0
16

[–] anonOpenPress 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

What you need for Wikipedia is a source they accept as a reliable source. Unfortunately their current guidance is biased towards the liberal media. Efforts might be needed first in the higher level (editing the guides) to bring balance to that bias. In my opinion those efforts would be good regarding the whole Wikipedia project.

The easiest way might be to join the talk page discussion on pizzagate, explaining what's wrong, showing some support for the claims with well reasoned opinions and gather support of other users to join the discussion too. Enough of editors agreeing on something might work there.

Just a warning: There are also compromized editors eager to debunk those discussions, similar to for example shill here. Have a second thought if that is worth the effort, or could you maybe achieve something else similarly effective using your time in other projects. Everything pushing the awareness is good work.

0
14

[–] V____Z 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

@formatist I've had a few years of experience on Wikipedia and left because there is no hope. The best idea is to expose them for what they are, a propaganda site, a mouthpiece for the powers that be. The best way to expose them is to catch their editors, the ones allowed to control the articles in question, abusing the rules.

We already have that case. Go to the talk page of Pizzagate article. Look at the final 2 sections. You will see a game being played. Now it's true that WP won't allow InQuisitor articles, as anon mentions above. BUT the game being played is that the experienced editor toys with the one trying to challenge him, and removed some very important, oft-mentioned detail that came from the New York Times. THAT is against the rules and, for someone really familiar with WP rules (not me), this is an opportunity to actually have that editor reprimanded and likely banned from the article. However, in my experience, what will happen is that all his buddies will come to the discussion of his behaviour, and trash the opposing editor, talk up their friend, defend him in every way possible, and maybe even threaten the admins looking at the case, in case any of them aren't already shilling. There are very few admins who are willing to stick their neck out when the tide is against them. They just stay quiet, and 'buddy admins' will show up, and make the case for their friend, no matter how many rules have been broken.

I even took evidence of this type of thing to the co-founder, Jimmy Wales, and he didn't care to stop it. He's in on it. That's why i gave up. It's corrupt from the top on down, and there is NO room for straight up truth tellers. It's much worse than the US govt. There is little compunction to be moral. They are anonymous and don't have to face the public.

0
5

[–] 9003524? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Since Wikipedia is basically dead for our intents and purposes, I recommend checking out infogalactic.net . Some of their articles are currently little more than copy-pastes of the Wikipedia versions, but their articles on GamerGate and PizzaGate are much more accurate than the Wikipedia versions.

0
2

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

Isn't Jimmy Wales the one that edited his own wiki entry "downplaying the sexual nature of some of his former company's products." LOL wikipedia is a SJW circlejerk, just compare the entries for Mike Cernovitch (or any other right leaning personality).

0
1

[–] terrorist96 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That was me. Tried dispute resolution; led nowhere.

0
1

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

Wikipedia is crap. Even articles on inconsequential topics like entertainment are maintained but little cliques and changes aren't allowed, even if the original information was wrong, even with credible sources. It says whateverthefuck they want it to say and that's the end of it.

0
0

[–] remus_schmitt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

How does one join the talk page discussion? Forgive my ignorance.

0
0

[–] anonOpenPress 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

By editing the talk page

0
8

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

Is there a mainstream article that mentions the FOIA finding that the DC Police (lied and) actually did not conduct any investigation?

Sometimes it's easier to add something, and this would be one of those times. Yes, it will stand in opposition to what they've already got in the article, but that's their problem to deal with. It will look silly to have both these statements in the article, which is a good point to make, and probably the only one you could make since you need support from a mainstream article. I wonder if there is any way to use Ben Swann's report as the needed source? Has any MSM covered it? Even to make fun of him?

Even a tweet from a well known figure like Mike Flynn Jr could work. The only thing is, if they've been 'discredited' in media, that will be included right after their statement. You know how it works.

It is false to think that Wikipedia is there to present the facts, they don't even pretend to anymore. so just don't waste too much energy hoping or trying. I gave them 3 years of my life, literally cried over it. I don't want to see anyone else go through that.

0
5

[–] formatist [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Here are the spoils of my work, so far:

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. clpo13(talk) 22:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)"

http://imgur.com/a/cwXkf

0
1

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

Can you link us to the edit(s) they are referring to? Sounds like harassment to me, unless you were a jerk or something.

0
0

[–] formatist [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I simply removed 'debunked,' as well as the categories I listed below.

6
-6

0
3

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

Very very naive... Only because critical mass hasn't been reached yet but I fucking love your enthusiasm thank you for doing something

0
3

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

I would use the CBS News Ben Swann video as your source as much as possible. Reality Check... Nothing investigated so nothing debunked.

Not much content but Conservapedia.com lists Pizzagate on their homepage.

0
3

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

Better yet, go fill that page with the truth and real findings like the instagram photos

0
3

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

It has been dismssed - never debunked. Podesta, nor Alifantis are yet to address any of the facts. Hell, Alifantis is still spinning the narrative of an inncocent little pizza parlor owner being harrasses by alt-right Trump supporters.

3
1

[–] Are_we_sure 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago  (edited ago)

It's prebunked. Because it never was a coherent theory and it never backed up its claims, or it backed them up with only suspicion and speculation.

There is still today zero evidence that John Podesta spoke in code in his emails. There is zero evidence for the claims that using the words cheese, walnut, sauce, pasta are incriminating.

Here's the key sentence in the wikileaks entry.

The theory, which went viral, claimed that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contained coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring.

And the key challenge for @formatist is to prove that wrong.

0
0

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

Do you find the idea of toddlers kept in cages, raped, tortured and eaten (literally) amusing? If you do share it with us - what is it that you find amusing involving children and torture? After all - we can never be sure of anything.

You picked the wrong guy to troll buddy.

0
3

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

Have a look at the entire edit history for that article it's been pure diohrea since it went live and it's been updated with non facts over and over. I came to the conclusion that Jimmy Wales or some other senior party was completely owned some months ago, I knew it was biased and imperfect but shit that revision history is telling. 0 tolerance for the anti pedo movement apparently.

0
0

[–] 9003538? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That is the same conclusion that V___Z seems to have reached after a few years experience on Wikipedia, and after bringing evidence of editors breaking multiple rules straight to WP's co-founder, only for Wales to do nothing about it.

load more comments ▼ (15 remaining)