentarianists are who we are up against.

The word has also come by analogy to refer to any opposition to those who oppose the establishment, whether the government in whole or part or the established society.[1]

Also if the catholic church is running this game, then these would be people who maintain their power. People claim the illuminati claim to want to destroy all religion, but this is proof that this is either a false claim and they are the church, or they are not at all real and the church is the 'acutal illuminati' because i can tell you the church is losing approximately 0% power and control in the world.

5  JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-11

Disinformationalization? Wow. Just wow.

4  Amos_Quito 2015-12-11

The "smaht people" have long known that those who control the information control the situation.

Wikipedia is at the top of most internet search results, and so it is naturally a target for those who want to put their spin on "reality".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIYhE-hei2Y

1  911bodysnatchers322 2015-12-11

Is boston the illuminati?

1  Amos_Quito 2015-12-11

Is boston the illuminati?

I am totally confused by this question.

Please clarify.

3  Padirian 2015-12-11

Maybe this was the reason teachers never wanted me to cite Wikipedia.

1  911bodysnatchers322 2015-12-11

They are only correct after the fact of this technosorcery. There was a time in history when wikipedia was a much better resource than 99% of everywhere else, especially on popular subjects or those having to do with science and actual facts. You could use wikipedia but you just had to scroll to the bottom and snarf all their references

1  Padirian 2015-12-11

Yea I was kidding. I think wikipedia is better than 90% of sources. Although now it's being corrupted quick.

3  76superdave 2015-12-11

I enjoyed the new word, thank you.

1  911bodysnatchers322 2015-12-11

;)

If someone doesn't create new language, it will die

2  FORKinmyDICK 2015-12-11

  1. Ministry of Truth.

2  MrMarmot 2015-12-11

I don't think it's sudden, but has been going on a long time. They just focus on editing what is most visited or becomes a hot topic. A couple years ago, when the news that India had defeated polio with vaccines, I was in some heavy discussions and went to Wikipedia often, looking up various "vaccine preventable" diseases (since the CDC and NIH studies often disprove their own arguments); I was pleased to find very objective entries for most. I revisited the MMR entry a few days later and noticed that it had been edited to swab out or diminish any controversy, adverse effects, etc. Percentages of vaccinated people who contracted any of the diseases had been lowered. I then visited entries on Polio and all the other pages I had seen before, and all had been edited in the same way.

2  Liberum_Sententia 2015-12-11

I started noticing white washed articles. Usually, corporations had a "criticism" or "controversies" sections. Now they are all positive. The Obama article was the first clue a few years ago.