Culture

Propagandists Boast Of Finagling Wikipedia: Here’s How To Have Wikipedia Revenge

It is good to take pride in your work. It is good, too, to show enthusiasm. And when a job has been completed in an exemplary fashion, it is sometimes well to boast of it.

This applies to all professions, propagandists included.

Hence the boastful BBC headline “Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia“. In other words, a group of know-nothing zealots hyper-edit Wikipedia to ensure nothing of which they do not approve can be seen.

They are bragging openly about their ability to turn Wikipeda into, and maintain its status, as a propaganda site.

What’s amusing is that the author of the piece, one Marco Silva, bills himself as a “Climate change disinformation specialist”. Without knowing anything else about Silva, I am willing to bet good money he has an almost perfect ignorance of the physics of fluid flow on a rotating sphere.

He will excel, however, and as goes without saying, at repeating the talking points of global warming Experts.

This post is not about Silva, per se, but about the Silvaettes, the volunteer army of propagandists who edit Wikipedia so its information aligns with what the volunteers think are the views of Experts. They are not Experts themselves, so have to infer.

Silva takes pains to tell us of the emotional state of one of these volunteers, who, it turns out, was sitting around one day having feelz about the climate. This feeling person told Silva “Many conversations seemed to evolve into people expressing their feelings of angst and fear about the environment.”

After all, the average global temperature might, perhaps, maybe, one day in the future possibly rise a fraction of a degree or so, and how does that make you feel? Full of fear and angst, right?

This focus on feelings identifies the first key aspect of the volunteers: effeminacy. To have fear and angst over remote possibilities, and even impossibilities, or to see climate demons in everyday occurrences like wild fires, is to be effeminate.

I needn’t convince you, I think, that effeminacy has grown to sickening levels, given what happened during the coronadoom panic. Consider there was no boasting of fear and angst during the Asian and Hong Kong flus in the mid-Twentieth Centuries which killed proportionally more people than the coronadoom.

Back to our effeminate named David, who also has no training or special knowledge in fluid physics. He admits his soy-fueled marathon Wiki editing sessions, and chuckles as recalls threatening legal action against those who change his edits.

David is one of many. Another is pictured in the banner image of today’s post, Femke Nijsse. She at least gives the appearance of training. Silva says Nijsse is the sleepless “user who’s contributed the most to” the article on global warming (a.k.a. climate change a.k.a. global cooling).

This is key: “Femke is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Exeter, studying the transition to green energy”.

This is like getting a “degree” in education or college administration or climate change disinformation. It is the sort of “degree” that is empty of all useful content. It’s only purpose, like all these “degrees”, is to support the expertocracy, to add legitimacy to the regime, to make it appear more is going on in a field than in reality.

The self-answering question most of us ask is, “How can global warming be silly if all these intelligent people believe?” We forget history is an endless series of asinine and bloody ideas the most intelligent believed.

The army of zealot editors are all like Nijsse in the same way: none of have any fundamental idea what they are talking about. They only know that Experts have spoken, and they, being acolytes of our new priesthood, believe the Experts should be publicly supported. Questions should not be allowed. Uncertainty is forbidden. They believe even more than Experts believe.

One of the zealots is named Alex Stinson “from the Wikimedia Foundation”, who laments “There are over 6,300,000 articles on English Wikipedia. Not all of those are under the same kind of universal scrutiny of the [zealot] community.”

It is here that our idea for fun comes in. Paging fraternities and gameboys looking for pranks.

We need to fill Wikipedia with true hate facts, true uncertainties, and other regime-disapproved truths.

There is no point in inserting these truths into pages the zealots control. But it would be fun to place truths into pages they don’t frequent.

For instance, add that there are only two genders to the page on the binomial distribution. Or add that diversity is our weakness to the page on spectral analysis.

Or that global warming is not of any concern to some random article (they have a function to do this).

Do not be silent about this. Say that you have done it. As they do, boast of it. Just don’t tell them where the edits are. Let them use time and resources to hunt for the truths and edit them back out.

Even if you don’t put any edits in, say that you did.

Sure, at the top they can see changes in some programmatic way, but they can’t police them all. And they can’t find what isn’t there, but what you say is.

The best part of this scheme is that it would fill zealots with angst and fear that somebody in the world might see an unapproved truth.

Buy my new book and own your enemies: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here

Categories: Culture

19 replies »

  1. That’s a spirited and gritty suggestion! And maybe effective, at some point, in some tiny way.

    But it’s hard to imagine the effort would be effective. Sort of like bailing rushing seawater from the cargo hold of the Titanic with a Dixie cup.

    The bulkheads have failed and are irreparably damaged, Captain! Bailing with that little cup will do nothing to stop the flood of cold and salty PC-death-brine inundating our culture and dooming us to a watery grave.

    Repairing the hull, or abandoning ship are probably better alternatives.

    But much, much more labor-intensive and difficult.

    Not pooh-poohing, just observing…..

  2. It used to be *no pain – no gain*…

    Now our society wants *All gain – no pain* solutions, fix everything with a pill…

    We are fast becoming risk adverse *Fear Zombies*…

  3. Pharma pays armies of editors to ruin Wikipedia to boost profits from drug sales. This hoodwinks doctor and patient alike. The drug companies spend our money that we gifted to them in our well-meaning but failed healthcare system. “Third party payment” creates perverse incentives and feeds amoral corporate systems that have devolved into systemic evil.

  4. Good article. Can’t take the BS anymore. They haven’t quite been able to control everybody on climate change, but they’ve succeeded in micromanaging most of the population with their never-ending Kung-Flu face diaper cult. They’re creaming their jeans over that triumph, and they’ll never let it end. Life is quickly spiraling down the loo.

  5. Its time to focus and ask the question, taking all current events into mimd.

    Was the scamdemic the first shots in a new war for world supremacy?

    One thing is for certain the great unwashed will be last to know.

    All you have to understand is the “elite” will sacrifice us all to achieve their goals, look where they live, look how they travel anywhere they want except for a few belligerent countries…those countries are the last dominos that must fall to achieve their paradise.

    We are in for trouble!

  6. I wonder if there is some blockchain solution that can be applied to a new version of an online encyclopedia? Thus preventing out’n’out propagandists from ruining things and perhaps extracting a payment of sorts?

    How’s that for an idea of a new digital currency? One powered by information and Truth itself? I will only accept payment with CatholicCoin.

  7. A Sunni friend of mine once told me that Iran financed a similar group to ensure a Shi’ite spin to every Wikipedia artcle on Islam.

  8. Several years ago, I corrected a misstatement related to earth science (I’m a professional geologist) in a Wikipedia page (it was patently incorrect). The change was a small one, and I was careful to source it, and provided explanation. Like lightening, a troll who “maintained” this page swooped in and reverted the change. This I discovered, has been common practice for some time. They don’t permit “auslanders” to contribute- period. They are a bunch of runny nosed little keyboard bullies. I wouldn’t waste my time. Oh, and NEVER use Wikipedia as a “source” for anything- unless you like being wrong.

  9. In grade school, a teacher advised my class not to search for unbiased sources of information, but rather to look for well-researched advocacy on the various sides of an issue and decide for ourselves. She hammered this point home by assigning articles to read on various topics, carefully timing the assignments to make us feel duped by the previous article. The articles were on such highly controversial topics as when the Vikings first landed in North America, but the lessons from that class stuck with me, while much of the rest of my childhood educational experience has faded away.

    As part of a very small engineering team at one company, I had to constantly go outside my comfort zone of prior training and experience. The managers were mostly non-engineers, with little appreciation for the time required to learn unfamiliar technologies and math, so time was always of the essence. I often found Wikipedia to be a very useful shortcut, either in the content itself or in the references. So useful, in fact, that I felt obligated to donate, and continue to do so. Always aware that anybody can say anything on the Internet without consequence, I always double- or triple-checked anything important, and although there were mistakes, they all seemed to be honest mistakes.

    The above applies to non-political content. For anything remotely political, Wikipedia is so useless I’m surprised that the editors take it so seriously. Sure, a naive reader may pull up the climate change article and be totally convinced, but eventually they will read another article about something they already have some expertise in, and their trust will plummet.

    Can Wikipedia be fixed for political content? Probably not. Wikipedia is designed around each topic having a single truth that is not much disputed. After all, it’s right there in the name, “What I *KNOW* is”. There does seem to be wisdom in very small crowds that care about obscure things, which is why Wikipedia is useful. Politics? Not so much.

    Nym Coy: Thanks for the pointer to infogalatic.com, I’ll put it through it’s paces with a side-by-side comparison with Wikipedia next time I use it.

  10. All predicted by the encyclopedia editors that Wikipedia put out of business. I remember reading a scathing article from an editor back in … 2007? They explained it takes time and money to properly source articles and balance opinions. That said, it makes me wonder how much of our intellectual understanding was captured by a handful of publishing houses prior to the internet. Who was influencing them?

  11. Nothing, nothing will replace a library of primary-source material. It is incumbent upon all literate Christian souls to choose a speciality and build a library before the legions totally withdraw to the Milvian bridge. This will be especially difficult for the scientists because in science it is particularly seductive to mistake a window on reality (with its restrictive view) for the whole landscape. Hence the need for collaboration in such a project. No place for pride of authorship or knowledge gnatzies. Toss the telly and build some bookshelves.

  12. Russel, ‘who was influencing them?’

    Try CIA< FBI< MI5<MI6 and any other taxpayer funded government propaganda outfit.
    The number one censor on Wiki for global warming is a guy called William Connaly (he spells himself Connolly I think)
    He is a failed local council politician from East Anglia in England, with no known scientific qualifications.
    Just what you would expect, like the BBC chief science global warming 'expert' an Irish ex motoring journalist.

  13. infogalactic is a solid fork. Wikipedia is still a great resource, but on any politically charged issue, infogalactic is decisively superior

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.