Wikipedia/Problems

WikiSpooks does not aspire to rival Wikipedia but to supplement it. Wikipedia is, without question, a massively successful and valuable reference. Its openness and carefully thought-out nature guarantees that it is always worth consulting on almost any subject where introductory knowledge is being sought. Even in the WikiSpooks domain of potentially sensitive Deep Political issues, Wikipedia articles can prove a goldmine of information and useful links. The articles on MKULTRA^[1] (The covert and illegal CIA human mind-control research program) are a good case in point. However, Wikipedia has a problem...

The Core Problem

Jimmy Wales has articulated that "the biggest issue is editor diversity".^[2] It is WikiSpooks' contention that this may be just a symptom of their failure to speak truth to power by adopting establishment-friendly policies about what constitute "reliable sources". Specifically:

To the extent that a particular topic is judged to challenge established power structures and their Official Narrative of events, the reliability and ultimate accuracy of Wikipedia articles touching on it will tend to be compromised by agents of those structures. At the extremes of power and perceived threat, Wikipedia's policy on "reliable sources" pretty much guarantees that the compromise will be fundamental.

Wikipedia's MKULTRA articles, for example, although appearing decidedly establishment-unfriendly at first, owe much of their shock-power to the exposure of the program in the early 1970's by both the Congressional (The Church Commission) and Presidential investigations - plus the 1977 release of much previously classified material - all of which nudge Wikipedia's 'Neutral Point of View' a little closer to the truth of the matter. However, in light of subsequent understanding of how equivalent programs continue in an even more shocking and extreme form, the Wikipedia articles in fact represent what is known as a Limited Hangout (i.e. an exercise in damage limitation by the revelation of a subset of damaging information to obscure more damaging information). The Wikipedia pages on current activities that threaten established power, even of topics which are fairly widely understood, can be even more misleading since relevant material remains classified and The establishment Official Narratives continue to exert tight control on contemporary reporting about them by the commercially-controlled media.

Professionalisation

Decline of total #Wikipedia Editors since 2007. The number of professional wikipedia editors can only be guessed at, but it is has probably risen considerably over the same period

Wikipedia has moved on since its days as a grassroots organisation of volunteers; nowadays it receives multi-million dollar donations from companies and grant giving foundations such as from the Ford Foundation, Omidyar Network or Google, some of which have been linked to seats on the board of the Wikimedia foundation^[3]. The business of paid edits is harder to document, but WikiScanner has shown that media organisations, PR companies and the CIA are systematically editing pages of personal interest to them.

Wikipedia's professionalisation implies its effective assimilation into the commercially-controlled media, casting serious doubt on its claims of independence. Its original cadre of enthusiastic volunteers has been in decline since 2007, to be replaced by professionals and those with other paymasters, transforming its answerability to ordinary citizens into dependence on big money - i.e. The establishment. From 2006 to 2011 the Wikimedia staff increased over 2500%, while its budget increased even more, while Wikipedia's "aggressive annual fundraising drives have been phenomenally successful, transforming the organisation and creating a powerful new political lobbying force". This development may help one interpret the guidelines on reliability that state that "several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals".^[4]

Symptoms

The core problem that certain truths are so threatening to the establishment that they represent a 'third rail' that can never be seriously approached include a systematic set of regular departures from Wikipedia's stated aims. The closer material is to a 'third rail issue', the more pronounced the symptoms become. They include:

Wikipedia's Problems:	Bias	Censorship	Gaps	Spin	Obfuscation

Bias

Large organisations and companies with public relations and advertising budgets cannot be expected to refrain from seeking to hire Wikipedia editors to represent themselves, their products and services in the best possible light. Does Wikipedia really need over 4000 words on Playstation 3 Accessories, with less than half that number on the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the US government committee which concluded that there was a "high probability" that John F. Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy. Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources means that anyone who is wealthy or influential enough to communicate their messages through the commercially-controlled media can also tell their stories on Wikipedia. Those who have less influence over big media have less influence over Wikipedia.

Gaps

Sometimes, details are missing, sometimes entire pages and viewpoints. English Wikipedia editors do not deem the World Trade Center collapses to be particularly notable, notwithstanding the fact that no steel reinforced concrete buildings have ever collapsed due to fire before or since. As of December 2013, all three WTC collapses are compressed into a single article of just 7125 words, compared to the 9660 words devoted to Toilet paper orientation.

Censorship

For particularly sensitive issues, Wikipedia resorts to "protection" to prevent edits from unauthorised editors. Generally, censorship is more sublte, but a look at page histories often shows censorship in action - particular viewpoints on particular topics are reverted within minutes. Less obvious, but no less pernicious is the removal of entire pages. Just as certain opinions are regularly excised from Wikipedia, so certain topics are kept off the agenda. The Pinay Cercle article was cut down due to reliance on the same "self-published source" cited on Wikispooks to just over 200 words, as of December 2013. Those who have the power to keep topics out of the commercially-controlled media also have the power to trim Wikipedia.

Wikipedia 'Alternative Views' Project

The Wikipedia Alternative Views Project ^[5] and other related projects recognise and seek to mitigate this problem. However, in spite of citing 'Heliocentrism' as an example of the problem, their focus is on 'Alternative' and 'skeptic' views and takes no specific account of the core issue, which is the dominant influences of wealth and power in shaping 'Deep State' agendas and public understanding of reality.

So, with all due (i.e. considerable) respect for the Wikipedia project, the following examples illustrate the general case "Wikipedia Problem" which, in what is a narrow but nonetheless massively important area of publicly accessible knowledge, is unlikely to be substantially mitigated by the fringe projects noted above.

Example subject

The London Bombings of July 2005 came as a devastating shock to the general population. Smaller in scale and less spectacular than the 9/11 attacks in the USA some 4 years earlier, they nonetheless produced similar public fear and outrage. An 'official narrative', on the events of that day and who was responsible, was soon established and accepted by the general public. As with 9/11, the narrative has achieved the status of revealed truth. To question it effectively is to risk ridicule, ostracism and ultimately excommunication by 'The Establishment' - and so of course, any questioning is confined merely to trimming and tacking with the overall course remaining agreed, set and unalterable.

And yet, as of June 2010, nearly 5 years after those events....

Apart from the acquittal, following a retrial, of alleged 'helpers', no judicial proceedings concerning the identities and guilt or otherwise of those alleged to be responsible have been started, let alone concluded.
There has yet to be a Coroner's Inquest into the deaths of the alleged perpetrators. (An inquest into the deaths of the victims of the attacks opened on London on 11 October 2010)^[6]
There has been no official inquiry into the events (The Prime Minister of the day, Tony Blair, memorably deeming such an inquiry a "ludicrous diversion").^[7]

This is not the place to explore the range of glaring anomalies and inconsistencies in the official narrative which are on a similar relative scale to those of 9/11. Suffice to say that the main Wikipedia articles on the subject adhere rigidly to the official narrative as briefly explored below.

Examples

The following is the introductory section of the main Wikipedia page on the London Bombings of 7th July 2005:^[8]

The 7 July 2005 London bombings, also known as 7/7, were a series of coordinated suicide attacks on London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. The bombings were carried out by four British Muslim men, three of Pakistani and one of Jamaican descent, who were motivated by Britain's involvement in the Iraq War.
At 08:50, three bombs exploded within fifty seconds of each other on three London Underground trains, a fourth exploding an hour later at 09:47 on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. The explosions appear to have been caused by home-made organic peroxide-based devices, packed into rucksacks and detonated by the bombers themselves, all four of whom died. 52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured.

(Wikipedia May 2010)

The above complies with Wikipedia editorial guidelines;^[9] in particular those concerning 'Neutral point of view' ^[10] and it illustrates why Wikipedia cannot be relied upon for accurate resumes of 'deep political events'.

Here is a list of the problems with that short, ostensibly factual, introduction to a deep political event:

1. "The 7 July 2005 London bombings, also known as 7/7, were a series of coordinated suicide attacks on London's public transport system during the morning rush hour."

We do not know that they were suicide attacks. We have only the assurances of official sources that they were - the 'official narrative' in other words. There has been no forensic identification of the bodies of the alleged perpetrators; as of December 2013, more than 8 years after the events, there has been no Coroners Inquest into the deaths of the alleged bombers and, following the victims inquest (see below) there is unlikely ever to be one. There were two 'pre-inquest reviews' ^[11] and an Inquest into the deaths of the 'victims concluded in May 2011 with verdicts of Unlawful killing. The guilt and suicides of the four alleged bombers were accepted as proven by the inquest Judge on evidence that received negligible scrutiny since the families of the alleged bombers were denied legal representation in the proceeding. Much of the evidence that might reasonably be expected to be available in support of the official narrative continues to be either withheld or alleged by officialdom not to exist. This is especially the case over video evidence. Andy Hayman, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, had this to say soon after the attacks:

The bombers are all certain to have been caught on many cameras during their journey.... We will end up with very good pictures that will identify them.

Video of Andy Hayman's statement included in the video "Ludicrous Diversions" ^[12]

In the event we have been provided with minuscule, heavily edited footage with time-stamps mostly obscured together with a few video stills that show compelling evidence of having been doctored.

2. "The bombings were carried out by four British Muslim men, three of Pakistani and one of Jamaican descent, who were motivated by Britain's involvement in the Iraq War."

Again we have only have the assurance of official sources about the identities of the perpetrators. Also, the alleged motivation is drawn from two videos which appear to threaten war-like actions against unspecified Western countries because of the West's military involvement in Muslim countries - hardly evidence justifying such a categorical assertion.

3. "The explosions appear to have been caused by home-made organic peroxide-based devices, packed into rucksacks and detonated by the bombers themselves, all four of whom died."

Those 'official sources' again - even though 'appears to be' is slightly less dogmatic. There is ample evidence, not least from those same official sources, that the explosives 'may have been' of a military grade plastic variety since that was their position for several weeks after the events. But there really ought to be NO doubt about the nature of the explosive used because, as a matter of forensic routine, it is easily identifiable from the residues of the explosion. We have had NO such confirmation, just obfuscation by the authorities. As for '...detonated by the bombers themselves' there is similarly no independently verifiable evidence.

The rest of the article is replete with similar dogmatism in furtherance of the {{ON} but unsupported by independently verifiable evidence or evidence that has been subjected the scrutiny afforded by the cross examination of witnesses under oath. When it comes to obvious and undeniable anomalies however, a rigorously sceptical approach is the order of the day, together with strenuous efforts to reconcile such anomalies with the official narrative. A good example of this is in the separate Wikipedia article about the video 'Ripple Effect'^[13]. It is a relatively short piece but every rhetorical trick in the book is applied to discredit it; from the ridicule and character assassination of its producer (ad hominem - which Wikipedia is supposed to guard against) through to the absurdity of citing a BBC 'Conspiracy Files' program as definitively debunking it. There is no mention of an article by Dr. Ridley Duff of Sheffield Hallam University (File:Theorising Truth.pdf), in which he applies 3 separate types of scientific analysis to each of the videos and concludes that the probability of Ripple Effect being closer to the truth of what happened than the BBC 'Conspiracy Files' varies between about 50 and 75%.