"When you are slandered by the propagandists, that means you are the good guy, even though the menticided public believes the opposite. In Upside-Down World, persisting in seeing things right-side up—despite the incessant, relentless, never-ending gaslighting—means you have valiantly guarded your most precious possessions: your integrity and your sanity." (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-mainstream-straddler)
I am very much saddened that Wiki can be so cruel. I have on several occasions donated £20 to keep Wikipedia going. Based on what Wiki is showing about WCH I will not be funding them any more. I want to do more to put things right. Hard to know what though.
It's been like that for a while tho. Some people even call the Wiki the CIA's library.
I have noticed that Children's Health Defence is treated in the same way. When you Google them, the first thing it brings up is the wiki page with a warning and labelling them as an anti vaccine disinformation spreader. Then you have to scroll down down down sieving thru all the negative information against them.
And it's so bad when the message pops up on Wiki asking you to donate for their survival. They have been already pampered by the puppet masters. Why do they still want to squeeze money from the end users?
Outrageous, Tess, this the way the establishment, via censorship, 'brainwash' the masses. Don't be deterred you are winning along with the many thousands of doctors and experts slowly coming round. You and our organisation have and are playing a crucial role in promoting observed science and world statistics, not "The Science" nonsense. Plus you have brought together many of the honest great world minds which we, my family, are forever in your debt. Thank You so so much. Mike, Yvonne & Family x
Just wondered why the WCH doesn't contact Larry Sanger and ask him to remove all the bad information about the WCH?
I fully understand freedom of speech, and that if people wish to write untrue and bad notes about the WCH, it's their right to do so. Unfortunately, however, if the WCH is unable to go into Wikipedia to update their own information, then where's the freedom of speech and justice in that?
Wikipedia has always been an unreliable resource for information. Teachers for decades have told their students not to use them as a quotable source in papers. The page for Chiropractic is run by someone from Quackwatch, a notoriously anti-Chiropractic organization. The misinformation regarding anything “alternative” or antiestablishment is not surprising.
Wikipedia likes to ask for donations as if they're still independent... Haha but I suppose it makes people think that it's not infested with intelligence running the show.
Jimmy Dore stated how he couldn't edit his own page too.
Donations please, for the undemocratic propaganda machine!
I used to help contribute to Wikipedia many years ago. I gave up when I came to logger heads with one of the editors - through that I discovered that this particular editor was very territorial about the pages they 'contributed' to and was well known amongst Wikipedia editors to be a gate keeper. This person constantly reverted the changes I made despite me and an MD (who alerted me to the changes on the page) both having experience and knowledge of the subject. This editor also brazenly threatened my membership saying that they could get me kicked out as an editor - that isn't something they had the power to do but I would imagine it would work on new folks who didn't know better.
It was a war of attrition that we ended up winning. Sort of. The article remains somewhat butchered but I managed (at least at that time) to keep the most important parts.
Years earlier I'd learned Wikipedia's supposed emphasis on primary sources was not remotely true when I tried (and failed) to edit a very clearly biased article. The page only had ONE source and that source? An opinion piece from a private website. Not even vaguely a news site, let alone a primary source. And yet, not only was this ignored but multiple editors ignored that it was opinion and nothing more - the bias was blatant.
It's been known for many years that Wikipedia has a massive bias issue, lack of proper citations and primary sources and gate keeping by a minority of 'power' editors. Despite Wikipedia's apparent emphasis on neutral language, primary sources, citations, and high standard, it is lacking all of these.
It's useful for some basic information, but nothing more than that. For shame. Because I had such high hopes for it when it first came out as finally a way to decentralise and democratise knowledge and information. Sadly, like so many things that start out with great hopes, it has been captured by corporate interests and personal agendas.
the scamdemic really exposed a lot of otherwise below the radar malfeasance.
I wasn't aware of the wikimedia CIA/MI5 management issues until I started researching medical topics in 2020 for my own health and safety. previously I happily kept my nose out of the realm of medicine except for herbalism, homeopathy, and other unapproved paradigms.
stopped reading wikimedia entirely once I became aware of their controllers. not even giving them clicks.
I was working for a Google subcontractor from not long before the medical martial law was announced, rating the accuracy of search results for specific search terms. back then, the focus was on accuracy of results and whether or not a result linked to some sort of extortion or scam. after the beginning of the martial law, the focus I was supposed to evaluate based on shifted to "trust and authority" of the sources of search results. and their ideas of WHO was trustworthy and authoritative was strictly limited to large corporate/government entities. especially wikimedia, the World Hoax Org, the Fooled and Drugged Admin, the Center for Death Commission, the Environmental Polluting Agency, etc. the fully remote work was easy and the pay was equal to my apple-certified technician position (3 certifications) at $14/hr, still under Google's minimum pay rate for actual employees, but adequate. however, I couldn't stand directly supporting the censorship machine and had to quit.
Congratulations on your badge of efficacy!! 🏆
"When you are slandered by the propagandists, that means you are the good guy, even though the menticided public believes the opposite. In Upside-Down World, persisting in seeing things right-side up—despite the incessant, relentless, never-ending gaslighting—means you have valiantly guarded your most precious possessions: your integrity and your sanity." (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-mainstream-straddler)
I am very much saddened that Wiki can be so cruel. I have on several occasions donated £20 to keep Wikipedia going. Based on what Wiki is showing about WCH I will not be funding them any more. I want to do more to put things right. Hard to know what though.
It's been like that for a while tho. Some people even call the Wiki the CIA's library.
I have noticed that Children's Health Defence is treated in the same way. When you Google them, the first thing it brings up is the wiki page with a warning and labelling them as an anti vaccine disinformation spreader. Then you have to scroll down down down sieving thru all the negative information against them.
And it's so bad when the message pops up on Wiki asking you to donate for their survival. They have been already pampered by the puppet masters. Why do they still want to squeeze money from the end users?
Outrageous, Tess, this the way the establishment, via censorship, 'brainwash' the masses. Don't be deterred you are winning along with the many thousands of doctors and experts slowly coming round. You and our organisation have and are playing a crucial role in promoting observed science and world statistics, not "The Science" nonsense. Plus you have brought together many of the honest great world minds which we, my family, are forever in your debt. Thank You so so much. Mike, Yvonne & Family x
Wikipedia like msm, bought and paid for. It has not been a reliable source for a few years now. Delete, ignor.
That's it, I'm boycotting Wikipedia!
Just wondered why the WCH doesn't contact Larry Sanger and ask him to remove all the bad information about the WCH?
I fully understand freedom of speech, and that if people wish to write untrue and bad notes about the WCH, it's their right to do so. Unfortunately, however, if the WCH is unable to go into Wikipedia to update their own information, then where's the freedom of speech and justice in that?
I used to donate to Wikipedia every year ... now I donate to the Wayback machine instead 😄
Wikipedia has always been an unreliable resource for information. Teachers for decades have told their students not to use them as a quotable source in papers. The page for Chiropractic is run by someone from Quackwatch, a notoriously anti-Chiropractic organization. The misinformation regarding anything “alternative” or antiestablishment is not surprising.
Wikipedia likes to ask for donations as if they're still independent... Haha but I suppose it makes people think that it's not infested with intelligence running the show.
Jimmy Dore stated how he couldn't edit his own page too.
Donations please, for the undemocratic propaganda machine!
"Wikipedia’s Smear Piece on WCH Represents a Badge of Honour"
Hmm... it is called "CIApedia"...
Bye bye Wikipedia!!
Congratulations!!Perfect article!!
I used to help contribute to Wikipedia many years ago. I gave up when I came to logger heads with one of the editors - through that I discovered that this particular editor was very territorial about the pages they 'contributed' to and was well known amongst Wikipedia editors to be a gate keeper. This person constantly reverted the changes I made despite me and an MD (who alerted me to the changes on the page) both having experience and knowledge of the subject. This editor also brazenly threatened my membership saying that they could get me kicked out as an editor - that isn't something they had the power to do but I would imagine it would work on new folks who didn't know better.
It was a war of attrition that we ended up winning. Sort of. The article remains somewhat butchered but I managed (at least at that time) to keep the most important parts.
Years earlier I'd learned Wikipedia's supposed emphasis on primary sources was not remotely true when I tried (and failed) to edit a very clearly biased article. The page only had ONE source and that source? An opinion piece from a private website. Not even vaguely a news site, let alone a primary source. And yet, not only was this ignored but multiple editors ignored that it was opinion and nothing more - the bias was blatant.
It's been known for many years that Wikipedia has a massive bias issue, lack of proper citations and primary sources and gate keeping by a minority of 'power' editors. Despite Wikipedia's apparent emphasis on neutral language, primary sources, citations, and high standard, it is lacking all of these.
It's useful for some basic information, but nothing more than that. For shame. Because I had such high hopes for it when it first came out as finally a way to decentralise and democratise knowledge and information. Sadly, like so many things that start out with great hopes, it has been captured by corporate interests and personal agendas.
Truth And The World Of Wikipedia Gatekeepers
https://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147261659/gauging-the-reliability-of-facts-on-wikipedia
(scroll down for written transcript)
The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/
(Both of these articles you'll note are old now - this was well known even back then and the issues have only grown worse.
the scamdemic really exposed a lot of otherwise below the radar malfeasance.
I wasn't aware of the wikimedia CIA/MI5 management issues until I started researching medical topics in 2020 for my own health and safety. previously I happily kept my nose out of the realm of medicine except for herbalism, homeopathy, and other unapproved paradigms.
stopped reading wikimedia entirely once I became aware of their controllers. not even giving them clicks.
I was working for a Google subcontractor from not long before the medical martial law was announced, rating the accuracy of search results for specific search terms. back then, the focus was on accuracy of results and whether or not a result linked to some sort of extortion or scam. after the beginning of the martial law, the focus I was supposed to evaluate based on shifted to "trust and authority" of the sources of search results. and their ideas of WHO was trustworthy and authoritative was strictly limited to large corporate/government entities. especially wikimedia, the World Hoax Org, the Fooled and Drugged Admin, the Center for Death Commission, the Environmental Polluting Agency, etc. the fully remote work was easy and the pay was equal to my apple-certified technician position (3 certifications) at $14/hr, still under Google's minimum pay rate for actual employees, but adequate. however, I couldn't stand directly supporting the censorship machine and had to quit.
Turn of the TV ,stop reading newspapers and get some protection from the fears they project,
Thanks for taking the time to promote truth in the madness.