Why Wikipedia sucks as a source, and why it's meant to suck

[HamWatan]

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...p-cross-affair/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

'UPDATE “Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing.

133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing is astonishing if it is one individual.'

Tl;dr what seems to be a bot works every day continuously for 5 years on the trot, no breaks, editing the Wiki pages of prominent anti-government, anti-war activists/journalists/politicians/public persons and adding negative misinformation with a massive number of edits per day. Wiki's owner, Jimmy Wales, also gets pissy on Twitter when confronted with this evidence of Wikipedia acting as an establishment shill. Give the article a read for more details.

Also, Youtube recently announced it's going to 'team up with Wikipedia to combat fake news'. Orwellian world we live in, is it not? Big, popular websites whoring themselves out to the establishment. Of course this dovetails with literal government announcements out of the UK and US, among others, that citizens need to 'prevent Russian propaganda from hurting their confidence in national institutions.

The world. What has it come to!

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

wikipedia may not be 100% reliable or correct depend on topics and sources but its quick source of information

 

[Dai Toruko]

Wikipedia is an extremely dangerious mass psyop operation designed to brainwash the masses with "pre-approved" information. Who gets to approve those information? Well accordingly to wikipedia your information must be backed by "credible" sources. What are "credible" sources? Wikipedia considers mainstream media, universities, government as "credible" sources. When you look at who owns/controls those sources you will find out that wikipedia is nothing more than the reflection of the world view of a tiny interest group who owns/operates all those "credible" sources.

As an example, documented evidence exists that completely contradict the discredited official 9/11 story yet wikipedia will NOT allow FACTS to be published. FACTS that are 100% backed by irrefutable video/audio/documented proof.

 

[HamWatan]

The only thing wrong with 9/11 truth is that it's been tainted as an untouchable topic thanks to idiotic theories about aliens, the Illuminato and other BS. And pontificating over how the buildings fell instead of identifying who facilitated it. 'No planes hit the Pentagon' cringe, and some of these kook conspiracy theorists are literally establishment cronies like Alex Jones and his ilk.

Ryan Dawson, however, explains 9/11 wonderfully. The perpetrators, the who's who in the DoD and Homeland Security who enabled it and covered up the tracks etc. Anyhow, back on topic to Wikipedia: the fact that this Phillip Cross bot has been caught out red handed goes to show what a crap source Wiki is. I hate Wikipedia.