Difference between revisions of "789 - 11. Statement"
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | =11. WIKIPEDIA IS BIASED AND IGNORES | + | =11. WIKIPEDIA IS BIASED AND SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORES FACTS ABOUT HOMEOPATHY = |
| + | Sadly Wikipedia is no longer the unbiased internet site that you can trust. During the last few years it has become obvious, that many articles in Wikipedia are target to systematic manipulation. Main targets are several political subjects, a few scientific and ecological ones and all forms of alternative medicine. Prominent among those the article about homeopathy, which is one of the two most controversial articles within the English speaking Wikipedia – next to the one on Jesus Christ. | ||
| − | + | Click here <link to full story page> to read the whole story about Wikipedia and how it has become corrupted and biased. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Full story page on Wikipedia corruption== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article on homeopathy is pure propaganda and an attack on the integrity of real science. This is in direct violation of their stated principles of equanimity and fair reporting. They refuse to allow experts in the field to describe and define their own profession – they only allow biased detractors to write the definition. While it may be a controversial field, there are other controversial fields as well and there are ways to note the controversy and remain objective. Can you imagine if they allowed Atheists to write the definition of Christianity? | ||
| + | (… unfinished….) | ||
| + | |||
| + | For complete information on Wikipedia see: | ||
| + | https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Wikipedia | ||
| + | http://www.truthwiki.org/wikipedia | ||
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dysfunction-at-wikipedia_b_5924226 | https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dysfunction-at-wikipedia_b_5924226 | ||
| | ||
| − | + | One manipulation story that has reached the wide public is the one about the user “Philipp Cross”, a user account that has been used 10-14 hours a day, 7 days a week, even on Xmas and New Years Eve. Hardly imaginable that there is only one person behind this account, and if so he must be severly disturbed. | |
| + | See these sources: | ||
https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/wikipedia-takes-down-article-on-philip-cross-life-bans-author/ | https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/wikipedia-takes-down-article-on-philip-cross-life-bans-author/ | ||
| − | |||
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/ | https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/ | ||
| − | |||
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/05/23/more-about-wikipedia-corruption.html | https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/05/23/more-about-wikipedia-corruption.html | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 15:43, 15 November 2018
11. WIKIPEDIA IS BIASED AND SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORES FACTS ABOUT HOMEOPATHY
Sadly Wikipedia is no longer the unbiased internet site that you can trust. During the last few years it has become obvious, that many articles in Wikipedia are target to systematic manipulation. Main targets are several political subjects, a few scientific and ecological ones and all forms of alternative medicine. Prominent among those the article about homeopathy, which is one of the two most controversial articles within the English speaking Wikipedia – next to the one on Jesus Christ.
Click here <link to full story page> to read the whole story about Wikipedia and how it has become corrupted and biased.
Full story page on Wikipedia corruption
The article on homeopathy is pure propaganda and an attack on the integrity of real science. This is in direct violation of their stated principles of equanimity and fair reporting. They refuse to allow experts in the field to describe and define their own profession – they only allow biased detractors to write the definition. While it may be a controversial field, there are other controversial fields as well and there are ways to note the controversy and remain objective. Can you imagine if they allowed Atheists to write the definition of Christianity? (… unfinished….)
For complete information on Wikipedia see: https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Wikipedia http://www.truthwiki.org/wikipedia https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dysfunction-at-wikipedia_b_5924226
One manipulation story that has reached the wide public is the one about the user “Philipp Cross”, a user account that has been used 10-14 hours a day, 7 days a week, even on Xmas and New Years Eve. Hardly imaginable that there is only one person behind this account, and if so he must be severly disturbed. See these sources: https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/wikipedia-takes-down-article-on-philip-cross-life-bans-author/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/ https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/05/23/more-about-wikipedia-corruption.html
