[–] Beast-mode-freak 0 points 46 points (+46|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Pretty much anything political, you can reverse whatever wiki says, and that is actual reality. Their leftist neo-liberal bias is extreme.

[–] krypt 2 points 26 points (+28|-2) ago  (edited ago)

leftist neo-liberal bias

JEWS, its jews.

its jews pulling the strings

but you are right, at this point everything on wikipedia is opposite of truth

[–] Chimaira92 1 point 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Yeah it's Jews but also brainwashed leftist whites. Cull them all.

[–] omnimattymattymatt 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I do that for all the msm.

[–] redwing14 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

there is nothing we seen yet that is verifiably illegal, other than drugs. Hunter is a shitty person. Sure. But, there isn't any of the crimes that bannon, or gao alleges,

[–] OldManCountry 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

That's what I'm seeing also. It's time for bannon& co to shit or get off the pot.

So far I feel like a peeping Tom looking at hunter. Hell, I love a good hotel party and that's all we got so far.

[–] tastelessinvective 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

We should use this to invalidate wikipedia. It's undeniably partisan propaganda.

[–] dampkitty 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It would be nice to reference the interference from wiki editors when the evidence is proven

[–] StBlops2cel_is_Lord 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

There is Conservapedia https://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

[–] HoKogan 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

And Infogalactic.com, but I've always enjoyed some encyclopediadramatica

[–] RandomFurryDude 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

There's also metapedia.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] BlackGrapeDrank 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Isn't there only like 9 of them that control the top tier of editing?

[–] TheGook 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

No. IDF pays a group to monitor it crosery.

[–] SwearGoatISane 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

yes, and they dont like other people editing. they'll remove your stuff with sources wait a few weeks then ise your edit with different sources.

ive fixed a few things and they get rather pissy

[–] dampkitty ago 

yes afaik, I wonder who they vote for?...

[–] israelmossadjewgold 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

hang him for giving china nuclear secrets

[–] voatusernamevoat 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

What should be a reminder otherwise FYI, information has been out and confirmed before the laptops, even if they could ignore the laptops, which they can't, it's not possible to debunk the information based on that: https://www.ancreport.com/cornpops-revenge/

[–] Ddboomer 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Wikipedia is run by the leftists!

[–] Jabilukka 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

kike kommunists if you don't mind.

[–] folgeyharry 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The wikipedia talk page explains their reasoning. They only accept "Reliable Sources", which just happen to be all left-wing, such as CNN, MSNBC and even Vanity Fair. OTOH, Fox News, NY Post, or Washington Examiner, are all unreliable, so nothing they say is included. The left wing media all claim it's false, so, to them, therefore it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory#Discussion

[–] jxfaith 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Which is funny, because the NY Post broke the article that triggered this entire ckusterfuck.

[–] SerialLarper 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Wikipedia was always a cognitive infiltration operation. The old DNS records went back to the the same parent company as for wikileaks.

[–] boekanier 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They are after the monopoly of 'knowledge', but it's more like false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

[–] SerialLarper 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

A good example is William Connolley:

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

load more comments ▼ (29 remaining)