Select Page
If knowledge is power, what happens if the knowledge and facts acquired is deliberately skewed, curated, deceptive or just plain wrong?
Wikipedia is one of the proverbial “4 Horsemen of the ‘Big Tech’ Apocalypse” (along with Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Apple) and has a global network of editors on alert 24/7 and just like Winston Smith in 1984, they literally rewrite history on the fly, disappearing stuff down the memory hole that doesn’t comport with the accepted orthodoxy or narrative on the boilerplate social and political issues of the day.

Wikipedia prides itself on ordinary citizens being able to edit particular points but after a citizen edit that doesn’t fit the preordained bias, it will revert back to the way it was, often within minutes.

On a scale of evil, Wikipedia is a 10.

If a majority of people and particularly school kids for example, use Wikipedia as a research tool and acquire their knowledge and therefore their power from such a source, then their arguments and debating points would also be faulty, deceptive and wrong and just because the majority use Wikipedia as a source and believe what they read, doesn’t make the arguments or debating points correct. Wrong is wrong after all.

In short, Its pure propaganda.

Even Wikipedia’s cofounder, Larry Sanger doesn’t trust it:

“..You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream centre-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia…”
In which case, if you relied solely on Wikipedia, if it’s not cited, it didn’t happen. For example if you consult Wikipedia on Trump/Russia collusion’ it is framed as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it was in fact real. Fox News which Wikipedia wont allowed to be cited was the only major media outlet covering and unpeeling the layers of the of the onion. .
It is the world’s fifth largest website, pulling in an estimated 6.1 billion followers per month and serves as a cheat sheet for almost any topic in the world. So great is the online encyclopaedia’s influence that it is the biggest and “most read reference work in history”, with as many as 56 million editions..

Larry Sanger was the midwife and co-founder of Wikipedia and he bells the cat in this interview and the extract below from an essay written by Sanger himself, Wikipedia Is More One-sided Than Ever

“…If an encyclopaedia is neutral about political, scientific, and religious controversies—the issues that define the ongoing culture war—then you will find competing sides represented carefully and respectfully, even if one side is “objectively” wrong. From a truly neutral article, you would learn why, on a whole variety of issues, conservatives believe one thing, while progressives believe another thing. And then you would be able to make up your own mind.

Is that what Wikipedia offers? As we will see, the answer is No.

Wikipedia does not just mirror the biases found in the mainstream news media, because some of it is conservative or contrarian. A lot of mainstream news stories are broken only in Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post—all of which are banned from use as sources by Wikipedia. Beyond that, many mainstream sources of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian opinion are banned from Wikipedia as well, including Quillette, The Federalist, and the Daily Caller.

In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted.

It is not too far to say that Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree. Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy. Democracy requires that voters be given the full range of views on controversial issues, so that they can make up their minds for themselves. If society’s main information sources march in ideological lockstep, they make a mockery of democracy. Then the wealthy and powerful need only gain control of the few approved organs of acceptable thought; then they will be able to manipulate and ultimately control all important political dialogue…”