“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best – that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
– Thomas Huxley
By: Zy Marquiez
December 21, 2015
In previous a Breakaway Guide to Mainstream Media Manipulation & Propaganda, we showed how trustworthy downright deceptive the mainstream media can be.
Its rather unfortunate, because the majority of the populace shows blind faith in the media, but thankfully not everyone. A large portion of people have begun to unplug, as media conglomerates such as CNBC keep losing viewers , even though there is a growing number of people capable of watching TV. Quite ironic.
Moving on to another more subtle component of media, but nonetheless important, we will take a cursory look at Wikipedia.
There have been a few instances that took place in the past which made me treat information provided by Wikipedia in an askance way. Coupled with this is the fact that there is a wide breadth of people that can access the website anonymously and how ‘precise’ those “edits” can be.
These handful of events that took place made me extremely convinced that at worst, Wikipedia is just another mouthpiece for the establishment.
This is just personal opinion based on nefarious dealings witnessed by myself and two other people as it was happening.
However, to be more precise, what am going to show you is that Wikipedia’s reliability isn’t as ironclad as people give it credit for.
The latitude and scope of power that Wikipedia has been able to showcase in its growth is as resounding at it is precise. Such power has the capability to singlehandedly make or break any particular individual/corporation/idea in more ways that people could fathom.
Recently published by the Independent, a veritable cavalcade of folks/corporations were eviscerated by actions undertaken within the catacombs of Wikipedia.
Serious scamming of a colossal magnitude was running rampant behind the scenes in unprecedented ways.
It’s been a long suspicion of a few folks that Blackmail is merely the tip of the iceberg however. That alone though is still quite notable given the reliability deceptiveness that can be carried out on such a widely known/used website.
To elucidate further into what was taking place, please take a note of how scam/s worked as detailed by Jamie Merril & Jonathan Owen:
” The scam worked by targeting firms struggling to get pages about their businesses on Wikipedia. They were often told their articles had been rejected due to concerns of excessive promotional content – although in some cases the scammers themselves may have been the ones causing the articles to be removed.
According to a Wikipedia insider, at this stage the scammers would demand a payment of up to several hundred pounds to successfully “re-post or re-surface” the article, and in some cases demanded an on-going monthly payment to “protect” the articles. The fraudster usually claimed to be a Wikipedia editor or administrator.”
If that’s not disturbing enough for what has been considered by some as the Encyclopedia Britannica of the interwebz, it gets better.
Furthermore, lets couple the above fact with a statement by Andrew Orlowski which he elucidates in his article at TheRegister:
There are serious questions to be asked, not only of Wikipedia’s community structures – which encourage and protect anonymous editing – but also of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) itself. The charity has amassed assets of over $70m and a ready cash pile of millions of dollars, thanks to aggressive fundraising which suggests donors must pay to keep the site online (in reality, only around $3m is required to run the site every year). Yet the Foundation has little power to compel anyone to do anything: the community makes its own mind up. Neither seems able to bear much self-examination. [Bold emphasis added]
If that’s not enough to make someone downright outraged am not sure what is.
Trust is something that is often asked of us as individuals by society/corporations/institutions, but rarely earned by those very institutions that implore you at the outset. Events such as this are the exact reason why many folks are suspicious.
While anonymity can protect privacy, it can also be used as a weapon.
In this case we have seen what happens when one is behind the crosshairs of targeted bribery.
That doesn’t even begin to touch issues that Sharyl Attkisson spoke of in her Ted-Talks presentation about the deception within Wikipedia.
Author Phillip Roth reportedly went to edit information to correct a major fact error that pertained to one of his own characters that was cited on a wikipedia page, but as Attkisson relates:
“No matter how hard he tried, wikipedia’s editors wouldn’t allow it. They kept reverting the evidence back to the false information. When Roth finally reached a person at wikipedia, which was no easy task, and tried to find out what was going wrong, they told him he simply was not considered a credible source on himself.”
Ladies and gentlemen, case closed.
A place that doesn’t allow facts to be corrected, by people that created them, is no place that should be trustworthy.
When traveling the innards of the websphere, be mindful of information, no matter where it comes from. Including here. Do your research.
Ultimately what our mind hones in on, is our choice. Luckily for us, we still have one.
Do your research, check, recheck, and make the correct choice for yourself.
As Buddha once said:
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”