Available in most languages, the definitions, quotes and “Wiki-species” are full of great details and seem as friendly and reliable as the old Britannica seemed, but a closer look reveals a catalogue of mainstream information rife with error, bias, and omission of some of the most important facts in the realms of health, environmental safety and agricultural sustainability. Founded with 99% pornography “trafficker” revenue, Wikipedia’s cofounder Jimmy Wales (1) took his web search engine called “Bomis” and created his own “online encyclopedia” full of bias, misinformation, and total lack of information regarding alternative health. Though Wales gave Wikipedia his blessing and vow of “neutrality” of information, the electronic encyclopedia lacks much credibility for many reasons, but is still used widely by US children who don’t know any better and want easy access to what they believe are “facts” for writing book reports, biographies and doing projects for school. One major way Wikipedia fools people into believing they are posting facts is that Wikipedia sports a massive search engine with authority in Google that equates its rankings to high credibility sources, leading the public to believe in falsities – and on a site that can be altered by critics, liars and computer hacks alike. Claiming to use science-based facts for definitions of health and medicine topics, Wikipedia.org displays a flagrant bias toward anything holistic or organically based (2), with many half-truths that are purported as legitimate and “real” science, agriculture and medicine.
In 2002, the FBI was informed by Larry Sanger, the Wikipedia co-founder, that Wikimedia Commons, the parent company, was “rife with renderings of children performing sexual acts.” In 2005, the site was modified to remove and censor any connections to the true Jimmy Wales story and all the x-rated content that enabled his search engine to become so popular in the first place.
“Science-Based” Means Allopathic Information Only
The information in Wikipedia is filtered to remove any talk of natural remedies, natural cures and organic medicine, referring to anything that is not lab-made as quack medicine, anti-science or even conspiracy theory when it challenges “science-based” information that has no independent research sourcing. The information that makes it through the Wikipedia filters and is published is pure mainstream, allopathic and biotechnology driven.
Launched in 2001 (4), Wikipedia launched 18,000 articles in its first year. At first, Wikipedia was called Nupedia and was known for catering to a male audience with mainly information on sports, cars and women. In the years that followed, Wales began “memory-holing” – – deleting information about his own inappropriate sexual business activities and exploiting control over Wikipedia by editing information from his own page. By 2003, Nupedia was dissolved into Wikipedia, but much of that content remains purported as “factual” information in Wikipedia today.
Wikipedia was petitioned in 2014 (with more than 7,000 signatures) to allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing. The Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology, via Change.org, basically asked for Wikipedia to publish honest information from respected independent studies and journals, but Wikipedia only publishes health information from an allopathic standpoint, so the petition was rejected with rigor and flagrant bias – just business as usual for the porn king Jimmy Wales. There was also a “Kickstarter” campaign that raised thousands of dollars in 2015 to take down the “misinformation campaign” posing as an on-line encyclopedia. They were demanding fair representation for natural health, complimentary medicine, alternative medicine, energy medicine, chiropractic, orthomolecular, acupuncture and the healing arts. (3)
Much like WebMD and National Geographic, one can find great detail and even facts regarding specific animals, plants, insects, raw materials, oceanography and even space exploration; yet when it comes to finding facts regarding safe agricultural practices, holistic healing or natural medicine that has worked for millennium, there’s is nary a fact to find. Hundreds of colleges and academic institutions, as well as news sites, refuse to use Wikipedia (or allow the students or teachers to use it) for research due to its numerous biases and inaccuracies (5). Though Wikipedia does not accept advertising, their fundraising efforts have been undermined by their stubborn anti-science “scientific” presentation of distorted and highly-filtered information.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia
The worst part of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the pages, and that makes the majority of the online “encyclopedia” suspect. This editing includes revisions made by members of Wikipedia who may not have good intentions. In 2007, the BBC reported that Wikipedia allowed the CIA to edit entries. Today, the biotechnology field of chemical-agriculture is given the same reign of power as is pharmacology. Watchdog groups have revealed severe censorship, misinformation and even vandalism regarding information about natural health. This is mainly accomplished by ranking falsities high in Google, Bing, Yahoo, MSN.com, AOL and of course on Wikipedia’s own search engine.
Certain Wikipedia “volunteers” are simply allowed to post, edit and research a variety of topics. They are all given credit as “honorable” and “authoritative” sources, without any conflicts of interest published and zero counterpoints. This also allows for false “expert” aliases, as discovered when a young college dropout once posed as a tenured college professor. Even critical opinions are published as fact on Wikipedia when they serve the greater goal of spreading mainstream propaganda about the effectiveness of allopathic chemical drugs or the “safe and beneficial” manufacturing of genetically modified crops.
Larry Sanger, cofounder of Wikipedia, ended up leaving the organization citing concerns over integrity and credibility. He is quoted as saying, “There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles. Vandalism, once a minor annoyance, has become a major headache-made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution. Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings insist on ruining their articles.”
Currently, there are several credible alternatives to Wikipedia, including Citizendium, Wiki4CAM, the Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Encyclopedia and of course TruthWiki.org.
Wikipedia, by definition, indirectly supports biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry, even though neither industry runs proper safety testing nor is required by US regulatory agencies to do so. What Wikipedia calls “science-based” actually involves and requires no scientific proof of effectiveness, safety or health benefit. Though Wikipedia does not run advertisements, they are indirectly advertising falsities as factual and misleading millions of readers in doing so. The non-profit status simply serves as a cover story for propaganda spread by pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, and agricultural chemical companies like Monsanto, Cargill, Bayer, Dupont, Dow, Syngenta and BASF. It’s just like the old days when JAMA advertised thousands of doctors endorsing the safety of cigarettes. (6) This is made even more evident as other online encyclopedias like WebMD, another propaganda portal, get busted for fraud. In fact, WebMD accepts bribe money to promote special interests, and documents revealed that the federal government paid the site’s content creators nearly $14 million to promote Obamacare. (7)
Similarly, National Geographic (8), considered to the a mainstream reliable source of information about nature, oceans and space exploration, and also one of the largest scientific and educational organizations in the world, accepts mass money payouts from drug and biotechnology industries as evidenced by their multi-paged advertising spreads in the print periodicals. Their shameless endorsement of GMO (genetically modified organisms) “Frankencrops” flies in the face of health and environment detriment caused by chemical agriculture practices, yet it’s all still published as science-based “fact.” Dangerous pesticides are pushed as safe and appropriate for earth while other pages in the same publication speak of protecting Mother Nature and preserving rainforests. This is the same approach taken by Wikipedia regarding promoting deadly crop chemicals, except they claim to be non-profit.
One should regard Wikipedia information with particular concern, since this spreading of disinformation maintains such a powerful force in the online search engines today. Wikipedia is nothing more than propaganda and a threat to health and the wellness community of the world. Inform your children.
Here’s the most recent EDITING SCANDEL for Wikipedia, furthering devaluing the validity of information on the so-called online encyclopedia: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wikipedia-rocked-by-rogue-editors-blackmail-scam-targeting-small-businesses-and-celebrities-10481993.html
There are no revisions for this post.