This is true. I would add that as the woke agenda (or whatever you want to call it) advances, it spreads through more and more content which therefore becomes "problematic" and has to be edited to fit that agenda.
I saw something like this where they changed the definition of something, in favour of certain ideological sphere. It was like a smoking gun. I unfortunately can’t remember what it was but presumably there is a lot of this that goes on. Anyone got any good examples?
@@MrB00mbang - 9-11 false flag attacks maybe? I quit Wikipedia on that reason but it was only the straw that broke the camel's back: HSD and MI6 agents acting openly as Wikipedia administrators (elected somehow, one can only guess how) were already taking direct control of articles and demanding 100% adherence to mainstream media narratives.
I was a Wikipedia Editor since mid 2000s, I began to see my content censored in 2011, and I preferred to stop adding or improving content as there was an "Elite" taking control, a kind of self-proclamed truth group. Also there was lies put front and center about things I and some friends have created, total lies.
See my other commitments re the OP and elsewhere. You sound like one of the good guys. My experiences were similar to yours. I came up against a brick wall of inaccuracies, lies and I was stopped from correcting them or even commenting. Wikipedia is a great possiblity, a possibly great resource, ruined 🙄🙄☹️
@@familyshare3724 i think the problem is not a technological one, it's not a matter of tools, but a matter of human groups. Winners wrote History, winners are rewriting Wikipedia too.
I only started noticing the biased language in articles in the past 3-4 years, but it's become quite pervasive. Specifically, I'm referring to any topic that's even slightly political. You'll now find little phrases that seem innocuous on the surface, but carry connotations that are anything but. An excellent example is in the entry for the "Great Barrington Declaration". In the second sentence, you'll find this passage, "It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection"...". As a former editor you'll immediately notice the word choice of "...the fringe notion...", which, of course, is used to cast doubt on the legitimacy of what follows. Keep in mind that the declaration itself was issued by eminent doctors from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard. An encyclopedia shouldn't be using such language. The editorializing of Wikipedia means I'll no longer be donating to its maintenance, since it cannot be trusted as an impartial source of information.
I absolutely do not want "the consensus" view - I want all views and their supporting arguments so I can exercise rational, compassionate discrimination. Wikipedia has absolutely devolved into propaganda.Thanks to all for this superb conversation.
Sometimes it's not even a logical consensus view, but one maintained purely for political correctness, even the case of historical articles. In some extreme cases the views presented in an article are fringe theories that are not even well-corroborated by primary sources, and instead rely on circular reporting, yet if you point this out, you'll get ignored, and the editors will refuse to allow you to add more objective viewpoints. And if you try to appeal to the administrators, they'll just ban you without even trying to counter your arguments. It's supposedly an encyclopedia, yet both the average editors and the people in charge are extremely anti-intellectual and have no concept of critical thinking. It's depressing, because the original Wikipedia taught me a lot about neutrality, objectivity and critical thinking, and now, it has devolved into just another one-sided news outlet. Well, aside from the STEM side.
If they could look into the future from back then, they would have felt smug. I would bet instead that now those same teachers are just as deranged by politics as much as anyone else in 2021 and probably recommend using wikipedia, fully aware of its partisan and establishment biases. Maybe they still say not to cite it directly, but now it's how you find primary sources. Primary sources which can unfortunately be just as susceptible to bias.
No, the right people weren’t backing it yet. I always found it dumb when there was good information on Wiki and they said not to use it. Many of them were the same teachers that pushed certain narratives onto their students.
People are questioning why this has happened but to me it's obvious: Tony Blair, George Bush and WMDs. We never resolved that mass deception Tony Blair and George Bush were never held accountable. We need to back and they need to be tried for deceiving the voting public, removing civil liberties and war crimes.
@@lmn6440 it didn’t cause the problem- longer run historical forces are at play - but you are absolutely right that this is when the slide is best dated to
There are paid teams, entire offices, that edit Wiki with a precise agenda. It is about the cheapest promotion spreading campaing you can imagine. You can edit the past and present at will, easily and cheaply. On top of that there is a moderator elitism, hate and prejudice against new/small editors.
Exactly what Orwell warned about. Just because it's not apparently state-sanctioned/orchestrated and appears to be peer-driven doesn't change the reality of where the rubber meets the all important road of tyranny! Larry Sanger is a H E R O!
@@mrCUTNPASTE It is state-orchestrated even if it is not under their direct control, because it is the state propaganda narrative that is driving the content and attitudes. Even still, I'm not convinced that they aren't "Project Mockingbird"ing Wikipedia. They probably have been for quite some time.
@Alex Gutierrez That very much depends on what topics you're reading. Most things are pretty clean, some things are a bit tainted, and high-profile, controversies are extremely tainted. As you move out to the more obscure pages of a controversy though, where few people ever go, the propaganda tends to calm down. Still, even things we consider to be non-controversial are still very much subject to the lens of the dominant internet culture(s) speaking the language of that page.
@@SepticFuddy The Wikipedia editors absolutely do the Mockingbird number on the JFK assassination. They've spent over a decade trying to prop up the lone nut gunman tale.
Long story short: It's good If you want to see the latin name of carrots or examples of slavic cuisine. But if you want to form an informed opinion on any even slightly politically loaded topic you're at the wrong place.
Right? If I want to know about a chemical’s pharmacology, it’s pharmacokinetics, it’s pretty reliable. I can compare that information with, e.g., PubChem, and see that it matches.
@someone with a comment Indoctrination. It's part of their job now. If they do not do this, they lose their job by The State, Federal Government, and Teachers Unions. They try their best to hire far leftist professors at every single lever as much as possible so they can control brainwashing our kids in schools from K to College. Too much money, power, and control in the balance to do otherwise. It's why so many leftist whack job professors are being exposed, and they are able to get away with teaching CRT, White Privaledge, Marxism, Communism, while they bash America and Capitalism, while getting rich of of the very same system they shit on. If they have to literally ask and then tell parents to not be present during the pandemic while the children and students are home schooled remotely, and now the FBI labels parents domestic terrorists and threats for daring to question anything teachers say, how can people not see what is truly going on? Professors are told and allowed to do this by design, by everybody involved in every school. The last 20 years they have been in hyperdrive to get rid of all Right Wingers, Conservatives, Anti-Establishment types, those who really question, teach real critical thinking, those who do not constantly, day in and out, tell students to ONLY USE "authoritative Sources". This is why enrollment in schools have dropped so much consecutively each month in the past few months. They are so brazen, so full of themselves and their cult hive mindset, that they do not care they are now being exposed, they hide behind Leftist Government to protect them using the police and feds now. They are installing Communism into this country like they boil a live frog. Slowly. They now feel so backed, so powerful and untouchable, they are finally letting the masks drop.
@@L1ttl3J1m The difference between assumptions and facts, is effort. Effort to do research from sources not easily controlled, filtered, and having to be approved by the state and government. Also, experience, watching professors push communism, Marxism, leftist bias, and out right lying, when all one has to do is real research. This is why professors and schools push the communist term "Authoritative Sources", because they want their indoctrinated students, easily fooled, brainwashed, lazy, and fail to question anything and everything, to be indoctrinated, and will not only indoctrinate themselves, but show and prove to these so called "professors" how easy it is to fool and brainwash them. Teachers unions, custom textbooks, have been exposed to follow leftist Marxist ideology, even a woman ahead of the custom textbook business was caught on camera and audio admitting its all a scam. Teachers unions are filled with Democrats, left wingers, Marxists, and communists, openly now admitting it, and being fully backed by the government while doing so. Majority of those allowed to graduate these days are leftists while right wingers, progressives, centrists, and conservatives, are punished or treated differently or held back. Its why twitter, Facebook, Google, RUclips, all mainstream outlets, lean far left. See, its not hard to see, witness, experience, and figure out when its right in your face. The only ones who deny it, say it does not exist, or gaslight, are those victim or fully supportive of all of it. Being pretentious about it reveals that too, as even the most oblivious person can see it and you cannot possibly deny it otherwise. See, that's called effort, as well as seeing truth for what it is and not letting a political loyalist cult brainwash you. The mafia had the same type of influence, and people thought I'd did not exist, until it was fully exposed.
I remember getting really into Wikipedia when I was working a night security job about 5 years ago. I had 8-12 hours shifts and only about 1/3 of my time had actual work that needed to be done. I would do deep dives just following links for an hour at a time. It was fascinating reading about all kinds of historical events. I decided to try to give back and improve the platform so I spent a couple months donating money and editing articles for grammatical errors. I was always very careful to make sure than I never edited anything that had a footnote as that would be changing a direct quote. I felt pretty good about it until the day I tried to fix a spelling error and was informed that my IP had been blocked for "vandalism" (no further explanation provided)...... I never changed the meaning of anything I edited, I always left a clear explanation as to why I was suggesting a change, and yet I was a "vandal" and banned from a platform I was trying to help. Needless to say, that really soured me on the experience and I haven't donated a cent since then.
Same here. I had made a donation to Wikipedia recently, and then was trying to make an addition to the history of a popular pop culture song from the 1960s, which I had researched and knew to be correct. My addition was then cancelled, stating that I didn't use proper citation (whatever that means), and didn't provide a proper link to the sources that I listed on the addition itself. So my attitude now is screw you, Jimmy Wales. I will never donate another cent to your online encyclopedia ever again, as you not only gave me the middle finger to the effort I put in to add value to your reference service, but you are now telling me that your sources of information are also incomplete due to the strict, unnecessary editing algorithms in your system.
@@musicoldies83 Was it cancelled or was it reverted to an earlier version? I imagine you could have just gone back to the edit from the history of the page, and then fixed the citation formatting. Editors can be pretty anal about formatting, I agree though.
Irony is sometimes a tricky word or concept. This is what I believe to be a textbook example of irony. Even though you didn't choose to use that word, you nailed it Speciation. Censorship for talking about censorship.
I see this in endocrinology articles on wikipedia all the time. They write something as a "fact that is well documented" when in reality there are also tons of research papers out there that contradict that "fact". A lot of these articles just tell half truths, which can sometimes be more dangerous than straight up lies. They establish something as a "fact" even though the research on that fact has produced conflicting results and even the actual experts don't agree if it's a fact or not. Wikipedia basically hyperfocuses on half the studies and pretends that the other half just doesn't exist.
It's even worse when articles present fringe views (that reinforce left-oriented talking points) that have no basis in primary evidence as fact, while well-corroborated views that contradict them are removed. Especially when you've "won" the debate on the talk page, with proper sourcing while adhering religiously to Wikipedia's own rules like WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, and the administrators decide to remove your editing powers because they don't like having "their consensus" challenged. This happened to me once. It completely shattered my image of Wikipedia. I thought the administrators are people like Sangers who celebrate neutrality. Instead, they are some of the most anti-intellectual, anti-discourse people you can find online.
The good people will be thrown under the prison before much longer. Not joking. History forgets the good way more than you'd be comfortable knowing. Ain't it strange that the good guys win every single war?
Wikipedia is an excellent source of introductory information about non-controversial topics. You can learn pretty much anything, but never limit yourself to it. Unfortunately you can't rely on it for religion, political or social issues.
@@elkpaz560 yeah. I was reading its article regarding a pseudoscience called Electric Universe theory and it was deemed a non-standard model of the universe outside of “mainstream science”, which tells you pretty much how anti-science people are.
Larry Sanger comes across as very approachable, humble and engaging. An interesting conversation which just scratched the surfcae of this topic. Thank you.
@@HowardARoark that only means his audience is likely as ignorant, which is a net positive really that he’s as open minded as to interview Larry at all. He’s very well spoken too I will check out more of his content.
@@BlueNorth313 Yes I agree. He allows his guest to make some of their points but periodically he interjects with some very blunt remark as if none of what the guest has just said has made the slightest impact upon him. It's like the guest has been talking to a wall.
The Spanish flu entry being rebranded to fit the narrative during the election really did it for me. The previous ethos in the Wikipedia community has sadly declined.
I tried to submit an explanation of some free webcam security software I had written and was immediately struck off Wikipedia for "bias". There was no bias, it was a purely technical explanation of the capability and functioning of the software. I bet Microsoft write their own entries...
The censorship is a powerful weapon in hands of the global elites and instrumental tool to pull such act since March 2020. Here's an interview with Dr David E Martin, US top Patent Auditor, who recently reported findings of his investigation to "C*" related PATENTS going 20 yrs back! The trail leads to the "usual suspects" odysee.com/@Daniel:bd/There-Is-No-Variant-Not-Novel-No-Pandemic-Dr-David-Martin-With-Dr-Reiner-Fuellmich:a
Neil Degrasse Tyson said that he goes in and changes his own Wiki Page from Atheist to Agnostic and he goes back a week later and it says Atheist again.
Primary sources are not considered reliable by wikipedia. Changes must be supported by references from a scholarly journal article or a whitelisted media company.
@@bertwesler1181 That's the point (sorta) that Tom is conveying. If a scholarly journal article or whitelisted media company declared that Neil Degrasse Tyson is an atheist, then no matter what Neil's own view on himself is, wikipedia will discount Neil's view on himself, as a primary source, in favour of the opinion given by the authorized authorities.
@@markusgorelli5278 By the way, how did you miss the fact that I was corroborating his belief that Wiki is dead as a trustworthy source. I mean, what the fuck else could my statement POSSIBLY have Meant.
" Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. " Sun Tsu
i think they did provide evidence, which it why the article says one thing instead of another. there's a fine line between discource and misinformation. conspiracy theorists tread that line like a sail boat
@@Yourmomma568 As a general rule, when someone says "conspiracy theorists," it's a good indicator that he has no interest in evidence. It is a term used exclusively to silence unapproved thought. Then again, totalitarians throughout history have always said that things they didn't want the public to hear were "misinformation."
You're a douchebag. There is an active revolt occurring because so much has become propagandized, taken over the decades these strategies have been pushed, what you believe to be true is certainly not what generations before you did - and there is no reason to believe yours is the correct viewpoint as they were no subject to social activist dogma for their entire lives. It's not an academic argument, its a practical outlook with a very long game. You lose, they win, the superiority of the argument be damned.
He's right about Eastern medicine. Similarly any article on India or Hinduism is only from the perspective of western liberal understanding of it and not what the indigenous Indians and practitioners of Hinduism's view is. The wiki moderators outright reject citations of works by Indian scholars. Only western establishment authors view is accepted. Sadly the west's understanding of India and its indigenous traditions/religion comes from colonial Europe's understanding of it in the 17th-19th century. Blatant racism but if we speak out we're labeled "religious fanatics" with ties to the ruling party in India. Not saying only "insider's" view should be presented but it should **also** be presented. For India/Hinduism it is only outsider's view.
Wikipedia is an American project founded by two Americans, headquartered in America and employing mostly American staff. OF COURSE it is mostly written from Westerners' point of view. Just as Encyclopedia Britannica was written specifically to educate British people about various topics, Wikipedia exists mainly to help Westerners make sense of the world and not the other way around. You can do your best to keep the Hindi edition of Wikipedia true to the Indian culture, but the English edition that forms the core of Wikipedia will inevitably retain its Western perspective. The only alternative is to create India's own online encyclopedia--which I am sure already exists, and I am equally sure that it is biased about Western topics in all kinds of ways that Westerners would object to if they could read the language.
I get mad as hell when I consider how little Japanese children are taught about their country's misbehavior during WWII,.. and then I am reminded of how little I know about America's occupation of the Philippines. There is no way that we can all know everything that is true,.. much less relevant; but such ignorance should make us humble,.. not arrogant. *_I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance._* ~ Diogenes *_To be ignorant of what happened before you were born...is to live the life of a child forever._* ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero *_If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be._* ~ Thomas Jefferson *_We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid._* ~ Benjamin Franklin *_The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves._* ~ Dresden James *_Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education._* ~ Bertrand Russell, _A History of Western Philosophy,_ 1945
*_Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance._* ~ H.L. Mencken *_Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant._* ~ John Simon *_All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest._* ~ Friedrich von Hayek *_Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance._* ~ Will Durant *_Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity._* ~ Martin Luther King, Jr. *_People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all of the average persons put together. In this situation, for the intelligentsia to impose their notions on ordinary people is essentially to impose ignorance on knowledge._* ~ Thomas Sowell *_It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance._* ~ Thomas Sowell *_Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts._* ~ Richard Feynman *_History is full of people who out of fear, or ignorance, or lust for power has destroyed knowledge of immeasurable value which truly belongs to us all. We must not let it happen again._* ~ Carl Sagan
@@snehamodyy Not true at all. Here in the west Hinduism is one of the most liked of all the religions, right up there with Buddhism and Taoism. Christian and Muslim religions get a lot more crap in the media than Hinduism, in fact I've never once heard anyone say anything bad about Hinduism ever. So you must be talking about your own media, not western media.
@@davidhunt7427 That's a little ironic, considering that much of what the West hears about Japan's "misbehavior" came from slanted sources (Allied reporters) and was subsequently disseminated by countries that had a vested interest in demonizing Japan during the war (and two of them after the war as well). Meanwhile Japan also occupied "Taipei", yet for some reason, we don't hear about any atrocities from there. It's almost as if Japan only misbehaved in places where the governments are known for creating and disseminating propaganda, but never in places where people are actually free to contest government talking points. It's enough to make one suspect that some of those stories may have been exaggerated a little, or even made up. Though of course we do have things like Unit 731, which is corroborated by evidence, and the existence of which makes sense from a logical viewpoint. But on the opposite end there are also things like the 'comfort stations', which nobody thought was controversial until 40 years after the war, when a former Japanese soldier published an account of himself detailing how he supposedly kidnapped women for this purpose (which was later shown to be fictional) that was picked up by financially-motivated South Korean advocacy groups and subsequently spread to sensationalist Western outlets and left-oriented historians who disseminated it without doing any level of fact-checking, despite many related accounts having little connection to actual historical records (and being contrary to many primary sources and things we do know of the period, such as Yoshiwara, and related customs in poorer countries, which paint a rather different picture of the subject) and despite the fact that many "testimonies" related to the subject were later shown to have been embellished due to financial and societal motivations.
I found Wikipedia EXTREMELY bias and i told them so when i was emailed for funding support. Out of curiosity, i recently looked for reference on someone i follow on RUclips who i know already has been given a reputation as a conspiracy theorist by Google and i was totally taken aback at the derogatory defamation of character! It was almost as if it was written by a rude teenager! Na, not a trustworthy source at all!
Well done. What a refreshing and interesting discussion. I used to donate to Wikipedia, but stopped around 4 years ago (later than I should have), writing them a letter saying that I could no longer support their ideological/corporate bias. - May the spirit of Larry Sanger's vision find a new incarnation online.
I have long proposed starting a resource site that was interactive like Wikipedia but cared about truth and accuracy. That relied upon primary sources and covered all relevant opinions. So far, I haven't found anyone interested.
@@CelticVictoryYou're probably better off joining some other site such as Conservapedia since that seems to be the most successful alternative using the Wikipedia engine
There is a fantastic video montage clip of the main stream media throwing out the same exact coverage of political issues, literally parroting each other a using the same wording. Almost like they got together and made up the script.
@@GingerPeacenik You act like students havent learned by now to just use the footnotes for sources - its also pretty bold of you to assume the teachers themselves arent the ones in favour of censorship.
This vid presents a view. A view that many people would not agree with (most wiki mods definitelly think wiki is a good and high quality source). -> this vid is definitely not neutral However, this vid also says we expect textbooks to be neutral -> this vid definitely *should not* be required viewing material. I mean, isn't it all about 'pushing an agenda'? oh, the ironies of the internet.
Of course they are censorious of dissent; all discussion involves two dissenting parties. What they are doing is choosing a side, censoring one dissenter, and ending the discussion. The discussion should never end, just like science never ends. In science, dissenters either capitulate in the face of evidence or they reformulate their hypothesis to fit reality better, presenting stronger evidence than what was available. What the social media arbiters are doing is taking part in a larger competition for power and neutralizing the opposition.
@@karenness5588 There are in the middle a group who disagree and want discourse. They are treated as dissenters and censored. I had to go and recap on the distinction between the two- dissent and disagree.I think that distinction speaks for the concern of more open minded thinkers who having looked at all of the arguments feel a great sense of concern,like you, that their right to disagree or apply critical argument is being policed sanctioned punished and censored.
@@polyannamoonbeam The point is that being a dissenter is not immoral; it's using coercion or deceit to shut them up that is the problem. It is a political game, a competition for power. The power comes with public opinion and, therefore, controlling the flow of information to the public becomes critical.
I have gotten into many arguments as to why you cannot trust Wikipedia and this conversation sums it all up. Thank you, an absolutely brilliant interview!
For a brief while, I was helping to edit radio station articles. I have run a directory of radio stations for 20 years, so have a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. It was becoming clear that the other volunteers were avoiding collecting information on religious radio stations. The editor guidelines specifically warn people about unconscious bias. I suggested that the radio article group seek out people who were more familiar with religious radio to give a more accurate view of radio stations. That was interpreted as a personal attack and I was reprimanded. So I stopped helping. I'm not even a Christian, but I can see the hate clearly reflected in Wikipedia.
A friend of mine has been trying to correct information about himself on his Wiki page. Every time he submits it, it is deleted. When I was in college, we couldn't use Wikipedia as a reference in our papers. That should tell you a lot.
I learned years ago that it isbasement dwelling no lifers that wanted to control the content of the articles....even on articles that dont matter. Seems like thet won out. I really only seem to use it for movie plotlines these days...and TAKE the controversial or politcal stuff with a grain of salt. You can feel the biases xtra lumpy in those articles
I've encountered the very same kittykatt - see my reply to the OP etc. Wikipedia is a wasted opportunity, corrupt. All deliberate of course. My country deals in such mindscrewing on an industrial scale, exports it and teaches other governments how to do so for a fee. All part of the spectrum to control knowledge and data etc. All about control (mind, body and spirit).
What's always intrigued me about Wikipedia is how mathematical topics often start off very technical and gradually get dumbed down. I would never think of looking at it for a political topic, but then we are post 1984.
My son came home from school last year talking about how their teacher told them that Wikipedia, CNN, CBC(Canada) we’re some of the only places to get truthful information on current events and to research people/ places / things. We homeschool now.
He (Eric Blair) was British MI-6, part of this plan... 1984 was soft disclosure to serve 2 purposes: 1) provides karmic cover for the globalist cabal (announce their plans, even if veiled) 2) transfers truth to the domain of fiction to discredit skeptics (commonly done in Hollywood movies)
@@LeoPlaw *_Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past._* ~ George Orwell, _1984_
*_Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. History has stopped. Nothing exists but an endless present in which the party is always right._* ~ George Orwell, _1984_
*_No one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me._* ~ George Orwell, _1984_
*_The war, therefore if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that the hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that is exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This--although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense--is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE._* ~ George Orwell, _1984_
*_The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history._* ~ George Orwell
*_If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear._* ~ George Orwell
*_If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech even if the law forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them._* ~ George Orwell
*_In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act._* ~ George Orwell
*_Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind._* ~ George Orwell
*_In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia._* ~ George Orwell
*_In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible._* ~ George Orwell
*_People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf._* ~ George Orwell
*_The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries, but between authoritarians and libertarians._* ~ George Orwell
Mr. Sanger, thank you for trying to create a portal of knowledge. Thank you even more that you are willing to call out what is going on there now. All the best to you, K
The human species has a very complicated and troubled relationship with the truth. A few seek it, some hide it, most fear it, and *_almost nobody knows it._*
Where did you find . . . A few seek it, some hide it, most fear it, and almost nobody knows it . . . come from This is beyond the power of a Google search . . . would love to know -- Thanks
I have tried to enter Danish Poets into Wikipedia, but within 5 minutes each article was pulled down due to lack of "notability" - and uninformed wikipedia admins (subsequently showing NO knowledge of the cycle of life of book publication) only stating 1 number of books in libraries (in a time, where the money flow to the library is becoming less and less, and paper books being overtaken by ebooks), 2 number of sales (compairing sales numbers of poetry books with suspense novels and crime), and 3 number of reviews (disregarding the fact that books of poetry rarely garner review), 4 grants and awards given (disregarding the fact that grants and awards are rarely given at all in Denmark compaired to the number of publications and writers). Result: Only a few living and the dead poets being taught in school curriculums could enter the halls of Wikipedia - from the above criteria. And man, were they vindictive and small minded in their willingness to learn!
Yeah, I was surprised to learn that the admins are incredibly unwilling to debate or actually review any sources, or even to listen to any logical arguments. Talking to them literally feels like talking to 8-year-olds, and it's absolutely surreal when you would expect the exact opposite (i.e. an appreciable level of intellect). I would've thought people running an encyclopedia would be at least somewhat concerned with being logical and objective, but I guess that's where Wikipedia loses to Britannica.
This is so funny. A bazillion years ago many of us said "OMG, this is going to be a train wreck of propaganda", how can they not see this? And here it is.
Thank you for this info. Just a couple of months ago I complained to Wikipedia about exactly this - a mono culture and sickly biased views presented as "the truth" and said that I will never again donate towards this garbage. Thank you, Larry. Frreddie, it is brilliant summary at the end, very helpful.
I have stopped donating to Wikipedia as I was worried about some of the falsehoods in the articles. It used to be good as I used it to teach myself about programming languages to a PhD level. I don't have it set as my home page anymore.
I used to go on Wikipedia daily to learn many things and donated every year. But for the past few years, especially since last year, I started seeing only one side on almost all things I’ve read. It is no longer a site for information as is, but has a very obvious narrative.
Thank you so much for speaking out, I used to support Wikipedia because I used it regularly and loved what it stood for. Approximately four years ago I quit my support because it was obvious they were no longer representing the truth any longer.
It's only useful as a starting point, or for biographical/historical facts. One must train oneself to identify opinion/speculation/interpolation etc. from fact, but sadly that is not a widespread practice. I find entries that give praise and criticism about people and ideas. Politics in the US is diseased with dishonesty and greed, so Wikipedia has been infected... and should not be trusted.
I always used it as a starting point to get some of the basic "official" facts. In my opinion Wiki has never unbiosedly looked into the extremely forbidden topics such as was Oswald being a lone gun man. What evidence has ever been produced that Oswald was a lone gunman? None '0'. There isn't any strong evidence he killed anyone. Even the government admits that. House Select Committee on Assassinations in 79 proved that but the media still tells us it was Oswald and only Oswald.
I personally don't think any encyclopedia should be covering current and ongoing events. You can't have historical fact until dust has settled and things have played out. As it is, people are using Wikipedia to influence events rather than to just record them. Non-trust worthy media/journo writes a BS story. Someone uses that as a basis for a Wiki article. "Trust worthy" media/journalist then uses the wiki article to write a story with wide reach. "Trust worthy" article becomes the new source for the wiki article making whatever BS the original media/journo that wrote it seem like fact. It's as bad as a journalist wanting to do an opinion piece going to twitter and finding some anonymous random account saying something they can use to support whatever it is the journo wants their article to say. And people eat this stuff up. No one seems to question what the media has to say or where it's sourcing it's information from.
I'd be careful using it as even that. If only one side is presented you have no idea what's being omitted. You can't help but be biased when reading it, especially if the effect is subconscious. It's useful if you want to know what the establishment position is on any topic though.
I go to Wikipedia for facts; what is the list of Indian states and their population, what is the latitude and longitude of Fairbanks, ... I don’t go there to be “educated”.
but even their 'facts' about the world and the 'universe' are lies. the truth is, the surface of the earth is a plane, covered by an impenetrable dome. the lies in this world run deeper than most people can possibly imagine
@@dumbcat the earth being flat doesn't free Julian Assange, corruption, murder, peadophile rings and the income equality gap. Lets sort those out then we'll flatten the planet. Deal?
@@dumbcat Lies? Maybe facts are outdated, there has been no census for 5 years, and populations counts are wrong. well, yeah, of course they are. That doesn't mean people are lying. Try counting the people in our country, it takes time, i think you would agree. By the time you have finished there have been births, deaths, emigration and immigration. There somethings have to be the best estimate and they will almost certainly be wrong.
All forms of media inevitably become “advertising” tools. The sad thing is that most people are believers and that’s the core problem with humanity. Beliefs carry more weight than facts.
I witness that kind of thinking in the "New Age" and positive psychology circles, when they talk about things like "what is *your* truth" instead of just the truth.
@@j3ffn4v4rr0 exactly... and that’s why politics never works. Everybody’s opinions count, no matter how ridiculous. And if you call someone out for it, you’re prejudiced. If we just focussed on the simple undisputed rights and wrongs the whole system would collapse because the people behind the majority of wrongs are the establishment and the people who support and believe in it.
I donated to wikipedia twice, I now laugh when they ask me for money. It was such an incredible idea but it runs on an 'honor' system which is what lets it down.
Everything and anything that has the potential to influence a large group of people is always a target for the powerful to monopolize…..such as the Rothschilds taking control over the Vatican’s finances in 1823.
Me too. I used to donate heavily. But when I started seeing people described as 'right-wing extremist' and 'racist', etc, I wrote them a scathing email. and stopped donating. I got a stupid boilerplate response and blocked their domain.
I'm glad he mentioned how Christianity is depicted on wikipedia. That's when it and I began parting ways, well over a decade ago, when the editors always went for the extreme redactionist view - a view not only not held by the vast majority of Christians, but that was built on spurious academic practices. Redactionist ideas that had long been debunked by biblical and classical scholars were shared as fact, and nothing that was presented as disproving this redactionist view was permitted to be added. Editors jealously guarded the pages, and it was clear that a lot of them had not a hint of concern for the truth, or impartiality, they had an anti-Christian agenda, and were really quite hostile. I don't mean by way of criticising Christianity, every idea is open to criticism, I mean they wanted to rewrite history to make things that had happened historically, that all academics in the field accepted as historical fact, disappear, or be viewed by the reader as under question when they aren't. It all seemed to be driven more by emotion than a desire to present a neutral or even factual article.
When my Alexa told me that "Jesus is a fictional figure.............." I couldn't believe my ears or my eyes or my tongue! lol. I'm not a Christian, but geez! If it was to tell me that Buddha was a fictional figure, it's going into the trash！
I stopped using it about 15 years ago when I learned that people could pay money and have it print whatever they wanted. It's no longer a trustworthy source.
Wikipedia itself tells you their standard is so-called "verifiability" rather than "truth". And their verifiability is not by experiment or even by evidence, but rather just laundering credibility via publishers that are also captured.
@@arclemons1967 I use Wikipedia to read on history. To sum it up: - assume that everything is tainted by politics du jour - history of changes is more informative than the actual article - links section (with changes thereof) tends to have some good stuff
I resonate so strongly with Larry here. But man, what a fantastic interviewer Freddie is. This is the first and only interview I've seen conducted by him. But those questions were so thoughtful and deep. Rarely see an interviewer/podcaster ask such penetrating questions.
Thank you Larry for producing one of the greatest stores of information - Please don’t give up on fighting for Libertarianism I don’t have the skills to fight back so I am relying on you ‼️ As always - this has been the highlight of my day - please keep it up 👍 A Golden gift in a very disturbed movement into the future !
I was not only saying this in 2012, I was PROVING IT with empirical evidence and demonstrable facts. And I consider I was actually late to the party. Guess what I was called? Yes, a ‘conspiracy theorist who’s off his meds’! The main root issue with Wikipedia is a lack of integrity.
L N They lied to us. I had meetings with Google where they promised me they would never add adverts to videos, monetisation would always be an option, storage, broadcast and watching of vids would always be free, and channel owners would retain copyright! All lies. The net has been ruined. I’m currently attempting to research a 12” antique Fisher iron try square marked ‘No. 1952’ which I bought years ago. The top searches in images are of course all eBay ads. But the main images are of 1950s record sleeves, and the first alternative question is: “Why is Porgy and Bess important?”!!! 15 years ago the top search would be a blog by a tool enthusiast. Now I can’t even find any references to a tool making company called Fisher! But it’s okay, because all I had to do was mention the name Peter Falconio out allowed before entering ‘Peter’ in Google search, and Peter Falconio was the first option!!! Welcome to the conversation GCHQ/NSA/MOSAD Peace
L N Yep. This goes back a long way. They were planning WW1, using Rhodes’ legacy, before the Boer War was over, and tried to get it going in 1912! Nothing is as reported in the official narratives by the powers that shouldn’t be. Peace
I loved the original version of Wikipedia, back when articles included all significant points of view. It taught me a lot about neutral thinking, and helped me become more objective in the way I look at the world. Now, it feels like it has regressed back to the Dark Ages, where everyone has to agree with a singular, sometimes illogical dogma. I wish the site could be restored to its roots.
Im surprised it isnt qualified as an alti-right anti-sematic racist conspiracy theory yet - as all these things seem to be thrown into that same category.
@@jolienewashington342 Tought you were going to claim that theory to be an "alt-right anti-sematic racist conspiracy theory" Crazy how so many people and group unironically label who or what doesn't go their way with word ressemblig those. Wikipedia favorite adjective is white supremacist.
I first started looking into what was wrong with Wikipedia when I noticed numerous inaccuracies in too many articles. I went to the Talk Page and saw good contributions being struck down by petty editors abusing their power and refusing to listen. Trying to find out why that was happening lead me to former contributors listing the serious issues that exist within the byzantine system and how editors and admins worked to prevent work from getting done. It's how misinformation continues to be on the site still a decade later. I've seen more than one editor say that truth doesn't matter on the site, only "verifiability." However, if it was a matter of information being verified, they would have listened to the authenticated information that the contributors were trying to add but were being prevented from doing. Likewise, attempts by contributors to actually reach a consensus are scoffed and the editors declares them in the "minority view." It disheartens me that there are still people who view Wikipedia as a reliable source and have come of the opinion that the site will only get better when its problems are highlighted and addressed.
The consensus bit stands out to me. Have personal experience with a few people making a page provably inaccurate. Discussions (there were multiple) over it ended up with their biased takes being classed as original research that lacked sources, and had consensus side with me. They kept edit reverting so it had to go to a dispute form where we found consensus again, but then the overseeing moderator (who also suggested the consensus option we agreed on) did a 180 and shot it down, which prompted an RFC. Again the same consensus was found, but it was closed with an option previously shot down by multiple people for violating several policies. Admins ended up agreeing it was the right move, and denied any consensus counter to it was ever found, and threatening bans. Whole situation has just confirmed for me it's administrators are majority heavily biased and force the site to support their opinions.
I want people to own their own websites, their own email addresses, their own data, and their own hardware, in order to take their power back from out of the hands of giant, controlling corporations. Do you like the fact that these for-profit corporations are making billions of dollars money and securing massive political power because people aren't claiming ownership of their own stuff?
@Claire Khaw, Twitter is and should remain free to censor me. A government powerful enough to force Twitter to let me speak is a government powerful enough to force Twitter to shut me up. Or do you *like* the thought of government bureaucrats deciding Twitter's editorial policy? The thought makes you feel comfy, does it? Think they'll stop at Twitter? Think they'll stop at "letting conservatives talk"?
Wikipedia admins are utterly horrible. They despise any notion of you acting outside of their control and any attempts to challenge that are punished as "block evasion"
There isn't a problem with neutrality in the media. News networks are often forced to print 2 points of view side by side, even if one of these views is blatantly false, just because the false view is held by a certain political party. For instance, in so many media outlets, the subject of climate change is "debated" as a political issue by non-experts, when really there is no debate among experts on this issue. It was settled decades ago. This is simply because the repub party in the US forces news outlets to print false information to keep holding onto power. If the electorate were really informed about the true objectives of the right wing in the US, instead of being fed this vague fear of "wokeness" (whatever that is) or being fed this absolute Mr. Potato head culture war garbage, you would find almost everyone in middle america voting to the left of what politics in the US consists of nowadays. There is effectively no leftist opposition in the federal government right now, virtually none. Since Clinton in the 90's, the dems have been playing repubs and the repubs have been playing crazy far, far right-wing fox news talking heads.
Freddy, could you please adress the healthpassport issue? We are struggling with it here in France where the gvmt wants to force it, dissidents and protesters are being called "complotists" etc...
This video made me appreciate my college professors. Even the bad ones. It wasn't until I got to university that professors there were firmly against the use of Wikipedia. I didn't really understand why seeing as how it had always been a great source of knowledge up until the time I was in university. Now, the individual that actually created it says he doesn't trust it anymore! Although I did have some pretty bad professors, I'm appreciative of their foresight with this particular website.
Well, he says it's as trustworthy or untrustworthy as mainstream media. Yes, you shouldn't trust Wikipedia, but you should equally distrust BBC, NY Times, Al Jazeera, or any other mass media.
Larry needs to start a new Wiki , many people are well aware of how the media has changed in the last few years i.e. more disinformation from big media.
I would contribute to that. Indeed, and because the WP pages require 'reliable sources', then what to do when all reliable sources are from the leftist media (which gets reinforced due to Google giving lots of organic credit to links on Wikipedia pages) and facts printed in right-wing media are frowned upon and removed (and likewise, conservative sites do not enjoy the links to their sites).
No. It’s got to be one that strictly keeps out leftist authoritarians and Marxists, especially. Sure, keep the other authoritarians out out, but especially the Marxists.
This is exactly why I quit editing on Wikipedia. To my great regret, but it was becoming unbearably frustrating, being confronted to accounts that were active 20 hours a day, and which did not seek to build a NPOV, but to impose their view.
A lot of those accounts are able to be constantly active because they are shared across a whole office building full of people hired somewhere. Manufacturing truth is a lucrative business. Individual enthusiasts never had a chance. It would be like trying to compete against a fully-staffed oil derrick just by yourself with a power drill pointed down into the dirt.
Another thing that suggests untrustworthiness is the dishonest fundraising practices. Every year wikipedia suggest to users that it is short of money, and only your donation will keep the servers running. In fact, wikimedia is more than flush with funds, and apparently has a maze of subprojrcts and very well paid permanent staff, with titles that make it rather difficult to discern what they actually do. The fundraising language also suggests that wikipedians are hard-bitten and conscientious seekers of truth, using the phrase "still not for sale". Spare me.
That applies only to controversial topics. Roughly 99.5 percent (at least) of Wikipedia articles concern matters of no political or ideological significance, for any side in the game.
@@DieFlabbergast I would have agreed 5 years ago, but there are few topics that noone has a financial or political interest in and this are prone to receiving a "frame". Geography and mathematics are still mostly reliable.
@@DieFlabbergast In recent years, not even an apolitical subject like geography is entirely immune. For example, the entries on territory size for the US and China have changed. The US was always known to be the third largest country in the world, marginally ahead of China, and then out of the blue they swapped places. Now, either a new geographical survey was undertaken to refine the results or it is a lie (perhaps designed to make Americans insecure about an external threat?).
@@oldcowbb Haven't you heard ? Jews have been chosen by God himself to lead the world ! As such, they should have full control of media outlet and online encyclopedias. Questioning any of this is vile antisemitism.
This guys speaks so much truth,I’m sometimes edit Wikipedia and some guy got me banned because he didn’t like what I was saying and the sources I was using
It's been like that from the very beginning in my experience. Self appointed (?) and anonymous gatekeepers. I couldn't get _ONE_ contribution accepted. i gave up.
Read everything critically, including Wikipedia. I regularly read material in Wiki that is falsifiably wrong. I make the edit, include the justification and sometimes my change is accepted.
It never was. The other founder of wikipedia was a weirdo with an agenda from the beginning. The entire idea of "crowd sourcing" knowledge was stupid and dangerous from the beginning.
@@Wobbothe3rd yes it was, at least it was as reliable as anything on the internet but better than most. As someone who once spent a lot of time researching online, Wiki was amongst the most reliable. As long as one used it properly, that is follow the sources, it was as good as it got.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
If you are reading anything even remotely controversial on Wikipedia, read the history of changes, not the end result.
This is true. I would add that as the woke agenda (or whatever you want to call it) advances, it spreads through more and more content which therefore becomes "problematic" and has to be edited to fit that agenda.
I saw something like this where they changed the definition of something, in favour of certain ideological sphere. It was like a smoking gun. I unfortunately can’t remember what it was but presumably there is a lot of this that goes on. Anyone got any good examples?
@@MrB00mbang - 9-11 false flag attacks maybe? I quit Wikipedia on that reason but it was only the straw that broke the camel's back: HSD and MI6 agents acting openly as Wikipedia administrators (elected somehow, one can only guess how) were already taking direct control of articles and demanding 100% adherence to mainstream media narratives.
@@LuisAldamiz - Spot on Luis !
@@LuisAldamiz Quit as in quit using I presume or adding?
I was a Wikipedia Editor since mid 2000s, I began to see my content censored in 2011, and I preferred to stop adding or improving content as there was an "Elite" taking control, a kind of self-proclamed truth group.
Also there was lies put front and center about things I and some friends have created, total lies.
See my other commitments re the OP and elsewhere. You sound like one of the good guys. My experiences were similar to yours. I came up against a brick wall of inaccuracies, lies and I was stopped from correcting them or even commenting. Wikipedia is a great possiblity, a possibly great resource, ruined 🙄🙄☹️
Could a git-pedia hierarchy of trust work?
I could imagine first forking Wikipedia and flagging, annotating text added, modified and removed by known bots and "elite un-editors"
@@familyshare3724 i think the problem is not a technological one, it's not a matter of tools, but a matter of human groups.
Winners wrote History, winners are rewriting Wikipedia too.
I only started noticing the biased language in articles in the past 3-4 years, but it's become quite pervasive. Specifically, I'm referring to any topic that's even slightly political. You'll now find little phrases that seem innocuous on the surface, but carry connotations that are anything but.
An excellent example is in the entry for the "Great Barrington Declaration". In the second sentence, you'll find this passage, "It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection"...".
As a former editor you'll immediately notice the word choice of "...the fringe notion...", which, of course, is used to cast doubt on the legitimacy of what follows. Keep in mind that the declaration itself was issued by eminent doctors from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard. An encyclopedia shouldn't be using such language.
The editorializing of Wikipedia means I'll no longer be donating to its maintenance, since it cannot be trusted as an impartial source of information.
When being neutral is considered partisan, that's when you know the culture war has gone too far.
He's nerdy, he's a bald spectacle wearer who talks like Jiminy Cricket, and he's an absolute hero. This is the guy I'd want curating my encyclopaedia.
Priceless comment! 🧐
???
I wonder what you look like! Have you not heard that it is what a person is like inside that matters......it is called character.
@@moosye8698 Wow, his point flew so far over your head that you didn't even feel the wind.
Yep, we need nerds.
I absolutely do not want "the consensus" view - I want all views and their supporting arguments so I can exercise rational, compassionate discrimination. Wikipedia has absolutely devolved into propaganda.Thanks to all for this superb conversation.
The consensus is devised from everyones opinion, and all discussion are public
@@Ed.E True, but that is not what he was saying, thus the quotes. Wikipedia currently qualifies as a censored propaganda vehicle.
Sometimes it's not even a logical consensus view, but one maintained purely for political correctness, even the case of historical articles. In some extreme cases the views presented in an article are fringe theories that are not even well-corroborated by primary sources, and instead rely on circular reporting, yet if you point this out, you'll get ignored, and the editors will refuse to allow you to add more objective viewpoints. And if you try to appeal to the administrators, they'll just ban you without even trying to counter your arguments.
It's supposedly an encyclopedia, yet both the average editors and the people in charge are extremely anti-intellectual and have no concept of critical thinking. It's depressing, because the original Wikipedia taught me a lot about neutrality, objectivity and critical thinking, and now, it has devolved into just another one-sided news outlet. Well, aside from the STEM side.
I agree, where the views are EVIDENCE-BASED. It's not supposed to be a collection of opinions.
Teachers who told the class not to use wikipedia must feel so smug right now
If they could look into the future from back then, they would have felt smug. I would bet instead that now those same teachers are just as deranged by politics as much as anyone else in 2021 and probably recommend using wikipedia, fully aware of its partisan and establishment biases. Maybe they still say not to cite it directly, but now it's how you find primary sources. Primary sources which can unfortunately be just as susceptible to bias.
No, the right people weren’t backing it yet. I always found it dumb when there was good information on Wiki and they said not to use it. Many of them were the same teachers that pushed certain narratives onto their students.
@@shadowlicked exactly
Many teachers are part of the establishment and the problem Sanger is discussing around dissenting points of views, censorship and group think etc.
Those same teachers were only complaining about lack of control. Now there is control
The public's trust in everything has reached a new low.
I STOPPED TRUSTING MSM LONG TIME AGO
Even the public’s trust in trust!
@Alexander Franke lol
People are questioning why this has happened but to me it's obvious:
Tony Blair, George Bush and WMDs.
We never resolved that mass deception Tony Blair and George Bush were never held accountable.
We need to back and they need to be tried for deceiving the voting public, removing civil liberties and war crimes.
@@lmn6440 it didn’t cause the problem- longer run historical forces are at play - but you are absolutely right that this is when the slide is best dated to
There are paid teams, entire offices, that edit Wiki with a precise agenda. It is about the cheapest promotion spreading campaing you can imagine. You can edit the past and present at will, easily and cheaply. On top of that there is a moderator elitism, hate and prejudice against new/small editors.
Exactly what Orwell warned about.
Just because it's not apparently state-sanctioned/orchestrated and appears to be peer-driven doesn't change the reality of where the rubber meets the all important road of tyranny!
Larry Sanger is a H E R O!
@@mrCUTNPASTE It is state-orchestrated even if it is not under their direct control, because it is the state propaganda narrative that is driving the content and attitudes. Even still, I'm not convinced that they aren't "Project Mockingbird"ing Wikipedia. They probably have been for quite some time.
@Alex Gutierrez That very much depends on what topics you're reading. Most things are pretty clean, some things are a bit tainted, and high-profile, controversies are extremely tainted. As you move out to the more obscure pages of a controversy though, where few people ever go, the propaganda tends to calm down. Still, even things we consider to be non-controversial are still very much subject to the lens of the dominant internet culture(s) speaking the language of that page.
Steinhauer agreed!!!
@@SepticFuddy The Wikipedia editors absolutely do the Mockingbird number on the JFK assassination. They've spent over a decade trying to prop up the lone nut gunman tale.
Long story short:
It's good If you want to see the latin name of carrots or examples of slavic cuisine.
But if you want to form an informed opinion on any even slightly politically loaded topic you're at the wrong place.
Yes. Exactly.
Wait, but do you have reputable sources or peer reviewed articles to back up that claim?
/sarcastic
@@freakinccdevilleiv380 you have the Sources, go check the reliability for yourself
Right? If I want to know about a chemical’s pharmacology, it’s pharmacokinetics, it’s pretty reliable. I can compare that information with, e.g., PubChem, and see that it matches.
Yep, that's true
honestly, I started becoming highly suspicious of Wikipedia when my professors began allowing it as a source!!!
@someone with a comment Indoctrination. It's part of their job now. If they do not do this, they lose their job by The State, Federal Government, and Teachers Unions. They try their best to hire far leftist professors at every single lever as much as possible so they can control brainwashing our kids in schools from K to College. Too much money, power, and control in the balance to do otherwise. It's why so many leftist whack job professors are being exposed, and they are able to get away with teaching CRT, White Privaledge, Marxism, Communism, while they bash America and Capitalism, while getting rich of of the very same system they shit on. If they have to literally ask and then tell parents to not be present during the pandemic while the children and students are home schooled remotely, and now the FBI labels parents domestic terrorists and threats for daring to question anything teachers say, how can people not see what is truly going on? Professors are told and allowed to do this by design, by everybody involved in every school. The last 20 years they have been in hyperdrive to get rid of all Right Wingers, Conservatives, Anti-Establishment types, those who really question, teach real critical thinking, those who do not constantly, day in and out, tell students to ONLY USE "authoritative Sources". This is why enrollment in schools have dropped so much consecutively each month in the past few months. They are so brazen, so full of themselves and their cult hive mindset, that they do not care they are now being exposed, they hide behind Leftist Government to protect them using the police and feds now. They are installing Communism into this country like they boil a live frog. Slowly. They now feel so backed, so powerful and untouchable, they are finally letting the masks drop.
Oh yes, clearly if your professors say it's a valid source, it must be suspect! ...How do you feel about textbooks?
@@L1ttl3J1m textbooks are a fixed source pre-selected by professors. Many of my textbooks were also written by my professors
@@L1ttl3J1m The difference between assumptions and facts, is effort. Effort to do research from sources not easily controlled, filtered, and having to be approved by the state and government. Also, experience, watching professors push communism, Marxism, leftist bias, and out right lying, when all one has to do is real research. This is why professors and schools push the communist term "Authoritative Sources", because they want their indoctrinated students, easily fooled, brainwashed, lazy, and fail to question anything and everything, to be indoctrinated, and will not only indoctrinate themselves, but show and prove to these so called "professors" how easy it is to fool and brainwash them. Teachers unions, custom textbooks, have been exposed to follow leftist Marxist ideology, even a woman ahead of the custom textbook business was caught on camera and audio admitting its all a scam. Teachers unions are filled with Democrats, left wingers, Marxists, and communists, openly now admitting it, and being fully backed by the government while doing so. Majority of those allowed to graduate these days are leftists while right wingers, progressives, centrists, and conservatives, are punished or treated differently or held back. Its why twitter, Facebook, Google, RUclips, all mainstream outlets, lean far left. See, its not hard to see, witness, experience, and figure out when its right in your face. The only ones who deny it, say it does not exist, or gaslight, are those victim or fully supportive of all of it. Being pretentious about it reveals that too, as even the most oblivious person can see it and you cannot possibly deny it otherwise. See, that's called effort, as well as seeing truth for what it is and not letting a political loyalist cult brainwash you. The mafia had the same type of influence, and people thought I'd did not exist, until it was fully exposed.
I get suspicious of anything that professors start espousing. Some very rare history professors might be able to (honestly) tell you why that is.
I remember getting really into Wikipedia when I was working a night security job about 5 years ago. I had 8-12 hours shifts and only about 1/3 of my time had actual work that needed to be done. I would do deep dives just following links for an hour at a time. It was fascinating reading about all kinds of historical events. I decided to try to give back and improve the platform so I spent a couple months donating money and editing articles for grammatical errors. I was always very careful to make sure than I never edited anything that had a footnote as that would be changing a direct quote. I felt pretty good about it until the day I tried to fix a spelling error and was informed that my IP had been blocked for "vandalism" (no further explanation provided)......
I never changed the meaning of anything I edited, I always left a clear explanation as to why I was suggesting a change, and yet I was a "vandal" and banned from a platform I was trying to help. Needless to say, that really soured me on the experience and I haven't donated a cent since then.
same here, but i was blocked by a bot, which may have been a false positive.
Fortunately I haven't been blocked yet.
Wow
Same here. I had made a donation to Wikipedia recently, and then was trying to make an addition to the history of a popular pop culture song from the 1960s, which I had researched and knew to be correct. My addition was then cancelled, stating that I didn't use proper citation (whatever that means), and didn't provide a proper link to the sources that I listed on the addition itself. So my attitude now is screw you, Jimmy Wales. I will never donate another cent to your online encyclopedia ever again, as you not only gave me the middle finger to the effort I put in to add value to your reference service, but you are now telling me that your sources of information are also incomplete due to the strict, unnecessary editing algorithms in your system.
@@musicoldies83 Was it cancelled or was it reverted to an earlier version? I imagine you could have just gone back to the edit from the history of the page, and then fixed the citation formatting. Editors can be pretty anal about formatting, I agree though.
I stopped donating to Wikipedia some time ago when I realised they were unfairly representing those accused of questioning narrative
Same. I didn't realize how bad it was. I quit donating
Exactly
It was blatantly obvious they had been hijacked and co-opted
The funniest thing... they have to be careful what they're talking about as to not have the video removed by youtube.
saddest thing
And once you realise this, you see it everywhere...
Irony is sometimes a tricky word or concept. This is what I believe to be a textbook example of irony. Even though you didn't choose to use that word, you nailed it Speciation.
Censorship for talking about censorship.
will faceborg permit me to friend his NAS ? B-)
That's not the funniest thing, it's the most terrifying thing.
"on many subjects the facts are not clearly established" -- EXACTLY.
I see this in endocrinology articles on wikipedia all the time. They write something as a "fact that is well documented" when in reality there are also tons of research papers out there that contradict that "fact". A lot of these articles just tell half truths, which can sometimes be more dangerous than straight up lies. They establish something as a "fact" even though the research on that fact has produced conflicting results and even the actual experts don't agree if it's a fact or not. Wikipedia basically hyperfocuses on half the studies and pretends that the other half just doesn't exist.
It's even worse when articles present fringe views (that reinforce left-oriented talking points) that have no basis in primary evidence as fact, while well-corroborated views that contradict them are removed. Especially when you've "won" the debate on the talk page, with proper sourcing while adhering religiously to Wikipedia's own rules like WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, and the administrators decide to remove your editing powers because they don't like having "their consensus" challenged.
This happened to me once. It completely shattered my image of Wikipedia. I thought the administrators are people like Sangers who celebrate neutrality. Instead, they are some of the most anti-intellectual, anti-discourse people you can find online.
This needs to be archived for years to come. Please preserve this in a safe place. Our young generation will need this.
Larry Sanger is one smart cookie. Sounds like a really decent guy.
I like cookies
@@horstebreedow8608 same
A brilliant snickerdoodle
This is a British channel mate. The correct phrase is clever biscuit. Thank you very much.
_and so handsome_
Brave guy.
Expect to see him retrospectively written out the mainstream story now. But the good people won't forget.
And the truly intelligent, also. Not the self-labelled 'intellectuals'.
Eventually it will be elon musk, creator of Wikipedia, wrote all articles himself. At least that's what Wikipedia will tell and all media.
@@allmycircuits8850 🤣🤣🤣
The good people will be thrown under the prison before much longer. Not joking. History forgets the good way more than you'd be comfortable knowing. Ain't it strange that the good guys win every single war?
Wikipedia is an excellent source of introductory information about non-controversial topics. You can learn pretty much anything, but never limit yourself to it. Unfortunately you can't rely on it for religion, political or social issues.
I agree with that. Take with a pinch of salt
Or science. "Controversial' is another one of these labels for things certain interests want suppressed.
@@elkpaz560 yeah. I was reading its article regarding a pseudoscience called Electric Universe theory and it was deemed a non-standard model of the universe outside of “mainstream science”, which tells you pretty much how anti-science people are.
This is what I've always said. Wikipedia is good for finding out the existence of a subject, but it should not actually be how you learn about it.
True it’s also generally accurate for geography
Larry Sanger comes across as very approachable, humble and engaging. An interesting conversation which just scratched the surfcae of this topic. Thank you.
Pity about the ignorance of the interviewer though.
@@HowardARoark that only means his audience is likely as ignorant, which is a net positive really that he’s as open minded as to interview Larry at all. He’s very well spoken too I will check out more of his content.
@@zugzwang2161 His questions can be rather insulting.
@@BlueNorth313 Yes I agree. He allows his guest to make some of their points but periodically he interjects with some very blunt remark as if none of what the guest has just said has made the slightest impact upon him. It's like the guest has been talking to a wall.
He knew to be so careful to not say what he wanted to knowing it would either get this ep. canceled of at the very lest edited.
I like Larry Sanger. Smart guy. I wish he never sold Wikipedia.
The Spanish flu entry being rebranded to fit the narrative during the election really did it for me. The previous ethos in the Wikipedia community has sadly declined.
I tried to submit an explanation of some free webcam security software I had written and was immediately struck off Wikipedia for "bias".
There was no bias, it was a purely technical explanation of the capability and functioning of the software.
I bet Microsoft write their own entries...
Thank goodness there are people like Larry Sanger who are prepared to tell the truth, and explain what is going on.
The censorship is a powerful weapon in hands of the global elites and instrumental tool to pull such act since March 2020. Here's an interview with Dr David E Martin, US top Patent Auditor, who recently reported findings of his investigation to "C*" related PATENTS going 20 yrs back! The trail leads to the "usual suspects" odysee.com/@Daniel:bd/There-Is-No-Variant-Not-Novel-No-Pandemic-Dr-David-Martin-With-Dr-Reiner-Fuellmich:a
It's just a pity he didn't speak up sooner, when he was hoist by his own petard by way of the actions of his Editors!
Men like this are *far* too uncommon, these days.
Thank you Larry for speaking up on this issue and thank you Freddie for 'knocking it out the park' again! Keep crushing!
Neil Degrasse Tyson said that he goes in and changes his own Wiki Page from Atheist to Agnostic and he goes back a week later and it says Atheist again.
Primary sources are not considered reliable by wikipedia. Changes must be supported by references from a scholarly journal article or a whitelisted media company.
@@Tom-lg9ee i watched Tyson in a video make the statement.
So, it is home you call a liar.
@@bertwesler1181 That's the point (sorta) that Tom is conveying. If a scholarly journal article or whitelisted media company declared that Neil Degrasse Tyson is an atheist, then no matter what Neil's own view on himself is, wikipedia will discount Neil's view on himself, as a primary source, in favour of the opinion given by the authorized authorities.
@@markusgorelli5278 By the way, how did you miss the fact that I was corroborating his belief that Wiki is dead as a trustworthy source.
I mean, what the fuck else could my statement POSSIBLY have Meant.
It is simple, he is a black man and his opinions are to be assigned to him. Stay in your lane, Doc
" Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. "
Sun Tsu
SABATON THE ART OF WAR
Censorship is a de facto admission of failure to win an argument by any other means, such as by presenting evidence.
i think they did provide evidence, which it why the article says one thing instead of another. there's a fine line between discource and misinformation. conspiracy theorists tread that line like a sail boat
Well stated no spot on!
@@Yourmomma568 you think? That’s not an opinion that is remotely evidenced based.
@@Yourmomma568
As a general rule, when someone says "conspiracy theorists," it's a good indicator that he has no interest in evidence. It is a term used exclusively to silence unapproved thought. Then again, totalitarians throughout history have always said that things they didn't want the public to hear were "misinformation."
You're a douchebag. There is an active revolt occurring because so much has become propagandized, taken over the decades these strategies have been pushed, what you believe to be true is certainly not what generations before you did - and there is no reason to believe yours is the correct viewpoint as they were no subject to social activist dogma for their entire lives. It's not an academic argument, its a practical outlook with a very long game. You lose, they win, the superiority of the argument be damned.
He's right about Eastern medicine. Similarly any article on India or Hinduism is only from the perspective of western liberal understanding of it and not what the indigenous Indians and practitioners of Hinduism's view is. The wiki moderators outright reject citations of works by Indian scholars. Only western establishment authors view is accepted. Sadly the west's understanding of India and its indigenous traditions/religion comes from colonial Europe's understanding of it in the 17th-19th century. Blatant racism but if we speak out we're labeled "religious fanatics" with ties to the ruling party in India. Not saying only "insider's" view should be presented but it should **also** be presented. For India/Hinduism it is only outsider's view.
Wikipedia is an American project founded by two Americans, headquartered in America and employing mostly American staff. OF COURSE it is mostly written from Westerners' point of view. Just as Encyclopedia Britannica was written specifically to educate British people about various topics, Wikipedia exists mainly to help Westerners make sense of the world and not the other way around. You can do your best to keep the Hindi edition of Wikipedia true to the Indian culture, but the English edition that forms the core of Wikipedia will inevitably retain its Western perspective. The only alternative is to create India's own online encyclopedia--which I am sure already exists, and I am equally sure that it is biased about Western topics in all kinds of ways that Westerners would object to if they could read the language.
I get mad as hell when I consider how little Japanese children are taught about their country's misbehavior during WWII,.. and then I am reminded of how little I know about America's occupation of the Philippines. There is no way that we can all know everything that is true,.. much less relevant; but such ignorance should make us humble,.. not arrogant.
*_I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance._*
~ Diogenes
*_To be ignorant of what happened before you were born...is to live the life of a child forever._*
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
*_If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be._*
~ Thomas Jefferson
*_We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid._*
~ Benjamin Franklin
*_The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves._*
~ Dresden James
*_Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education._*
~ Bertrand Russell, _A History of Western Philosophy,_ 1945
*_Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance._*
~ H.L. Mencken
*_Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is blissfully ignorant._*
~ John Simon
*_All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest._*
~ Friedrich von Hayek
*_Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance._*
~ Will Durant
*_Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity._*
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
*_People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all of the average persons put together. In this situation, for the intelligentsia to impose their notions on ordinary people is essentially to impose ignorance on knowledge._*
~ Thomas Sowell
*_It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance._*
~ Thomas Sowell
*_Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts._*
~ Richard Feynman
*_History is full of people who out of fear, or ignorance, or lust for power has destroyed knowledge of immeasurable value which truly belongs to us all. We must not let it happen again._*
~ Carl Sagan
I agree with your comment 100% . Media is hellbent on propagating anti hindu views through various nefarious organisations
@@snehamodyy Not true at all. Here in the west Hinduism is one of the most liked of all the religions, right up there with Buddhism and Taoism. Christian and Muslim religions get a lot more crap in the media than Hinduism, in fact I've never once heard anyone say anything bad about Hinduism ever. So you must be talking about your own media, not western media.
@@davidhunt7427 That's a little ironic, considering that much of what the West hears about Japan's "misbehavior" came from slanted sources (Allied reporters) and was subsequently disseminated by countries that had a vested interest in demonizing Japan during the war (and two of them after the war as well). Meanwhile Japan also occupied "Taipei", yet for some reason, we don't hear about any atrocities from there. It's almost as if Japan only misbehaved in places where the governments are known for creating and disseminating propaganda, but never in places where people are actually free to contest government talking points. It's enough to make one suspect that some of those stories may have been exaggerated a little, or even made up.
Though of course we do have things like Unit 731, which is corroborated by evidence, and the existence of which makes sense from a logical viewpoint. But on the opposite end there are also things like the 'comfort stations', which nobody thought was controversial until 40 years after the war, when a former Japanese soldier published an account of himself detailing how he supposedly kidnapped women for this purpose (which was later shown to be fictional) that was picked up by financially-motivated South Korean advocacy groups and subsequently spread to sensationalist Western outlets and left-oriented historians who disseminated it without doing any level of fact-checking, despite many related accounts having little connection to actual historical records (and being contrary to many primary sources and things we do know of the period, such as Yoshiwara, and related customs in poorer countries, which paint a rather different picture of the subject) and despite the fact that many "testimonies" related to the subject were later shown to have been embellished due to financial and societal motivations.
I found Wikipedia EXTREMELY bias and i told them so when i was emailed for funding support. Out of curiosity, i recently looked for reference on someone i follow on RUclips who i know already has been given a reputation as a conspiracy theorist by Google and i was totally taken aback at the derogatory defamation of character! It was almost as if it was written by a rude teenager! Na, not a trustworthy source at all!
Well done. What a refreshing and interesting discussion. I used to donate to Wikipedia, but stopped around 4 years ago (later than I should have), writing them a letter saying that I could no longer support their ideological/corporate bias. - May the spirit of Larry Sanger's vision find a new incarnation online.
I have long proposed starting a resource site that was interactive like Wikipedia but cared about truth and accuracy. That relied upon primary sources and covered all relevant opinions. So far, I haven't found anyone interested.
@@CelticVictoryYou're probably better off joining some other site such as Conservapedia since that seems to be the most successful alternative using the Wikipedia engine
People need to learn not to accept the first source they read as fact.
The point is most EVERY source is become partisan orthodoxy.
There is a fantastic video montage clip of the main stream media throwing out the same exact coverage of political issues, literally parroting each other a using the same wording. Almost like they got together and made up the script.
People need to learn to always be skeptical of authority when the authority is trying to scare them. Very skeptical.
"...establishment mouthpieces... Like Fauci..."
Sick burn, I love this dude :D
Hey it's atomsk the Dedede
This should be required learning material to view in high school.
Most high schools and universities won’t permit students to use it as a source.
@@GingerPeacenik You act like students havent learned by now to just use the footnotes for sources - its also pretty bold of you to assume the teachers themselves arent the ones in favour of censorship.
This vid presents a view. A view that many people would not agree with (most wiki mods definitelly think wiki is a good and high quality source).
-> this vid is definitely not neutral
However, this vid also says we expect textbooks to be neutral
-> this vid definitely *should not* be required viewing material.
I mean, isn't it all about 'pushing an agenda'?
oh, the ironies of the internet.
Required material should just be a video of somebody saying ''We're sorry for the internet, we fucked up, we unleashed hell upon you, good luck''
It is not that they are censorious of “dissent”, it is that discussion is being labelled as dissent and censored.
Of course they are censorious of dissent; all discussion involves two dissenting parties. What they are doing is choosing a side, censoring one dissenter, and ending the discussion. The discussion should never end, just like science never ends. In science, dissenters either capitulate in the face of evidence or they reformulate their hypothesis to fit reality better, presenting stronger evidence than what was available. What the social media arbiters are doing is taking part in a larger competition for power and neutralizing the opposition.
@@karenness5588 There are in the middle a group who disagree and want discourse. They are treated as dissenters and censored. I had to go and recap on the distinction between the two- dissent and disagree.I think that distinction speaks for the concern of more open minded thinkers who having looked at all of the arguments feel a great sense of concern,like you, that their right to disagree or apply critical argument is being policed sanctioned punished and censored.
@@polyannamoonbeam As someone banned from Wikipedia I can tell you it pushes a left wing secular narrative most of the time.
@@aclark903 yes, that seems to be a trend . I think I have similar experience-shadow banned ..? But not on Wikipedia- Twitter I believe.
@@polyannamoonbeam The point is that being a dissenter is not immoral; it's using coercion or deceit to shut them up that is the problem. It is a political game, a competition for power. The power comes with public opinion and, therefore, controlling the flow of information to the public becomes critical.
I have gotten into many arguments as to why you cannot trust Wikipedia and this conversation sums it all up. Thank you, an absolutely brilliant interview!
I no longer trust wikipedia and will no longer donate to it.
lol
I haven't for years. The bias became obvious.
For a brief while, I was helping to edit radio station articles. I have run a directory of radio stations for 20 years, so have a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. It was becoming clear that the other volunteers were avoiding collecting information on religious radio stations. The editor guidelines specifically warn people about unconscious bias. I suggested that the radio article group seek out people who were more familiar with religious radio to give a more accurate view of radio stations. That was interpreted as a personal attack and I was reprimanded. So I stopped helping. I'm not even a Christian, but I can see the hate clearly reflected in Wikipedia.
Christianity at its foundation, the core, is truth.
Side b is the liars club.
@@michaelbrownlee9497 LOL, it is exactly the opposite. It is a pity that you're indoctrinated.
@@CosmicValkyrie are you a electrician?
@@michaelbrownlee9497 ask your jesus boy. He'll know, right?
@@CosmicValkyrie ask him yourself, he knows everything about you.
I donated to Wikipedia in its first year. I never repeated the mistake.
A friend of mine has been trying to correct information about himself on his Wiki page. Every time he submits it, it is deleted. When I was in college, we couldn't use Wikipedia as a reference in our papers. That should tell you a lot.
That was true even when it was a pretty good resource in most places.
Yes. I was told by a medical specialist that everything on it was only as good as the person who posted it. Not a reliable source at all.
The "Editors" are firmly in control.
I learned years ago that it isbasement dwelling no lifers that wanted to control the content of the articles....even on articles that dont matter. Seems like thet won out. I really only seem to use it for movie plotlines these days...and TAKE the controversial or politcal stuff with a grain of salt. You can feel the biases xtra lumpy in those articles
I've encountered the very same kittykatt - see my reply to the OP etc. Wikipedia is a wasted opportunity, corrupt. All deliberate of course. My country deals in such mindscrewing on an industrial scale, exports it and teaches other governments how to do so for a fee. All part of the spectrum to control knowledge and data etc. All about control (mind, body and spirit).
What's always intrigued me about Wikipedia is how mathematical topics often start off very technical and gradually get dumbed down. I would never think of looking at it for a political topic, but then we are post 1984.
My son came home from school last year talking about how their teacher told them that Wikipedia, CNN, CBC(Canada) we’re some of the only places to get truthful information on current events and to research people/ places / things.
We homeschool now.
Orwell seems more prophetic than Nostradamus.
He (Eric Blair) was British MI-6, part of this plan... 1984 was soft disclosure to serve 2 purposes:
1) provides karmic cover for the globalist cabal (announce their plans, even if veiled)
2) transfers truth to the domain of fiction to discredit skeptics (commonly done in Hollywood movies)
Try Klauss Schwab. That old git has predicted quite a bit in the last 1.5 years.
pretty sure him and Aldous Huxley were 'in the know'... publish 'fact' as fiction and you can write whatever you'd like.
1984 is an allegory of the USSR under Stalinism. The only prediction is that authoritarianism can go global.
@@hermitthefrog8951 - That's a Stalinist lie and can be proven it is a lie. Orwell was an independent communist author.
In the modern era books are no longer burnt. They're electronically rewritten.
1984
@@LeoPlaw *_Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past._*
~ George Orwell, _1984_
*_Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. History has stopped. Nothing exists but an endless present in which the party is always right._*
~ George Orwell, _1984_
*_No one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me._*
~ George Orwell, _1984_
*_The war, therefore if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that the hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that is exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This--although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense--is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE._*
~ George Orwell, _1984_
*_The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history._*
~ George Orwell
*_If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear._*
~ George Orwell
*_If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech even if the law forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them._*
~ George Orwell
*_In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act._*
~ George Orwell
*_Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind._*
~ George Orwell
*_In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia._*
~ George Orwell
*_In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible._*
~ George Orwell
*_People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf._*
~ George Orwell
*_The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries, but between authoritarians and libertarians._*
~ George Orwell
David Hunt Thank You for your post.
@@davidhunt7427 spot on.
Thank you! I have watched Wikipedia change and been so disappointed. Good to know that at least one of the founders didn't want this to happen.
Mr. Sanger, thank you for trying to create a portal of knowledge. Thank you even more that you are willing to call out what is going on there now. All the best to you, K
The human species has a very complicated and troubled relationship with the truth. A few seek it, some hide it, most fear it, and *_almost nobody knows it._*
Where did you find . . . A few seek it, some hide it, most fear it, and almost nobody knows it . . . come from
This is beyond the power of a Google search . . . would love to know -- Thanks
Hermit that sums up these times perfectly
if you believe in it, Only God knows the truth.
We just can understand some part of it.
So well said !
Perfectly articulated.
I have tried to enter Danish Poets into Wikipedia, but within 5 minutes each article was pulled down due to lack of "notability" - and uninformed wikipedia admins (subsequently showing NO knowledge of the cycle of life of book publication) only stating 1 number of books in libraries (in a time, where the money flow to the library is becoming less and less, and paper books being overtaken by ebooks), 2 number of sales (compairing sales numbers of poetry books with suspense novels and crime), and 3 number of reviews (disregarding the fact that books of poetry rarely garner review), 4 grants and awards given (disregarding the fact that grants and awards are rarely given at all in Denmark compaired to the number of publications and writers).
Result: Only a few living and the dead poets being taught in school curriculums could enter the halls of Wikipedia - from the above criteria. And man, were they vindictive and small minded in their willingness to learn!
Yeah, I was surprised to learn that the admins are incredibly unwilling to debate or actually review any sources, or even to listen to any logical arguments. Talking to them literally feels like talking to 8-year-olds, and it's absolutely surreal when you would expect the exact opposite (i.e. an appreciable level of intellect). I would've thought people running an encyclopedia would be at least somewhat concerned with being logical and objective, but I guess that's where Wikipedia loses to Britannica.
This is so funny. A bazillion years ago many of us said "OMG, this is going to be a train wreck of propaganda", how can they not see this? And here it is.
@@martinedrington9205 how does information work
@@forloop7713 as a troll you can surely find your own answer.
I take everything said by the mainstream media with a giant grain of salt.
You still have a way to go. You'll be there when you realize that what the mainstream media tells you is the opposite of the truth.
Thank you for this info. Just a couple of months ago I complained to Wikipedia about exactly this - a mono culture and sickly biased views presented as "the truth" and said that I will never again donate towards this garbage. Thank you, Larry. Frreddie, it is brilliant summary at the end, very helpful.
I have stopped donating to Wikipedia as I was worried about some of the falsehoods in the articles.
It used to be good as I used it to teach myself about programming languages to a PhD level. I don't have it set as my home page anymore.
I used to go on Wikipedia daily to learn many things and donated every year. But for the past few years, especially since last year, I started seeing only one side on almost all things I’ve read. It is no longer a site for information as is, but has a very obvious narrative.
Much like everything else unfortunately
Thank you so much for speaking out, I used to support Wikipedia because I used it regularly and loved what it stood for. Approximately four years ago I quit my support because it was obvious they were no longer representing the truth any longer.
It's only useful as a starting point, or for biographical/historical facts. One must train oneself to identify opinion/speculation/interpolation etc. from fact, but sadly that is not a widespread practice. I find entries that give praise and criticism about people and ideas. Politics in the US is diseased with dishonesty and greed, so Wikipedia has been infected... and should not be trusted.
✔
I always used it as a starting point to get some of the basic "official" facts. In my opinion Wiki has never unbiosedly looked into the extremely forbidden topics such as was Oswald being a lone gun man. What evidence has ever been produced that Oswald was a lone gunman? None '0'. There isn't any strong evidence he killed anyone. Even the government admits that. House Select Committee on Assassinations in 79 proved that but the media still tells us it was Oswald and only Oswald.
I personally don't think any encyclopedia should be covering current and ongoing events. You can't have historical fact until dust has settled and things have played out. As it is, people are using Wikipedia to influence events rather than to just record them.
Non-trust worthy media/journo writes a BS story.
Someone uses that as a basis for a Wiki article.
"Trust worthy" media/journalist then uses the wiki article to write a story with wide reach.
"Trust worthy" article becomes the new source for the wiki article making whatever BS the original media/journo that wrote it seem like fact.
It's as bad as a journalist wanting to do an opinion piece going to twitter and finding some anonymous random account saying something they can use to support whatever it is the journo wants their article to say. And people eat this stuff up. No one seems to question what the media has to say or where it's sourcing it's information from.
@@GodotWorld That how intel operations often work, including the Trump-Russia hoax.
I'd be careful using it as even that. If only one side is presented you have no idea what's being omitted. You can't help but be biased when reading it, especially if the effect is subconscious.
It's useful if you want to know what the establishment position is on any topic though.
I go to Wikipedia for facts; what is the list of Indian states and their population, what is the latitude and longitude of Fairbanks, ... I don’t go there to be “educated”.
that's how I use it too
but even their 'facts' about the world and the 'universe' are lies. the truth is, the surface of the earth is a plane, covered by an impenetrable dome. the lies in this world run deeper than most people can possibly imagine
@@dumbcat why?
@@dumbcat the earth being flat doesn't free Julian Assange, corruption, murder, peadophile rings and the income equality gap. Lets sort those out then we'll flatten the planet. Deal?
@@dumbcat Lies? Maybe facts are outdated, there has been no census for 5 years, and populations counts are wrong. well, yeah, of course they are. That doesn't mean people are lying. Try counting the people in our country, it takes time, i think you would agree. By the time you have finished there have been births, deaths, emigration and immigration. There somethings have to be the best estimate and they will almost certainly be wrong.
All forms of media inevitably become “advertising” tools. The sad thing is that most people are believers and that’s the core problem with humanity. Beliefs carry more weight than facts.
I witness that kind of thinking in the "New Age" and positive psychology circles, when they talk about things like "what is *your* truth" instead of just the truth.
@@j3ffn4v4rr0 exactly... and that’s why politics never works. Everybody’s opinions count, no matter how ridiculous. And if you call someone out for it, you’re prejudiced. If we just focussed on the simple undisputed rights and wrongs the whole system would collapse because the people behind the majority of wrongs are the establishment and the people who support and believe in it.
The problem is that for something to be factual, it has to be believed.
belief is a subset of knowledge idiot
@@shizmoo5536 lol spoken like a true throwback
I stopped contributing to Wikipedia’s request for funding when I realized they were biased in what gets published.
I donated...it will make me look good when 'they' take over
right. why would they need our $5 or $10 when they have all the deep pockets behind? Maybe they are doing it just for show.
ditto
I donated to wikipedia twice, I now laugh when they ask me for money. It was such an incredible idea but it runs on an 'honor' system which is what lets it down.
Everything and anything that has the potential to influence a large group of people is always a target for the powerful to monopolize…..such as the Rothschilds taking control over the Vatican’s finances in 1823.
Me too. I used to donate heavily. But when I started seeing people described as 'right-wing extremist' and 'racist', etc, I wrote them a scathing email. and stopped donating. I got a stupid boilerplate response and blocked their domain.
Me too @Cabin Fever - never again until it acknowledges criticism and dissent in its entries again.
Those Begging Notices when first logging on are becoming very regular now aren't they? I need those laughs though.
It doesn’t “represent propaganda”. It IS propaganda. When the content was democratically and freely accumulated, it wasn’t.
I'm glad he mentioned how Christianity is depicted on wikipedia. That's when it and I began parting ways, well over a decade ago, when the editors always went for the extreme redactionist view - a view not only not held by the vast majority of Christians, but that was built on spurious academic practices. Redactionist ideas that had long been debunked by biblical and classical scholars were shared as fact, and nothing that was presented as disproving this redactionist view was permitted to be added. Editors jealously guarded the pages, and it was clear that a lot of them had not a hint of concern for the truth, or impartiality, they had an anti-Christian agenda, and were really quite hostile. I don't mean by way of criticising Christianity, every idea is open to criticism, I mean they wanted to rewrite history to make things that had happened historically, that all academics in the field accepted as historical fact, disappear, or be viewed by the reader as under question when they aren't. It all seemed to be driven more by emotion than a desire to present a neutral or even factual article.
When my Alexa told me that "Jesus is a fictional figure.............." I couldn't believe my ears or my eyes or my tongue! lol. I'm not a Christian, but geez! If it was to tell me that Buddha was a fictional figure, it's going into the trash！
And this is why I don’t donate to them when they beg for funds. The early existence of it was awesome.
I stopped using it about 15 years ago when I learned that people could pay money and have it print whatever they wanted. It's no longer a trustworthy source.
If you don't like the truth, use Wikipedia..
Wikipedia itself tells you their standard is so-called "verifiability" rather than "truth". And their verifiability is not by experiment or even by evidence, but rather just laundering credibility via publishers that are also captured.
@Claire Khaw in the case of Winston Churchill go to his diaries and official government records. There is so much fake news about him out there now.
Thankyou for having the courage to speak out against this insidious agenda.
Lary Sanger, thank you very much for the truth. 🏆🎯👍👏
Even my primary school told us not to use Wikipedia for class research!
hahaha!
That's actually stupid. It's a great source, if you know how to use it.
@@alex987alex987 - Please do explain your comment "if you know how to use it," with regards to research papers. 🤔
@@arclemons1967 I use Wikipedia to read on history. To sum it up:
- assume that everything is tainted by politics du jour
- history of changes is more informative than the actual article
- links section (with changes thereof) tends to have some good stuff
@@alex987alex987 ; It’s a great source of the establishment view … if that’s what you want, go ahead … Enjoy.
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is Superhero. He tells the truth, and explain what is going on encyclopedia.
I resonate so strongly with Larry here. But man, what a fantastic interviewer Freddie is. This is the first and only interview I've seen conducted by him. But those questions were so thoughtful and deep. Rarely see an interviewer/podcaster ask such penetrating questions.
Thank you Larry for producing one of the greatest stores of information -
Please don’t give up on fighting for Libertarianism
I don’t have the skills to fight back so I am relying on you ‼️
As always - this has been the highlight of my day - please keep it up 👍
A Golden gift in a very disturbed movement into the future !
I was not only saying this in 2012, I was PROVING IT with empirical evidence and demonstrable facts. And I consider I was actually late to the party.
Guess what I was called? Yes, a ‘conspiracy theorist who’s off his meds’!
The main root issue with Wikipedia is a lack of integrity.
Same here!
I used to donate to Wiki until I saw the noticeable change!
L N They lied to us. I had meetings with Google where they promised me they would never add adverts to videos, monetisation would always be an option, storage, broadcast and watching of vids would always be free, and channel owners would retain copyright! All lies.
The net has been ruined. I’m currently attempting to research a 12” antique Fisher iron try square marked ‘No. 1952’ which I bought years ago. The top searches in images are of course all eBay ads. But the main images are of 1950s record sleeves, and the first alternative question is: “Why is Porgy and Bess important?”!!!
15 years ago the top search would be a blog by a tool enthusiast. Now I can’t even find any references to a tool making company called Fisher!
But it’s okay, because all I had to do was mention the name Peter Falconio out allowed before entering ‘Peter’ in Google search, and Peter Falconio was the first option!!!
Welcome to the conversation GCHQ/NSA/MOSAD
Peace
Platos zoodiac True
@@G58
I suspect our society got hijacked 2019 was the year they were ready to press the button!
L N Yep. This goes back a long way. They were planning WW1, using Rhodes’ legacy, before the Boer War was over, and tried to get it going in 1912!
Nothing is as reported in the official narratives by the powers that shouldn’t be.
Peace
I loved the original version of Wikipedia, back when articles included all significant points of view. It taught me a lot about neutral thinking, and helped me become more objective in the way I look at the world. Now, it feels like it has regressed back to the Dark Ages, where everyone has to agree with a singular, sometimes illogical dogma. I wish the site could be restored to its roots.
Evil cannot create, it can only corrupt.
I stopped donating to Wikipedia because of how biased it has become. When the lab leak theory was listed as a conspiracy theory as of a month ago.
Lab leak hypothesis, it might seem pedantic but its very apropo in the current censorship climate.
Im surprised it isnt qualified as an alti-right anti-sematic racist conspiracy theory yet - as all these things seem to be thrown into that same category.
@@jolienewashington342 Tought you were going to claim that theory to be an "alt-right anti-sematic racist conspiracy theory" Crazy how so many people and group unironically label who or what doesn't go their way with word ressemblig those. Wikipedia favorite adjective is white supremacist.
I first started looking into what was wrong with Wikipedia when I noticed numerous inaccuracies in too many articles. I went to the Talk Page and saw good contributions being struck down by petty editors abusing their power and refusing to listen. Trying to find out why that was happening lead me to former contributors listing the serious issues that exist within the byzantine system and how editors and admins worked to prevent work from getting done. It's how misinformation continues to be on the site still a decade later. I've seen more than one editor say that truth doesn't matter on the site, only "verifiability." However, if it was a matter of information being verified, they would have listened to the authenticated information that the contributors were trying to add but were being prevented from doing. Likewise, attempts by contributors to actually reach a consensus are scoffed and the editors declares them in the "minority view." It disheartens me that there are still people who view Wikipedia as a reliable source and have come of the opinion that the site will only get better when its problems are highlighted and addressed.
The consensus bit stands out to me. Have personal experience with a few people making a page provably inaccurate. Discussions (there were multiple) over it ended up with their biased takes being classed as original research that lacked sources, and had consensus side with me. They kept edit reverting so it had to go to a dispute form where we found consensus again, but then the overseeing moderator (who also suggested the consensus option we agreed on) did a 180 and shot it down, which prompted an RFC. Again the same consensus was found, but it was closed with an option previously shot down by multiple people for violating several policies. Admins ended up agreeing it was the right move, and denied any consensus counter to it was ever found, and threatening bans.
Whole situation has just confirmed for me it's administrators are majority heavily biased and force the site to support their opinions.
Larry Sanger, Thank you for highlighting this situation and telling us about the NAZ and perhaps other tools
which will help keep us free.
You're welcome. larrysanger.org/2019/04/the-nas-revolution-get-your-data-out-of-the-cloud/
@Claire Khaw I have no NAS product to sell. I'm the head of a nonprofit.
I want people to own their own websites, their own email addresses, their own data, and their own hardware, in order to take their power back from out of the hands of giant, controlling corporations. Do you like the fact that these for-profit corporations are making billions of dollars money and securing massive political power because people aren't claiming ownership of their own stuff?
@Claire Khaw, Twitter is and should remain free to censor me. A government powerful enough to force Twitter to let me speak is a government powerful enough to force Twitter to shut me up. Or do you *like* the thought of government bureaucrats deciding Twitter's editorial policy? The thought makes you feel comfy, does it? Think they'll stop at Twitter? Think they'll stop at "letting conservatives talk"?
@@LarrySanger Tell Ward hello as well. Thank you for everything.
Bret Weinstein is going mainly to Odyssey instead of YT. Looks like the way to go for uncensored facts.
Think again decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/brett-heather-weinstein-why-are-they-suppressing-ivermectin-the-miracle-cure
@@MikeFrame leftist drivel
@@wtice4632 www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns
In Australia, about 10-15 years ago, Wikipedia edits were found to be coming from the Prime Minister's office
I respect this guy so much, I share all of his sentiments.
Wikipedia's radical-left administrators now kick out editors just for disagreeing in a chat.
Wikipedia admins are utterly horrible. They despise any notion of you acting outside of their control and any attempts to challenge that are punished as "block evasion"
What a wonderful, intelligent HONEST man. Such a pity he isn't the one in charge of curating Wikipedia, or, even better, monitoring all the media!
There isn't a problem with neutrality in the media. News networks are often forced to print 2 points of view side by side, even if one of these views is blatantly false, just because the false view is held by a certain political party. For instance, in so many media outlets, the subject of climate change is "debated" as a political issue by non-experts, when really there is no debate among experts on this issue. It was settled decades ago. This is simply because the repub party in the US forces news outlets to print false information to keep holding onto power. If the electorate were really informed about the true objectives of the right wing in the US, instead of being fed this vague fear of "wokeness" (whatever that is) or being fed this absolute Mr. Potato head culture war garbage, you would find almost everyone in middle america voting to the left of what politics in the US consists of nowadays. There is effectively no leftist opposition in the federal government right now, virtually none. Since Clinton in the 90's, the dems have been playing repubs and the repubs have been playing crazy far, far right-wing fox news talking heads.
There is no scientific consensus on "climate change". Science is NEVER settled
Freddy, could you please adress the healthpassport issue? We are struggling with it here in France where the gvmt wants to force it, dissidents and protesters are being called "complotists" etc...
This video made me appreciate my college professors. Even the bad ones.
It wasn't until I got to university that professors there were firmly against the use of Wikipedia. I didn't really understand why seeing as how it had always been a great source of knowledge up until the time I was in university.
Now, the individual that actually created it says he doesn't trust it anymore! Although I did have some pretty bad professors, I'm appreciative of their foresight with this particular website.
Inspiring, but you don't wanna know what the professors are doing now. Those days are sadly dead and gone
Well, he says it's as trustworthy or untrustworthy as mainstream media. Yes, you shouldn't trust Wikipedia, but you should equally distrust BBC, NY Times, Al Jazeera, or any other mass media.
Larry needs to start a new Wiki , many people are well aware of how the media has changed in the last few years i.e. more disinformation from big media.
I would contribute to that. Indeed, and because the WP pages require 'reliable sources', then what to do when all reliable sources are from the leftist media (which gets reinforced due to Google giving lots of organic credit to links on Wikipedia pages) and facts printed in right-wing media are frowned upon and removed (and likewise, conservative sites do not enjoy the links to their sites).
A great crypto use case...immutable and distributed
A new wiki would end up the same as wikipedia.
No. It’s got to be one that strictly keeps out leftist authoritarians and Marxists, especially. Sure, keep the other authoritarians out out, but especially the Marxists.
This is exactly why I quit editing on Wikipedia. To my great regret, but it was becoming unbearably frustrating, being confronted to accounts that were active 20 hours a day, and which did not seek to build a NPOV, but to impose their view.
A lot of those accounts are able to be constantly active because they are shared across a whole office building full of people hired somewhere. Manufacturing truth is a lucrative business. Individual enthusiasts never had a chance. It would be like trying to compete against a fully-staffed oil derrick just by yourself with a power drill pointed down into the dirt.
Another thing that suggests untrustworthiness is the dishonest fundraising practices. Every year wikipedia suggest to users that it is short of money, and only your donation will keep the servers running. In fact, wikimedia is more than flush with funds, and apparently has a maze of subprojrcts and very well paid permanent staff, with titles that make it rather difficult to discern what they actually do. The fundraising language also suggests that wikipedians are hard-bitten and conscientious seekers of truth, using the phrase "still not for sale". Spare me.
Wikipedia has NEVER been neutral.
That applies only to controversial topics. Roughly 99.5 percent (at least) of Wikipedia articles concern matters of no political or ideological significance, for any side in the game.
@@DieFlabbergast I would have agreed 5 years ago, but there are few topics that noone has a financial or political interest in and this are prone to receiving a "frame".
Geography and mathematics are still mostly reliable.
It used to be at the beginning. I think it was only around 2006 or 2007 when the secret services took over it, quite openly at first.
@@DieFlabbergast In recent years, not even an apolitical subject like geography is entirely immune. For example, the entries on territory size for the US and China have changed. The US was always known to be the third largest country in the world, marginally ahead of China, and then out of the blue they swapped places. Now, either a new geographical survey was undertaken to refine the results or it is a lie (perhaps designed to make Americans insecure about an external threat?).
Yes but it wasn't just non-neutral in one direction only
I have called it Woke-ipedia for some years now. I once gave some money to Wiki because I have used it for work. Never again.
I gave one time too but never will again. I loved the site and used it often. Now it's totally useless; unreliable to say the least.
THEY HAVE 170 MILLION IN THE BANK AND WANT MORE
I’m ashamed to say I also donated. I’m starting to feel a little foolish now.
@@lindapayne9561 I gave 3 times. Never again.
Me too
I could listen to more of Larry Sanger. The interviewer: jury's still out.
You'll have to listen to more of the interviewer to decide.
He's about to get his own 'controversial' section for spewing up such anti-semitic facts !
Oh he already has one...
how is this anti-semitic
@@oldcowbb Haven't you heard ? Jews have been chosen by God himself to lead the world ! As such, they should have full control of media outlet and online encyclopedias. Questioning any of this is vile antisemitism.
@@oldcowbb it's obviously a joke
This guy needs to be heard more, a modern Hero of the internet 👍🤓
This guys speaks so much truth,I’m sometimes edit Wikipedia and some guy got me banned because he didn’t like what I was saying and the sources I was using
It's been like that from the very beginning in my experience. Self appointed (?) and anonymous gatekeepers. I couldn't get _ONE_ contribution accepted. i gave up.
Read everything critically, including Wikipedia. I regularly read material in Wiki that is falsifiably wrong. I make the edit, include the justification and sometimes my change is accepted.
Wikipedia is a PROPAGANDA Machine often times.
You know you are old when you can remember when Wikipedia was reliable
It never was. The other founder of wikipedia was a weirdo with an agenda from the beginning. The entire idea of "crowd sourcing" knowledge was stupid and dangerous from the beginning.
@@Wobbothe3rd yes it was, at least it was as reliable as anything on the internet but better than most. As someone who once spent a lot of time researching online, Wiki was amongst the most reliable. As long as one used it properly, that is follow the sources, it was as good as it got.
Lol when every teacher said Wikipedia was so unrealiable !!!! Then you know your old
When was that, pray?
In our fast changing world, a long time ago could be 1 month.
The Tech world needs more people like Larry.
Much of Wikipedia is just "well you can't prove that my claim is incorrect (even though I don't provide any reason why it is correct)"
Nice interview Freddie. Thanks for letting us see the other side of the coin, mate.