Wikipedia less than reliable

Wikipedia System Of Control
Wikipedians will concentrate on a certain subject, and actively moderate any new replies. Once an individual edits an article, his ISP number is recorded, and he is assigned a sayanim that will monitor all his future writings.

Individual contributors are assigned a tracking page, and an open record of all writings. Through out the cycle the contributor this will be monitored by Hillel, ADL, SPLC, type control agents.

Examples Of Censorship

In 1967, with Lyndon Johnson's blessing, Israel attacked Egypt in a surprise assault. In an attempt to create a 'False Flag' pointing at Egypt, the Zionists attacked the USS Liberty, killing 44 and wounding 177. The attack failed when three attacking torpedo boats were on their final run, they collided, and their shots missed the ship. The Liberty got an SOS off to the USS Saratoga, and Israel was forced to abort the attack.

Wikipedia's Stance

Their interpretation is the attack was an innocent mistake, the torpedo boats were actually rescue vehicles, which the USS fired on, and innocent Israelis had to defend themselves.
-
Where Does Wikipedia Get It's Funds?
According to it's founder, James Wales, it lives on grants and small individual contributions

What's The Real Story?
From all the available information, it appears Wikipedia was started by a two Jewish kids, one a programmer, and the other an 'Adult Site' operator. It's dynamic success (800,000 pages) stems from 10,000 + individual contributors.

Wikipedia's cl.. ~ 'We are an internet encyclopedia with a neutral stance' ~ is absurd.

This project is an attempt to control student research on the Internet. Any subject Googled will show Wikipedia as one of the first entries. Type in the word Bolshevik, and the first entry is Wikipedia. Explore their version, and you won't be the slightest mention that the movement was a Jewish Zionist instigated bloodbath, that was responsible for 20,000,000 deaths.

I won't be using wikipedia again.

Well, then, use Tinwiki instead!

[end shameless promotion and advertising ploy]

Funny you should mention Wikipedia's article on The U.S.S. Liberty. I was getting read last night to do an article for tinwiki on the U.S.S. Liberty and was looking at Wikipedia, and was a bit disappointed by the fact that they left out alot of important things, or gave a somewhat biased account.

Yes, see this site has intruiged me for some time.
Its almost a given now that when people want to look something up, they imediately sport Wikipedia as the resource, no one actually trying other sources.

People take what they read on that site as fact.
now, i know for a fact that they have put misleading information on that site, as on another site i visit, a contributer posted inaccurate information for the purposes of a 'quiz'.

Now, granted this is a bit of fun, but surely if they can do this for one moderately visited site(who donates money advertising and links) then what about other people?

No, if i cannot check information using other means, i question what i read on Wikipedia.

skadi skadi...

I guess we always come back to the net as not being reliable. Back to books... yay.

i agree this entry is untrue (Please see T&C's 1b) but so are many others, about, let's say WW2 axis aircraft...


bias exists, no doubt, the question is whether it is a corporate line or not. how many people actually know about the USS Liberty or the pakistani UN troops who were slaughtered ashore at the same time? not many i'm afraid, so i wouldn't automatically conclude that they're protecting zionist strategy from being blown wide open, although i have to admit that the individual who wrote the 'rescue vehicle' part most certainly knows the real story and is not at all ashamed to write hardcore propaganda in a blunt and most unsophisticted way. rescue vehicles, self defense, gimme a break.

of course you might as well be right about wikipedia, stranger things have happened.

[Mod Edit: Profanity removed - Jak]

[edit on 25/7/06 by JAK]

Yea wikipedia does have a stance to many of it's articles. The site tends to stay away from conspirotrial views and more toward the mainstream spoon fed facts, which really leaves the site less than reliable.

People like to point out that Wikipedia is almost as reliable as Encyclopedia Britainia. They usually then go on to quote figures which, if my memory serves me correctly, are EB has an average of 2 errors per page, while Wiki has 3 per page. Apparently they think that this is not a big deal. But 3 is 50% more than 2, so I'd say that is a BIG difference. Personally I loathe Wiki and will never under any circumstance link to it(ok, unless by accident).

Vas


[edit on 24-7-2006 by Vasilis Azoth]

With the same argument offered by main stream sites regarding conspiratorial sites. As an example (and please forgive my copying and paraphrasing):

"ATS tends to stay away from mainstream views and more toward the conspiritorial spoon fed facts, which really leaves the site less than reliable."

So which is true? Neither, both, or one or the other? While ATS doesn't claim to be an encyclopaedic resource, someone who comes direct to this site may take away incorrect facts ("This guy is a FMSE, so he must know what he is talking about"). Books though actually suffer more because there is no mechanism to correct once published, which you actually can do on ATS and Wiki. Is the lesson here trust no-one? Of course not. But be sceptical, and embrace alternative discussion. Somewhere in there the truth lies.

And for the original poster Ghaele, if the Bolshevik entry concerns you, why not edit it?

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
People like to point out that Wikipedia is almost as reliable as Encyclopedia Britainia. They usually then go on to quote figures which, if my memory serves me correctly, are EB has an average of 2 errors per page, while Wiki has 3 per page. Apparently they think that this is not a big deal. But 3 is 50% more than 2, so I'd say that is a BIG difference. Personally I loathe Wiki and will never under any circumstance link to it(ok, unless by accident).

Vas


[edit on 24-7-2006 by Vasilis Azoth]

Actually that is only in area's that are not prone to controversy and defacing.

The Science articles on that site are some of the most complete and reference rich that I can find on the web. I usually end up refering to the great wiki to try and get some leads as to where I can go to delve further into a particular topic. Google is another tool I use(as well as ATS to a certain extent)

Their Chemistry section has improved by leaps and bounds over the past 3 years that I've been using that site, there is so much easily accessable information there it almost feels like cheating.

Instead of searching through a huge textbook, all I have to do now is just do a quick search nowadays and wiki usually turns up in the first 5 results(mostly because the article in question is extremely detailed and accurate).

Check out the Featured Articles section.

en.wikipedia.org...:Featured_articles

Oh yeah, I find their pop culture section to be quite accurate too(at least when pertaining to SciFi and Family Guy )

Also one more thing. If you find something in error on wikipedia, join up and FIX IT!

I tend to use Wikipedia either as a quick "Here, go get some gloss facts" link for explaining things in posts (and only after verifying the information in the article) or as a nicely maintained annotated bibliography.

Sure, I take it with a grain of salt, and have come across my share of bad information there, but nothing beyond what I'd expect from an open, community-contributed, encyclopedia.

Use it, or not if you prefer, but remember that it's just a place to start research, not a place to end.