Wikipedia and the CIA

[John Simkin]

I am trying to develop information on Linda E. Mack. She is now about 45 years old and appears to be living in Alberta, Canada and using the name Sarah McEwan. On Wikipedia she is SlimVirgin, one of their most powerful administrators. Her editing is very anti-conspiracy-theory, and she spends many hours a day on Wikipedia. She's very supportive of anything Chip Berlet tries to push on Wikipedia, for those of you who know who Chip Berlet is.

There may be more than one person behind her username. She was tracked once editing Wikipedia for a single 27-hour period without a break. Administrators on Wikipedia have extraordinary powers to block or ban users, and delete or protect articles.

She started a biography on me that I've been trying to get taken down for a year now, without success. It took a lot of effort by several people to develop the information that she is Linda Mack. This information is very solid by now.

Ms. Mack was a grad student at Kings College in Cambridge in 1988, when her new boyfriend was a passenger on Pan Am 103. She dropped out of school and was soon working for Pierre Salinger, who was bureau chief for ABC News in London. Her main preoccupation was the Lockerbie investigation. Within a couple of years, Salinger locked her out of the office because he became convinced that Ms. Mack had been working with MI5 all along. Here's some background on Ms. Mack:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2235

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=3761

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=3910

We've lost the trail from her departure from ABC in London, to her arrival on Wikipedia in November 2004, from Canada, using the name "Sarah" and the username "SlimVirgin." I think she's still working as an agent of influence for someone. I think Wikipedia may have been infiltrated, and developing more information on her is the most promising lead we have.

A high priority is to get a photograph of her, even if it's an old one from 1989 or so. Since she has used more than one name, this makes a photograph more important than it might be otherwise. There are dozens of us who are interested in developing more information on SlimVirgin, because her heavy-handed editing has alienated many Wikipedia editors.

My email address is in the staff box that's behind the "about us" link at the bottom of www.wikipedia-watch.org

Thank you.

Wikipedia is very concerned about public perceptions. If people believed that its online resource was being influenced by the CIA, they would begin to lose public confidence in the objectivity of Wikipedia.

The idea of an objective encyclopaedia is ridiculous. My own online encyclopaedia attempted to expose this idea of objective entries by including a range of points of view on the subject in the source section.

Spartacus Educational started in 1997. The following year Jimmy Wales followed my example of producing a free encyclopaedia. However, he found it too time-consuming and decided to make it an “open source” project. This meant that people have had to fight to get their interpretations of the past displayed at Wikipedia.

My main victory was over Operation Mockingbird. Initially, Wikipedia claimed it was an urban myth. I edited the entry to explain it was a real CIA secret project to control the mass media. My entry was removed and it took several moths of arguing before they allowed my version of Operation Mockingbird to appear in Wikipedia.

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

It also comes up first with Google and my page at Spartacus is number 2. This is an example of how you can win your battles at Wikipedia.

[Terry Mauro]

I am trying to develop information on Linda E. Mack. She is now about 45 years old and appears to be living in Alberta, Canada and using the name Sarah McEwan. On Wikipedia she is SlimVirgin, one of their most powerful administrators. Her editing is very anti-conspiracy-theory, and she spends many hours a day on Wikipedia. She's very supportive of anything Chip Berlet tries to push on Wikipedia, for those of you who know who Chip Berlet is.

There may be more than one person behind her username. She was tracked once editing Wikipedia for a single 27-hour period without a break. Administrators on Wikipedia have "dia. However, he found it too time-consuming and decided to make it an “open source” project. This meant that people have had to fight to get their interpretations of the past displayed at Wikipedia.

My main victory was over Operation Mockingbird. Initially, Wikipedia claimed it was an urban myth. I edited the entry to explain it was a real CIA secret project to control the mass media. My entry was removed and it took several moths of arguing before they allowed my version of Operation Mockingbird to appear in Wikipedia.

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

*****************************************************

MY WHOLE POST JUST DISAPPEARED ON MY CRITICISMS [AND WHY] OF WIKIPEDIA, SNOPES, AND URBAN LEGENDS.

This new format is totally f******. I've just wasted my goddamned time for NOTHING!

Now, I've got to get back to the REAL WORLD, and get my sorry ass to job before I'm late.

Thanks alot.

Edited December 11, 2006 by John Simkin

[Mark Stapleton]

I am trying to develop information on Linda E. Mack. She is now about 45 years old and appears to be living in Alberta, Canada and using the name Sarah McEwan. On Wikipedia she is SlimVirgin, one of their most powerful administrators. Her editing is very anti-conspiracy-theory, and she spends many hours a day on Wikipedia. She's very supportive of anything Chip Berlet tries to push on Wikipedia, for those of you who know who Chip Berlet is.

There may be more than one person behind her username. She was tracked once editing Wikipedia for a single 27-hour period without a break. Administrators on Wikipedia have extraordinary powers to block or ban users, and delete or protect articles.

She started a biography on me that I've been trying to get taken down for a year now, without success. It took a lot of effort by several people to develop the information that she is Linda Mack. This information is very solid by now.

Ms. Mack was a grad student at Kings College in Cambridge in 1988, when her new boyfriend was a passenger on Pan Am 103. She dropped out of school and was soon working for Pierre Salinger, who was bureau chief for ABC News in London. Her main preoccupation was the Lockerbie investigation. Within a couple of years, Salinger locked her out of the office because he became convinced that Ms. Mack had been working with MI5 all along. Here's some background on Ms. Mack:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2235

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=3761

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=3910

We've lost the trail from her departure from ABC in London, to her arrival on Wikipedia in November 2004, from Canada, using the name "Sarah" and the username "SlimVirgin." I think she's still working as an agent of influence for someone. I think Wikipedia may have been infiltrated, and developing more information on her is the most promising lead we have.

A high priority is to get a photograph of her, even if it's an old one from 1989 or so. Since she has used more than one name, this makes a photograph more important than it might be otherwise. There are dozens of us who are interested in developing more information on SlimVirgin, because her heavy-handed editing has alienated many Wikipedia editors.

My email address is in the staff box that's behind the "about us" link at the bottom of www.wikipedia-watch.org

Thank you.

Wikipedia is very concerned about public perceptions. If people believed that its online resource was being influenced by the CIA, they would begin to lose public confidence in the objectivity of Wikipedia.

The idea of an objective encyclopaedia is ridiculous. My own online encyclopaedia attempted to expose this idea of objective entries by including a range of points of view on the subject in the source section.

Spartacus Educational started in 1997. The following year Jimmy Wales followed my example of producing a free encyclopaedia. However, he found it too time-consuming and decided to make it an “open source” project. This meant that people have had to fight to get their interpretations of the past displayed at Wikipedia.

My main victory was over Operation Mockingbird. Initially, Wikipedia claimed it was an urban myth. I edited the entry to explain it was a real CIA secret project to control the mass media. My entry was removed and it took several moths of arguing before they allowed my version of Operation Mockingbird to appear in Wikipedia.

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

It also comes up first with Google and my page at Spartacus is number 2. This is an example of how you can win your battles at Wikipedia.

John,

Congratulations on your success but the question is, why should one be required to battle the powers that be in order to have legitimate, well researched work appear on its pages? Looks like Wiki is only of use if you want to learn about birds or rabbits etc.

I think you should have included Daniel's post #10 from that thread, which mentions Mack's and Berlet's strong pro-Israel bias. Another brick in the wall, IMO.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Looks like Wiki is only of use if you want to learn about birds or rabbits etc.

...

Well said. Wiki is party line all the way. Still, they're very useful to me for quick intros on subjects. I can scan a topic there then start doing real reading elsewhere.

But they are infuriating, esp if you're trying to get something changed. For example their page on Hugo Chavez is just a big ol' smear. Outrageous right wing crap. I spent some time jumping thru their hoops and making proposed changes and bickering with the editor of that page. Then the last time I went there to see if there were replies I couldn't find anything I'd written. (Though I don't rule out the possibility that I'm just a dumbass and didn't look well enough.)

I don't know if it's intended to be propaganda, or if that's just the views of the puppets who post there, or if the process to get BS changed is just too cumbersome for people to stick with it. But it's not a website that should disturb the Cons.

[Myra Bronstein]

*****************************************************

MY WHOLE POST JUST DISAPPEARED ON MY CRITICISMS [AND WHY] OF WIKIPEDIA, SNOPES, AND URBAN LEGENDS.

This new format is totally f******. I've just wasted my goddamned time for NOTHING!

Now, I've got to get back to the REAL WORLD, and get my sorry ass to job before I'm late.

Thanks alot.

It's infuriating when that happens Terry.

Sometimes when I try to post something long I'll use my mouse to copy the text into the buffer until I make sure it posted. Also, I think the back button will recall the text if you do it right away, after the fact. Dunno if this is helpful.

I would really like to get your viewpoint on the snopes and urban legend sites though. I've started to wonder if they're propaganda. I don't have specific reason to wonder (I'm not slandering them), I just wonder on general principle.

Edited December 11, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

[Terry Mauro]

*****************************************************

MY WHOLE POST JUST DISAPPEARED ON MY CRITICISMS [AND WHY] OF WIKIPEDIA, SNOPES, AND URBAN LEGENDS.

This new format is totally f******. I've just wasted my goddamned time for NOTHING!

Now, I've got to get back to the REAL WORLD, and get my sorry ass to job before I'm late.

Thanks alot.

It's infuriating when that happens Terry.

Sometimes when I try to post something long I'll use my mouse to copy the text into the buffer until I make sure it posted. Also, I think the back button will recall the text if you do it right away, after the fact. Dunno if this is helpful.

I would really like to get your viewpoint on the snopes and urban legend sites though. I've started to wonder if they're propaganda. I don't have specific reason to wonder (I'm not slandering them), I just wonder on general principle.

********************************************************

"I would really like to get your viewpoint on the snopes and urban legend sites though. I've started to wonder if they're propaganda. I don't have specific reason to wonder (I'm not slandering them), I just wonder on general principle."

Thank you, Myra.

As I was attempting to relate this morning. About a month ago, a friend of mine warned me that Wikipedia really ain't what one would think it should be, due to the fact that it relies on getting its

"facts" from a wide swath of the public, some of whom may not be qualified enough to be making statements or creating answers, let alone thoroughly researching the topic for the most relevant information for disseminating into the public knowledge base.

And, Snopes chooses to discredit Prouty by claiming that the SONY acronym does NOT stand for Standard Oil New York, even after Prouty described whom he was working for after WWII, while delivering raw materials to Japan in boxes marked SOCONY or Standard Oil Company of New York. This was a collaborative effort between Mr. Morita, who couldn't stand the "Made in Japan" label, and equated it with something close to being thought of as, "cheap," and Rockefeller taking advantage of this new form of out-sourcing.

Well, that's only one reason at the moment. But, seeing as I'm nodding out at my computer, I'm going to choose to finish answering this in the morning. I'm going to beg off for the rest of the evening. See you in the morning.

[Terry Mauro]

*****************************************************

MY WHOLE POST JUST DISAPPEARED ON MY CRITICISMS [AND WHY] OF WIKIPEDIA, SNOPES, AND URBAN LEGENDS.

This new format is totally f******. I've just wasted my goddamned time for NOTHING!

Now, I've got to get back to the REAL WORLD, and get my sorry ass to job before I'm late.

Thanks alot.

It's infuriating when that happens Terry.

Sometimes when I try to post something long I'll use my mouse to copy the text into the buffer until I make sure it posted. Also, I think the back button will recall the text if you do it right away, after the fact. Dunno if this is helpful.

I would really like to get your viewpoint on the snopes and urban legend sites though. I've started to wonder if they're propaganda. I don't have specific reason to wonder (I'm not slandering them), I just wonder on general principle.

********************************************************

"I would really like to get your viewpoint on the snopes and urban legend sites though. I've started to wonder if they're propaganda. I don't have specific reason to wonder (I'm not slandering them), I just wonder on general principle."

Thank you, Myra.

As I was attempting to relate this morning. About a month ago, a friend of mine warned me that Wikipedia really ain't what one would think it should be, due to the fact that it relies on getting its

"facts" from a wide swath of the public, some of whom may not be qualified enough to be making statements or creating answers, let alone thoroughly researching the topic for the most relevant information for disseminating into the public knowledge base.

And, Snopes chooses to discredit Prouty by claiming that the SONY acronym does NOT stand for Standard Oil New York, even after Prouty described whom he was working for after WWII, while delivering raw materials to Japan in boxes marked SOCONY or Standard Oil Company of New York. This was a collaborative effort between Mr. Morita, who couldn't stand the "Made in Japan" label, and equated it with something close to being thought of as, "cheap," and Rockefeller taking advantage of this new form of out-sourcing.

Well, that's only one reason at the moment. But, seeing as I'm nodding out at my computer, I'm going to choose to finish answering this in the morning. I'm going to beg off for the rest of the evening. See you in the morning.

*******************************************************

"But they are infuriating, esp if you're trying to get something changed. For example their page on Hugo Chavez is just a big ol' smear. Outrageous right wing crap. I spent some time jumping thru their hoops and making proposed changes and bickering with the editor of that page. Then the last time I went there to see if there were replies I couldn't find anything I'd written. (Though I don't rule out the possibility that I'm just a dumbass and didn't look well enough.)"

Yes, case in point: When my own cousin chooses to send me that obvious piece trashing Chavez, which inadvertently causes me to light into her like a bat out of hell, for being such a goddamned lemming for believing that she can foster that crap on me, and think she can get away without so much as a nod of agreement, really grates my ass. I end up berating her and her dumbass right- wing, knee-jerking friends for being the idiots and morons they actually appear to be for eagerly accepting this tripe at face value. Even if it means divorcing myself from my apparently less than stellar immediate bloodlines, so be it!

"So honey, who needs the static, it hurts the head.

You wind up cracking and the day goes dismal.

It's dirty for dirty down the line..."

Words and music by Joni Mitchell

The fact that Daniel Brandt is being maligned by someone with less than honorable, as well as dubious intentions, a one Linda E. Mack, leaves me with serious concerns as to what lengths these gov./intelligence [CIA/MI6/FBI/MI5] groups will resort to, in their own subversive/covert attempts to infiltrate public forums and databases with the prime objective to confuse, confound, and brain- wash the unsuspecting and uninitiated into accepting their erroneous historical perspective.

Here is the statement I was referring to from Prouty's. I see no reason why Snopes should attempt to discredit this information, no other reason that is, except to spread dis- or mis- information, especially 5 years after the fact.

From Prouty.org:

"The founder of SONY Corporation, Akio Morita, a man I highly respect, commented that following the defeat of Japan he made several trips to America...

Upon return home he noted that "Cheap" things were labeled "Made in Japan" in stores in America.

"He went home determined to change that image. Hence, the SONY Corp, which has since evolved from its humble beginnings as a manufacturer of stereos and T.V. to be recognized a leader in that industry."

(That's not quite an accurate copy of Burnham's words; but I'll stop here for another purpose.)

It just happens that I was ordered to Tokyo during the early days of the Korean War period, and was assigned the job of "Military Manager of Tokyo International Airport" during the period of the U.S. military occupation of Japan. At that time it was the third busiest airport in the world, not only because of the Korean War activity; but because of just such business activity as Burnham describes on the part of Mr. Morita. Many other Japanese entrepreneurs were doing their best to revive from the losses and damage of WWII; but even more important was an another enormous business phenomenon.

I began to notice that day after day the few Japanese transport aircraft available, and countless large commercial aircraft from USA Charter Companies began to jam the parking ramp on Tokyo Airport. They were loaded with items from the States.

US money and manufactured material was flooding the place. That is not a Japanese word, nor is it a Japanese acronym. Have you ever really thought why Mr. Morita, a fine Japanese businessman, would name his company SONY?

The name SONY began to appear at the airport after the flood of post-war recovery money, and one of the meanings of those four letters is "STANDARD OIL OF NEW YORK". That has always been SONY or SOCONY. (The Standard Oil Company of New York)

THE ROCKEFELLERS had arrived to re-finance Japan. [Or, began the first form of what is now known as "out-sourcing," aka "cheap sweatshop labor." (my emphasis. TM)]

What this meant was that during those "MacArthur" days Rockefeller money was flooding Japan; and money such as that (Yes, I'm using the term MONEY) kind of "money" began the amazing job of rebuilding Japan.

We should all note that these phenomena took place in what we called the Korean War and the Vietnam War eras. These conflicts carefully orchestrated and planned during the Cairo and Teheran Conference days in Nov/Dec 1944 had been ably designed to pour hundreds of billions of dollars/money into those activities. The Vietnam cost ran well over $500 billion... and this was not Maria Theresa "Dollars".

e) Your good letter has caused me to go back through some of my dog-earred records to rediscover and to confirm much of what you have written. It is my belief today that this High cabal is going to increase around the world rather than to have itself modified.

Thank you for your good letter,

L. Fletcher Prouty