So can someone explain to me how governments and corporations

>why haven't these leftist institutions run by (((globalists))) tried to suppress this other leftist institution run by (((globalists)))?

>>132111057

They use it to promote leaftist ideals

>>132111202
You really think the FBI, CIA, NSA, MI6, etc. are all "leftist globalists?"

>>132111057
Where have YOU been?
Under a rock?

Jews propagandizing Wikipedia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY

Wikipedia is the worldview dispenser.
The 'facts' are moderated by status-quo scientific community fanboy mods. They lose their position if something doesnt match with the worldview.

Just look at how many amendments are made to articles that are taken down. There are records for each removed article but you can't see that cached version, only the record of its removal.

Wiki is social control as you put it. Read it with a pinch of salt because history is written by winners and the worldview by technocrats.

Yes they are, since bush sr. took the wh.

>>132111057
Look at the article for Trump and tell me it isn't propaganda

>>132111057

Why supress when you can misinformate the whole world? WIKIWIKI

File: ernie-sesame-street.jpg (99KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 400x400px

Ok, I guess I should've clarified. I'm not talking about the contemporary political or social articles - I would avoid any wikipedia article on the EU, the US government, etc. like the plague. What I'm instead referring to is all the articles on subversive, counter-cultural, and esoteric stuff.

Depending on what you search and the artices you read, spending even just an hour on it is enough to give you an idea that the world doesn't operate the way society teaches it does and that there's so much more to existence than this globalist, materialist society believes. I've more or less "redpilled" myself on a lot of things involving history, society, religion, etc. just by reading the countless thousands of articles available on it.

wikipeedia is obviously controlled, bu some people , and they are leftistis and usually anti-european identity... so question everything that's there, because it could only a version of the story

>>132111817
Okay on that front...

They think all of the interconnecting historical and religious/spiritual and esoteric stuff is sufficiently hidden behind superstition and allegory that it is fine to put lengthy articles up about this stuff.
It's there so that someone in uni studying classical civilization or politics or something can find the specific stuff they're meant to analyze in the context of a controlled thought environment (i.e Class)

When you come to your own conclusions and they get attention there's an army of people trained to use that same info to shut down the worldview.

>>132112258
I suppose that makes sense. People will just naturally ignore things that go against their ingrained worldview, even if that information is super clear and obvious.

>>132111057
They already have. Wikipedia is 100% a leftist subversion tool now, just like rationalwiki.

wikipedia is propagandized to hell.

>>132111057
Wikipedia IS propaganda you fucking idiot.

>>132111415
you sound exactly like my history teacher

>>132111057
Sharyl Attkisson has exposed how astro-turfers mess with Wikipedia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU&feature=youtu.be&t=3m13s

>>132111468
Yeah it's pretty blatant.
>four separate fact-checking organizations (Politico, New York Times, Washington Post, New York Post) have repeatedly pointed out false statements made by him
Goddamn kikes.

>>132114400
You have to go to 3:13 to see her begin the relevant part of her talk about astro-turfing, and that leads into her talk about Wikipedia.

>>132111057
anything in Wikipedia that goes outside of hard science or history(to a certain degree), if not worth the bits it takes on hard drives.

File: image.png (302KB, 828x1403px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 828x1403px

wikipedia can totally red pill. I will never understand why /pol/ attacks wikipedia. how do /pol/acks think people become redpilled? by only going to 4chan? if you read plutarch's parallel lives you can see that no leader of humanity was ever a leftist communist SJW. wikipedia documents criticisms of post modernism pretty well. wiki the sokal affair. wiki romantic nationalism--which lead to 20th century nationalism.

tl;dr this is not 1984, this is a brave new world. wiki actually isn't propaganda and censored. the redpills are there, but hidden under entertaining distracting irrelevant garbage

>>132111057
>reliable source of information
>Wikipedia

Aussie bantz have made it to the next level

>>132114817
this
Wikipedia is a terrible source of information
It gets hard facts pretty much right but misses most points completely by trying to be "impartial"
Wikipedia has also destroyed higher education by making most academic papers carbon copies of each others

Finally, having knowledge just a click away has actually made people dumber since they don't have to remember anything now

>>132111217
please give an example of how wikipedia is biased and specifically promoting leftist ideals. because i have no idea what you are talking about.

You guys do realize you can go and edit any article you disagree with? Follow the rules, post sources, state what changes you made, why, etc. If your edit is removed, argue with the people for why you think you're right. Most likely you'll get shot down faster than a paper airplane.

MUH OPPRESSION GLOBALIST SITE exists because your only interaction with Wikipedia is homework assignments and petty vandalism

File: Curtsey.jpg (33KB, 257x600px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 257x600px

>>132116194
>You guys do realize you can go and edit any article you disagree with?
As was pointed out in
>>132111415
you pretty much can't. If your edit goes against the designed and ordered narrative, you will see it suppressed by Wiki.

File: Tornado.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>132116194
> You guys do realize you can go and edit any article you disagree with?
> Most likely you'll get shot down faster than a paper airplane.
Didn't you just contradict yourself ?

>>132116918
The two phrases are not interchangeable. If your edit has bad sources your changes will be undone. It's as simple as that. They have an entire section dedicated to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

File: 1498157224321.jpg (223KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 900x675px

>>132117422
>bad sources

>>132116910
You can. An encyclopedia is not meant to have a narrative. Impartiality is not a buzzword or a leftist concept. Paragraps that are highly controversial or ambiguous are marked as such, and you can see the discussion that goes behind them. Only stuff like straight up vandalism and jokes are swiftly deleted, since the editors don't stick around,

>>132117422
>bad sources
>anything we're told to disagree with

File: this-is-why-smart-kids-still-get-bad-grades_c_3822679.jpg (173KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 500x375px

>>132117700
>bad memes

>>132115893
Some days ago a thread here showed the terrorism attack list conveniently omitted the religion of the attacker. A quick look at the article's story revealed some libtard had tried to delete that column more than once, but couldn't as it was not justified.
Also most articles like the "black supremacist" vs "white supremacist" paints the minority like the poor little guys who dindu nuthing whereas the other are literally worse than Hitler.
Last example I read there: the Weimar Republic society went full retard on degeneracy: underaged street prostitution because of the economic recession, supposedly transvestite only bars, heavy drug abuse by the population, and so on. At the same time, Germany was one of the beacons of culture revolution, with intelectual condemning capitalism, innovative street teathre, heavy drug abuse (again). That was SO good it's called the Golden Age.

File: Babe4.jpg (18KB, 245x600px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 245x600px

>>132117709
>An encyclopedia is not meant to have a narrative.
We're not talking about an encyclopedia here, we're talking about Wiki.

There hasn't been an even remotely honest encyclopedia published since 90% of all media in the U.S. was gobbled up by just 6 corporations, with all the control in the hands of just 6 (((CEO's))) which was roughly 35 years or so ago. With the advent of the (((EU))) don't expect an honest one to emerge from the west, at all.

>>132117974
Do I have to repeat to you that an encyclopedia doesn't have a narrative and just tries to present information as objectively as possible?

>>132118130
Go right ahead, there's no law against repeating bullshit.

File: 1475833418325.jpg (114KB, 625x505px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 625x505px

>>132111057
>A site anybody can edit

Gee I don't know why they won't try to suppress it. It's already a leftest hell hole.

File: ice pick.gif (1023KB, 447x365px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 447x365px

>>132117709
> since the editors don't stick around,
Actually, most normal, average editors get topic b& or indeff'ed if you challenge the worldview of the gate-keeping admins, who quickly revert any changes that add criticism or dissent to ideology pushed by Wikipedia admins.

>>132111057
Wikipedia has been suppressed for years.
>>>/tumblr/

>>132118219
>drinking Pabst
Stupid dog.

>>132118232
Is this just an impression or you do have some evidence to back up those claims? Oppression that can't be proved is just a conspiracy.

>>132118091
You do realize Wikipedia has millions of non-English articles? Not everything revolves around the US and their business.

>>132118213
If repeating the definition of what Wikipedia aims to be is bullshit then I don't know what world you live in.

File: for the good of all americans.jpg (106KB, 853x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 853x960px

>>132111057
>governments and corporations haven't made greater attempts to suppress Wikipedia?

How would you know about it if it succeeded?

>>132118586
You do realize those 6 corporations are international?
I haven't seen how much of the foreign market they control, but I'm betting it's a huge chunk.
Not to mention that those that control media all over the world are all brothers in globalism.

>>132118693
>what Wikipedia aims to be
>aims

Like hell.

>>132111202
bingo

>>132118815
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States#Owners_of_American_media

You mean these guys? Can't wait for you to prove me how they manipulate Wikipedia and for what purpose.

>>132119139
> Can't wait for you to prove me ....
Bishonen ?

File: 01.jpg (46KB, 504x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 504x500px

>>132118923
Like how Einstein's theory of relativity aims to describe gravity as accurately as possible among other things?

>>132111057
You're naive. You think they don't bribe Wikipedia?

>>132111057
are you 12 or what?

go and learn the history of (((wikipedia)))

>>132118130
>an encyclopedia
Yeah, supposedly those shouldn't have narratives. Go on read the three examples I used in my post about the text going against that.
If you want more, then go on reading anything about eugenics, be the article itself, people who talked about the issue or just tangential articles touching it. It's almost always instantly discarded as wrong, evil and pseudoscientific, even when great minds in their fields supported it.

Other examples are modern topics like movies, books, TV series and basically current pop-culture. If the topic itself was way too leftist, like the Ghostbusters remake, then the "Critics" part of the article goes on spewing bullshit on how the so called fans weren't actually fans but trolls or whatever, and that's why the movie bombed; if it was "good" or "average" then it's overly lauded. The sources are also leftist journals reporting this, maybe even some tweets.
If the topic isn't leftist then the "Critics" usually lasts a short paragraph was reported at time, not only by journals but individual people, maybe other producers or directors, or people who talked with the original film crew.

I truly want (and need) wikipedia to be objective, but the truth is it isn't, and it hurts the site and it's goals.
Also learn to fucking reply.

>>132119139
Prove it to you?
Do what your bosses tell you to do, or you won't be editor very long.
And have you never heard of style books? Editors are constrained to follow them.

You sound like the judge at Nuremberg that shut down the defense every time the defense demanded proof that the "holocaust" happened at all. The judge knew they couldn't prove it really happened (because it didn't) so he opened the "trial" by stating he would disallow any evidence that it didn't.

Circle jerk.

>>132111057
Feminists openly hold Wikipedia edit-a-thons.

Wikipedia is complete horseshit.

>>132119781
The burden of proof is on you buddy. You make claims you back them up. I'm not interested in strawmen or analogies.

>>132111057
Wikipedia is full of jewish propaganda just search for Bolshevism and read away oy vey

>>132120089
Have you tried looking for your brain? It seems it's been lost for a long time now.

>>132118519
> have some evidence to back up those claims?
Wikipedia votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy

Subversion works better than suppression.

>>132119139
> manipulate Wikipedia and for what purpose
Wikipedia Bans Hundreds Of “Black Hat” Paid Editors Who Created Promotional Pages On Its Site
https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/01/wikipedia-bans-hundreds-of-black-hat-paid-editors-who-created-promotional-pages-its-site/

>>132119751
What's wrong with the eugenics article? "Go and read it and figure out what's wrong" is not proof that information is manipulated.

And what's wrong with relaying reception about movies? If you believe the paragraph is not impartial or 'diverse' enough jut add some more quotes from more critical reviews.

>>132120261
Have you tried looking for some logic in your life? You seem to have never had any in the first place.

OP, all the information is on the internet, out in the open for who wants to find it.
But do people want that? Do they want to take the redpill, do they want to look at harsh truths?
I think instead they mostly want to live in their comfortable lies and even if you pop some redpills to them, they will deny it because it would ruin their weak serenity.

>>132120685
>>132120759
Thanks for proving that you are a paid shill.

File: Hillary I deleted the truth.jpg (44KB, 903x439px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 903x439px

>>132120894
Reminder : You can't find any redpills in Wikipedia, since Correct the Record cleansed Wikipedia since before the election.

>>132120443
Okay, now tell me how Comcast, Disney, 21st Fox, Time Warner and National Amusements are involved in this? All they did was ban "shills" (the irony).

>>132111202

>fpbp

Don't believe me?

Go edit something political.

>>132115893

Look up Pizzagate.
Wikipedia is very leftist.

>>132120275
What's wrong with trying to stop an edit war? It banned a tiny number of editors from involving themselves in articles which they brigaded. You know what's the best part? MARK BERNSTEIN disagreed with their decision and called it "worse than a crime" (http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Infamous.html)

The very founder of Wikipedia said “Gamergate has been permanently tarnished and hijacked by a handful of people who are not what you would hope.”

Also this: "This article was amended on 28 January 2015. An earlier version gave the impression that the bans had been finalised, and a quotation suggested that no pro-gamergate editors had been banned from the site, and that no feminist editors remained active."

Yeah, so much for the ban. Great oppression right there.

>>132122578
> edit war
What's an edit war ? That sounds like a technical term, or jargon.

>>132122706
Exactly what it sounds like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki#Security)

Editors constantly rewriting each others edits in a short time-span, refusing for a compromise, tipped off with occasional vandalism or brigading.

File: 11397a.jpg (51KB, 298x403px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 298x403px

>>132120902
Is everyone you disagree with a shill?

File: metapedia.png (22KB, 135x155px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 135x155px

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
>In general Wikipedia has a leftist, politically correct, and anti-White bias.

File: 257.jpg (20KB, 480x478px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x478px

>>132124283
KEK (http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia)

"This needs to be completely revised. An article discussing the bias of Wikipedia which is this biased itself is senseless, especially considering that some of it seems to be based on the authors personal experiences with certain WP admin..."

>>132119139
>how they manipulate Wikipedia and for what purpose
if you can't comprehend what purpose the most powerful information manipulation organizations in the world, all of which have deep connections to the same political groups, could possibly have for manipulating the main source of general information on the internet, I just don't know what to say to you.

>>132125017
Please use proper punctuation and better phrasing. Your whole phrase is world salad.

>if you can't comprehend what purpose

I can imagine for what purpose they might do it. I can fantasize. But I can't comprehend, something that is not based on evidence. What you're referring to is conspiracies.

>the most powerful information manipulation organizations in the world

Such as?

>all of which have deep connections to the same political groups

Which groups?

>could possibly have for manipulating the main source of general information on the internet

Wikipedia works as a bibliography. The real sources of information are marked at the bottom of each article as sources. News outlets, scientific papers, government papers, etc. Can you manipulate all of them?

>I just don't know what to say to you.

Me neither.

>>132115893
Look up discretionary sanctions like that cover the men's right movement. There are strict rules like only 1 revert, and any non-feminist will be ganged upon, wikilawyered and blocked if they dare to add non-leftist viewpoints.

TParis is a very long-time conservative Wikipedia adminstrator who has pretty much given up Wikipedia because leftists control it and bully everyone else out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TParis

That's because they're controlling it via bots

>>132126294
> TParis is a very long-time conservative Wikipedia adminstrator who has pretty much given up Wikipedia because leftists control it and bully everyone else out.
But how many progressive editors have been topic b& or indeff'ed, bc they challenged the neoliberal, corporate shilling that makes up most of Wikipedia's politics articles ? Moreover, it hasn't just been conservatives, who are walking away from Wikipedia. Everybody gets bullied out if they challenge the gate-keepers guarding the Wikipedia party line.

>>132126294
So because one administrator is SEMI-RETIRED that means Wikipedia is "controlled by leftists who bully everyone else out". Do you realize English Wikipedia has 1255 administrators, each one living their own lives with different interests? Please prove to me that TParis retired because your mentioned reason. His profile page does not mention anything of the sort.

File: Shillary creating a clearing.gif (2MB, 320x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x300px

>>132126920
> Wikipedia is "controlled by leftists who bully everyone else out"
Be nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html

>>132111057
They already have. Take a look at any article that can have any sort of political slant, and you'll notice that it almost always has a leftist stance.

>>132128075
Literally paraphrased what >>132126294 said. I'm clearly not American and I don't care about American politics.

File: al smith dinner lol.gif (808KB, 225x249px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 225x249px

>>132129373
> I'm clearly not American and I don't care about American politics.
You literally keep shilling for Wikipedia here, saying that there's no political slant to American political articles, and now you invoke ignorance of American politics ?

Wikipedia aint shit til its open-sourced and publicly funded by the american tax dollar.

Until then its just another blog.

> Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Resigns Amid a Community Revolt
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bmvnam/wikimedia-foundation-executive-director-lila-tretikov-resigns

File: IMG_0369.jpg (222KB, 960x712px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 960x712px

>>132111349
Yes.

>>132130102
Nice try
https://archive.is/lwsPt

File: what-if-this-is-a-shill-thumb.jpg (13KB, 304x270px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 304x270px

>>132129732
>You literally keep shilling for Wikipedia here

Two memes a day keeps the shill away.

I am defending Wikipedia from your baseless generalizations. I never even said I am an editor.

>saying that there's no political slant to American political articles,

Where did I say that?

>and now you invoke ignorance of American politics ?

I said I don't care about American politics. Do you know what a strawman is? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

> Where Do Wikipedia Donations Go? Outgoing Chief Warns of Potential Corruption
http://mashable.com/2013/10/17/wikipedia-donation-corruption/#9z3VzpfdPmqj
http://archive.is/LuxoD

File: IMG_2026.jpg (39KB, 311x311px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 311x311px

>>132130449

> Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia
A Wikipedia trustee and a Wikipedian In Residence have been editing the online encyclopedia on behalf of PR clients. Add the discovery of an SEO business run on the side, and this tempest is out of its teapot.
https://www.cnet.com/news/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/
http://archive.is/ERtMs

>>132111057
They did it here. Look at us. Would you do it?

> Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia
The unmasking of a writer who took extraordinary advantage of online anonymity to pursue old vendettas
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/
http://archive.is/dzkfy

File: 1492366057962.jpg (116KB, 964x735px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 964x735px

>>132111057
implying they havent already

>>132130012
It's already open-sourced. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Technical_attributes).

Wikipedia also works as an NGO through donations; so no public founding, now or ever. You trust Big Government™?

File: Shillary seizure.gif (4MB, 217x272px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 217x272px

>>132130449
> I am an editor

File: enhanced-17159-1423068265-32.jpg (69KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 501x585px

>>132131461
Feel free to point my username. Maybe you can hack my sheckels account.

File: 083fbc8f1bdb78389078fd48856e0b5d--funny-as-hell-funny-shit.jpg (13KB, 236x284px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 236x284px

>>132130668

>>132118761
this game was so fun

>>132119454
Isn't Einstein's theory of relativity about the difference of time, the closer you get to light? I'm pretty sure that it had nothing to do with gravity

>>132131992
His general theory of relativity describes gravity better than Newton did.

File: Spirit Cooking.jpg (55KB, 589x609px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 589x609px

> BREAKING : Koch Industries Implicated in Multi-Year Wikipedia "Whitewashing" Scandal
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/8/1419630/-BREAKING-Koch-Industries-Implicated-in-Multi-Year-Wikipedia-Whitewashing-Scandal
http://archive.is/pmCkN

>>132131766
Interesting that you decided to respond to that meme but not the other pic I posted ITT.

>>132132414
What do you want me to say about one cherrypicked image? I agree with it. It's clearly biased. Doesn't mean the entire Wikipedia is.

>>132131992
you are talking about einstein's Special Relativity (1905) and >>132132207 is talking about einstein's general relativity (1915)

File: Cinderella.jpg (56KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x375px

> One of Wikimedia’s largest donors accused in paid editing scandal
The Wikimedia community has been embroiled in controversy in recent weeks after allegations surfaced that one of the Wikimedia Foundation’s largest donors may have been engaged in a pay-for-play editing scheme.
https://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-paid-editing-scandal-stanton/
http://archive.is/7HkGR

>>132132756
Why are you riding their fucking dick so hard?

File: kit2.jpg (114KB, 864x797px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 864x797px

>>132116194
>>132117422
>>132117709
>>132117864
>>132118130
>>132118519
>>132118586
>>132118693
>>132119139
>>132119454
>>132120089
>>132120685
>>132120759
>>132121970
>>132122881
>>132123012
>>132124914
>>132125826
>>132126920
>>132129373
>>132130449
>>132131443
>>132131642
>>132131766
>>132132207
>>132132756
A
FUCKING
VAMPIRE

File: not-sure-if-irony-or-irony.jpg (93KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 480x480px

>>132114400
>>132120275
>>132120443
>>132121136
>>132126861
>>132128075
>>132130102
>>132130631
>>132130849
>>132131053
>>132132407
>>132132981
I'm the shill, huh.

>>132133090
To troll Stormfags like you.

File: 0fb.jpg (169KB, 750x574px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 750x574px

>>132133188

File: Cuck (Soros).jpg (150KB, 1172x1416px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1172x1416px

>>132133275
Are you saying that all these sources are wrong and that, for years and across various media outlets, a conspiracy has been being run just so that, right at this very moment, all these citations could be listed in this thread to embarrass you ?

Is that what you are saying ?

> The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704
http://archive.is/c7DNJ

File: Netflix_Logo_DigitalVideo_0701.jpg (42KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x450px

>>132111057
You don't need to suppress information if the masses are too distracted to care.

>>132115893
>>132117974
Who the fuck uses Wikipedia for current events anyways? Personally the site was a big part of my redpilling. Sure there are leftists editing certain articles, but Wikipedia is a great way to learn about European history and civilization.

>>132133794
No, I'm pointing out the irony of you calling me a shill when you yourself have posted a dozen links trying to prove Wikipedia is under the foot of some leftist conspiracy. I'm starting to think you're functionally illiterate if you can't understand such simple sarcasm.

File: IMG_1544.jpg (66KB, 414x427px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 414x427px

>>132133439
Just wanted to hear you say it, now into the trash you go

File: fischbein.jpg (5KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 128x128px

>>132134037
> Who the fuck uses Wikipedia for current events anyways?
Normies. That's the whole point of the relentless disinformation fights that take place on Wikipedia. The only people turning a blind eye to the shilling on Wikipedia are the shills doing the shilling.

> Eric Garner’s Wikipedia page was edited from an NYPD computer, NYPD admits
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/16/eric-garners-wikipedia-page-was-edited-from-an-nypd-computer-the-nypd-admits/
http://archive.is/kHUes

>>132134037
You need to start reading books. Start with The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.

>>132134364
The fact that you so simply dismiss criticism to your worldview as ((JOOOS)) tells me more than enough for me to consider that label.

File: by the ramparts we watched.jpg (43KB, 629x747px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 629x747px

> Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
http://archive.is/0gyK

>>132111057
Because we're not turkroaches
/thread

File: IMG_1824.png (708KB, 633x633px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 633x633px

>>132134563
You act like we haven't had this debate in depth a thousand times before.

File: copy.jpg (78KB, 300x288px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 300x288px

>>132118519
> The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay
Can the site’s dwindling ranks of volunteer editors protect its articles from the influence of money?
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/
http://archive.is/dGtYz

>>132135795
This is not a debate. You are clearly not interested in having one.

>>132115893
This article is under the subsection "anti-semitism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

No I mean wikipedia itself, not the platform its built with.

I don't trust Big Government™. I trust No Government™ which is the last form of government that needs to exist before it becomes no form of government at all.

>>132136767
That was for this:
>>132131443

>>132136838
You want a publicly founded online encyclopedia and no government at the same time?

>>132136566
Because Jewish Bolshevism is mostly based on anti-semitic discourse within and outside of the Russian Empire. If you actually read the article, you'd find out the vast majority of their allegations were fabricated, or were irrelevant half-truths meant to rally the population against the Jews.

>>132137172
> Government
> Pragmatic Consensus Authority
Pick one.

>>132136566
Against the Jews, and more importantly the revolution. It's basically White propaganda.

>>132137468
>it was just a coincidence that nearly all of the early propagators of European communism were Jewish, goy!
>it doesn't mean Jews were responsible!
Fuck off shlomo

Avoid politics and history articles on Wikipedia. History might be hit or miss, depending on the specific area you're researching, but politics is always left-slanted.

>>132137590
>nearly all of the early propagators of European communism were Jewish, goy!

This is false. "According to the 1922 Bolshevik party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total, and in the 1920s of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the People's Commissars, 6% were ethnic Jews."

>>132115893
300 examples for you

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

File: yes.jpg (406KB, 2039x2452px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 2039x2452px

>>132137468
>Read the article that I introduced and claimed was leftist propoganda
>It disagrees with me
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

File: top1.gif (15KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x250px

>>132137468
((coincidence))

>>132137764
>According to the 1922 Bolshevik party census
PAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Something like a mobile police force where anyone can apply for training and certification for equipment use but if you want to get paid you gotta wear a uniform. Your responsibilities would simply be to respond to gunshots and screams and if you missed a call while you were in the area because your radio was too loud, you'd lose your uniform.

>>132137846
>>132137915

Please tell me how "The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust." Herf, Jeffrey (2008) is leftist propaganda. Do you even understand how Wikipedia works?

>>132137972
How do you know 99.9999% of the (((Bolsheviks))) were Jews?

>>132138095
My point is that the article is set up solely for the purpose of discrediting the entire idea that Jews had anything to do with the communist movement in eastern europe.

Wikipedia claims that, among other things, articles should not argue for a point of view, but simply present facts.

This article does not retain this impartiality, and only references its sources in order to dismiss them.

File: jewish opinions.jpg (139KB, 1126x1080px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1126x1080px

>>132111057
because the edits are public

>>132137562
What is the government to you?

>>132111349
they are. even if not inherently so, they still cater to the ((((external forces))))

>>132138335
History.

File: 1486259268918.jpg (724KB, 1500x4255px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 1500x4255px

>>132114537
>fact checkers

File: literal propaganda.png (85KB, 1155x585px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1155x585px

>>132117422

>>132122706
>What's an edit war ? That sounds like a technical term, or jargon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars

>Arachnophobia
>Since Wikipedia is not censored, is it appropriate to include a huge picture of a tarantula for illustrative purposes on a page discussing the fear of spiders? Although this question can be pondered as far back as June 2005, this issue enjoyed nearly total dominion over the talk page, and accounted for virtually all edits to the article between November 2006 and February 2007. The picture was later changed to a cartoon of Little Miss Muffet — since removed — and ultimately a cute little spider crept into a template at the article's very bottom.

>Wii
>Is this article about "Wii" or "Nintendo Wii"? If it's "Wii," should it be called just "Wii" or "the Wii"? Or maybe "Nintendo's Wii"? Does it rhyme with "We" or "Wee"? Should "Wee" link to urine? Is "Wee" slang or a euphemism for urine? Is it a British or International word for urine? Is it even worth mentioning in the article at all? (not to mention "wee" as a synonym for "small", or "diminutive") Just some of the hard-hitting issues that provoked in excess of 1500 edits in the space of two weeks...

>>132138551
>/r/the_donald

who gives a fuck, wikipedia can call it whatever I want and I have no objections

>>132138311
>...discrediting the entire idea that Jews had anything to do with the communist movement...

This is a strawman. Your earlier point was: "nearly all of the early propagators of European communism were Jewish," Of course a minority of Jews were involved. Claiming they were the main propagators is ,however, false.

>Wikipedia claims that, among other things, articles should not argue for a point of view, but simply present facts.

Indeed. That's the point of an encyclopedia.

>This article does not retain this impartiality, and only references its sources in order to dismiss them.

Then please edit and fix the article. Link your own sources and retain its impartiality. Unless (((they))) won't let you do it.

Wikipedia has always been compromised by know-it-all (((moderators))).

>>132138450
Like sewage, home electricity, communication cables?

>>132111057
Suppress?! They control it, look at all the jews on this site managing it

>>132139209
>This is a strawman.
like the strawman that anyone here said jews were 100 percent of bolsheviks?
what percent of russia was jewish

>>132138941
>we don't require sources to back up their claims
>we don't require sources to back up their claims
>we don't require sources to back up their claims
>we don't require sources to back up their claims
>we don't require sources to back up their claims
>we don't require sources to back up their claims

>>132111057
>So can someone explain to me how governments and corporations haven't made greater attempts to suppress Wikipedia?
I suppose you're too dumb to realize that chinese version of wikipedia is censored to shit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_pride
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pride
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pride

File: zionist-wikipedia-editing-course.webm (2MB, 320x236px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x236px

Wikipedia is "balanced and Zionist in nature".

File: cultural marxism.png (316KB, 1261x2917px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1261x2917px

>>132111057
>hasn't received way more molestation than it's had.
oh but it has...

>>132139209
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism

The "Talk" page is an ongoing debate on this subject, but as you'll note, all dissenting views are reverted until opposition simply gives up.

>>132139381
You considered the Bolshevik Census unreliable. I asked you how do you know many Bolsheviks were Jews. No answer so far.

>>132139795
It literally says this not a forum.

"This is not a forum for general discussion about Jewish Bolshevism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jewish Bolshevism at the Reference desk,"

The Talk page is for improving the article (phrasing, punctuation, format, etc)

>>132139209
You'll also note the revision history for the page shows several edit wars.

One of them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Bolshevism&diff=786263126&oldid=763529711

continually removes and re-adds cited statistics and facts, with a stated refusal to discuss the changes.

>>132140453
When I said "a debate on the subject" I meant the subject of how the article should be written.

When I talked about reversions of dissenting views, I meant in the original article.

>>132111057
>(relatively) reliable source of information
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Good one! "Reliable." That's rich!

>>132139832
>You considered the Bolshevik Census unreliable.
source?

>>132111057
*its

File: inaguration.jpg (114KB, 734x908px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 734x908px

bump