Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wikipedia-disinformation-operation

Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation?

by Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 - 00:05

Wikipedia is generally thought of as an open, transparent, and mostly reliable online encyclopedia. Yet upon closer inspection, this turns out not to be the case.

In fact, the English Wikipedia with its 9 billion worldwide page views per month is governed by just 500 active administrators, whose real identity in many cases remains unknown.

Moreover, studies have shown that 80% of all Wikipedia content is written by just 1% of all Wikipedia editors, which again amounts to just a few hundred mostly unknown people.
Obviously, such a non-transparent and hierarchical structure is susceptible to corruption and manipulation, the notorious “paid editors” hired by corporations being just one example.
Indeed, already in 2007, researchers found that CIA and FBI employees were editing Wikipedia articles on controversial topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo military prison.
Also in 2007, researchers found that one of the most active and influential English Wikipedia administrators, called “Slim Virgin”, was in fact a former British intelligence informer.
More recently, another highly prolific Wikipedia editor going by the false name of “Philip Cross” turned out to be linked to UK intelligence as well as several mainstream media journalists.
In Germany, one of the most aggressive Wikipedia editors was exposed, after a two-year legal battle, as a political operative formerly serving in the Israeli army as a foreign volunteer.

Even in Switzerland, unidentified government employees were caught whitewashing Wikipedia entries about the Swiss secret service just prior to a public referendum about the agency.

Many of these Wikipedia personae are editing articles almost all day and every day, indicating that they are either highly dedicated individuals, or in fact, operated by a group of people.
In addition, articles edited by these personae cannot easily be revised, since the above-mentioned administrators can always revert changes or simply block disagreeing users altogether.
The primary goal of these covert campaigns appears to be pushing Western and Israeli government positions while destroying the reputation of independent journalists and politicians.
Articles most affected by this kind of manipulation include political, geopolitical and certain historical topics as well as biographies of non-conformist academics, journalists, and politicians.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, a friend of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and a “Young Leader” of the Davos forum, has repeatedly defended these operations.

Speaking of Davos, Wikimedia has itself amassed a fortune of more than $160 million, donated in large part not by lazy students, but by major US corporations and influential foundations.
Moreover, US social media and video platforms are increasingly referring to Wikipedia to frame or combat “controversial” topics. The revelations discussed above may perhaps help explain why.
Already NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed how spooks manipulate online debates, and more recently, a senior Twitter executive turned out to be a British Army “psyops” officer.
To add at least some degree of transparency, German researchers have developed a free web browser tool called WikiWho that lets readers color code just who edited what in Wikipedia.
In many cases, the result looks as discomforting as one might expect.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/wikiwho-war-on-terror.png?itok=IVW7Eaog

Image

a pillar of propagandists is to sow distrust of indepently varifiable sources

 

 

An early, untested hypothesis is that the Swiss Research Agency doesn't like its Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Propaganda_Research

LOL. Zero Hedge has a lot of nerve to say this. Glass houses and all. . .

1 Like

pfsjkd - 

LOL. Zero Hedge has a lot of nerve to say this. Glass houses and all. . .


Zero Hedge is just cross-posting it from the "Swiss Research Agency"

The Internet is a great tool to rewrite history, such as they are doing on Google.

1 Like

Frat

You mean the worlds largest repository of information with its principles of open editing, free content creation and almost zero security, may be susceptible to groups willing to dedicate time to editing it?

This is a shocking expose.

FingerorMoon - 

You mean the worlds largest repository of information with its principles of open editing, free content creation and almost zero security, may be susceptible to groups willing to dedicate time to editing it?


This is a shocking expose.


This is a misnomer. They allow "free editing" for certain pages, but always lock down pages in which their narrative has been affirmed and must not be questioned further.

A great example is Stefan Molyneux

"Stefan Basil Molyneux (/st??fæn ?m?l?nju?/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.[3][4][5][6][7]
Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist.[8][9][10][11] Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse fixation on race and IQ".[12]
The Freedomain internet community which Molyneux leads has been described as a cult, and Molyneux has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination techniques on his followers"

Almost none of this is true, and if it was, YT, FB, IG, and Twitter would have gladly removed him off their platforms.

This is the first page if you search the guy's name and there's no way to alter it. There's a 0% chance he could ever get hired anywhere of note, and he's on Antifa's most wanted list because of Wikipedia's lies. They WILL NOT allow his page to be altered.

I've avoided anything health related from Wikipedia for years. If I want to know things like how many episodes are in Breaking Bad for example, I'll check out its wiki page. That's it.

Onikage -
FingerorMoon - 

You mean the worlds largest repository of information with its principles of open editing, free content creation and almost zero security, may be susceptible to groups willing to dedicate time to editing it?


This is a shocking expose.


This is a misnomer. They allow "free editing" for certain pages, but always lock down pages in which their narrative has been affirmed and must not be questioned further.

A great example is Stefan Molyneux

"Stefan Basil Molyneux (/st??fæn ?m?l?nju?/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.[3][4][5][6][7]
Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist.[8][9][10][11] Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse fixation on race and IQ".[12]
The Freedomain internet community which Molyneux leads has been described as a cult, and Molyneux has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination techniques on his followers"

Almost none of this is true, and if it was, YT, FB, IG, and Twitter would have gladly removed him off their platforms.

This is the first page if you search the guy's name and there's no way to alter it. There's a 0% chance he could ever get hired anywhere of note, and he's on Antifa's most wanted list because of Wikipedia's lies. They WILL NOT allow his page to be altered.

You don't believe it to be true.


 


They have cited all those references. I don't know a thing about him but simply googling his name leads to statements that are problematic to me and totally in line with the wiki description imo


 


Anyone making psuedo science arguments about race superiority is going to get called a racist, especially on a platform that is science and evidence based.

Thelonious - 
Onikage -
FingerorMoon - 

You mean the worlds largest repository of information with its principles of open editing, free content creation and almost zero security, may be susceptible to groups willing to dedicate time to editing it?


This is a shocking expose.


This is a misnomer. They allow "free editing" for certain pages, but always lock down pages in which their narrative has been affirmed and must not be questioned further.

A great example is Stefan Molyneux

"Stefan Basil Molyneux (/st??fæn ?m?l?nju?/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.[3][4][5][6][7]
Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist.[8][9][10][11] Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse fixation on race and IQ".[12]
The Freedomain internet community which Molyneux leads has been described as a cult, and Molyneux has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination techniques on his followers"

Almost none of this is true, and if it was, YT, FB, IG, and Twitter would have gladly removed him off their platforms.

This is the first page if you search the guy's name and there's no way to alter it. There's a 0% chance he could ever get hired anywhere of note, and he's on Antifa's most wanted list because of Wikipedia's lies. They WILL NOT allow his page to be altered.

You don't believe it to be true.


 


They have cited all those references. I don't know a thing about him but simply googling his name leads to statements that are problematic to me and totally in line with the wiki description imo


 


Anyone making psuedo science arguments about race superiority is going to get called a racist, especially on a platform that is science and evidence based.


Again - the reasoning of the mob. Feeding into everything wrong with our system.

Certainly you're aware of circular sourcing.

Also, Molyneux doesn't make psuedo-science arguments.
He has actual scientists on his show. Some of whom explain information about race and IQ - including those who disagree with the research. Is that enough for you to label a man a "racist" which ensures being depersoned in our society?

Onikage - 
FingerorMoon - 

You mean the worlds largest repository of information with its principles of open editing, free content creation and almost zero security, may be susceptible to groups willing to dedicate time to editing it?


This is a shocking expose.


This is a misnomer. They allow "free editing" for certain pages, but always lock down pages in which their narrative has been affirmed and must not be questioned further.

A great example is Stefan Molyneux

"Stefan Basil Molyneux (/st??fæn ?m?l?nju?/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.[3][4][5][6][7]
Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist.[8][9][10][11] Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse fixation on race and IQ".[12]
The Freedomain internet community which Molyneux leads has been described as a cult, and Molyneux has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination techniques on his followers"

Almost none of this is true, and if it was, YT, FB, IG, and Twitter would have gladly removed him off their platforms.

This is the first page if you search the guy's name and there's no way to alter it. There's a 0% chance he could ever get hired anywhere of note, and he's on Antifa's most wanted list because of Wikipedia's lies. They WILL NOT allow his page to be altered.


They definitely lock pages when 'edit wars' occur between rival factions.
Thats been true of any topic and is hilarious when it pertains to something innocuous like video games, not so much with politics.

The passage you've cut and paste appears to be using multiple sources for every sentence. That's how Wikipedia rules when these sort of things happens - he who can produce the most consistent sources wins.

Can that be easily manipulated as well? Oh yeah.

....I don't know the exact process of unlocking an article that got locked due to x number of edits and complaints...

FingerorMoon - 
Onikage - 
FingerorMoon - 

You mean the worlds largest repository of information with its principles of open editing, free content creation and almost zero security, may be susceptible to groups willing to dedicate time to editing it?


This is a shocking expose.


This is a misnomer. They allow "free editing" for certain pages, but always lock down pages in which their narrative has been affirmed and must not be questioned further.

A great example is Stefan Molyneux

"Stefan Basil Molyneux (/st??fæn ?m?l?nju?/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.[3][4][5][6][7]
Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist.[8][9][10][11] Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse fixation on race and IQ".[12]
The Freedomain internet community which Molyneux leads has been described as a cult, and Molyneux has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination techniques on his followers"

Almost none of this is true, and if it was, YT, FB, IG, and Twitter would have gladly removed him off their platforms.

This is the first page if you search the guy's name and there's no way to alter it. There's a 0% chance he could ever get hired anywhere of note, and he's on Antifa's most wanted list because of Wikipedia's lies. They WILL NOT allow his page to be altered.


They definitely lock pages when 'edit wars' occur between rival factions.
Thats been true of any topic and is hilarious when it pertains to something innocuous like video games, not so much with politics.

The passage you've cut and paste appears to be using multiple sources for every sentence. That's how Wikipedia rules when these sort of things happens - he who can produce the most consistent sources wins.

Can that be easily manipulated as well? Oh yeah.

....I don't know the exact process of unlocking an article that got locked due to x number of edits and complaints...

Let's look at one of the sources and see where it goes.

How about number 8? Which is referencing an article titled "Trump’s Troll Army Isn’t Ready for War in Syria". Where the evidence for the fact that Molyneux is a leading figure in the alt-right movement seems to be derived from this line, which is the only mention he receives in the article- "Earlier in the day, alt-right online philosopher Stefan Molyneux also joined Cernovich to condemn the action and question whether Assad was really responsible for the chemical weapons attack."

This article is written in order to quiet any debate surrounding the claimed "Syrian" chemical weapons attacks in Douma which was the source of so much legitimately laughable coverage eventually leading to the OPCW whistle blower's report.

One of the amazing things that comes out of this entire process is the sad reminder that the overtly leftist MSM is also overtly pro-war and pro-military industrial complex By positioning oneself as anti-war you therefor become "Alt-right". Anyone person that has been paying any attention should find this whole arrangement quite odd.

One of the most perverse offspring of this whole cluster fuck is the creation of an organization like Bellingcat. You have to wonder how much of this would have been possible before the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act.

This is all part of the information war. The truth is merely an obstacle to the deployment of the prefered narative. Wikipedia, like MSNBC, FOX, CNN, Politico and the rest are all payed by their "sponsors" to feed the machine not broadcast the truth.