Wikipedia has a massive following and it lists on Google in the top ten "96.6% of Wikipedia Pages Rank in Google’s Top 10". Google favours Wikipedia in all of it's searches. It automatically includes Wikipedia regardless of the topic searches. However, it has already been demonstrated that Wikipedia does not and is not the epicenter of indisputable facts, actual historic substantiated factual information..
The entire site is run by volunteers, they can decide among themselves what to expose, what to write and how to go about it. It has also been clearly demonstrated that Wikipedia is trying to rewrite history according to some ideological leanings. This ofcourse leads to bias and misinformation as the facts are twisted to suit some imaginary interpretation, rather then explaining precisely the way it actually happened or what was originally recorded. In their interpretation, they twist the facts anyway they please and allow others to do the same..
Here is one individual who has already confessed to changing the "facts" on Wikipedia using another name and introducing his own bias and interpretations..
Johann Hari has admitted to altering quotes from interviewees, in a "personal apology" posted on the Independent website.
The columnist has also confessed to editing his own Wikipedia entry -- as well as those of others with whom he had disagreements, in "ways that were juvenile or malicious". The admission follows an investigation into his conduct by ex-Independent editor Andreas Whittam Smith.So it is possible for anyone to enlist at Wikipedia as a volunteer and just change any information you "feel" is not correct. Anyone can change or alter facts to suit their own political leanings and it will be displayed as such. This is a grave matter of concern as every school in the western world uses Wikipedia for fact finding and Google encourages that by ensuring that Wikipedia is listed on every search. That action must question the integrity of Wikipedia as well as Google. Whether they are both in bed together promoting the same ideological outcomes or interested in doing the precise opposite and present the facts as they stand..
From Wikipedia..
Volunteering is generally considered an altruistic activity, intended to promote good or improve human quality of life, but people also volunteer for their own skill development, to meet others, to make contacts for possible employment, to have fun, and a variety of other reasons that could be considered self-serving. Volunteerism is the act of selflessly giving your life to something you believe free of pay. Although if a person volunteers they may not earn money, it produces a feeling of self-worth and volunteers earn respect and Favors instead of money.Even their descriptions on Volunteering leaves a lot to be desired. It is ofcourse an exaggeration that Wikipedia is serviced by honourable scholars or recognised historians as even they are corrupting the historical record..
Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism.[1] This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—is also sometimes (but not commonly) called negationism.[2][3]So as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the current representations of historical fact has, been distorted, it's revision and therefore the copious historical information out there, needs to be re-adjusted to their way of thinking. They refer to it as "Negationism" which in it self already indicates that whoever comes up with the appropriate interpretation will have that information lodged and thereby used by everyone who uses Wikipedia including school children. Their interpretation of information will be warped to such a degree that real factual evidence will only be Wikipedia's interpretation of the past, not the actual facts..
It is a complete farce as it is one that carries a distinct politically biased outcome as well as promoting a specific doctrinal point of view..
Political Influence information,History provides insight into past political trends and helps predict political implications of the present. Revisionism can be used to cultivate specific politically motivated myths – sometimes with official consent.[14] Self-taught, amateur, or dissident academic historians manipulate and/or misrepresent historical accounts to achieve deliberate political ends.No one would argue that facts can be and are distorted to suit someones political leanings but here is Wikipedia claiming to "Undistort" that information that they "feel" has been erroneously or intentionally slanted. Who would be the best judge of that I wonder. Their manipulations of the truth appears to be more of an act of political bastardy then demonstrating or claiming the higher road..
The actions of Wikipedia has distinct Orwellian overtones. George Orwell's Book "1984" demonstrates precisely how changes in historical facts can change future outcomes as well as ensuring current regimes are kept in power. Historical facts are there for us to learn from one's mistakes and to hopefully not make the same mistakes again. If history is distorted to follow some doctrine than how can anyone learn from a distorted view of history. It certainly does smack of the lessons ignored in Orwell 1984 book, as we head down the same path but only this time we can witness that happening while we sit on our hands and do nothing about it..
Here are some facts from RationalWiki concerning the distortions in Wikipedia.
.Wikia - Reality Warping which includes a list of "editors" on Wikipedia..
Even scientists are distorting their entries to their introduce their doctrinal leanings..
Conservepedia covers the distortions in Wikipedia..
The Distortions in today's Media..
On the face of it, it may well be regarded as a noble effort to introduce different aspects of history. Some facts have been distorted and no one would deny that of being the case, that is part of the record of history as well, but Wikipedia is doing precisely what they claim to have happened in the past. They claim that history was distorted and they will be the one to correct that information. But as we can see, their efforts and reasons for changing the record is not really what they are all about, not what they claim. They are in fact encouraging history to be totally rewritten in their own version and one that I am afraid will distort it even further than it may be already..
Someoen should have a good look at the entry for the Men's Movement on Wikipedia..
Plus correct the obvious female orientated MRA entry..
