Contact me for feedback or questions! I reply to everyone.

Wikipedia is the Ministry of Truth

- Introduction -
- The problems with Wikipedia's fundamentals -
- Neutrality -
- Reliable sources -
- Due weight -
- Orthodoxy worship -
- Other illusions -
- Summary -
- Examples of Wikipedia's unreliability -
- Parapsychology -
- Plasma cosmology -
- Alternative medicine -
- COVID-19 vaccines -
- September 11 attacks -
- Moon landing -
- Coconut oil -
- Hunza people -
- White genocide -
- Wikipedia's own founder shits on it -
- The real point of Wikipedia -

Introduction

Something will be written here...one day. Otherwise, this is probably done.

The problems with Wikipedia's fundamentals

Neutrality

Wikipedia promises us neutrality (archive):

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

What does neutral mean for Wikipedia, though?

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

So it all comes down to what the reliable sources are (which isn't how a regular person defines neutrality, but whatever). So let's let Wikipedia itself explain that:

Reliable sources

Here (archive) is where Wikipedia defines reliable sources. If you look at their list, sources (such as NaturalNews or ZeroHedge) are banned entirely for spreading conspiracy theories. And just by that, you should be able predict to what kind of content will be accepted for publication in a Wikipedia article. But that's not all - trash like PolitiFact or Snopes that has thrown bullshit around for the whole duration of the "pandemic" is given the green mark. Of course, if you base your whole project on compromised sources while rejecting any other ones, the roots are poisoned and everything that grows out of them will by definition be, as well. With a swing of the magic wand, you can make certain views disappear because you have arbitrarily rejected the sources that state them! And that, then, gives Wikipedia a justification to pretend that their mainstream-exclusive portrayal of issues is now neutral. How despicable. And hell, being mainstream isn't even a free pass to be accepted by the Ministry of Truth; because even sources like The Daily Mail (which supported the COVID lab leak theory, for example) are banned. So it's a very small subset of all outlets that the Ministry graciously allows. But even if you assumed all sources were accepted, that doesn't suddenly mean Wikipedia becomes neutral. Because they have yet another way to dismiss unwanted beliefs - the Due weight principle:

Due weight

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

So the beliefs the Ministry likes take the center stage, and daring to put any others on equal footing is really, really bad. By its own admission Wikipedia is just a shill outlet for its chosen theories. But the reality is even worse than the stated principle - all unwanted views on Wikipedia are dumped into separate articles (which then shit on them). So there isn't even a distinction between significant and tiny minorities - both receive the same treatment. The one where they get ignored in the main article and sent to the wolves' den for the inevitable ripping. So, any view that the Ministry doesn't like is not given due weight - as the Ministry says - but no weight at all, or even negative weight. The stuff about relative levels of support is just a bluff, since any view the Ministry dislikes receives zero support in its articles (I will show all this with several examples later). The Ministry's utter hate against challenging the ortodoxy is easily seen in this quote:

Orthodoxy worship

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

Suddenly any pretense of neutrality poofs into the ether when it concerns conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. Do they even have statistics on whether their hated views are minority? If not, then there is no basis for rejecting their inclusion from main articles about a topic. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't claim to reject minority views completely - but represent them proportionally according to their prevalence. In that case, why isn't the view that the Moon landing was faked included as a section of the Moon landing (archive) article? After all, 16% of British people believe that (archive). If it is about the opinions of scientists only, then well, do they even have the statistics for those? We know 3500+ architects and engineers question the official 9 / 11 story, and yet that is not enough to give the alternative view a section in the Wikipedia hit piece (archive). If the Ministry's definition of significance isn't based on the numbers, then on what? Aside from the Ministry simply not liking certain views, of course. None of this is ever explained in any Ministry page, so the most obvious assumption is that it is - indeed - about the Ministry's preferences. The only way out of this conundrum is to settle on the prevalence of a view in reliable sources, but the reliable sources are handpicked in terms of whether they have the views prefered by the Ministry itself - so it's just a self-referencing claim ("I am the greatest person in the world, because I have eliminated everyone but myself from the competition"). Even if we let them define the terms of the competition, they still don't have statistics for which views are actually significant in their chosen reliable sources (nor what level of prevalence is required), so it all ends up being based on the Ministry's imagination. Literally - set the rules of the competition, then write down the scores themselves, and finally declare yourself the winner. All hail, the Ministry of Truth! Anyway, let's check out some other rules Wikipedia is supposed to follow (which really are just extensions of NPOV that they have already shown to not care about):

Other illusions

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone

And:

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate flattering expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources).

The following ones are particularly funny, because almost every article Wikipedia has on anything even mildly controversial violates them:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Their About page (archive) also contains this gem:

Editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research will not remain.

Oh, and from another page (archive):

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material

Remember this one when you examine the upcoming examples.

Summary

Wikipedia dismisses sources that it arbitrarily decides are not reliable solely because they have views that go against the Ministry, instead of the quality of research. Then, even the sources that remain are only allowed to cover topics the Ministry likes, in ways the Ministry likes, lest they eventually end up on the unreliable list. After all this, Wikipedia pretends to have a bunch of rules that allegedly ensure the neutrality of its articles, but in reality does not care about any of them at all. Let's move on to the examples which show that:

Examples of Wikipedia's unreliability

Parapsychology

Link - Archive

Parapsychology is the study of alleged psychic phenomena (extrasensory perception, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis (also called telekinesis), and psychometry) and other paranormal claims, for example, those related to near-death experiences, synchronicity, apparitional experiences, etc.[1] Criticized as being a pseudoscience, the majority of mainstream scientists reject it.

Right in the first paragraph we have a loaded word (alleged), another loaded word (claims), and an insult (pseudoscience). The claim that the majority of mainstream scientists reject it has 8 (!) references, but none of them provide any statistics supporting it, so it is just a bluff. It is of course impossible for the editors to not have noticed that their main claim is completely unsupported - therefore the whole article has been written as a hit piece from the start. Either way, if they cannot prove that mainstream science actually rejects parapsychology, then there is no basis for making skepticism the prominent view according to Wikipedia's own principles. It is also funny how they cite Richard Wiseman, when the same Wiseman has admitted (archive) that psychic ability is proven. Of course, that quote didn't find its way into the Wiki hit piece. Also look at the huge right sidebar where parapsychology is lumped in with things like fringe science, urban legend or fallacy. This article doesn't even sniff the neutral label.

Plasma cosmology

Link - Archive

Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.

This claim is completely unsourced. Literally editor's opinion, which Wikipedia supposedly disallows.

The Electric Universe refers to a related set of ideas that are also not supported by observations

The source for this claim is a rant about pseudoscience (archive) from the fucking Michael Shermer. Is this what Wikipedia considers a reliable source? Shermer is not a physicist, nor any kind of scientist - just a random who has made a career out of denying everything non-mainstream. And yet, this is the guy Wikipedia chose to debunk a claim. What a joke. Yet another Ministry piece that is utterly non-neutral.

Alternative medicine

Link - Archive

Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine despite lacking biological plausibility, testability, repeatability, or evidence from clinical trials.

No reference given for this editor's opinion.

Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience.

Neither for this one. In fact, there isn't a single reference given for any of the bullshit said in the entire first paragraph. Or the second. Or the third. Or the fourth. I'm serious - go check it for yourself. The Ministry threw at you a screed taken entirely out of its ass. Then, on the right sidebar, they call alt med the alternative to reality-based medical treatments of conventional medicine. Totally neutral, totally not loaded, totally not just an opinion of a shill for the medical industry.

I don't think there's a need to go through all the claims this trashy article makes. I mean, there are thousands of alternative therapies and they include eating plans, exercise, herbs, etc. that have been used for thousands of years and are known to work. There is no need for the Ministry's approval to realize this. But they dismiss it all in principle, because you are supposed to act only according to the information coming from the Ministry.

COVID-19 vaccines

Link - Archive

Serious adverse events associated COVID‑19 vaccines are generally rare but of high interest to the public.[15] The official databases of reported adverse events include the World Health Organization's VigiBase, the United States Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the United Kingdom's Yellow Card Scheme. Increased public awareness of these reporting systems and the extra reporting requirements under US FDA Emergency Use Authorization rules have resulted in an increased volume of reported adverse events.

The rarity of side effects is emphasized all over the article, but they never tell you about the 12 times increase of their prevalence at VAERS. What they do try to do is dismissing the relevance of the reporting system (with a link to a "fact-checking" site), without ever telling you the actual numbers. Because if they told you the numbers, you would have realized that their explanations don't work. They also say that up to 20% of people report a disruptive level of side effects after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine, but actually half of vaccine takers get a systemic reaction according to V-Safe - which Wikipedia completely ignores. The fact that they dismiss both VAERS and V-Safe (remember, these are government sources) shows that they are not only not neutral, but nothing more than shills for the vaccines.

September 11 attacks

Link - Archive

One of the worst cases on Wikipedia, for sure - pretty much perfectly showcasing how the Ministry doesn't give a shit about any of the noble principles they advertise.

The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11,[c] were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by the militant Islamic extremist network al-Qaeda

Sounds like a violation of Avoid stating opinions as facts and Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. But of course, anything is allowed if the alternative is to give space to the dreaded conspiracy theories:

9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.

Ha-ha. What about the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (archive)? Who are not mentioned even once in this whole excuse of an "encyclopedic" article. If Wikipedia was even close to neutral, there would be a whole "Criticism" section in the article, that would honestly present the views of the AE911 folks. I mean, this is clearly a significant view by any sane definition of significant (they have over 3500 architects and engineers who question the official story; August 2022 stats). But of course - since the point of the Ministry is propaganda - it can't be mentioned. The only way you'd know that alternative views even exist is if you clicked the 9 / 11 conspiracy theories (archive) page (one single link in the middle of the article; can easily be missed) - where they are promptly shat on.

One of the arbiters on the 9 / 11 arbitration page (archive) said this:

This is my first participation in an arbitration case, although I have participated in a successful mediation. I was really hoping to see a more dispassionate and rational discourse. Unfortunately, from the barely-concealed vitriol of some of the preceeding statements, we can clearly see why we have ended up at this stage. Potential new editors are forced to deal with a handful of self-appointed wardens of the site who have summarized the events of 9-11 in their minds, and refuse to consider anything outside of those summaries. Any attempt to add content to the article outside of the government-prescribed record of events is met with scorn and ridicule. Editors who attempt to add such are called, (as noted above), "Truthers" or "Conspiracy Theorists" at best, and more commonly "morons" and similar. The attempt to rename "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" to "9-11 Alternative Theories" was defeated by editors entrenched in their beliefs, despite the obvious logical fact that a non-mainstream theory is NOT necessarily a conspiracy theory, and the attempt to portray it as such is obvious bad faith.

Having said that, I (like others above) am also not sure what the goal of arbitration would be in this case.

Perhaps you were thinking that "Since Wikipedia is open, we can just fix the bad articles!"; well, this should bury that idea. They didn't even let people fix the fucking name, much less the contents of their propaganda pieces.

Moon landing

Link - Archive

The United States' Apollo 11 was the first crewed mission to land on the Moon, on 20 July 1969.[4] There were six crewed U.S. landings between 1969 and 1972, and numerous uncrewed landings, with no soft landings happening between 22 August 1976 and 14 December 2013.

Same old, same old. Opinions as facts, no criticism, dismissal of alternatives with the conspiracy theory label. The thing that makes this one unique is that the moon landing is so easy to disprove. Like, a single Bart Sibrel video - for example this one (CF) or this one can do it in less than an hour. And then nothing remains of all the fluff they've included in this Ministry propaganda piece. Look, people - the chance that the moon landing was real is zero. Absolute zero. And there is no way the Wiki editors don't know they're bullshitting you, proving Wiki is evil to the core.

About Bart Sibrel, the Ministry shits on him too (archive), of course.

Bart Winfield Sibrel (born 1964/1965)[1][2] is an American conspiracy theorist who has written, produced, and directed works in support of the false belief that the Apollo Moon landings between 1969 and 1972 were staged by NASA under the control of the CIA

The standard conspiracy theorist smear and a false belief dismissal right in the first sentence of a neutral encyclopedia. Totally shameless.

Coconut oil

Link - Archive

Due to its high levels of saturated fat, numerous health authorities recommend limiting its consumption as a food.

Took them until just the third sentence to throw this predictable nonsense at the readers. Anyway, this sorry piece of medical industry propaganda has a section titled Health concerns - but nothing whatsover about the shitloads of health benefits (archive) that coconut oil has been shown to have in scientific studies. From that section we can fish out this gem:

Although lauric acid consumption may create a more favorable total blood cholesterol profile, this does not exclude the possibility that persistent consumption of coconut oil may actually increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases through other mechanisms

"Although our primary theory has been convincingly refuted, we don't want people to get healthy so we still pretend coconut oil is somehow harmful, with zero evidence". Hey, they even have a Clinical research section! Is this where we finally find a mention of the numerous health benefits? Or maybe some information about the healthy populations (archive) that eat extreme amounts of coconut with zero negative effect (Vascular disease is uncommon in both populations and there is no evidence of the high saturated fat intake having a harmful effect in these populations. )? No, it's just more whining about cholesterol. Because this is the only point the Ministry could have latched on to to make coconut oil seem negative at all costs. But to do that, they had to ignore everything else, which can only be called neutral in clown world.

Hunza people

Link - Archive

An author who had significant and sustained contact with Burusho people, John Clark, reported that they were overall unhealthy.[16]

The source for this claim is Bible Life (archive), a Christian creationist site that has hundreds of "alternative" theories in it. This is exactly the kind of a source which the Ministry would have dismissed immediately... if it didn't help them "prove" what they want to. Does it not seem like Wikipedia does everything to make you not be healthy - by denying that healthy populations exist? The stuff about reliable sources evaporates when Wikipedia really needs to dismiss something. Either way, this account totally contradicts McCarrison's from the 1920s, described in the book The Wheel of Health:

My own experience provides an example of a race unsurpassed in perfection of physique and in freedom from disease in general.

During the period of my association with these people, I never saw a case of asthenic dyspesia, of gastric or duodenal ulcer, of appendicitis, of mucous colitis, of cancer...Among these people the abdomen oversensitive to nerve impressions, to fatigue, anxiety or cold was unknown.

This source is - of course - completely ignored by the Ministry.

White genocide

Link - Archive

Definitely the most egregious example of Wikipedia's non-neutrality (this probably means the elites want to keep this buried the most; I will let you guess the reason).

The white genocide, white extinction,[1] or white replacement conspiracy theory,[2][3][4] is a white supremacist[5][6][7][8] conspiracy theory which states that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews

White genocide is a political myth,[22][23][15] based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and ethnic hatred

I'm being blinded by all this neutrality.

White people are not dying out or facing extermination.[26][27][28][21]

Do not be fooled by the four references, because none of them discuss the numbers. The Conversation (archive) (one of the sources considered reliable by Wikipedia) - on the other hand - does. And guess what:

The proportion of whites in the U.S. population started to decline in 1950. It fell to gradually over the years, eventually reaching just over 60% in 2018 – the lowest percentage ever recorded.

The numbers support the theory. The same is done by the Washington Post (archive), another reliable source:

The most touted set of projections adopts the most exclusive definition, restricting the white population to those who self-identify as white and also no other race or ethnicity. Under this definition, whites are indeed in numerical decline.

Mixed-race parentage is growing more common, and a rapidly growing number of people choose more than one racial or ethnic category to describe themselves on the census.

Though the article calls it a myth, the actual quotes inside it support the white genocide theory. The same trend is also seen in the UK (archive):

The white British proportion is officially below 50 per cent in Leicester, Luton and Slough.

London’s 3.7 million white Britons were already a minority – 44.9 per cent of the population – and researchers said the same could be true in Birmingham within seven years.

And yet, none of those sources can be found anywhere in the 323 ones cited by Wikipedia - all while the article is filled with ones whining about hate, neo-nazism, white supremacy, white nationalism, conspiracy theories and Donald Trump. Now why not at least mention the numbers once in such a long article about a topic for which the numbers should form the base? But of course, they can't teach their readers why those dirty neo-nazis, conspiracy theorists, and white supremacists believe in the theory in the first place, since enlightenment is not on the Ministry's menu. This article is so valuable, because it violates pretty much every single rule Wikipedia pretends to follow - even reliable sources are completely ignored here.

Wikipedia's own founder shits on it

Since I don't want to misrepresent him, I will just let Larry Sanger speak for himself. Here are his reports: Wikipedia is Badly Biased (archive) and Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever (archive). Very worth reading. Some quotes:

Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.

The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good.

In other words—and this is the point crucial to evaluating an article’s neutrality—a neutral article is written not to take sides on issues of controversy. It does not matter whether one or both sides believe their point of view is totally factual and supported with incontrovertible proof.

Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the “Presidency” section. By contrast, the following “Public Profile” (which the Obama article entirely lacks), “Investigations,” and “Impeachment” sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency. Common words in the article are “false” and “falsely” (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as “false,” very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia.

It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.

And from the second article:

As to the second impeachment trial (that of January, 2021), in the Donald Trump article, no information is offered on either side about the arguments for impeachment, either in the House or the Senate proceedings. Certainly there is nothing remotely representing the perspective of Trump and his defenders.

Can any of this information on the China Biden scandal be found—even in a twisted, biased form—in the Wikipedia article on Joe Biden? Nope. As of this writing, that article contains not a single word about the China deals, Rosemont Seneca, Tony Bobulinski, the laptop, or the CEFC.

So, one of the two founders of Wikipedia admits it's anything but neutral, and gives us a few examples from US politics and other issues. Clearly, we can see that there is a wide breadth of topics on which Wikipedia is unreliable. Anyway - if even the creator of Wikipedia has himself given up on it and wrote several big articles trashing it, why do you still trust it?

The real point of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is designed to keep you being an NPC. The good boy / girl who takes his / her vaccines, works his / her shitty job, trusts the mainstream narratives (this helps the elites hide their crimes like 9 / 11 or the fake moon landing, as well as bury competing scientific / medical theories and keep the current industries running), questions nothing, and sees nothing wrong with any of it - or even is proud of being an NPC (because it's "scientific", "rational", etc). They lure you with comprehensive articles on cats, cars, compilations of historical events that are hard to find elsewhere, etc - and suddenly you are yet another fish, caught in the net. Because Wikipedia's neutrality is the strongest example of doublespeak I've ever seen. The reader (now under the Ministry's spell) assumes that every article on there is just like every other one, but actually every single one that is both societally relevant and even a little controversial will be compromised to hell (there are many, many more I could have shown). The malicious articles are buried in a pile of regular ones, which makes them unseen Trojan horses that eventually capture the minds of the Wikipedia victims. And it just so happens that the malicious ones always jump out when a really important topic comes around.

Imagine that the moon landing article presents the conspiracy side as a significant view (which it is) and does it honestly. How many of Wiki's readers would be compelled to explore the topic further? How many would then admit that the moon landing was a fraud, after all? How many would then start questioning other things in their lives? Would the elites have been able to pull off a "pandemic" if most people already knew it's yet another ace (alongside the moon landing, 9 / 11, GM food, climate change) in the elites' cheat pack of cards? Every small crack in a person's conviction will eventually break down their castle of confidence in the elites' narratives and the way the whole world works. Which would eventually result in bringing down of the powerful people and a complete change of the existing culture. This is why the Ministry has to keep all the controversial issues completely under its control. They must absolutely portray every alternative view as a bunch of nonsense and its supporters as bumbling retards. And Wikipedia (even moreso than Google) is their most important weapon in doing so. It is considered authoritative and enjoys a privileged place in the results of all search engines. But it is all just an evil spell, that can be broken by good information and avoiding Wikipedia usage.

Back to the front page