What’s Your Go-To Research Site? Wikipedia Exposed

Thanks to Ed Komarek at Extraterrestrial Cultural Center on Facebook.

People love to visit their favourite research web site for a quick look-up on something that interests them, but we’re learning that there are a few popular ones that are not only far from trustworthy for accurate information, they are purposely manipulated to skew facts and deceive the public.

I’ve talked about Snopes before. There are now those exposing Wikipedia in a big way.

Many organizations that have a notable reputation and are favourites of the masses are controlled by the powers-that-were. Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Chase and Bank of America, CNN, MSNBC—the ones that gobble up the little ones and render them obsolete so they have the corner on the market and stand to become our trusted sources—because they’re the ONLY sources. What seem like choices are really all the same owners.

We need to be wary of where our information and services come from. We could be feeding the dragon that’s about to consume us. Did you contribute to Wikipedia’s fund raising requests? 

The controllers have been lying to us and covering up the truth about every topic imaginable throughout the history of mankind, and they’re still doing it.  ~ BP

Scientist Says Wikipedia Wants to Control Information, Lacks Objectivity and Abuses Its Readership

23 April, 2014

MessageToEagle.com – Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia is growing. Wikipedia has now been accused of controlling information, filtering out unwanted science material and abusing its readership.

One of Wikipedia’s goals is to improve skeptical content .

Journalists, researchers and scientists avoid using Wikipedia because it is an unreliable source. However, the general public uses the site as source to learn more on a variety of topics.

But just how reliable is Wikipedia and what’s really going on behind the scenes?

A very interesting article appeared recently on Epoch Times in which Tara MacIsaac elaborates on the editing war that is currently taking place at Wikipedia.

According to the Epoch Times “A team of activists under the label “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” are making concerted efforts to change science content on Wikipedia. Some are concerned this group could skew public perception of scientific principles and studies.

The Guerrillas started their work not long after so-called “Climategate” scandal in 2009. Green Party activist William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 articles on Wikipedia, including many related to the politics of global warming and scientists whose views did not correspond to his own on the issue, according to reporting by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. When Connolley became a Wikipedia website administrator, he removed 500 articles and barred more than 2,000 contributors “who ran afoul of him,” wrote Solomon.

 

Oxford University researchers found in a recent study that the two topics fueling the most heated editing wars on Wikipedia are Israel and God. “Everyone knows that there are opposing views on politics and religion, and many people recognize a biased account when they see it. But in the realm of science, things are different,” wrote Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist and author educated at Cambridge University and Harvard who is known for his controversial theories.

“Most people have no scientific expertise and believe that science is objective,” he said on his website. But he argues that strict materialism-the ideology of the Guerrilla Skepticism team-is a subjective worldview that does not maintain the supposed objectivity of science.

He accuses the Guerrilla Skepticism team of systematically abusing the trust of the Wikipedia readership. Susan Gerbik runs the team of almost 100, said Sheldrake, and “their aim is to ‘control information’ … Ms Gerbik glories in the power that she and her warriors wield.”

 


Guerrilla Skepticism’s website states: “The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages.”

“Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote. “Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.”

He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”

Russell Targ

Russel Targ, a physicist and author who was a pioneer in the development of the laser, and cofounder of the Stanford Research Institute’s investigation into psychic abilities in the 1970s and 1980s wrote shared the his reflections on what is happening with Wikipedia.

 

“For many years I had a pretty well balanced biography page on Wikipedia. I am now 80 years old, and had several scientific careers. I was a pioneer in the earliest development of the laser from 1957 to 1972. I was co-founder of an ESP research program at SRI from 1972 to 1982. And I worked for 12 years with Lockheed and NASA on airborne laser wind measurements. The Wiki editors have removed all trace of my 27 years in lasers, and I cannot put back one word.The editors, who mindlessly and passionately hate ESP, have trashed any positive aspects of our $20 million, 23 year program at SRI. Those numbers, in particular, are always removed. The negative comments are now more than three times the length of my brief bio. I cannot even mention that my wife was the sister of Bobby Fischer, former world chess champion.

As I try to repair these deletions, I have been banned from editing my bio. As I see how the editing process works at Wikipedia, I would not trust anything at all that I read there. Because of this mad prejudice, I think Wikipedia has debased itself as an information source.

Warm regards,
Russell Targ”

We will end this article by saying that next time you visit Wikipedia think once or twice about the information you are entitled to read and everything else that you will never be able to be informed about because the site deliberately avoids it.

 

About Starship Earth: The Big Picture

I'm a Canadian freelance writer living near Phoenix, Arizona specializing in the 2012 phenomenon, spirituality, and wellness & nutrition. Over the past 8 years I've learned what our spiritual upgrade is REALLY all about and have access to insider information not shared in the mainstream media. I aim to dispel the myths and disinformation around The Shift and Ascension and help bring the world Truth. It is time. Welcome... and I hope this blog makes a difference in your spiritual liberation. ~ Molly A. Chapman

7 thoughts on “What’s Your Go-To Research Site? Wikipedia Exposed

  1. Traci Chaney says:

    Interesting!

    Sent from my iPad

  2. robert says:

    The information Russell Targ has written is wrong. He has not been banned from editing his article. Check the edit history of his article and his user page, all edits on Wikipedia are open and recorded.

    The reason his edits were removed because all of them were un-referenced. He inserted personal commentary into his article (even some personal attacks) this is against Wikipedia policy. There is a policy on Wikipedia where material that is added must be referenced to reliable source i.e. scientific journals or papers. The problem is that Targ’s work on lasers is very difficult to find reliable references for (it is not mentioned in any physics textbooks, etc). He was asked by multiple users to provide references for his claims, but every time he just added personal commentary into the article without any references. Nobody is suppressing any information. His articles that he published on lasers are mentioned on his article, the reason those papers are not mentioned in detail is because no reliable references discuss them. If Targ was honest he should retract his false claims about Wikipedia because they are now being spammed around on various paranormal websites and what he has stated is not the truth of the matter. Regards.

  3. Ademir Xavier says:

    It is simple to solve this issue. Just make Google not to reference Wikipedia any more in any search around the world. The problem is Google search engine and not Wikipedia.

  4. John Stevens says:

    GRRRRRRRs TY Cheers

  5. Spud says:

    If you read the Wikipedia site, anyone can add or edit what is on a page, even those totally unqualified. So, likely all the Shill are out pushing their ignorance and national agendas, by dumbing down the info.

Comments are closed.