This document is the draft for the second revision of this publication.
Original title: EXPOSED: Censorpedia - Shocking insights into Wikipedia's GIANT hidden censorship machine, fine-print, lies and propaganda and secrets [OC research]
I would like to present you fellow goats my research results on Wikipedia's dark depths. I hope that the hours I spent researching for this write-up were worth it.
Remember how Reddit can easily manipulate their policies to serve leftists?
Yes, that source of information the majority of the world relies on, and even used by digital virtual assistants used by millions. That exact site.
In this write up, I will describe how Wikipedia has public policies in place to systematically censor anything politically incorrect. But these policies are buried deeply and fine-printed to deliberately make users stumble upon them. Deceptive traps for users who can then get gaslighted into believing they did something wrong themselves.
The tip of the iceberg
On the surface, Wikipedia proclaims about itself:
Imagine a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That is our commitment.
Source: @Wikipedia on Twitter
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing
Wikipedia is not censored
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
(Source) (Yes, I can hear you face-palming already)
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.
Wikipedia administration policy – Section: Accountability
- Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community.
- Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
Source: Founder's statement of principles
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
Policy: ''Ignore all rules'' policy.
The ugly truth
We already all know that Wikipedia is controlled by leftists:
Racists are not only unwelcome here on Wikipedia, they are usually indefinitely blocked on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki.
The core beliefs uniting the various types of racists are:
- That white people are more intelligent than non-whites.
- That white people are more industrious than non-whites.
- That white people are more physically adept or attractive than non-whites.
- That white people are morally and ethically superior to non-whites.
- That the various cultures of white people are better than the cultures of non-white people.
- That white people have the right to live in a white-only nation.
- That a large majority of crimes are committed by non-whites.
Undeniable differences between whites and blacks are stigmatized as ''nazi'', even if all statistics speak for it. You are already familiar with that, I guess. But it goes even darker:
Did you know that content by users who are deemed to be evading a prior block (which is an easy accusation against anyone, with little evidence needed to dig for co-incidences) can be erased regardless of quality?
When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sock-puppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the block or ban of the primary account qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
This criterion applies regardless of the quality of the page in question
Source: Criterion for speedy deletions: G5 – Yes, this is a Wikipedia policy written in plain sight that 99% of readers are probably unaware of. That section links to another part of the policy:
Not only is this against the advertised purposes and principles of Wikipedia, but the administrators of Wikipedia violate this policy too! The first paragraph of this policy states:
Editors are site-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors.
This is what they claim. But this can be proven wrong:
On a Wikipedia criticism forum, I found out that a Wikipedia cabal member has banned the user Aron Manning for one paragraph of reasonable criticism on the his talk page. No long-term disruption, extreme persistant problems of such sort. He also was not using multiple accounts abusively, which he has proven after having been accused of such.
He criticized administrative action fully in accordance with policy, yet the administrator just left the remark “Talk page access has been revoked” and then immediately blocked him. And if he had created a new account to circumvent that unreasonable and abusive block, that would obviously be discarded as ban evasion.
How are users supposed to take blocks seriously that are enforced inconsistently? Obviously, they are compelled to circumvent that block, because it was not reasonable in first place.
Administrative sanctions against editors are not punitive, and imposed solely to prevent harm to the encyclopedia
So how exactly does blocking a user who has written a paragraph of reasonable criticism on his own user discussion page prevent harm to the encyclopedia?
If this already happens once, it certainly happens countless more times.
Not only does this prove that Wikipedia's blocking system is flawed (which administrators obviously tend to strongly deny out of arrogance), but that many Wikipedia administrators are terrible at coping with criticism.
Once one is blocked on Wikipedia, it is damn hard to get out, because those administrators get their much craved hit of dopamine from blocking users, not from unblocking them.
In addition, if only one out of many administrators at his discretion decides to block a user, even if most other administrators would have decided against a block, that is already enough to block that user. If, for example, ten administrators reviewed a user, and only one decides that the user is block-worthy, the user is blocked.
As a member of the Wiki cabal, that administrator got away with this violation of that rule.
Further down this policy section:
Even if such editors make only good edits, they will be rebanned for evasion.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the easiest excuse to get rid of an editor unwanted for any reason (e.g. reasonable criticism), and delete anything they added, even if well-sourced and of encyclopædic quality.
As we already know from above, administrators have a lot of leeway and can bend the rules to serve leftism.
I did not make this up. It's in plain sight. Look at the sources, if you wish.
Deeper into the organisation
Did you know?
Feel free to add anything I might have missed in the comments. Thank you for reading my research.