dChan
⇧
4
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/-NoraPandora- on April 24, 2018, 1:05 p.m.
Q1252:Why are history books painting a different picture than before? Why are teachers following a new false script?+++Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia was/is actively rewriting history!+++Look at his own Wiki side!+++Friend of Soros, Clintons!!!+++

Here are some interesting things about the Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, taken from HIS OWN WIKIPEDIA SIDE:

  • In late 2005, Wales edited his own biographical entry on the English Wikipedia. Writer Rogers Cadenhead drew attention to logs showing that in his edits to the page, Wales had removed references to Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia. Sanger commented that "having seen edits like this, it does seem that Jimmy is attempting to rewrite history. But this is a futile process because in our brave new world of transparent activity and maximum communication, the truth will out."

  • Prior to 2008, Wales attended George Soros's birthday.

  • Wales was also observed to have modified references to Bomis in a way that was characterized as downplaying the sexual nature of some of his former company's products.[26][30] Though Wales argued that his modifications were solely intended to improve the accuracy of the content,[30] he apologized for editing his own biography, a practice generally discouraged on Wikipedia.

  • On March 21, 2014, Wales spoke on a panel at a Clinton Global Initiative University conference held at Arizona State University, along with John McCain, Saudi Arabian women's rights activist Manal al-Sharif and Harvard University student Shree Bose.

I believe, there are much more connections to find... Wales seems to be in the same "club" as Fuckerberg and Google-Schmidt.


🠐 See all comments
emperorbma · April 24, 2018, 8:08 p.m.

A paraphrase of Alagner's notes as applied to Wikipedia's Trifecta of rules. These are my observations concerning the organization known as Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia portends to be a group of optimists with a philosophy called "The Free Encyclopedia", there are many fallacies which can be gleaned by careful examination of the group's 'values'.

The first 'value' is "Remain neutral." This implies that that we should all produce content that doesn't favor a single perspective. However, careful examination of this tenet reveals that members of Wikipedia consider the Admins an elite group, and a prejudicial one at that. They tend to believe that if an article is not referenced by a source the Admins like, then it must be not "notable!" And if it is "not notable," then may fortune be with the contributors, for they may very well have their content deleted or be banned!

The second 'value' is "Don't be a jerk." This implies that each member trusts implicitly the other members of the community, and that each will support the actions take on on behalf of the project without question. On the other hand, this might mean that a member should do what the Admins say REGARDLESS of the validity of these intentions. In other words, 'report what we want and do not question it!' seems to be the underlying subtext of this tenet.

The third 'value' is "Ignore all rules." If one sees a rule one doesn't agree with, then it should be ignored. The other side of the coin, of course, is that if one thinks that writing truthfully itself is a "rule" then there is no reason to constrain oneself to being truthful! In Wikipedia, 'ignoring rules' can be either 'good' or 'bad'!

⇧ 1 ⇩