|
Post by maverick on Mar 30, 2014 11:08:57 GMT -5
Forgot to mention as well, the blog post by Didymus Judas Thomas explains how Scottish arbitrator AGK could do all that in a 24-hour day, clearly illustrating unilateral actions being taken. Finally, last August a Wikimedia Foundation employee was stripped of administrator rights, with AGK leveled the seventh straight unopposed vote to remove the administrator tools from Mr. Keyes.
|
|
|
Post by platinumblonde on Mar 30, 2014 12:48:53 GMT -5
Wait a second here, do we have any proof wikipedia is ran by intelligence agencies in an attempt to control information?
I use wikipedia from time to time and I think they can be a great resource, outside of whatever internal fighting or drama that may be occurring. Sure, sometimes they can have their facts wrong, but it's pretty easy to contact them and let em know what's incorrect....and I have a few times in the past.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHawk on Mar 30, 2014 13:38:05 GMT -5
So... am I correct in deducing that your self serving autobiographical article was deleted on the grounds that you are less noteworthy than a porn star?
|
|
|
Post by mranderson on Mar 30, 2014 14:43:46 GMT -5
Wait a second here, do we have any proof wikipedia is ran by intelligence agencies in an attempt to control information? I use wikipedia from time to time and I think they can be a great resource, outside of whatever internal fighting or drama that may be occurring. Sure, sometimes they can have their facts wrong, but it's pretty easy to contact them and let em know what's incorrect....and I have a few times in the past. Anything that does not support a persons crazy theories has to be run by the NWO, CIA or Aliens. That is the way things work around here.
|
|
|
Post by hitman on Mar 30, 2014 23:05:57 GMT -5
If you acknowledge the fact that anyone can manipulate information here and there, and that it has an academic-intellectualist (some call it leftist) bent and that no "alternative views" (considered to be "pseudoscience") are allowed, then it can be used as a wonderful and quick research tool for writers. That is, I love Wikipedia, despite its shortcomings.
The "censorship" you speak of does not come from Intelligence Agencies, imo, but from the fact that it needs to stay focused on mainstream academic level of knowledge, which is essentially scientific-materialism, the cult of our times. Hence we see this limitation in all Encyclopedias and in mainstream news and mainstream books and mainstream TV Shows. Thats nothing new. Thats why we have this forum...for all the "alternative" angles to life.
|
|
|
Post by networksolutions on Mar 30, 2014 23:17:49 GMT -5
So much is point of view. I was looking at the article on Crimea yesterday, and its talk page, and although I don't think the three letter agencies get involved there sure is partisan bickering over use of words and descriptions and segmentation of pages on the big stories, and then eventually it gets settled down into the murky neutral middle.
|
|
|
Post by secretspy on Mar 30, 2014 23:49:32 GMT -5
The point of view not just applies to every topic on Wikipedia, such as Crimea, MH370 and Phobos-Grunt, but also those people who built a wiki encyclopedia as well. One of the most obnoxious aspects of Wikipedia that offends my sense of justice is that indefinite blocking is used to prevent disruptive edits and once the threat of disruption is removed (by death of someone who causes this), then the block becomes unnecessary. In this case, the block of Bryan Seecrets sock Starkiller88 and Russavia (Scott Bibby), the former has a fabricated and highly misleading block summary, and Dennis Brown and Boing! said Zebedee made a personal attack and incivil and insane remarks to ban me (I believe AGK has did the same while trying to file appeals to BASC, now I am already banned from it), on behalf of BatteryIncluded. These two blocks are overwhelmingly supported by the community ever since, but they are not bans because they didn't support a ban. They are weighted decisions. However, my personal-attack based ban on Wikipedia did not stop me, but in any event an unblocking action is made by other administrator, the individual will be immediately desysopped and banned. This what happened last March when Kevin unblocked Cla68.
Furthering the conspiracy even more is that the signal that the Wikipedia community do not wish my interaction with that project to continue from 2012 onwards has been sent. This would have an ever-lasting and far-reaching ripple effect through various linked projects and communities, websites, ISPs, institutions and even friends, families and co-workers, causing them or their management to take any robust approaches to any actions I'm taking therein that are aimed at Wikipedia itself. This may be atrocious given BatteryIncluded's misleading advice to die.
Regarding the controlling of information, I support the fact that Wikipedia is really a lost cause and a conspiracy - a conspiracy to eliminate the lives of the very producers of the encyclopedia.
|
|
|
Post by secretspy on Mar 30, 2014 23:50:41 GMT -5
The evidence that Wikipedia is a conspiracy is that Scott Martin explains of sending a clear signal back in January when dealing with Russavia and possibly me for that matter. And, a shocking secret: The only way to make indefinite blocks unnecessary is to remove the threat of disruption. And this means death of someone who causes it. And achieving death is taking a medication to supposedly cure people's mental health and their paranoia. This is exactly what BatteryIncluded and his cohorts are wanting to do to me. If this continue, then it will make all of humanity a victim.
|
|
|
Post by theconspiracist on Mar 31, 2014 16:24:21 GMT -5
Wikepedia is main stream media There is no question it is controlled My guess is that (just like every other MSM) the influence is subtle enough that even most of the major players are probably not really aware of what's going on. A lot of corruption can be done with a very gentle tough if someone is really well positioned and knows what they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by maverick on Mar 31, 2014 16:32:43 GMT -5
Well considering a lot a academic studies are so amateurish they are close to fraudulent. That might be a good thing.
Just citing rubbish studies does educate people.
|
|