Wikipedia and sock puppets /spin doctors

While most people are aware of this + to whom it's be old news - but the latest news is that Wikipedia has finally admitted to it


Though they've not yet found the courage to openly reveal /focus on the activities of pro-Israel Zionist Hasbarists role . (wink) .

------

Online reference site admits spin doctors and users with false online identities have been changing pages


" Wikipedia, the largest reference work on the Internet, has made an unprecedented admission that its site is being manipulated by paid spin doctors and "sock puppets" using false online identities to change entries.


A long statement from the Wikimedia Foundation, the charitable organisation that oversees the sixth largest site on the web, revealed that some 250 sock puppets have been "blocked or banned" after being found to have carried out "non-neutral editing" of Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia, which has grown to more than 30m articles (with more than 4m in the English language edition) since it was founded in 2001, uses a team of some 250,000 volunteer editors to protect the authenticity of its content.

But in the statement, Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, acknowledged that it had been the victim of concerted activity in falsifying pages for commercial and other motives. "It looks like a number of user accounts - perhaps as many as several hundred - may have been paid to write articles on Wikipedia promoting organizations or products," she said, "and have been violating numerous site policies and guidelines, including prohibitions against sock puppetry and undisclosed conflicts of interest".

Suspicions have long existed that some public relations companies engaged in re-writing Wikipedia entries using obscure user accounts.............

-----
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-for-biased-editing-of-our-pages-8895112.html

 

Anyone who has ever been a contributor knows there's manipulation going on there. I do know that certain leftist issues get rewritten after corrections, certain left wing people in Vancouver get "glowing reviews" but other areas, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, WW2 history seem OK.

In the end, it is a reference, and subject to many errors and omissions of any work. I consider it a starting place for the real goods as it is very good at cross referencing and provides xcellent references to go deeper.

But, remember the old adage: "Don't believe everything you read"..including that last sentence

 

I think you're the first person I've ever seen here who understands the difference between a primary and secondary source.

 

Interesting. I had not considered that, and yes, I would say that research is becoming a thing of the past.

I suspect what constitutes sourcing now is an attempt to prove or substantiate one's preconceived opinion as opposed to researching to be informed to be able to form an opinion, which we all do on occasion.

Where the internet was supposed to be the great equalizer, the purest form of democracy, we're in danger of becoming tools of Orwell's "ministry of truth" without even realizing it.

 

i bet its those danged jooooos (wink)

 

As you say, wiki was LONG ago exposed as nothing but a platform for Zionist Jews to write history in accordance with how they like it to be.

That's why I would almost never use it, and that's why they link to Wiki a lot of forums.

 

I believe Wikipedia is more accurate than most any individual posting on these forums.

 

blah blah jews blah blah zionists blah blah control blah blah exposed blah blah.

gotta luv the fact .01% of contributors are sock puppets mostly engaged in promoting products and people, and yet there are those that think zionist jews are re-writing all the articles to suit evil zionist jew intentions.

Its almost like unless an article or story is anti-zionist or anti-jew, it must be a zionist jew plot to spread their propaganda and erode the minds of white euros. Given that perspective, it seems rather redundant of them.

 

This post does not disprove that Jews infiltrated Wiki and in co-ordinated manner, with a view to writing their own narrative.

 

Naftali Bennet...

[video=youtube;hMBramnCg_s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=hMBramnCg_s[/video]



Oh look, more facts and awkward evidence, whatever can we do...

[video=youtube;Fx0aX7sAT4U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=Fx0aX7sAT4U[/video]

 

Naftali Bennett: 'I've Killed Lots Of Arabs In My Life And There's No Problem With That'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/naftali-bennett-kill-arabs_n_3670767.html

 

many soldiers have no problem with killing their enemies. or haven't you noticed?

 

This post does not disprove that Jews have hijacked Wikipedia, nor does it show a British or American politician that has admitted to murder and killing organises seminars for non Jews to infiltrate Wiki.

 

Actually most soldiers had problems with killing their enemy in direct arm to arm combat. In WWII many soldiers aimed to maim or not fire rather than kill. Only with the introduction of distance killing did it become more acceptable for the soldiers to press the button.

http://www.cynical-c.com/2007/08/08/only-15-to-20-of-combat-soldiers-in-wwii-would-fire-at-enemy/

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield

 

In a World in which we do not contemplate words carefully enough, I would like you to imagine for one moment that a serving member of Parliment or whatever your equal said this;

'I've Killed Lots Of Jews In My Life And There's No Problem With That'

Ponder it. What would the implications be to such a brazen and frankly sociopathic statement? Would it be okay? Would the person keep their position? Would the ADL, the World Jewish Congress, and a thousand other bodies be silent? Would the media say nothing?

Of course not, indeed, a scenario like the one above is simply hard to conceive of, right?

And it goes without saying that if such a man were to then go on and be quite open about organising special training centres so that others who shared his narrative could edit Wiki according to suit, that this would be exposed internationally and great pressure brought on Wiki to end it, yes?

But not Naftali Bennett.

A Jew and a full member of the Israeli Knesset, by no means a nobody there, he has a lot of support among many Jews in Israel.

He indeed said(and I quote)....


'I've Killed Lots Of Arabs In My Life And There's No Problem With That'


More...

As Middle East peace talks are set to resume after a five-year freeze, 972 Magazine reports a member of Israel's cabinet has declared his backing for simply killing Palestinian prisoners, rather than bringing them to trial.


On Sunday, Israel announced it would release 104 Palestinian prisoners, a key caveat in the John Kerry-brokered plan to renew peace talks.


But according to the 972 report, Israel's minister of Industry, Trade and Labor and Jewish Home Party leader Naftali Bennett could not have disagreed more, proposing during Sunday's cabinet meeting a swifter, but illegal way to deal with prisoners.


"If you catch terrorists, you have to simply kill them," Bennett allegedly said, according to a report in the Hebrew-language print edition of Yedioth Ahronoth.

***
Can you imagine the Minister of Trade in your country suggesting that a Jew even merely accused of a "crime" should just be executed, and bypass the trial?

What happened to Bennett? Was he hounded out of office? Did the world media put pressure on Israel to fire him? Did Abe Foxman round on him? Did AIPAC publicly denounce him? Did Rabbi's unite in condemnation?

No. They did not.

Which brings me back to Wiki(and why you should almost never used them as a source), because not only is Bennett given a free pass for what would destroy anyone not Jewish, he publicy and to the knowledge of Wiki, has been infiltrating it for a long time now.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/naftali-bennett-kill-arabs_n_3670767.html

 

More :

"Gerald Steinberg is a hasbara warrior for Israel. He’s on permanent war footing, ready to do battle with everyone: Wikipedia, the European Union (EU), the United Nations, human rights NGOs. Israel is his sacred mission, his jihad, if you will.

---
He teaches at Bar Ilan University and founded the right-wing group, NGO Monitor (NGOM). Its mission is to engage in political combat with Palestinian and Israeli human rights and peace groups.

NGO Monitor is a cousin to numerous similar groups like MEMRI, CAMERA, Honest Reporting, Shurat Ha-Din and Im Tirzu. It issues regular press releases and “studies” which invariably produce lurid charges of anti-Semitism, which turn out to be, on closer inspection, made up out of whole cloth.

In fact, at least one Palestinian NGO, Applied Research Institute Jerusalem sued NGO Monitor for lying in its characterization of its work. NGOM said it “justified violence.” A libel suit forced NGO Monitor to retract the statement.

Israeli democracy is under threat (some might argue it has already succumbed or even never existed). Israeli peace activist and human rights NGOs are the canaries in the coal mine. Their health is a prime indicator of the health of basic democratic values in Israeli society. That’s why figures like Steinberg and the toxic role they play in damaging these NGOs is a critical subject of discussion. Democracy cannot survive without a healthy level of criticism and debate over issues of war and peace, ethnic tolerance, and individual rights. Defending these organizations is defending Israel itself.

----
In 2008, the U.S. embassy invited leaders of various Israeli NGOs for a discussion of Knesset draft legislation that would have required any organization receiving funding from a foreign government (in particular, the European Union) used for a “political purpose” to register with the government. Such organizations would have lost their non-profit status rendering it impossible for many foreign governments to support them. During media appearances or any public presentations, the groups would have to acknowledge their “alien” status.

During the meeting, Steinberg, who was instrumental in producing the bill, said it was intended to mirror the U.S. Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). In other words, it would mark such NGOs as agents of a foreign power and brand them as either subversive or under the thumb of entities alien to Israel and its interests. Needless to say, Israeli groups were livid and made their unhappiness known. This is what brought the embassy meeting about.
---


NGOM also has a checkered relationship with Wikipedia. As background to this social media war, the Israeli government and NGOs like Steinberg’s told Israeli media they would launch a massive campaign to promote Israel’s interests (pro-Israel advocacy or hasbara) in the digital domain. As part of this, Steinberg took on the wide-open realm of Wikipedia. It is one of the most popular websites in the world. Tens of millions of readers get a huge amount of information from it. It is the heart of the marketplace of ideas on the internet. For Steinberg, it was a rich mother-lode to mine on Israel’s behalf.


In typical fashion, he and his staff sought to “frame” the image of those NGOs which were his betes noire by editing their Wikipedia articles, charging them with the same “crimes” alleged in NGOM’s press releases. He also targeted especially contentious articles dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He had a two-fold strategy: to expose the alleged manipulation of Wikipedia by leftists to spread a so-called hate-filled anti-Israel message; and to use the same strategy on behalf of Israel in Wikipedia. In other words, just as Steinberg assaulted Wikipedia contributors (or “editors&#8221 who represented a supposedly anti-Israel bias, NGOM itself was using the very tactics he decried in subverting Wikipedia articles devoted to Israel and related contentious issues.
Proof of this is an investigation initiated by Wikipedia, which found that NGOM’s social media specialist, Arne Draiman was systematically editing, deleting, reverting, and vandalizing articles on subjects the organization viewed as critical to promoting its views of the conflict:


Steinberg’s paper is full of sweeping, unsubstantiated statements like this one (p. 12):


As a result of framing, Wikipedia cannot be a consistently reliable source on politically contentious topics.

He argues that a phenomenon he calls “framing,” which he rather sloppily describes and falsely attributes only to left-wing editors, destroys the credibility of Wikipedia. He neglects to understand that, by its nature, Wikipedia is a contentious enterprise, especially controversial topics like Israel and Palestine. No one expects perfect balance from these articles. That’s why readers have brains and intellects which allow them to read and judge the material. Only in Steinberg’s perfect vision of a right-wing Garden of Eden, would Wikipedia be free of any “left-wing bias.”

In this passage (p. 13), Steinberg perfectly characterizes the problematic nature of NGOM’s own participation in Wikipedia, as I noted above:


We have shown that criticism elimination can have a gatekeeping effect that allows parts of Wikipedia to be dominated by those with an agenda. The presence of politically motivated framing and de facto gatekeepers runs counter to the Wikipedia model of knowledge generation. It has implications for both article quality and trust, particularly on contentious topics.

Steinberg’s recommendations to “improve” Wikipedia are equally ludicrous. He suggests that sections of articles devoted to criticizing NGOs should be closed to editing by those who are anonymous or have “limited editing history.” This violates the democratic nature of the enterprise. Besides, how do you define what is “limited?” And how do these restrictions prevent a seasoned partisan editor from doing precisely what Steinberg decries?

He further suggests that Wikipedia educate editors about the importance of including “sourced criticism” in articles. This is something it already does and there is no need to do as he suggests. This also ignores the fact that what editors object to in the NGOM originated material is that it is all built on opinion, rather than empirical proof. For example, if Gerald Steinberg is quoted in a mainstream media outlet as claiming a Palestinian NGO “justifies violence,” Steinberg would define this as legitimate “sourced” criticism. The problem is that such a statement remains an opinion unsupported by evidence since he hasn’t offered proof that the NGO does support violence. He’s merely said it does.

Full article here :

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/09/20/gerald-steinbergs-hasbara-war/


.....

 

But it also doesn't prove that they have.

In fact, there is no mention of "zionists" or "jews" taking control of wiki in the OP. You just naturally assumed "common knowledge" without substantiation.

Funny but what you claim as proof isn't at all.

Firstly, one can't "infiltrate" wiki.

Secondly, I can show you many american and british politicians that have had no problem in killing their enemies in wartime.

Thirdly, we most definitely know that there are partisan and commercial operatives in the blogosphere and other social media.

Ergo, it stands to reason that there would politicians who have killed enemies in war and that have commissioned social media operatives to both propagandize their political perspective and combat those opposed to it.

 

It also doesn't disprove that little green men from alpha centauri have taken over the british government.

The onus is not up to me to disprove your unsubstantiated accusations and blatant distortions. Its up to you to provide evidence that supports your accusations, but it has been my experience that you rarely do.

I am well aware of the efforts of the Israeli government to hire and train "champions of Israel" to operate within the social media universe. Naturally they present the pro-zionist, anti-palestinian perspective along with its appropriate propaganda.

They also provide knowledge and truth for the less informed to navigate the mountain ranges of jew hating garbage that regrettable have become part of the permanent digital landscape.

 

Jack , however much Israeli defenders would wish to deny Zionists Jews regular editing Wikipedia _

(August 20, 2010,)

"This week in Jerusalem, two Israeli groups hoping to smite their online enemies, both domestic and foreign, began a course in the “Zionist editing” of Wikipedia entries.

At the opening seminar, attended by about 80 activists, one of the organizers, Naftali Bennett, said that the aim of the course is to make sure that information in the online encyclopedia reflects the worldview of Zionist groups. For example, he said, “if someone searches [for] ‘the Gaza flotilla,’ we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature.”

Mr. Bennet is the director of the Yesha Council, which represents Israeli settlers living in the occupied West Bank. Another of the course’s organizers, Ayelet Shaked of the My Israel movement, told Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news organization based in the West Bank, that the use of the word “occupied” in Wikipedia entries discussing Palestinian territory conquered by Israel in 1967 was just the kind of problem she hoped a new team of editors could help fix.

Ms. Shaked told The Guardian that the new editors were needed for entries related to Israel since, “People in the U.S. and Europe never hear about Israel’s side, with all the correct arguments and explanations.”

One of the participants in the seminar, Miriam Schwab, said in an Arutz Sheva video report from the seminar roon, “I’ve personally tried to edit things in Wikipedia that were against Israel, small things, and my changes were erased or undone and I didn’t understand why.”

She added, “In general, it’s so important for us to be online working to defend ourselves and to prove to the world and to ourselves that we are just and we are right.”

The editors are expected to work on Wikipedia entries in both Hebrew and English since, as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz noted, “For years now, Wikipedia has been a fierce battleground between the Israeli right and left.” In a report on the editing course, the newspaper explained:


The organizers’ aim was twofold: to affect Israeli public opinion by having people who share their ideological viewpoint take part in writing and editing for the Hebrew version, and to write in English so Israel’s image can be bolstered abroad.

The Yesha Council also announced a prize for the “Best Zionist Editor” — the person who over the next four years incorporates the most “Zionist” changes in the encyclopedia. That lucky encyclopedist will receive a trip in a hot-air balloon over Israel.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/wikipedia-editing-for-zionists/?_r=0

....

 

They haven't?

Those little green men can't be counted on for anything. If you want true regime change, go with the Grey's every time.

 

Now isn't this interesting.
I decided just to examine the primary source for Bennetts comments - Ynet. since I can't read hebrew I relied on the english version of the story.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4410774,00.html

which as you can see does not contain the quotes.

I then went to Jpost, which waited until the second last paragraph to partial quote Bennett's response to the story.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Bennett-under-fire-for-comments-about-killing-Arabs-321467

then I went to your source +972
http://972mag.com/nstt_feeditem/naftali-bennett-ive-killed-lots-of-arabs-in-my-life-without-any-problem/

naturally I was intrigued that once again in camera cabinet meeting discussions were leaked, thereby raising the possibility that the leaker paraphrased the comments changing the actual meaning/intent or that the reporter paraphrased the paraphrasing.

In any event the +972 article at least had a response from bennets spokesperson:

I then attempted to find any follow up stories, but it seems that it did not resurface in a later news cycle.

Bennett is a rather unpleasant fellow, but it does not appear as tho his reported comments were not all that accurate.

 

I've only used Metapedia a few times so I can't really opine very much on it yet but it looks more objective than Wikipedia. The Metapedia page on the Apollo hoax shows a longer list of people who believe the hoax theory than the Wikipedia page.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_hoax

I've heard that a white supremist runs Metapedia but I haven't done any checking. Who can tell me about Metapedia?

 

I had a feeling those guys were just blowing sulphurous smoke. that's what I get for listening to little green men. I'll definitely go with the grey's next time.
thanks for the tip.

cheers.

 

white supremacist is code for anyone Jews don't like.

 

After repeated attempts at reaching Naftali Bennett’s spokesperson, she said that either the reporter from Yedioth Ahronoth received wrong information on exactly what Bennett said at the meeting, or he decided to interpret it this way. She insists that when Bennett referred to killing Arabs, it was in the context of “operations” ...

Ah yes.

He never said nuffing. But if he did the reporter was wrong. Or decided to lie. Just not Bennett.

Anyway, what you say above does not disprove that he and other Jews infiltrated Wiki with the intent of spreading disinformation, nor does it disprove that Wiki knew full well about it.

None of your previous posts explain to us why it may be a good thing for Wiki to be infiltrated by Jewish extremists, and why it is good that Wiki have allowed it.