How Fake is Wikipedia ? Very .

[luiza]

FIO . Just an introduction
Wikipedia is a website, and therefore of necessity centralised. WikiScanner has shown that media organisations, PR companies, agents of the deep state and CIA are systematically editing pages of personal interest to them.

Hierarchical Control​

Anyone can edit the site, but reverting people's edits is easy, and so is blocking users or IP addresses. Not everyone can do that. Who decides who can and who can't? Wikipedia editors are kept in line with what has been called "a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere" , one which gives special permissions to a very select group of editors - privileges that can be revoked if someone's decisions are deemed 'out of line' with the Official Narrative. Wikipedia is not as radically unbiased and fair as it purports to be, and increasingly reflects the agendas of those with deep pockets who have invested in shaping it to suit their commercial purposes.

Infiltration by Intelligence Agencies​

Craig Murray has suggested that GCHQ and other spooks are "embedded" in Wikipedia, which would explain their failure to challenge even the most facile official narratives. In 2018 he suggested that the "Philip Cross" account was either a "morbidly obsessed" individual, or more likely was being used by multiple people for a campaign to support the UK establishment's pro-war official narrative.

“We do have evidence that the CIA, even as early as 2008, that the CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia,”
Larry Sanger (August 1, 2023) [3]

​

 

[mamooth]

I suggest everyone switch to conservapedia, which only uses party-approved Russia-friendly sources. No deep state there, just derp state.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Wikipedia relies on "people" to keep it updated. Anyone can edit and add pages. Colleges and universities do not allow it to be used as a resource.

 

[JoeMoma]

Wikipedia is great for a lot of topics. It's great for things like math and science topics for which only dorky nerds care about updating. Other more controversial topics... not so much.

 

[Woodznutz]

I have read hundreds of Wiki articles. If something had been edited out or in, I wouldn't know it, but I'm generally satisfied with information.

 

[Muhammed]

Wikipedia is great for a lot of topics. It's great for things like math and science topics for which only dorky nerds care about updating. Other more controversial topics... not so much.

Bullshit. Any subject regarding climate has been thoroughly corrupted with disinformation by bad actors from the global warming doomsday cult.