Wikipedia co-founder says encyclopedia 'compromised' by CIA
Larry Sanger accused the CIA and it's allies of editing articles for years to spread propaganda
There's no way this porky [redacted] didn't know this all along, and/or wasn't complicit. It's just that now he decides admitting it is expedient for furthering whatever purpose he has for admitting it.
https://thecradle.co/articles-id/39278Open linkView original on kbin.earth
12 replies
While I don't doubt that state actors try to manipulate Wikipedia to suit their points, Sanger was booted from Wikipedia back in 2002 and has been a cynical d-bag since. He's currently banned from editing due to brigading. So I'd take what he says with a grain of salt.
And surprise he's a massive Zionist who got banned for trying to flood Wikipedia with Zionist editors
The other co founder Jimmy Wales is also a massive Zionist who wanted to block Wikipedia calling Gaza a Genocide
An Israeli asset calling out the CIA? All I can do is shake my fists in the air and chant: “fight fight fight fight…”
I believe he's also trying to popularize a non-anonymous Wikipedia competitor. So promoting scares about anonymity allowing for secret influence is good for his interests. As if the CIA couldn't just make a fake identity.
No shit
Where one might find a non-TLAcompromised Wikipedia-alt if one were so inclined? >.>
Presumably none. Wikis thrive on public contributions and CIA agents can make accounts same as anyone else. If it's not compromised it's because it's too small to be worth it.
But the same crowd sourcing that makes it impossible to stop contributions also means anything that seems too biased might get caught and reverted.
So, it probably happens, but it's also probably not all that important. This guy is simultaneously claiming the CIA has compromised the site and that it's too unfriendly to Israel. Which seems like the sort of bias the CIA wouldn't want if they really had much control.
The dude that started it is from the CIA, no?
This is one of the dudes who started it.
I suspect the answer is no, sound like some conspiracy theory shit.
We knew that when they took down pages related to recent countries in recent wars. It’s not surprising to have it confirmed that the people who you think are behind these policies actually are.
Recent countries? What does this mean? Wikipedia usually has pages on every war..
everybody knows that you can't trust wikipedia for topics where a third-party might profit from manipulating what's written in the article, such as a company brand might remove criticism from its page. this is basic knowledge i think (or at least i hope)