Wikipedia Co-Founder No Longer Recommends His Online Encyclopedia
Too much bias and disinformation on the site. But who is doing this and why? (Think three letter agencies.)
Back in 2017, the Daily Beast wrote that Operation Mockingbird “has never been officially discontinued.”
Wikipedia - the internet encyclopedia constantly propped up to be the #1 source for online information and constantly shoved down our throats — provides damning evidence that the government infiltration of American news and information is alive and well.
Most Google searches rank Wikipedia at the top of the search results page. And YouTube uses it whenever they put one of those annoying “context tabs” on a video.
Yet Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information by anyone with half a brain. Most high schools and colleges do not allow students to cite Wikipedia as a source in their research.
Sadly, people with “half a brain” are a minority.
But the fact that most educational institutions are not in on the Wikipedia fraud is good. Awake parents don’t want their kids turning to such a heavily biased source full of disinformation run by a bunch of god-knows-who anonymous editors?
So why does TPTB always try to push us toward Wikipedia?
It turns out the site was infiltrated by the CIA and FBI many years ago.
That’s not a “right-wing conspiracy theory.” That’s according to Lawrence Mark Sanger, the Wikipedia co-founder.
Sanger has only recently admitted to the CIA/FBI Wikipedia infiltration during an interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald—fifteen years after this discovery was made by a programming student named Virgil Griffith, who developed a program called Wikiscanner—a publicly searchable database that linked anonymous edits on Wikipedia to organizations where those edits originated using cross-referencing edits made with associated IP addresses.
The program led to identifying a plethora of institutions involved in Wikipedia editorial contributions, including A-Jazeera, Fox News Channel, Senator Robert Byrd’s office, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the BBC, the Church of Scientology, and other large edits by Senator Conrad Burns, Apple Inc., the New York Times, Walmart, Reuters, Nestle, Coca-Cola, and the United Nations.
Wikipedia likes to portray itself as a source by the people and for the people—but it’s been just another corporately controlled media source since W. was in the White House.
Unfortunately, the Wikiscanner program didn’t last long—Griffith was a poor graduate student at the time who could not keep the program free and open to the public due to the thousands of dollars in monthly costs. He abandoned the project.
That’s too bad. Another Wikipedia co-founder named Jimmy Wales trumpeted Wikiscanner, calling it “fabulous, and I strongly support it because it brings an additional level of transparency to what’s going on at Wikipedia.”
However, the CIA and FBI made most editorial changes on Wikipedia.
The Huffington Post reported in 2008 that the CIA and FBI were found to have edited numerous articles, removing incriminating information.
The CIA, for example, used its computers to remove casualty counts from the Iraq War.
The FBI, meanwhile, removed images of Guantanamo Bay and edited articles on various subjects.
Sanger concluded that intelligence agencies either paid influential individuals to advance their agendas or developed their own personnel within the intelligence community to manipulate Wikipedia content to their advantage.
What advantages are the CIA and FBI attempting to make through Wikipedia?
Well, you know how the Deep State loves narrative controls. According to Sanger, through various alphabet agencies, Wikipedia has been and continues to be used to further the official narrative by manipulating public opinion and smearing individuals through their biopic Wikipedia pages.
Sanger’s interview with Greenwald is eye-opening:
Sanger claims the CIA and FBI have been secretly operating the site for the past 15 years.
He made the bombshell admission during an interview with Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald.
Sanger claims that Wikipedia has become a tool of “control” in the hands of the U.S. government.
He warns that the site is now heavily controlled by the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies.
“We do have evidence that … even as early as … 2008 … that CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia,” Sanger told Greenwald.
“Do you think that they stopped doing that back then?”
“Just how did we get to a point where ‘truth’ is tied to a particular ideology?” Sanger asked.
Sanger highlighted the “gradual change” he observed in Wikipedia’s content over the past several years.
He began noticing that from 2006 to 2008, articles related to controversial topics in science started to express far-left biases.
Sanger explains that scientific pages related to topics such as “global warming” and Big Pharma, shifted from science to far-left propaganda.
“Then I started noticing around 2010 to 2015 that articles on like Eastern medicine and holistic medicine … were so obviously biased,” Sanger said.
“It really got over the top … between 2013 and 2018,” he continued.
Greenwald agreed that President Trump’s rise in American politics had a huge impact on the severity of the propaganda.
They note that the “liberal establishment narrative” aimed at countering President Trump was strikingly apparent in Wikipedia’s content.
Sanger also expressed concern about the abandonment of Wikipedia’s “original neutrality policy.”
He warns that “rank and file Wikipedians” – those responsible for the bulk of editing on the site – now take cues from liberal corporate media outlets like “CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times.”
Sanger also pointed out that Wikipedia officially lists “80 percent of the major sources of news on the right to be unreliable.”
By the time of the Trump administration, Wikipedia’s bias had massively intensified, Sanger said.
Sanger claimed that “no encyclopedia to my knowledge has been as biased as Wikipedia has been.”
He believed that Wikipedia became a target for weaponization between 2005 and 2015, with “information warfare … conducted online.”
Sanger claims that sites like Wikipedia play a central role in this conflict.
Instead of using Wikipedia, Sanger recommends other online encyclopedias such as Ballotpedia and Conservapedia.
However, Sanger notes that these more trustworthy Wikipedia alternatives are hidden in the search results provided by Google.
Greenwald, a longtime Democrat who previously supported the Obama administration, revealed that he’s no stranger to the “weaponization” of “new information tools.”
Greenwald describes the hijacking of Wikipedia as “the most valuable propaganda arm of any other weapon.” (source)
The next time you use Wikipedia, remember that it is not a trustworthy or reliable source of information.
Operation Mockingbird used to be considered a conspiracy theory—until it wasn’t.
From the World Tribune:
Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program in which the agency paid or forced U.S. media organizations to do its bidding.
The operation was exposed in the 1970s, but a columnist, given the current corporate media climate, asked “is this operation still going on?”
“The program,” wrote The Daily Beast in 2017, “has never been officially discontinued.”
Washington Times columnist Cheryl K. Chumley noted on April 3: “That would explain a lot.”
Chumley continued:
“That would explain, for example, why The Washington Post just explained away its report on Trump’s call with Georgia’s election investigator — the one where the paper outright falsified statements using third-party and unnamed sources — as an ‘oops’ without accountability. Did anyone get fired?
“That would explain that whole three-plus years of media witch-hunting against Trump for Russia collusion, for Russia conflict-of-interest, for Ukraine telephone coercion — you know, the whole three-plus years that led to Robert Mueller investigations and taxpayer-funded inquiries that led, get this, nowhere.
“That would explain the media’s willingness to report on the absurdities of long-distance psychoanalysis of Trump’s behavior; of unproven, unverified, unbelievable ‘pee tape’ Christopher Steele-tied dossiers against Trump; of out-of-context and cut clips of Trump showing him as a racist and misogynist.
“That would explain the media’s cheering of President Joe Biden’s baffling buffoonish first press conference as a big ‘win,’ as Deadline wrote it, or ‘almost startling in its coherence and cogency’ — ‘an almost disorienting return to the legacy of presidential dignity and honor,’ as WBUR framed it. Did they miss the part where he trailed off muttering, or the part where he spoke of his ‘120 years’ of experience in the Senate?”
The worst Mockingbird media moments of late, Chumley added, “have been all the reports about the guaranteed safeness of the coronavirus vaccine, despite the fact the long-term safety effects of the coronavirus vaccine are impossible, at this point, to know; as well as all the dismissal of pure Covid-19 facts in favor of government messaging.”
Chumley concluded that it’s time for America to “clip the wings” of all of the “Mockingbirds” in the media and “turn off and tune out those sources of news.
Here is the recent interview Glenn Greenwald conducted with Wikipedia Co-Founder Lawrence Mark Sanger:
The Church of Scientology is an interesting censor. I don't know if Sanger is a psyop within a psyop. Just a nanosecond ago, the CIA and FBI were the opposite of far left and liberal. Without question, Wikipedia is a propaganda tool. But I wonder if it's now pushing people in another direction. The concept of Wikipedia is brilliant, and they definitely got the whole world to do the work for them. It still gives good information on non-controversial topics and even between the lines on the censored ones. Thanks for this article, Matthieu!
Unless I am looking for something trivial and fun, I scroll right past the wikipedia answer.
Someone in response to me saying that said "Well, why don't you go in and correct the mistakes made by others."
My reply was "that's exactly my point,"
The idea of open source information is great...until you realize that agendas are out there.
And who am I to declare that I am the ultimate arbiter of truth? I should start a sight called "Notsosureopedia." And be frank about what is fact, and what is speculation...and that they shouldn't take my word for it.