https://southfront.org/open-letter-concerning-wikipedia-suppression-of-southfront-information/
A few days ago Wikipedia announced intention to remove its entry on SouthFront (more here), explaining an issue by the pro-Russian position of the project and, by way of issuing an official reason, that the information about the project mostly cites the SouthFront site.
Wikipedia’s entry on SouthFront on February 26, 2017
In this respect, the SouthFront wants to openly state the following.
- The SF team is independent, as it is not financed by anyone other than its audience. This gives the project the ability to promote its own views.
We also want to draw Wikipedia editors’ attention to the obvious fact that, even if the project were to be receiving money directly from the hands of Vladimir Putin himself, that would still require some proof rather than mere assertions. Particularly since the rather significant act of removing project information is being pursued on the basis of such assertions.
- Participants in the project have never denied their sympathies toward some steps of current foreign policies of the Russian Federation. It would be interesting what kind of independence Wikipedia itself can lay a claim to, if a point of view is being de-facto declared as unacceptable simply because it doesn’t comport to the MSM agenda or exhibits supposed “pro-Russian” bent.
The original version of Wikipedia’s entry on SouthFront:
- It has been claimed that all the links in the Wiki entry lead to SF site itself. That’s perfectly sensible, since the entry describes a fairly popular project and its complex relations with several other Internet platforms. The decision also implies that entries on CNN, Euronews, RT, Russia Insider, Belingcat and several other contemporary information activities ought to be removed. Which, incidentally, poses the following question: why the desire to suppress and conceal information about SouthFront? We’re not talking about a blog with maybe 3 entries a week, but rather an example of how new media formats function. If SF is not a new phenomenon or an irritant, why did this problem arise in the first place? Here are a few other examples of how significant information projects are described on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Insider;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masdar_News,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellingcat,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Russia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moscow_Times
How is this different from the SF entry? What is more, many of Wikipedia entries cite SF articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunqul,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qirq_Maghar,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zahraa,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubl,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murak,_Syria,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Syria,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar-class_submarine,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyra_offensive_(May_2015),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-28,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams
Does this mean that Wikipedia is using double standards: editors acknowledge SF information invaluable, but want to censor the information on the project itself? Or did Wikipedia editors simply encounter aggressive information policies aimed at the SF which they couldn’t or didn’t want to resist?
- Wikipedia ought to be an independent base of information, a platform that makes available information about significant facts or events that have occurred or are occurring in the world. One of the instruments determining the format of the 21st Century informational environment. Ensuring access to information, but not becoming yet another tool of censorship.
SF has been in existence for almost 3 years already. Over that period, the project evolved through a number of phases, depending on the circumstances. As of today, SF has tens of thousands of readers and viewers, which means it has a presence. Politicized efforts to limit project information by Wikipedia hurt not so much our project but rather the idea of free access to knowledge from various points of view.
- The project is being accused of not releasing the personal information of its participants, volunteers, etc. Naturally, given that people are being persecuted for their views, for example in Germany, the US, Ukraine, Russia, it’s understandable why a project that offers an alternative point of view would adopt a position of not revealing the identity of its members. Otherwise should this Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) also be removed?
- From the very beginning, the project’s fundamental idea rested on allowing everyone to express their point of view and thus jointly create interesting content that provokes thoughts, rather than hundreds of millions of dollars from sponsors. Perhaps that’s the very cause of the problem. Could it be someone is truly worried something like that is possible in the contemporary informational environment?
SF team, its volunteers, friends, and partners, as well as the readers and viewers, demand that Wikipedia materials on the project be restored.
We also ask the editors to pay particular attention toward efforts to use Wikipedia as an instrument of information aggression.
Everyone concerned about the controversy surrounding SF is requested to write Wikipedia (info@wikimedia.org) and make this statement as widely available as possible.
the English Wikipedia has had a strong Zionist bias since they enacted the source/reference rules, as they reflect academic and media sources that are explicitly or implicitly has that bias; published work that does not confirm to these biases get deleted and if that fails it’s labeled bias, controversial, fringe, conspiracy, etc.
The wiki foundation is very shady in my opinion, soliciting donations above and beyond the running costs of the project, getting in bed with corporations and media outlets.
As a rule of thumb be very weary of history/politics/social science/economic articles on the English wiki. Use Wikipedia to get an outline, a location, a date, a link to websites about the subject, a link to the article on the subjects native wiki (use google translate to read those, you might get better info than the English article), etc.
Remember you can always start your own wiki project or fork Wikipedia and start anew (with 5 million articles you don’t really need new article creation and running ads on it can finance the servers).
More zionazi suppression of views different from zionazi propaganda. Wikipedia is an israeli propaganda tool. That is what it had always intended to be. If anything, the countries of the world should be blocking the site altogether, rather than put up with it corrupting their web with israeli prejudice.
“the countries of the world should be blocking the [wikipedia] altogether”
If you are actually being serious, three points why I absolutely disagree:
– Not all subjects and/or issues are an actual field of political/ideological dispute, I would risk to say that those in fact are residual given the enormous wealth of information available not permeated by ulterior motives.
– Nothing will ever replace the individuals’ ability to critically collect information, actually for an informed observer bumping into the level of bias in some articles will trigger more red flags than otherwise, and at the same time be quite informative in a meta sense.
– The absolute majority of traffic is sourced in search engines (google on top), I make the point that these amount to what I would describe as active/aware users (as opposed to passive consumers) of information, ideologically charged or not, ie.the type of mass users less susceptible of being as open to manipulation.
vot tak: you might be relying on wikipedia for the less of the useful purposes, and for that reason advancing an opinion which, while based on undeniable facts, is quite limited.
VdG
Most people use wikipedia because it comes up first or second in most searches using the biased tools most people use. The problem is that so much what one sees in wikipedia is biased in a very harmful and disinformationist way, it takes a lot of effort to get beyond that, as many of the top billed alt choices below wikipedia are simply wikipedia material as well. Most people are unaware of this, lack the time or are simply lazy, so they don’t try to look further. Wikipedia is a psychologicaly created tool to manipulate what people think, just like the zio-gay media. If wikipedia is blocked, it will remove their “default dominance by top billing” marketing ploy. Take away their ability to corrupt.
Modern pop control relies upon forcing the majority of people into having very little choice. Once they have been herded into that corral, it is much easier and effective then to control all their choices. This is what makes the zio-west tick. Literally. Lack of choice, rather than their deceptive marketing that they provide more choice.
Cleaning out these pop manipulation tools such as wikipedia, will help reopen the web again to people who want to find real information to their queries. A lot more needs to be done, of course, such as removing google, yahoo and bing search dominance, effective security, etc.
@ Vasco da Gama
At the first sight I would agree with you that some information in Wiki is useful, namely technical matters, arts and physical sciences, etc. But on any other issue of political, historical or social relevance the bias steps in, especially the pro-Zionism bias. And it extends to uncontroversial issues in order to portray a Jewish perspective on almost any subject such as “Was Shakespeare an anti-Semite? Was Dickens an Anti-Semite? Was Cervantes an anti-Semite?”
Your point would be valid if all of us were as discerning as you are to detect bias. Probably only 1% of the human species are equipped through knowledge and experience to evaluate the truth value of all statements in the vast Wiki database and if you do not have a solid base of reference against which you can assess the truth or validity of a statement you open yourself to what Wiki is all about, PROPAGANDA!
I stopped using it altogether and there are many other ways to get the info you are looking for.
Has it ever occurred to you why Wiki has such a privileged position on the web?
I’ll reiterate the point that nothing will ever replace the individuals’ ability to critically collect information. People lacking discernment is a much deeper issue than wikipedia. The position to eliminate wikipedia is akin to the parent that fences the child against injury by limiting his range of action in a dangerous environment. Surrendering to that idea in definitive terms is condemning the peoples prospect to overcome, forever. I’m apologist of nurturing abilities that adapt in own benefit to the environment.
Effecting beneficial change in the environment never precedes adaptation.
“Most people use wikipedia because it comes up first or second in most searches using the biased tools most people use.”
Yes, but what subjects exactly are being pursued by these people? (2016 2015)
The mass of users are looking for pop culture themes and icons, that does confirm the hegemonic effects. But we should be primarily worried with the _causes_ of this cultural hegemony. Eliminating wikipedia will hardly change the interests that bring people towards it from the begining.
“The problem is that so much what one sees in wikipedia is biased in a very harmful and disinformationist way”
Absolutely, but I put into question how significant (wrt to our issue of hegemony) is the amount of users that resort to wikipedia with critical historic/polical information themes in mind. If it appears there to be an increase in overlap of pop culture/political themes, ie. an increase in information politicization (a good sign as reflecting a shift in status quo), thereby also allowing for perverse hegemonic effects.
The significance of wikipedia’s effect hardly compares with the tradition of mass media (tv/press/its web counterparts) or the more underlying education systems. This is changing, given the recent fall in credit of the latter, which might turn more people by iniciative to the web and wikipedia, landing them there for exactly the worse of purposes (seek information on current events).
Of course it is very personal, but I’ve iniciated many knowledge quests on wikipedia very successfully since a long time, I became convinced the benefits far outweigh the damage. At this point in time eliminating wikipedia strike me as absurd.
Vdg
That’s truly wonderful that your relationship with wikipedia has worked out so well for you, but would you be willing to allow the rest of us to continue boycotting the site?
BTW, how long have you been an editor there?
You’re reversing the roles here. By defending the blocking of wikipedia you are the one imposing your will on everybody, while my position does not prevent you or anyone from boycotting anything.
I’ve conceded many of your points as quite valid, just deem them not sufficient to reach your conclusion/solution.
You’re also jumping the gun way too soon, i’m but a mere user. Consider lightening up.
Don’t worry, vdg, it’s unlikely the anglo-ziosphere will block one of their major pop manipulation tools, so your ability to disinform yourself won’t be threatened. But should it happen, israel will find a way to make sure you can stay “informed”. ;D
What part of “given the enormous wealth of information available not permeated by ulterior motives.” (for which i do use wikipedia) or from the opposite angle “relying on wikipedia for the less of the useful purposes” you appear not to understand?
Please close this discussion down. Mod
Forget about Wiki.
It should be under your and our dignity to ask them for permission, to beg them that they put the info online again.
Let them disclose who they are, what they’re doing and what they stand for.
Wiki is a dying concept, like the MSN, Facebook and even Google. Time is ticking…
Our future belongs to real democratic networking, decentralized, void of authority, supervised by all the participants.
Russians should start their own on-line encyclopedia in English so their reports and information can be seen by a wider audience.
I totally agree.
Russia should start its own English Language Encyclopedia.
There is the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia Wiki. I have used it on a few occasions to clarify a particular historical event but cannot vouch for its impartiality!!! Obviously it tends to project a certain view of the world but we need that to waken us up and as a counterpoise to so much MSM indoctrination.
Never made a rigorous assessment, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns up to be another Zionist tool masquerading as Soviet. The Zionists are everywhere – have to check under the bed!
“The project is being accused of not releasing the personal information of its participants, volunteers, etc. Naturally, given that people are being persecuted for their views, for example in Germany, the US, Ukraine, Russia, it’s understandable why a project that offers an alternative point of view would adopt a position of not revealing the identity of its members. Otherwise should this Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) also be removed?”
Or this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency
Or this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
The US regime fears independent media because it cannot censor it.
US think-tank RAND warned in 1998:
“Chapter Seven
…
A symbiotic dynamic may thus develop between the activists and the media (in which the journalists may claim that they are the ones who deserve credit for calling a conflict to the world’s attention, but the larger dynamic is about the activists using the media to accomplish this). Furthermore, the media’s presence may alter the local power equations vis-à-vis information—a local government may lose the luxury of controlling who knows what about a conflict, and its options may decrease accordingly. As international attention grows, a hard-line approach, for example, may be less feasible for a government.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20000816011922/http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR994/MR994.pdf/
“Wikipedia ‘shows CIA page edits'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
Quite simply, like google – real motto is ‘Do evil’ – it is shit.
Mike Rivero who runs http://www.whatreallyhappened.com had his entry deleted years ago, so whenever they ask for donations, they can go and —- themselves. I consider them pro-Establishment, and therefore part of the enemy, like the MSM.
I just sent an e-mail to Wikipedia and they quickly replied:
“Dear Dario Achkar,
Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding this issue. However, deletion decisions are not taken centrally, but after a discussion amongst the Wikipedia community, and with reference to our deletion policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
If you feel you have information which would be important to contribute to this discussion, please see the discussion page; we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/South_Front
Note, however, that this is a discussion, not a vote, and that a decision to delete is not a reflection on the merits of the topic, but rather a discussion on whether the subject is appropriate for an article in an encyclopedia. the politics or otherwise of the site are not relevant to the discussion, merely the notability of the web site.
Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia.
Yours sincerely,
Rayna West”
maybe is a good idea to flood their discussion board with our point of view…. despite the orientation of the site…
Wikipedia, pronounced ‘Dewipedia’, is a Deep State operation like Google and Facebook. No-one should use this service to look up ‘political’, ‘social’ or ‘historic’ information. Wikipedia is good for maths, tech, and entertainment (films and TV shows). See Orwell’s 1984 for a clear description of how Wikipedia is designed to serve the demons running our Deep State.
SF did a bit on the Russian military last year. Multiple pieces on robotics with infantry and was super informative.
How about a series on the US military? Maybe one on Saud? There are a couple Mid East nations that actually come to mind.
If they are actually bipartisan, then that seems an obvious way to show it.
Dear friend,
We are surprised that you missed these videos:
https://southfront.org/u-s-army-and-its-armored-vehicles-military-analysis/
https://southfront.org/u-s-armys-mobile-protected-firepower-program-military-analysis/
and the whole section: https://southfront.org/category/all-articles/products/military-analysis/
Sincerely yours,
SF Team
If Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are infiltrated by Western Empire then how could Wikipedia be any better? In this world we have likely one sciency really reliable of its nature and soul – mathematics. It has no political correct agenda. It tells your pure facts.
That Wikipedia should be questioned is naturally obvious necessary and good.
That Wiki is biased has been obvious for yonks, but one still reads it for information re. what they do or don’t say, or the for way they say what they do.
That Wiki, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc, i.e. the big boys and some newer and apparently alternative sites are biased is obvious and dare one suggest it a badge of honour to be rejected by such sites + anyway to look at Wikipedia to learn about SF is questionable. Or….the art and truth of investigation….enjoy.
Why are you surprised?
I have given up on Wikipedia a long time ago for ANY information open to opinion; which is everything which is not base knowledge in maths, physics, chemistry and other hard sciences. All “humanities” are censored in the worst sense of the word.
I myself tried to create an entry about a learnt society, totally funded by the public (scientists in a narrow technical field), and spent a lot of time in discussions with Wikipedia so-called editors, who argued that organisation that only has links to its own website and a peer-reviewed journal that it publishes cannot have an entry. I said: “what other links do you need???” They said “something credible, as a rule of thumb if New York Times has not published about your society, it is probably of no importance”. Period. New York Times!!! Can you believe it? In the end, I did manage to get an entry, but boy, was it painful! The “editor” was extremely snobby and offensive but from the context, I quickly understood he was probably in his early 20s. These “golden” youths will dictate us all how to live our lives… according to NYT. Sad.
The issue is not with SouthFront per se, but the lack of coverage of it in mainstream (“reliable”) sources, that can be used for citations. Notability on Wikipedia is determined not by the merits of the subject of the article but by its coverage in mainstream (“reliable”) sources.
So for example a terrorist who massacres 100 people in Syria or Iraq is not considered notable if he’s not covered in MSM, but a killer of 3 in America would be if he makes it into the papers (or wins an award).
As they used to say: “verifiability, not truth”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
Exactly. The deletion discussion never even mentions the pro-Russian attitude of SouthFront, so the above claim that Wikipedia is “explaining an issue by the pro-Russian position of the project” is simply false. Also articles about “liberal” political organizations get proposed for deletion. And besides, it currently seems quite likely that the decision will be in favor of keeping.
So this is no evidence of Wikipedia using double standards. Stop crying and get over it.
Wikipedia is a private organization. It’s bad. But the problem is people think they can depend on it.
I could not access Southfront at all yesterday.
“Server not found” was the constant error message.
Wikipedia has no credibility, it’s constantly revised by the CiA.
To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer and impossible to ignore. –JBR Yant
I don’t believe that the people who assume that WIKI science articles are not as biased as their historical &c. ones are not familiar with how many discoveries and alternate models in science that are censored out of existence there, or “debunked” (smear technique).
You cannot pick up a turd by the clean end. That’s about what mixed praise of WIKI boils down to.
Great comment, talks – to- cats – that sums it up. Did anyone know that wikip, was supposedly founded by Jimmy Wales, who has a very disreputable character including being a Porn King? See link below.
Check your sources people!
http://www.naturalnews.com/051060_wikipedia_Jimmy_Wales_extortion_racket.html
As we approach the next dark age you must come to realise your own role in its formation. The great book burnimg is uon us. Our forebears trusted their thoughts to petra and parchment. Today our houses a stripped clean of books. Knowledge is ‘saved’ electronically so that in the twinkling of an eye on some bright sunshiny day in the not too distant future everything publicly available can be deleted. With no books left in your life you have lost the string in your race against the Minator.
They will have machines eface every visage. They are building the AI Gollum.
Wikipedia known Mockingbird front of the CIA,MI6, Mossad disiinformation site. The constantly change dates and facts instantly at times. IE;MH17 and MH37 malaysian flight tha twent missing in and around the indian Ocean. MH 17 it was reported , instantly with in hours of the Ukranian armed forces downing of the plane they put down that the sepatarist/rusiians downed the plane. Known anglo-zionist mouthpiece of disinformation since its conception. Youtube is becoming very similar in nature hence some alternative news org. are using liveleaks instead of youtube. The antlantacist/washington consensus/pax-americana anglo-zionist rrunning scared just look at what they r DOING Le Pen at the EEC taking away her diplomatic immunity. Thats why Lavarov at Munich was less than diplomatic and out of his normal character. BLUNT AND TO THE POINT. Either move with the times MULTIPOLAR WORLD. or die with ur falling empire PAX -AMERICANA FIAT PETRO-DOLLAR PONZI SCHEME.
Use Infogalactic instead.
“Infogalactic does not share the highly centralized structure of Wikipedia or the ideological dogma of the Wikimedia Foundation. The primary requirements are for the information contributed to be true, relevant, and verifiable, rather than cited from a so-called “published reliable source”, since experience has proven how reliance upon the latter can be easily gamed by editors and administrators alike. There is no culture of notability, ideology, or deletionism at Infogalactic. The addition of perspective filters and two levels of Context and Opinion to every page means that the average editor’s contribution is much less likely to be deleted for political reasons or fall victim to edit wars over controversial pages.”
https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
There is even a plugin, for browsers to redirect wiki-searches to infogalactic.
It is an indirect spinoff of gamergate fame.
Yes, people should ditch Wikipedia and switch to Infogalactic.com The issue at the moment is that Infogalactic is in English only while Wikipedia is multilingual. I hope it will be addressed sooner than later.
https://infogalactic.com/info/South_Front
They also started Drudge Report like news service: https://news.infogalactic.com/
Wikipedia isn’t the only site pretending to be what it isn’t…RT has again pulled a (sensible I think) comment I made on one of their sites within a second of it being posted….I call RT fake!
This has been presented to me as an alternative to wikipedia. I am a frequenter of this website and respect its creator and contributors and I have no agenda beyond suggesting, given the topic of discussion, that this alternative may be viable. It is this: https://infogalactic.com ….. Seems to have been developed in response to some of the ideological issues with wikipedia. I will make no further claims in its regard.
Wikipedia is an Anglo American “gatekeeper” media, masquerading as a voice for ordinary people.
Like the so-called (snicker) Free Press in general, it has no legitimacy. And should be treated as such.
If Wikipedia trusts NYT then Wikipedia is a tainted source, because the New York Times and the London Times are the main Anglo Capitalist propaganda outlets. But the real problem is to maintain Net Neutrality. The answer is very simple, and was given thousands of years ago: Thou Shalt Not Lie. If the public in great democracies like Britain and the US allow liars like Blair and Bush to go unpunished, then lies will flourish in public and the truth will be reduced to seeking refuge in private places.
“If the public in great democracies like Britain and the US allow liars like Blair and Bush to go unpunished, then lies will flourish in public and the truth will be reduced to seeking refuge in private places.”
Using the terms “great democracies” and “Britain and the US” in the same sentence should always be done with sarcastic intent.
These two great imperialist “democracies” have always allowed their war criminal rulers to spew lies and wage criminal wars without punishment for their entire bloodstained existence as nations.
When was the last British Prime Minister or American President that was arrested and tried–never mind convicted–of war crimes?
“Wikipedia” has been crawling with Neocon propagandists for basically its entire existence. In addition, many of the Neocon propagandists are clearly getting paid to post. You can see this by reviewing their ‘editing history’, where they ‘edit’ Wikipedia for anywhere from four to sixteen hours per day, 365 days per year (with occasionally a few days off, presumably their paid vacation time). No one, not even an extreme ideologue, would put in so many hours of work to a single website without monetary compensation. Some of them are obviously working for Western governments, while others are probably employed by Neocon “think tanks” in Washington.
Clearly this is an attempt to control the free flow of information, thereby influencing public opinion due to lack of facts and domination by a single manufactured narrative which will ultimately redound upon government foreign policy in purportedly open societies. In other words, the West still wants the world to think that the fighting in Ukraine is due to an expansionist Russian invasion in that country rather than an American fomented coup and subsequent repression of a minority population by the fascists who seized power. That’s what America does, but it’s not the image it wants the world to see.
America wants full spectrum dominance, and that includes controlling the internet and Wikipedia as it functions within that internet.
I have reproduced the Wikipedia page (with minor amendments) on Wikispooks here. Help with improving it – and MANY others would be most welcome.
For more information on the unreliability of Wikipedia when it comes to Geo-political and Deep State matters, see here.
Three and two years ago, during their annual “fundraiser” i gave money to Wikipedia.
Then I read what. False fro t their were and their ties to the Demons.
This year I refused to donate. They kept emailing me. I said I now knew and what they were.
Oooh, they did not li,d that. I got a very schmary snarly email back.
I was surprised they had time/ oils be bothered replying.
Fascinating.
.
When your motto is ‘by the way of deception’ then just controlling
– media CHECK
is not good enough. You require full-spectrum dominance and are forced at any price to monopolize
– entertainment (music, movies, literature, art, video games) CHECK
– education (text books, peer reviewed scientific journals, encyclopedias) CHECK
– religion (Talmudism, Roman Catholic Church, Evangelicalism, Islam) CHECK
– money creation, financial markets CHECK
– etc. CHECK
And because this silliness has been going on for more than two millennia, the ‘by the way of deception’ faction will fight tooth and nail over every bread crumb of their empire through mind control. They burn all bridges behind them as standard procedure and will never give up.
Algorithm-driven internet censorship has started big time in the second half of 2016 and will accelerate over the coming months and years. Fact.
People still use wikipedia? Why aren’t you using infogalactic.com? They literally forked ALL the content from wikipedia and are slowly going through and de-propagandizing it. Do not EVER use wikipedia. Any good information you can get on wikipedia you can get from infogalactic.com along with more and better info.