Difference between revisions of "789 - 11. Statement"

From FreeWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
 
'''[[789-Bold_Statements|back to Index]]'''
 
'''[[789-Bold_Statements|back to Index]]'''
  
=11. WIKIPEDIA IS BIASED AND SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORES FACTS ABOUT HOMEOPATHY =
+
= 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.
 
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.  
+
Click here <link to full story page> to read the whole story about Wikipedia and how it has become corrupted and biased.
  
 +
&nbsp;
  
 +
== Full story page on Wikipedia corruption ==
  
==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?
  
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?  
+
Would you believe that there is a group named “Guerrilla Scepticism on Wikipedia” with the only intent of manipulating the worldwide encyclopedia along the lines of a fundamentalist mechanistical world view?<br/> To read more about this group and see the proofs read [https://www.provings.info/blog1_en/?post_id=35&title=ebm-–-evidence-based-monsanto here].
  
Would you believe that there is a group named “Guerrilla Scepticism on Wikipedia” with the only intent of manipulating the worldwide encyclopedia along the lines of a fundamentalist mechanistical world view?
+
(… unfinished….)
</br>To read more about this group and see the proofs read [https://www.provings.info/blog1_en/?post_id=35&title=ebm-–-evidence-based-monsanto here].
 
  
 +
In case you don't really believe that corruption regarding Wikipedia could be meant in a literal sense, read this:<br/> "According to Merkey, in 2006, Wales agreed that in exchange for a substantial donation and other financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wales would use his influence to make Merkey's article adhere to Wikipedia's stated policies with regard to internet libel "as a courtesty" and place Merkey under his "special protection" as an editor. Merkey later withdrew his financial support of the Wikipedia project after reviewing evidence of diversion and mismanagement of the charities funds by Wales and the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and was immediately banned from the Wikipedia site by the Arbitration Committee for frivilous and unsubstanciated claims after he terminated the payments of $5,000.00 per year to the Wikimedia Foundation."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://lists.gt.net/wiki/foundation/123909#123909 https://lists.gt.net/wiki/foundation/123909#123909]
  
(… unfinished….)
+
And in case you think, that bias, prejudice and fake-news is just random and not systematic in Wikipedia, read this:
  
 +
In 2014 the ACEP went so far as to create [http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing <span style="text-decoration:none" lang="EN-GB"><span style="text-underline:none">a formal petition demanding changes to Wikipedia policies</span></span>] which 11,519 people signed. How did Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, respond to all these people?<br/> “No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t.”[https://www.change.org/p/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054 &nbsp; https://www.change.org/p/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054&nbsp;&nbsp; ]So obviously the rot starts at the top, or as others say, shit flows downhills.
  
 +
&nbsp;
  
For complete information on Wikipedia see:  
+
For complete information on Wikipedia see:
  
https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Wikipedia
+
[https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Wikipedia https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Wikipedia]
  
http://www.truthwiki.org/wikipedia  
+
[http://www.truthwiki.org/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 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dysfunction-at-wikipedia_b_5924226]
  
 
&nbsp;
 
&nbsp;
  
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.
+
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:
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://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.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 https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/05/23/more-about-wikipedia-corruption.html]
  
 +
&nbsp;
  
 +
&nbsp;
  
==for German speakers:==
+
== for German speakers: ==
  
The Wikipedia in German language seems to be even more under attack of manipulators than the English speaking one. For a full acount of what happens in the German Wikipedia see the movies on youtube “Die dunkle Seite der Wikipedia” (Wikipedia’s dark side) and “Zensur” by Markus Fiedler and Jens Speer, or watch the movies on Gruppe42.com.  
+
The Wikipedia in German language seems to be even more under attack of manipulators than the English speaking one. For a full acount of what happens in the German Wikipedia see the movies on youtube “Die dunkle Seite der Wikipedia” (Wikipedia’s dark side) and “Zensur” by Markus Fiedler and Jens Speer, or watch the movies on Gruppe42.com.<br/> Or see the pages about WikiImmunity, WikiWatch, Wikipedia on FreeWiki.eu.
</br>Or see the pages about WikiImmunity, WikiWatch, Wikipedia on FreeWiki.eu.
 

Revision as of 23:33, 12 December 2018

back to Index

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?

Would you believe that there is a group named “Guerrilla Scepticism on Wikipedia” with the only intent of manipulating the worldwide encyclopedia along the lines of a fundamentalist mechanistical world view?
To read more about this group and see the proofs read here.

(… unfinished….)

In case you don't really believe that corruption regarding Wikipedia could be meant in a literal sense, read this:
"According to Merkey, in 2006, Wales agreed that in exchange for a substantial donation and other financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wales would use his influence to make Merkey's article adhere to Wikipedia's stated policies with regard to internet libel "as a courtesty" and place Merkey under his "special protection" as an editor. Merkey later withdrew his financial support of the Wikipedia project after reviewing evidence of diversion and mismanagement of the charities funds by Wales and the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and was immediately banned from the Wikipedia site by the Arbitration Committee for frivilous and unsubstanciated claims after he terminated the payments of $5,000.00 per year to the Wikimedia Foundation."    https://lists.gt.net/wiki/foundation/123909#123909

And in case you think, that bias, prejudice and fake-news is just random and not systematic in Wikipedia, read this:

In 2014 the ACEP went so far as to create a formal petition demanding changes to Wikipedia policies which 11,519 people signed. How did Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, respond to all these people?
“No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t.”  https://www.change.org/p/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054   So obviously the rot starts at the top, or as others say, shit flows downhills.

 

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

 

 

for German speakers:

The Wikipedia in German language seems to be even more under attack of manipulators than the English speaking one. For a full acount of what happens in the German Wikipedia see the movies on youtube “Die dunkle Seite der Wikipedia” (Wikipedia’s dark side) and “Zensur” by Markus Fiedler and Jens Speer, or watch the movies on Gruppe42.com.
Or see the pages about WikiImmunity, WikiWatch, Wikipedia on FreeWiki.eu.