The digital age has revolutionized the way we access information. Gone are the days when families would invest in a set of encyclopedias, proudly displayed on their bookshelves. Today, with a few clicks, we have Wikipedia at our fingertips. But what if this vast reservoir of knowledge is not as impartial as it seems?
Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, has dropped bombshells that could shake the very foundation of our trust in this online resource. According to Sanger, the infiltration of U.S. intelligence into Wikipedia’s operations began as early as 2008. This revelation is not just a mere accusation; it’s a testament from someone who was at the heart of Wikipedia’s creation.
Sanger’s observations began around 2006 when he detected a subtle bias, especially in the realms of science and medicine. By 2010, this bias became more pronounced. Articles on Eastern Medicine, a practice rooted in ancient traditions, were being twisted to portray it as mere folklore. Such blatant disregard for diverse medical practices is not just an oversight but a deliberate attempt to shape public opinion.
But why would anyone want to manipulate an online encyclopedia? The answer lies in the age-old practice of propaganda. Intelligence agencies have always used misinformation as a weapon. With the advent of the internet, and later, social media, the scale and efficiency of this weapon have magnified manifold.
Trending now! – Trump vs. The World: The Untold Story of His Fight for America!
Take, for instance, the Ukraine-Biden saga. While evidence of corruption linked to Biden has surfaced, Wikipedia labels it as a “false allegation.” On the other hand, controversies surrounding Trump are presented as scandals. Such selective representation is not just biased; it’s a deliberate attempt to mold public perception.
The rabbit hole goes even deeper. In 2012, insiders were caught red-handed, editing pages for monetary gains, a blatant violation of Wikipedia’s rules. This incident was not an isolated one. Between 2013 and 2018, the bias escalated to unprecedented levels. As Sanger puts it, “No encyclopedia, to my knowledge, has ever been as biased as Wikipedia.“
But why is Wikipedia, of all platforms, the target? The answer is its sheer reach and influence. Wikipedia has become the go-to source for quick information for millions worldwide. Controlling the narrative here means influencing a significant portion of the global population.
Glenn Greenwald, an independent journalist, echoes Sanger’s concerns. He points out the glaring inconsistencies in Wikipedia’s coverage of various topics, especially those related to COVID. The platform seems to parrot only the establishment’s version, sidelining any dissenting voices.
Urgent! – The Clock is Ticking: How They’ve Silenced the Truth and the Urgent Need to Brace for World War 3!
The ideological bias that has seeped into Wikipedia’s content is not a mere accident. It’s a calculated move by intelligence agencies and the globalist establishment. Their ultimate goal? To pave the way for a New World Order, a unified global governance that would see the world under a single umbrella of control.
For such an audacious plan to succeed, dissenting voices must be silenced. The intelligence community, known for its covert operations, has found a new battleground: the digital space. Wikipedia, with its vast reach, becomes a prime target. As Sanger aptly puts it, “The Left…very, very deliberately seeks out to take control. But it’s not just the Left. It’s the establishment, and they have their own agenda.“
But how do they achieve this control? The answer lies in the shadows of the digital world. Intelligence agencies, with their vast resources, have infiltrated platforms like Wikipedia. They either sway influential figures to their side or plant their own agents who master the art of online manipulation. The aim is clear: control the narrative.
But Wikipedia isn’t the only digital giant under the scanner. Google, the search engine behemoth, has been instrumental in Wikipedia’s rise to prominence. By placing Wikipedia links at the top of search results, Google has indirectly endorsed its content. But here’s the catch: Google itself has ties to the military-intelligence-industrial complex and the globalist agenda. The web of control is intricate and far-reaching.
Social media platforms aren’t immune either. Recent revelations by Elon Musk in 2023 exposed how Twitter executives bent to the will of the FBI, censoring content and aiding U.S. military’s online propaganda campaigns. Facebook, too, has played its part, suppressing information detrimental to Joe Biden’s campaign at the behest of the FBI. The lines between intelligence agencies and information platforms are blurring, and the common man is caught in the crossfire.
One of the most alarming aspects of Wikipedia is the anonymity of its contributors. How can one trust information when its source is shrouded in mystery? The credibility of an author is paramount in establishing the veracity of information. Yet, Wikipedia allows for faceless entities to shape its content, leaving readers in the dark about the true intentions behind the words.
The question then arises: Was Google unaware of Wikipedia’s unreliability? It’s hard to believe. The collaboration between Google and Wikipedia seems less about providing accurate information and more about pushing a specific narrative. Past scandals, like the 2011 revelation of Wikipedia editors being paid off by corporations, only add to the skepticism.
Studies have further highlighted Wikipedia’s bias. A 2014 paper compared articles from both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, revealing that Wikipedia’s content was significantly more left-leaning. Such findings are not mere academic observations; they are red flags signaling a deeper malaise.
Wikipedia’s treatment of dissenters is another cause for concern. Renowned scientists, doctors, and journalists who dared to challenge the mainstream narrative, especially during the COVID era, found themselves maligned on the platform. Attempts to rectify false information were thwarted, with Wikipedia’s gatekeepers ensuring that only their version of the ‘truth‘ prevailed.
So, where does one turn for unbiased information? Fortunately, alternatives exist. Platforms like encyclosearch.org and encycloreader.org offer a more balanced perspective, drawing from multiple sources. Specialized encyclopedias, too, provide niche information without the overarching bias of Wikipedia.
In conclusion, the battle for information is real.
In a world where knowledge is power, platforms like Wikipedia wield immense influence.
But with that power comes responsibility.
It’s time for users to recognize the puppeteers behind the curtain and seek truth beyond the manipulated narratives.
The digital age promised a democratization of information, but as we’re seeing, it’s up to us to ensure that promise is kept.