15

US FedGov Intelligence Has Been Manipulating Wikipedia (Creating DIS-Information To Mislead and Brainwash Users) For Over A Decade: Wiki Co-Founder

Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 10 months ago to Politics
54 comments | Share | Flag

Excerpt:
"The co-founder of Wikipedia has revealed a bombshell concerning long-running suspicions of US intelligence interference and manipulation on the world's most well-known collaborative online encyclopedia. The site's co-creator Larry Sanger spoke to journalist Glenn Greenwald on his "System Update" podcast, and outlined the known "information warfare" efforts of US intelligence, which have to some extend make Wikipedia a tool of "control" by the left-liberal Washington deep state.

Some observers who have long watched and carefully documented US government involvement in major social media platforms as well as Wikipedia itself have commented, "the CIA Is running Wikipedia, Wow, what a shocker. Sanger asserted during Greenwald's show, "We do have evidence that, as early as 2008, that CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia," before posing: "Do you think that they stopped doing that back then?"

Sanger explained that the intelligence agencies "pay off the most influential people to push their agendas, which they’re already mostly in line with, or they just develop their own talent within the community, learn the Wikipedia game, and then push what they want to say with their own people."

"A great part of intelligence and information warfare is conducted online," he added, and then specified: "on websites like Wikipedia." For that reason along with others explored in the interview, Sanger calls it "the most biased encyclopedia" in history."


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by AmericanWoman 2 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As have I but at some point its a matter of just walking away or not communicating with the person. Typically after awhile they reach out but learned a lesson...you know that fool me once...fool me twice thing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 2 years, 10 months ago
    If you are consulting Wikipedia for info related to pure math (David Hilbert's problems) and similar subjects, then you are in the clear.
    Anything with a political leaning will be compromised. The level of compromise has risen stratospherically over the past 10 years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 2 years, 10 months ago
    I’m shocked…..SHOCKED…..well not THAT shocked.
    It’s almost as bad an internet cesspool as Reddit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dougthorburn 2 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Pleasure. I bet someone with time on their hands could do the same with nearly every Substacker who today questions the fascist paradigm, but who did not--or did, but kept it low-key--in 2019.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 2 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Excellent example displaying the state-agenda propaganda being distributed on wikipedia and the
    changes when the information discussed no longer promotes the Deep State agenda. Thank you! 👍
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 2 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your observation re Quora aligns with my own. I recently disengaged as the noise level was deafening.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CTYankee44 2 years, 10 months ago
    Most of my Wikipedia use has been in the realms of hard science, tech, engineering, theoretical physics, etc. Not a lot of room to insert bias in those areas.

    Or so I thought. I couple of months back I had to cancel my recurring donation when I noticed the politics had worked its way into an article on chemistry. I was dumbfounded to find a blatant comment in the article. I immediately clicked {edit} and removed the offending prose.

    Within hours it was back and I was issued a warning for bias / 'content not neutral'.

    The next day I cancelled my automatic monthly repeating donations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 2 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I haven't either but that's probably because most of us got on to their BS games. I used to check with Snopes on things I absolutely knew to be true and they responded with either False or under review. You know, Was Hunter Biden an addict? They came back with a long and drawn out non committal response. If you asked a question about Trump they would hammer him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by AmericanWoman 2 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you for this information very interesting...as you can imagine there have been some that when stated facts about wiki they would say to me things as well they are as good as others...tried to explain are liberal editing information did not matter to them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 2 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Snopes, IMO was nothing less than a liberal hit job and probably funded by Soros and Gates. Whenever they said False it was usually True and visvers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ gharkness 2 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wow, I haven’t heard from Snopes in AGES!! Seems like their problem was they couldn’t stop fighting amongst themselves.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tutor-turtle 2 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    During the Mid-1990's I was an undergrad at a state technical college. As with most colleges it was a Liberal swamp...but.... My professors made it clear "Wikipedia was NOT an acceptable or credible source" for citation in our papers. So much so, in fact, any reference to Wiki would earn points off your paper.
    Any reading on anthropological climate change on wiki tells you all you need ever know about this source's credibility.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mikeofallon 2 years, 10 months ago
    Whatever your thoughts on RFKj, "conspiracy theorist" does not belong near the top of his BIO on Wiki. That has been subjective nonsense since the C.IA coined the term to try to dismiss (without evidence) skeptics of the infamous Warren Commission Report. By 1978 even the House Select Committee on Assassinations said the JFK hit was probably a conspiracy - dutifully reported in the backs of our finest newspapers. Snopes has been a joke forever - just look up what it or Wiki says about a conservative issue that you know a lot about.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 10 months ago
    People with a desire for power... Just shaking my head.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by GaryL 2 years, 10 months ago
    I think one of the worst offenders in this was and remains Snoops or Snopes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 13
    Posted by AmericanWoman 2 years, 10 months ago
    Many, Many argued with me when I stated these facts more then 10 years ago.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo