Is Wikipedia An Establishment PSYOP?

https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/65966/is-wikipedia-an-establishment.html


If you haven’t been living in a hole in a cave with both fingers plugged into your ears, you may have noticed that an awful lot of fuss gets made about Russian propaganda and disinformation these days...

Man...I think this whole Russian thing is getting out of hand. I just skimmed threw the article but here's my simple take on the news, the clintons, and Puten.

The news: even long before trump and the news became enemies, the news was liberal. Often local news is the worst. At least it was in Oregon. Online editorials are opinion articles. Its not news. Its a blog. To even question if the news has been infested with marxism, is not even worth asking. It's been obvious for the a long time.

The Clintons: democrats and republicans alike never trusted Hillary. This goes back to bills fellow democrats accusing him of swindling money for Hillary back in the early 90s. Anyone with a political clue or knowledge of history knows the Clintons are full of shit.

Puten: this guys tricks never change. For people who question are own president or the nra for taking donations from Russian randoms, you can't fall for these tricks. Puten is a trouble maker. He always has been. The moment that guy got into power back in the early 90s he stirred the pot in the yugo wars. Then after that he kept being a trouble maker in different parts of the globe. If anyone questions are own people, its because we are being played by this guy. This country didn't have election fraud. Puten is just laughing as he plays the democrats like a fiddle.

majormadmax said:

View attachment 138871

Click to expand...

Don't you hate when things get questioned. Kinda snaps something in reality. Finding out things you consider trustworthy is a bunch of over hyped political garbage. No wonder you're not allowed to cite Wikipedia on anything academia. Remember, they love you. You're the besties.

Look. They say so.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_friends_forever

Any encyclopedia is going to be influenced by the zeitgeist of when it is written. You can easily compare this if you look at a 1771 Britannica vs. a 1971 Britannica. This isn't a "bad" thing per se; you're just cognizant of the context of when it was written.

The difference with Wikipedia is that is it is written, edited, revised, and abridged all in real time. The zeitgeist also moves much quicker these days. An article today will not be the same article 5 years ago.

TheDan said:

Any encyclopedia is going to be influenced by the zeitgeist of when it is written.

Click to expand...

My family had a Compton's when I grew up; we couldn't afford a Britannica.

I had cousins who were poorer, though, and had some really thin, no-name-that-I-can-remember encyclopedia set that they got in the mid-1960s. When I was 19 I was visiting those relatives as part of making the rounds when we buried my father. I absentmindedly pulled out one volume and read the entry on firearms. It read like a political screed, authoritatively telling the reader that guns kill people, should be banned, the 2A only applied to the National Guard, and that the U.S. fascination with firearms was a global anomaly.

That was 40 years ago.

I've read the same language we're seeing today about the need to ban military-style killing machines from civilian ownership in newspapers from the early 1900s. They were talking about those evil, fast-shooting, high-capacity bolt-action rifles and loudly proclaiming that no one needed anything more than a single shot rifle.

The prominent zeitgeist may change but attitudes stay the same. Hoplophobes have always been and will always be with us.

benenglish said:

The prominent zeitgeist may change but attitudes stay the same. Hoplophobes have always been and will always be with us.

Click to expand...

Yep. I bet 10,000yrs ago there were people railing against the atlatl.

TheDan said:

Yep. I bet 10,000yrs ago there were people railing against the atlatl.

Click to expand...

The atlatl is too dangerous for lower class. Though we can pass rule that if you have enough seashells and food, we can allow you to have it.

TheDan said:

Yep. I bet 10,000yrs ago there were people railing against the atlatl.

Click to expand...

Did you just call me a spear-chucker?

grasshopperglock said:

Don't you hate when things get questioned. Kinda snaps something in reality. Finding out things you consider trustworthy is a bunch of over hyped political garbage. No wonder you're not allowed to cite Wikipedia on anything academia. Remember, they love you. You're the besties.

Look. They say so.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_friends_forever

Click to expand...

I am all for questioning something when there is clear evidence that it needs to be questioned, but many times it is simply someone disagreeing with something thus claiming it is not legitimate.

Wikipedia has been around for over 17 years. If it is an "established PYSOP" as you claim then it's one of the worst ones I've ever seen for the very reasons you admit. PYSOP (currently known as military information support operations per JP 3-13.2) against Americans is a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (amended in 1972 and 1998) and DoD policy.

Also, the prohibition on citing Wikipedia in academia is due to the fact that it is not an original source. As Wiki does cite its sources, it is useful in researching a topic thus it is not completely prohibited to use it in academic works.

But hey, I still use Snopes for the same reason (they cite their sources) despite the tin hat crowd's claims that it is all propaganda!

majormadmax said:

they cite their sources

Click to expand...

It's a good idea to look at the sources yourself. The person writing the article can have an odd interpretation (to put it politely) of a source they are citing, and you might draw a completely different conclusion from the same source.

TheDan said:

It's a good idea to look at the sources yourself. The person writing the article can have an odd interpretation (to put it politely) of a source they are citing, and you might draw a completely different conclusion from the same source.

Click to expand...

Concur, Wikipedia is user-generated, openly editable content which leads it open to compromises of its integrity; but for the most part a cited reference can be verified therefore subsequently used in an academic work.

It has always been accused of being a mixture of "truths, half truths, and some falsehoods" as well sa subject to manipulation and spin concerning controversial topics; but for the most part the vast majority of its contents is reliable and correct.