or: The encyclopedia of authority-approved information
or: Proof that authority is the root problem
or: The problem with Wikipedia
Wikipedia is the standard go-to source for basic or initial research on any particular subject. If the subject is "non-controversial", then Wikipedia's "authoritative" information is usually sufficient to convey a valid accurate general summarized understanding of the subject. For "controversial" subjects of any kind, however, Wikipedia is no more than a parrot of "official" lies promoted by supposedly "authoritative" people.
Wikipedia, or at least the English Wikipedia, is distinguished by its generally high quality information in terms of this idea of "authoritative" ("official"; mainstream) information. In The Biggest Picture we therefore use Wikipedia as the primary source of the "official" canon of knowledge — the mainstream epistemology within the artificial parameters and dominance-based instrumentalities set by perceived "authorities" within the objective reality ontological metaparadigm/delusion.
How "reliable" is Wikipedia?
Many people have the misperception that Wikipedia is "unreliable" because "anyone can edit it". This notion is produced by an even more "authoritativeness" thinking than that which Wikipedia embodies.
The rules for editing are actually very strict and well-defined. If one tries to edit something, it'll be almost immediately reverted, unless one can provide what Wikipedia calls a "reliable source" (RS). RSs in Wikipedia terms means a MSM source. Wikipedia is mainstream media. It is that "mainstream" that pretends to hold the correct canon of knowledge.
Wikipedia is a great resource for all non-controversial subjects; the anonymous community contribution model works extremely well for everything from mathematics to chemistry to psychology to city guides to you name it. But for any topic subject to agendas and interpretations, Wikipedia is unfortunately a parrot of lies told by the biggest liars in the world, the biggest crooks in the world, and their paid servants, the biggest clowns in the world (the MSM) — which, along with the "education" system and "law" system, together form the control system that has (to some degree) enslaved the consciousness of mankind.
That "Wikipedia can be edited by anybody" is true — but only if one follows its strict rules will one's edits be accepted (i.e. not reverted):
Wikipedia's core policies
"Verifiability" simply means "authoritative" sources. "No Original Research" simply means no non-"authoritative" sources. "Neutral Point of View" simply means that contradictory "authoritative" sources must be represented neutrally, without favoring one over the other.
The "Verifiability" policy has the subsection Reliable Sources, which was formerly a 4th core policy on its own. "Reliable Sources" simply means mainstream media (or "respected mainstream publications").
As Wikispooks puts it:
Wikipedia experienced a professionalisation around 2007 which moved it firmly in the direction of the commercially controlled media. This is most clearly understood through the "Reliable Sources" policy in particular which means, more or less, that if a subject hasn't been reported on by commercially controlled media or by those in established positions of social power and influence, then Wikipedia doesn't want to know about it. These policies do in fact lead to a credible and useful encyclopaedia on whole swathe of topics (i.e. technical, non-political topics) no doubt giving many readers the misleading impression that Wikipedia articles are reliable even for politically sensitive topics.
So Wikipedia relies entirely on the premise that the mainstream media exists as a watchdog and critic of "government" actions, a source of truth under the idea of "journalistic integrity". This is not much different from treating the (people who call themselves) government itself (themselves) as a source of truth. Had a Wikipedia existed in the Soviet Union, for example, its complete reliance on the Soviet media would be almost the same as accepting the Soviet government's stories as "authoritative". In the West, the media–government dynamic is a bit more subtle than its historical Russian counterpart — but the reality is that one would not exist without the other.
Truth has no relation to these rules. These rules are arbitrary to truth. Wikipedians are not stupid people, so they realize this — they just don't realize why it is a problem:
Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, used to define the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.
The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight.
Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published debate within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant [i.e. sufficiently authoritative] views on a subject. Citing reliable sources for any material challenged or likely to be challenged gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most appropriate sources have been used, and used well (see below).
That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Unlike some encyclopedias, Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.
So the statement that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" has been relegated to its own obscure policy article, rather than being placed at the top of every single article, which is what honesty would demand.
In addition to this, Wikipedia also has strongly-enforced "guidelines" against "conspiracy theories" (and anything not acknowledged to be true by "authorities") under its policies Undue weight and Fringe. Articles that may be considered "fringe" (by the mainstream) are often soon deleted, relegated to a subsection of another article, or given the following notice at the top of the article (e.g. on the article about anthroposophic pharmacy):
This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories. Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (September 2015)
Some articles also have the following notice (e.g. the "Rationalization (psychology)" page):
Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help this article by looking for better, more reliable sources, or by checking whether the references meet the criteria for reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged or deleted. (November 2014)
The idea that Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers is true, but this is rather like saying that "the government doesn't try to impose 'the truth' on its citizens". It is not about imposition; it is the perception of authoritative-ness, and the unconscious equating of that which is "authoritative" with that which is truth, that is the underlying problem.
The greatest irony of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia relies entirely on "authoritative sources", yet it is itself created by non-authoritative people.
Aside from their core policies being a de facto form of censorship, as WikiSpooks points out, "as of February 2018 its robots.txt file disallowed archival programs from recording page histories, so as to obscure its censorship."
Wikipedia on criticism of itself
Wikipedia has its own article on "criticism of Wikipedia":
Criticism of Wikipedia — whether about its content, its online community, or its procedures and operations — covers a wide variety of topics, largely related the openness of the encyclopedia, as almost anyone can edit most articles. The project's aims have been criticized, mostly due to its approach to including or dealing with controversial content. Major concerns about Wikipedia's content include its reliability, quality of presentation and systemic bias, in particular gender bias and racial bias. The Wikipedia community and its organization are criticized for the anonymity of editors, and social stratification, all of which may give rise to abuse. Wikipedia's processes have also been criticized for making vandalism of the articles too easy. Its rules have been judged excessive.
Journalist Edwin Black criticizes Wikipedia for being a mixture of "truth, half truth, and some falsehoods". Articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized Wikipedia's policy on undue weight, concluding that the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather present dominantly the majority viewpoint taken by reliable sources, may create possible omissions leading to false beliefs based on incomplete information.
Journalist Oliver Kamm noted how articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic. An article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin.
Wikipedia steward Dariusz Jemielniak asserts that the sheer complexity of the rules and laws governing content and editor behavior have become excessive and create a learning burden for new editors. Jemielniak suggests actively abridging and rewriting the rules and laws to fall within a fixed and reasonable limit of size and complexity to remedy their excessive complexity and size. A study by Aaron Halfaker of the University of Minnesota made in 2013 argued that Wikipedia's rules have had the unintended effect of driving away new contributors to the site.
The Academic Integrity at MIT handbook for students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology states: "Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Academic Source: The bibliography published at the end of the Wikipedia entry may point you to potential sources. However, do not assume that these sources are reliable — use the same criteria to judge them as you would any other source. Do not consider the Wikipedia bibliography as a replacement for your own research."
As explained above, and as "[a]rticles in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship" also observed, "Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather present dominantly the majority viewpoint taken by reliable sources" — which "may create possible omissions leading to false beliefs based on incomplete information". But more importantly, none of these so-called "reliable sources" are actually reliable in the first place, because "mainstream" is not a reasonable criteria for accuracy. "Mainstream" literally means (or has come to mean) "false beliefs based on incomplete information", by definition.
Wikipedia under the thumb of "authority"
Wikipedia has become the go-to source, the starting point, for pretty much any conceivable subject. If it presented truthful information rather than "reliable" (mainstream) information, it would be one of the most revolutionary tools at humanity's disposal. And it does contain that potential — the potential to bring about revolutionary change on a level of civilization-rebirth, and to facilitate our Ascension.
By embracing artificial (and, upon close examination, quite absurd) limitations, Wikipedia does a monumental mis-service to mankind. Its true potential is being held down by the anti-human belief in "authority" itself, not only by the extreme expressions of that belief that are reflected as reductionist pseudo-skepticism — the fanatical self-styled "skeptics" (gullible cynics) being the primary movers in "cleansing" Wikipedia of non-"authoritative" information. The fundamental shape of the framework of knowledge, or the epistemological canon, which Wikipedia embodies, is based on completely outdated fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality and the self.
Wikipedia protecting crimes against humanity
By treating "official" and "authoritative" sources — or as it calls them, "verifiable" sources — as the only ones relevant for inclusion, Wikipedia is in effect, as with the rest of the MSM, protecting and enabling the ongoing crimes against humanity devised by the people who call themselves "governments" and whom the MSM present as our "leaders". As researcher Martin Iqbal bluntly put it in his article detailing the falsehoods and criminal lies about the 2011 war against the people of Libya, "[t]he disinformation presented on Wikipedia is nothing short of criminal."
Agendas overseeing Wikipedia realms
Beyond the root cause of not caring about truth, there are many diverse kinds of special interest groups who monitor particular articles in order to make sure they conform to a particular narrative or "official story". One of the most notable of these are various Israeli/Zionist groups, who even have Wikipedia editing training classes:
Wikipedia Editing Courses Launched by Zionist Propaganda Machine
[Uploaded on Feb 17, 2011] Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet. Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia, the online reference site.
Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement, and the rightwing Israel Sheli (My Israel) movement, ran their first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to rewrite and revise some of the most hotly disputed pages of the online reference site. "We don't want to change Wikipedia or turn it into a propaganda arm," says Naftali Bennett, director of the Yesha Council. "We just want to show the other side. People think that Israelis are mean, evil people who only want to hurt Arabs all day."
Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites, and its 16m entries are open for anyone to edit, rewrite or even erase. The problem, according to Ayelet Shaked of Israel Sheli, is that online, pro-Israeli activists are vastly outnumbered by pro-Palestinian voices. "We don't want to give this arena to the other side," she said. "But we are so few and they are so many. People in the US and Europe never hear about Israel's side, with all the correct arguments and explanations."
The idea, says Shaked and her colleauges, is not to storm in, cause havoc and get booted out -- the Wikipedia editing community is sensitive, consensus-based and it takes time to build trust. "We learned what not to do: don't jump into deep waters immediately, don't be argumentative, realise that there is a semi-democratic community out there, realise how not to get yourself banned," says Yisrael Medad, one of the course participants, from Shiloh.
The organisiers of the Wikipedia courses, are already planning a competition to find the "Best Zionist editor", with a prize of a hot-air balloon trip over Israel.
It would also not seem unreasonable to suppose that the Israeli government, and other governments, have their very own covert department of online disinformation (or "narrative control"), in which people are actually paid a salary to make sure Wikipedia toes the line they want. The Israeli government and its supporters openly engage in what they call hasbara, a term "used by the Israeli government and its supporters to describe efforts to explain government policies and promote Israel in the face of negative press, and to counter what they see as delegitimisation of Israel around the world."
Similarly, militant Zionists (people who support the actions of the "State of Israel" and the actions of Zionist Jews, right or wrong) have been known to be using, and are openly encouraged to use, various alerting tools, such as the Megaphone desktop tool, to make sure that online MSM articles that allow reader comments are overwhelmingly pro-Israel — to "draw out" the voices of the "anti-Semites".
They also seem to be (at least one of the groups) at the forefront of attempting to control/oversee/direct to what degree and in what way mainstream academia and education integrate "open source knowledge" wiki technology:
The Third Annual Israeli Wikipedia Academy will take place alongside the main event (lectures will be given both in Hebrew and in English).
Wikipedia Academy is a professional academic conference examining the integration of wiki technology in academia, in education and in business.
One wonders if the Israeli Wikipedia Academy mentioned in their lectures the Zionist editing courses organized by their fellow Israelis to manipulate Wikipedia.
One of Wikipedia's mottos, often used to promote Wikimania events ("the official annual conference of the Wikimedia Foundation"), is: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."
Imagine a world in which every single human being believes that truth can only come from the perceived "authoritativeness" of perceived "authority figures". This is the aim of Wikipedia in its current state, as with that of the false mainstream canon of knowledge built on lies and deception and repetition and normalization.
Stagnation and dogmatism
Wikipedia is also seemingly not growing much in terms of the people involved in creating and improving it, i.e. in terms of new Wikipedians. Summarizing the history of Wikipedia, Tom Simonite wrote the following in a 2013-10-22 article titled The Decline of Wikipedia:
The sixth most widely used website in the world is not run anything like the others in the top 10. It is not operated by a sophisticated corporation but by a leaderless collection of volunteers who generally work under pseudonyms and habitually bicker with each other. It rarely tries new things in the hope of luring visitors; in fact, it has changed little in a decade. And yet every month 10 billion pages are viewed on the English version of Wikipedia alone. When a major news event takes place, such as the Boston Marathon bombings, complex, widely sourced entries spring up within hours and evolve by the minute. Because there is no other free information source like it, many online services rely on Wikipedia. Look something up on Google or ask Siri a question on your iPhone, and you’ll often get back tidbits of information pulled from the encyclopedia and delivered as straight-up facts.
Yet Wikipedia and its stated ambition to “compile the sum of all human knowledge“ are in trouble. The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia—and must defend it against vandalism, hoaxes, and manipulation—has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking.
In response, the Wikimedia Foundation, the 187-person nonprofit that pays for the legal and technical infrastructure supporting Wikipedia, is staging a kind of rescue mission. The foundation can’t order the volunteer community to change the way it operates. But by tweaking Wikipedia’s website and software, it hopes to steer the encyclopedia onto a more sustainable path.
The foundation’s campaign will bring the first major changes in years to a site that is a time capsule from the Web’s earlier, clunkier days, far removed from the easy-to-use social and commercial sites that dominate today. “Everything that Wikipedia is was utterly appropriate in 2001 and it’s become increasingly out of date since,“ says Sue Gardner, executive director of the foundation, which is housed on two drab floors of a downtown San Francisco building with a faulty elevator. “This is very much our attempt to get caught up.“ She and Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, say the project needs to attract a new crowd to make progress. “The biggest issue is editor diversity,“ says Wales. He hopes to “grow the number of editors in topics that need work.“
When Wikipedia launched in 2001, it wasn’t intended to be an information source in its own right. Wales, a financial trader turned Internet entrepreneur, and Larry Sanger, a freshly minted philosophy PhD, started the site to boost Nupedia, a free online encyclopedia started by Wales that relied on contributions from experts. After a year, Nupedia offered a strange collection of only 13 articles on such topics as Virgil and the Donegal fiddle tradition. Sanger and Wales hoped Wikipedia, where anyone could start or modify an entry, would rapidly generate new articles that experts could then finish up.
When they saw how enthusiastically people embraced the notion of an encyclopedia that anyone could edit, Wales and Sanger quickly made Wikipedia their main project. By the end of its first year it had more than 20,000 articles in 18 languages, and its growth was accelerating fast. In 2003, Wales formed the Wikimedia Foundation to operate the servers and software that run Wikipedia and raise money to support them. But control of the site’s content remained with the community dubbed Wikipedians, who over the next few years compiled an encyclopedia larger than any before. Without any traditional power structure, they developed sophisticated workflows and guidelines for producing and maintaining entries. Their only real nod to hierarchy was electing a small group of “administrators“ who could wield special powers such as deleting articles or temporarily banning other editors. (There are now 635 active admins on the English Wikipedia.)
So the founders of Wikipedia were soon confronted with the conundrum of accuracy/truthfulness, eventually settling for the idea of having the encyclopedia reflect the view of "experts" — presumably under the aforementioned assumption of equating truth with the "authoritativeness" of "experts" (and, worse yet, the supposed "authoritativeness" of formerly-respected mainstream media publications, i.e. "news experts"). Is it really too late to change one's mind about the mission Wikipedia ought to have and the purpose it would best serve?
As of 2019, Jimmy Wales is acting like an emotionally-incontinent SJW collectivist, while Larry Sanger is far more aware of what's going on in regards to manipulation/control of information on Wikipedia, pointing out that the infamous term 'fake news', invented by the actual fake news sources during the 2016 U.S. elections to smear truth-based/alternative/independent media (and immediately turned against them), “almost immediately began to be applied to merely biased and badly-sourced news by otherwise responsible journalists. The phrase is used as if everyone agreed on which news is “fake” or what counts as “misinformation,” when, of course, people differ on precisely what news is reliable and authentic”.
Even further showcasing the differential in understanding between the Wikipedia founders, Sanger points out how the future of online open encyclopedias is decentralized:
We have barely even started to explore what will be possible when there is no centralized control of editorial policy, when editorial decisions are made according to various smart contract-driven systems, and when participation in the system is remunerated by the system itself.
In 2017, Sanger joined Everipedia, the world's first blockchain encyclopedia, running on the EOS blockchain. It uses a Proof-of-Stake governance model, by which "[a]nyone with IQ Tokens is a stakeholder in the Everipedia Network. Using IQ tokens to vote, users decide which new articles and edits are added to the knowledge base." As Sanger put it, "[t]hanks to new technology, it is now possible for Everipedia to move beyond Wikipedia just like how we moved beyond Britannica almost two decades ago."
Indeed, is there anyone who believes/assumed that the Encyclopædia Britannica wasn't/isn't influenced by British political and academic elitists' interests?
Wikipedia in the subjective reality metaparadigm
Due to its reliance on supposed authorities, Wikipedia's information represents the idea of an artificial "authority" of "authorities", which is what Wikipedia would be in the objective reality metaparadigm. It would only not be artificial if the subjective reality metaparadigm is the incorrect ontology.
Were Wikipedia to change its core policy and objective or raison d'être to that of the idea of truth rather than the idea of "verifiability" (i.e. "authoritativeness"), even in the objective reality metaparadigm, it would be by itself revolutionary and world-changing to a degree that seems hard to imagine. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales — or the controllers of Wikipedia's parent company Wikimedia, who own and have ultimate centralized control over Wikipedia — would become the new Gutenberg.
Alternatives to Wikipedia
Various wiki encyclopedia websites have been emerging which intend, or purport to intend, to serve as an improved version of Wikipedia, without the biases or dogmas which the website founder(s) perceive(s) are the problem with Wikipedia. Some prominent examples, roughly from worst to best, are:
- Scholarpedia — "the peer-reviewed open-access encyclopedia, where knowledge is curated by communities of experts", which requires enormous resources, so better to leverage the bulk of approved "knowledge" to "non-experts" ("unauthoritative" people) with something in-between...
- Citizendium — A fake "alternative" to the Wikipedia model created by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger that "improves" the Wikipedia model with "gentle oversight" so that all articles are subject to approval by the site's editorial team and all users must register with their real name. In other words, the ideal Wikipedia from the perspective of the control system.
- Infogalactic — According to itself, "Infogalactic does not share the highly centralized structure of Wikipedia or the ideological dogma of the Wikimedia Foundation. The primary requirements are for the information contributed to be true, relevant, and verifiable, rather than cited from a so-called “published reliable source“, since experience has proven how reliance upon the latter can be easily gamed by editors and administrators alike." Yet, Infogalactic parrots the dying mainstream paradigm of absurd lies, from 9/11 to Obama.
- Conservapedia — A highly-biased/inaccurate fearful Christian American version of the Globalist/mainstream Wikipedia, selectively combating some of its liberal and atheist biases.
- Metapedia — A pro-White/pro-European online collaborative encyclopedia alternative to the Cultural-Marxist/mainstream Wikipedia, which remains relatively small content-wise but which seems to have a lot of potential.
- WikiSpooks — "An encyclopedia of deep politics" which has many accurate articles but doesn't seem to have caught up with some of the changes in the agenda of the control system in the 2010's, believing for example that Donald Trump is controlled opposition, even though the corporate legacy media almost self-destructed in their attempt to destroy him and install Hillary Clinton, and continue to weave the largest web of lies told about any contemporary figure.
- Everipedia — Merely by virtue of the fact that it is decentralized (users rather than shady "authoritative"/criminal fake news media decide content) and content creation is incentivized (users earn money for contributing), Everipedia has the potential to surpass, and as a fork (i.e. Wikipedia articles are copied over) is already better than, Wikipedia.
There are also some websites using the term "wiki", such as the excellent TruthWiki by Mike Adams of real news site NaturalNews, which are not really collaborative online encyclopedias but which serve to compete in the search engine keywords market of ideas and the infowar against the metastasized Wikipedia.