Wikipedia and Neutrality

[John Simkin]

Jimmy Wales is currently being interviewed on BBC. He has been asked about how Wikipedia deals with controversial subjects. He says they recruit editors that are "neutral" in their views on controversial subjects. This lot of nonsense was just accepted and the interviewer did not ask how it was possible to hold neutral opinions on controversial subjects such as the assassination of JFK. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to be neutral about any historical subject.

Wales was also asked about "hoaxing". He said that they had such a secure system in place that "hoaxes" are removed with minutes. This is clearly untrue. A few weeks ago I did a search at Google for "Paris". Number one was the Wikipedia entry for "Paper Aircraft Released Into Space". I tried it again just now and I got the same result. It just shows you how you can use a collection of blogs, forums and websites to manipulate Google and Wikipedia. The same could be done with the assassination of JFK if the community was willing to work together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_Aircraft_Released_Into_Space

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

John,

You are right on target. There are signs that Wikipedia functions as a disinfo op.

I have even discovered that John McAdams is one of Wiki's editors! You could not

have a more "neutral" person in that sensitive role. Periodically attempting to up-

date my own entry, I have been repeatedly rebuffed. But 9/11 is even more telling.

I found that the Wiki article on the 9/11 movement was frozen at the state it was at

in late 2006. So I made an effort to update it to be more accurate and current. Each

time my corrections were removed and the text reverted to the less accurate version.

I then discovered more gross mischaracterizations of Scholars. Same story over again.

I have written about it in "Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op", which is archived at

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml I was correcting the history of Scholars for 9/11

Truth, because I am the society's founder and have lived through all of this. Apparently,

at Wikipedia, the more you know, the less they want to hear from you. It's rather bizarre.

Jim

Jimmy Wales is currently being interviewed on BBC. He has been asked about how Wikipedia deals with controversial subjects. He says they recruit editors that are "neutral" in their views on controversial subjects. This lot of nonsense was just accepted and the interviewer did not ask how it was possible to hold neutral opinions on controversial subjects such as the assassination of JFK. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to be neutral about any historical subject.

Wales was also asked about "hoaxing". He said that they had such a secure system in place that "hoaxes" are removed with minutes. This is clearly untrue. A few weeks ago I did a search at Google for "Paris". Number one was the Wikipedia entry for "Paper Aircraft Released Into Space". I tried it again just now and I got the same result. It just shows you how you can use a collection of blogs, forums and websites to manipulate Google and Wikipedia. The same could be done with the assassination of JFK if the community was willing to work together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_Aircraft_Released_Into_Space

[Guest Robert Morrow]

John Simkin is right it is impossible to be neutral on any historical subject. Everything is biased, including me, because we are all human. So one has to read everything with "critical thinking." Critical thinking means just think for yourself and weigh everything in your mind thinking "is this true, if so why."

Having said that, Wikipedia, under the heavy influece of John McAdams, internet disinformation artist on the JFK assassination, is a complete fraud when it comes to the 1963 Coup d'Etat, also known as the JFK assassination.

Anything that relies on the Warren Commission farce or even the HSCA is bound to be telling you a lot of LBJ/FBI/CIA 1960's lies about the JFK assassination.

So Wikipedia needs to be exposed for the disinformation site it is. I do not think it is worth the time to rehabilitate it because the lone nutters have that place on lock down and will never print the truth there.

Having said that the #1 disinformation media over the decades has been without a doubt the NT Times, controlled by CIA assets in the executive suites.

If you ever do try to tell the ugly truth about the JFK assassination at Wikipedia disinfo site, you will be blocked from posting there - accused of "vandalizing." That is vandalizing the propaganda of the CIA murderers of John Kennedy.

I am currently blocked from posting at Wikipedia because I refuse to play along with the totalitarian game over there.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[Guest Tom Scully]

Lots of hand wringing...Jim, on controversial topics, it is best to not barge in by making edits without going to the talk pages of prior prominent editors of the topic and stating your argument for an edit. You may not succeed, but your odds will increase from zero for making one of hundreds of soon deleted fly by edits.

Everyone is an editor, Jim. The problem with McAdams is that we know his wiki bio page was created and is defended by prominent, pro WC wiki admin, gamaliel.

As you can view here, someone is making inroads by taking small bites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Crown#Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_C._Clark#Controversy

Row, bale, or get out of the way.... better yet, consider edits of the wiki article on Albert Jenner.