http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ Wikipedia Watch http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/140807_wikipedia_credibility.htm Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé The credibility of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has taken another dive after a newly developed software program exposed how the CIA, corporations like Diebold and others routinely edit entries to bury criticism and manipulate the truth. Posted Aug 14, 2007 12:48 PM PST http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/wikiwatch/ Vote On the Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page WRH: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia Controversy has erupted among the encyclopedia's core contributors, after a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power. Many suspected that such a list was in use, as the Wikipedia "ruling clique" grew increasingly concerned with banning editors for the most petty of reasons. But now that the list's existence is confirmed, the rank and file are on the verge of revolt. Posted Dec 4, 2007 08:36 AM PST Category: COMPUTERS/INTERNET/SECURITY Long time readers will recall that I myself had an entry at Wikipedia, which contained factual errors that would be re-inserted after I repeatedly corrected them. Then I was blocked from being able to correct my own entry with the explanation that I was "not qualified" to edit an entry about myself. When WRH readers complained, my entry was simply deleted along with the entry fore whatreallyhappened.com. With the emergence of this mailing list, it should be clear that far from being an expression of democratic information flow, wikipedia is just as controlled as ABCNNBBCBS. http://rense.com/general82/wiki.htm Wiki - The Chaos Controller By Israel Shamir 5-15-8 http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html So is Wikipedia cracking up? It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, riven by boardroom rebellion - and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web? Wikipedia destroyed its own credibility when it began to enforce a particular editorial bias. And I think my own case illustrates the point. At one time there were articles at Wikipedia about Whatreallyhappened and about Michael Rivero. Then a wiki user made some changes to both articles making claims and accusations which were "exaggerated" to say the least. Under the rules of Wiki I was allowed to correct the errors and I did. Then the errors were put back in. I corrected. The errors were put back in and the article locked against changes. When I complained, Wiki told me (I am not kidding you) that Michael Rivero was not considered an authoritative source on the subject of Michael Rivero. When readers complained, Wiki simply deleted the articles and all subsequent attempts by my readers to create new ones. Many others have also noticed a clear bias in Wiki's articles and edits, and because Wiki now comports itself along the same lines as the corporate media, it has lost the trust of the consumer who views corporate media as little more then paid advertising for vested interests. I am not surprised Wiki has hit hard times. They abandoned their original purpose of a pure online democracy in favor of enforcing their editorial view of the world on everyone else, and We the People have already had our fill of that kind of thinking. http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/100122_hhb.htm The Fairy-Tale Cult of Wikipedia by Henry H. Bauer January 22, 2010 20150709 http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/wikipedia-as-propaganda-not-history-mh17-as-an-example/ Wikipedia as Propaganda Not History - MH17 as An Example Wikipedia articles are more propaganda than they are historical accounts. And, often, their cited sources are misleading, or even false. On 15 August 2007, the BBC headlined "Wikipedia Shows CIA Page Edits," and Jonathan Fildes reported that, "An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organizations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries." I.e.: What the CIA doesn't like, they can (and do) eliminate or change. 20160918 https://iceagenow.info/massive-cover-global-cooling-papers-deleted/ Massive Cover-up - Global cooling papers deleted September 17, 2016 Hijacking Wikipedia and rewriting history by painting the 1970s Global Cooling Scare as an urban myth. "Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world's most influential and accessed informational source," says this article by Stephen Nigel Strutt. "It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific "consensus" during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain. Not only did Connolley - a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog - successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann's hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth." "Massive Cover-Up Exposed: Lying Alarmists Rebranded 70s Global Cooling Scare as a Myth" http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/14/massive-cover-exposed-lying-alarmists-rebranded-70s-global-cooling-scare-myth/ "Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-'80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific 'Consensus'" http://www.outofthebottomlesspit.co.uk/420939961 Thanks to Mike Wiltshire and Stephen Nigel Strutt for these links I remember the Connolley - Wiki scandal. But don't seem to have saved anything about it here. One in AGW list: 20110117 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/ William Connolley, now "climate topic banned" at Wikipedia In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months. William Connolley (or associates using his login credentials) altered and in some cases deleted entirely articles that challenged the orthodoxy of human-caused global warming. Typical examples were editing articles on the Roman and Medieval warm periods to downplay the positive benefits warmer temperatures had, and any articles that suggested increased CO2 would result in faster plant growth and more food for a starving world. People are still wondering why there is so much political power behind this push to sell global warming. More than mere money is at stake, as seen by the fact that the warmistas were able to wrangle both a Nobel Peace prize and an Oscar for a "documentary" ruled by the British Courts as containing numerous lies and misrepresentations. Beyond the money to be made from a carbon bubble, the push for a global government and for the implementation of Agenda 21 itself rests on the public being convinced their present lifestyles are a threat to the planet, in order to persuade the people to accept a reduced standard of living so that the Wall Street barons can upgrade to $250,000 wrist watches and $500 hamburgers. If the dire prediction of global warming fizzles, as it clearly has after three harsh winters in a row, the credibility of the other doomsday claims craters right alongside it, and Agenda 21 / Global Government stands revealed for what they are; just another world power grab by sociopathic money-addicts intent on standing atop pyramids built to there everlasting glory and screaming, "I am the king of the world! Gaze on my works ye mighty and despair!". So what else is there? google Connolley Wikipedia edit lies scandal ---------------- 20091221 https://australianclimatemadness.com/2009/12/21/wikipedia-dont-trust-it-on-climate/ Wikipedia: Don't trust it on climate 21 December, 2009 by Simon Why? Because over 5000 articles have been tampered with by UK Green Party activist William Connolley so that they all neatly fit in with the IPCC agenda (bit like the temperature records, really): Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known - Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. 20101013 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/ Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues Anthony Watts / October 13, 2010 Apparently Wikipedia's own attempt at self policing problem editors isn't working. Despite being up for a restriction or a ban, rogue Wiki editor (and Real Climate co-founder) William Connolley is still removing anything he doesn't like when it comes to climate science. This time it's wholesale removal of any reference to the American Physical Society resignation letter of physicist Hal Lewis, who resigned over the APS global warming position: 20101021 http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/wikipedia-bans-radical-global-warming-propagandist-editing-all 20130130 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/ Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again Apparently Mr. Connolley has edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, most about climate. Die Kalte Sonne: "Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team." I'm not sure how accurate the translation is, but it suggests he was somehow part of the IPCC "short list" team. See it here at Die Kalte Sonne via this Google Translate link: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kaltesonne.de%2F%3Fp%3D7858 With over 5000 articles he's edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task. saved 20160918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley Wiki itself on Connolley and Wiki bias. Paraphrasing: "Everything is fine. Nothing to see here. He was unjustly accused" etc. What did you expect? Question is, were the 5000+ articles he trashed restored to their prior state? 20140529 https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/the-scorning-of-william-connolley/ The scorning of William Connolley. Posted by Pointman on May 29, 2014 · 101 Comments Excellent, very satisfying. 20190213 from JS MAN BEHIND 1/3rd OF EDITS ON WIKIPEDIA AN OLD SCHOOL SOVIET RUSSIAN https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-man-behind-a-third-of-whats-on-wikipedia/ YOU GOT THAT STRAIGHT. First of all, this shows just how shallow Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is TOTAL CRAP compared to what Geocities was before it got wiped out, which had millions of unique sites by millions of different people, and there's no way one guy could have ever edited a third of them. If one man managed to edit a third of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is shallow GARBAGE. Second, this shows that Wikipedia does not have quality control on anything. If one guy can screw the whole system, Wikipedia is BUNK. Third of all, the guy's mom "grew up in Soviet Russia". Get a load of this quote from CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-man-behind-a-third-of-whats-on-wikipedia/ "Still living with his parents in the home he grew up in, Pruitt has always remained true to his interests. "I think for a long time there was an attitude of, 'That's nice, dear. The boy's crazy. I don't know why he wastes his time, the boy's crazy, '" Pruitt said of what his parents think of his volunteer gig. That may have changed when Time magazine named him one of the top 25 most influential people on the internet, alongside President Trump, J.K. Rowling and Kim Kardashian West. How much money does he make from his work? None. "The idea of making it all free fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union ... So I'm very conscious of what, what it can mean to make knowledge free, to make information free, " he said. Pulling from books, academic journals and other sources, he spends more than three hours a day researching, editing and writing. My comment: Just to run this ONE web site, I have to spend between 8-12 hours a day looking for stuff that's good enough to put here and make sure it is accurate. Wikipedia is orders of magnitude larger than this site, and if ONE dufus edited a third of it, he's blowing pudding out his @ss. There's no conceivable way he's doing anything at all other than deleting what he does not like, he's not researching CRAP. NOT POSSIBLE, even with Wikipedia being only a shadow of what Geocities was. Mundane web sites have multiple editors. How much larger is Wikipedia than the New York Times? MANY TIMES LARGER. How does ONE guy do all that editing, complete with real fact checking? Answer: NOT. So here we have a CBS report that just admitted a guy with first generation roots to Bolshevik Russia is doing 1/3 the edits on Wikipedia, as a "volunteer" and he's getting it all done in 3 hours a day. If that's the case, BAG WIKIPEDIA, there's no fact checking, no quality control, ONLY BIAS. But everyone knew that already, RIGHT? What do I think he's doing? 1. Removing all conservative content. 2. Stripping all the details out of any post that has any scientific value. Wikipedia is TOTALLY worthless as a reference for anything of that nature, and there's no excuse for it. If it is beyond 8th grade, it's not there. It's not that it never gets posted there, it is that it consistently, every last time, gets WIPED OUT. 3. NOT WRITING OR ADDING JACK, ONLY DELETING. You can't go through that many posts and EVER hit Google or pick up a book while doing it. The CBS hero piece on this guy is the same kind of fake media reporting that has become the BANE of the MSM. There's no way the credibility they hand this guy could EVER, in a MILLION YEARS happen in "3 hours a day", the only thing possible is that he's a saboteur, with direct family roots to Bolshevik communism, JUST LIKE MERKEL. 20190417 http://addxorrol.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-quick-post-on-wikipedia-scrubbing-and.html 20190529 https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-05-28-wikipedia-co-founder-wikipedia-is-broken-run-by-bad-actors.html “Wikipedia is…broken,” controlled by special interests and bad actors, says co-founder