Another example of Wikipedia being a progressive propaganda site

I, too remember that some Zionist shills were discovered & permabanned from Wiki but I think that it would be naive to assume that the numerous members of Israel's widespread & heavily funded Hasbara Industry have given up editing Wikipedia altogether.

While I found a more recently dated U-tube(1), it seems to simply relate the same information as the one I cited earlier.

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the resources, sophistication & commitment of Israel's Hasbara Industry(2) to shape the Mid East narrative via Wikipedia or any other resource outlets(2).

The job of Israel's paid, trained & scripted propagandists is made significantly easier due to the existing, blatant pro Israel bias of Western MSM(3) that has successfully installed numerous simplistic falsehoods into too many gullible minds such as: "Iran is the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism." & related nonsense.

Thanks...

(1)"Zionist Editing of Wikipedia"



(2) "Israel: The state of hasbara"
https://www.dailysabah.com/op-ed/2018/05/09/israel-the-state-of-hasbara

EXCERPT "To accomplish this double mission, hasbara targets diplomats, politicians and the political and economic elite as well as the public through mass media. This is also accomplished through institutes and government agencies as well as in universities, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), research centers and lobbies. Individuals such as bloggers and journalists, who sell a beautiful image of Israel, also contribute to hasbara. Notably, Israel offers hasbara fellowships, grants, scholarships, social media internships and even salaries for students to enable them to become advocates of Israel.

Hasbara also seeks to have an impact through different digital and mobile applications, which offer supporters of Israel the tools and information needed to spread pro-Israel propaganda through their online platforms. "CONTINUED


(3) “U.S. media coverage reveals a pro-Israel bias”
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/09/01/commentary/world-commentary/u-s-media-coverage-reveals-a-pro-israel-bias/#.WMLm5mafK_U

EXCERPT “Why does TV news look like a Netanyahu ad?” asked Chris McGreal of The Guardian on July 31, in his article on the “notoriously pro-Israel mainstream media in the U.S.”

In fact, three main dailies here from mid-July to mid-August easily gave the impression that U.S. President Barack Obama, not Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was prosecuting a war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The U.S. State Department continues to list the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) as a terrorist organization.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal dispelled any doubt about which side it was on. On Aug. 2-3, its Review section gave a two-page spread — “In Defense of Zionism” — against an oversize photo of a flag-raising ceremony in Israel, in 1948.”CONTINUED

 

We can't just question their intelligence? We have to explain why, what they are saying, is less than honest, less than intelligent.

 

Full of alternate facts.

 

Wikipedia has never been more than a starting point for research anyway. While I do notice a slant to the left, it still serves that purpose just fine.

Its likely that leftists are just more prone to actually taking the time to contribute to it.

 

OOOO aren't you clever.

 

Have you noticed the poster in question going around calling out specific posters as Russians, socks and bots? Making whole threads doing that which were rightfully deleted, and yet doing the same thing here in this thread the next day? Of course you haven't, cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

It's one thing to claim that there are shills all over the net including here, that's a fact. Quite another to call out specific posters and threads as shills and bots. Surprise me and admit that you can tell the difference.

 

Perhaps a little background history will help with your confusion.

In the early days of computing, before Apple and Microsoft, those who got into personal computing, created programs and traded them with others. There arose a community of enthusiasts, which has morphed into the open source community. Its greatest achievements have been Linix and Mozilla.

This community continues to exists. It has attitudes that are not all that different from the free the land hippies.

It was in this spirit that Wikipedia was created. As much as the open source community relies on volunteers with skills and knowledge, so does Wikipedia. That it may have a liberal leaning should not be surprising. That is, those with the knowledge and the ability to create content, are overwhelmingly liberal. It is like computer people tending to be overwhelmingly liberal, as intellectuals tend to be. Same as why college professors tend to be liberal. It is just a mindset that comes from the left, not the right.

As one who has contributed to Wikipedia, I find it odd that one would complain that conservatives are locked out. It makes me wonder if conservatives are, once again, confusing their narrative with reality.

 

Not necessary, but -your- confusion, or more likely typical LW dissimulation is showing.

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that the LW progressives displaying partisanship in wiki editing today are or ever were "coders," engineers or techies of any stripe. You just made that up, and since your "argument" depends on it, the whole laughable wall falls instantly.

2. If there ever -was- a political bent in old school computer folk, you are addressing one btw, it was "libertarian," "classical liberal," "government mistrusting," etc. Not surprised in the least that you can't/don't distinguish the massive differences between those kinds of people and current groupthink, SJW, socialist, "liberal" progressives.

So go back to wherever LW revisionist pipe dreams originate and concoct something else.

 

Cognitive dissonance? Ever notice that the climate keeps getting warmer and the storms keep getting bigger?

Ever notice that when you talk to God, he never actually talks back to you?

 

Not only cognitive dissonance, but a pervasive tendency to stray from the actual topic the instant the facts don't go one's way or difficult counterargument is presented. Who do you think you are fooling?

 

While I use Wikipedia, mostly for spelling, it is like anything else on the internet. You have to do further research to know the whole truth.

An example is that for a while everyone thot Snopes was the one true source for answers. Then it too was outted as a far left leaning site.

 

It appears that we have come crashing headlong, into your belief wall.

I've been a hardware guy from way back, having designed micro-controller boards when the 6809, 8086, 6502, and Z-80 were battling it out for top processor. I've also helped design early hard drive controller boards, and have written hardware drivers, for a variety of devices.

Back in the day, there were no conservatives in the computer world. Preachers were still telling their flock that computers were the work of the devil.

Liberals are those individuals who have visions of a brighter future, aided by the wonders of technology. The development of computers and their applications is, and always has been a draw to the liberally minded. And not surprisingly, as I have repeatedly pointed out, everywhere computer technology is being developed, the surrounding area, votes blue and green, but not red.

Bill Gates leans liberal, as did Steve Jobs. The folks at Facebook and Alphabet are also known for their liberalness. There are almost no conservatives in the computer world. At least at the development level.

However, in typical Libertarian fashion, you seem to be confusing real liberals, with "the left" your ideology demands. Unfortunately for the Libertarian/conservative narrative, real liberals like me, abound. You can pretend things are otherwise, but that is not reality.

 

I see you forgot to use Wiki for spelling.

 

Did you know that anyone can edit wikipedia. If you don't think it's stating facts, edit it and list a reference.

For a site like Wikipedia if need be read the references. The references are a lot of the time more important.

 

I could care less about a singular anecdote from a leftist. You claimed, without any evidence, that early computer hobbyists and netizens were/are LW SJW type progressives, and are now trying to hide that massive fabrication behind some further bigoted, stereotypical tripe about preachers and conservative attitudes towards computing.

What a steaming pile. Here's an anecdote for you...due to a family emergency, I took three years away from my career in finance, banking and eventually law to work in my family's computer dealer (run by a fundamentalist Christian relative) in the late 80s. I ended up in the role of software guy, a licensed dealer of Aldus, Lotus, MSFT and other early office software including shareware most defunct or merged today, was competent in installing and using all those packages, which you know full well (provided the above isn't more of your frequent LARPING on this forum) required LOTS of hardware acumen also. Windows 2.0 was just emerging, and most of what I did was DOS. I also created commercial grade templates over lots of different, primitive early software, Lotus Symphony for example, before Office even existed and WordPerfect was -the- word processor. Our hardware guy was a teetotaling born again Baptist who sold, built, installed and networked a vast majority of the early computers in the area, and extremely competently at that.

So, as an atheist back then and still one now, I feel comfortable in telling you to take the above laughably false, pure fantasy, typically prog-hateful bigotry against Christians and shove it.

The early days of computing, and still today, consisted and consist of anti government, pro individual, libertarians, not the collectivist SJW progs of today who couldn't install software or even RAM if their lives depended on it. Trying to conflate the big corporate tech behemoths of today, who know full well they make loads more $$ when taxes and redistribution are high, with the old days, is a farce. Of course Gates, Jobs, Bezos, and Cuckerberg are central statists wearing SJW prog "window dressing," they know -exactly- where their mass market redistributed wealth bread is buttered, not to mention the billions of contracts they get from overlarge, overpowered governments all across the planet. Not to mention further the illicit protection from competition they BUY from government via suspension of antitrust and other laws.

In a country where 54% of the white, college-educated men voted for Trump, the above is just more manure.

Based on your posts here, you are a typical LW-statist progressive. There is nothing whatsoever liberal in the classical sense about you.

 

If you truly believe that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" and not have their accurate, rule-abiding, non-progressive edits instantly reverted by progressive shills and zealots, don't take long walks in the rain, you will drown.

 

I never said that. That is your delusion, not mine. I said that the development of the computer, hardware and software, has primarily been in the domain of liberal leaning individuals.

If you want to pretend that I somehow am part of your SJW and all the this and that complex, well that is just crazy conspiracy theory talk, not reality. When you go off on that you might as well stick your finger in your mouth and wiggle it up and down making toddler sounds.


By the way, I specifically mentioned development, a salesman isn't really a computer guy. We have designed computers and software, so that it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to set one up or use it. Have you ever tried to write a kernel?

 

...and since your own brand of liberalism is central statist/collectivist progressivism, as expressed daily on this forum, my conclusion was completely reasonable.

Yeah, the "we" isn't fooling anyone either. You offered an off-topic, irrelevant anecdote about your supposed computer skills, I answered it with my own. You also offered a perfect example of typical LW bigotry against Christians, and didn't address any of -my- substantive responses to your hilariously bent claims.

Not surprised, have read your posts.

 

The interesting thing to me is that in my (attempting to be objective) perception of Wikipedia, they skew right.

Go figure.

 

did you read the rest of my post? References are important. I love long walks in the rain.

 

Your statist/collectivist language is not the language of rational people. It is the wacko doodle language of the conspiracy world.

Of course the real reason that people get duped into the statist line, is because they have been enlisted to carry the water of those who most profit from corporatism. They have done a good job with you.

It is why you cannot accept the fact, that in certain areas, like science, tech, and entertainment, liberal minded individuals dominate. I'm sure it violates your indoctrinated belief that all liberals are ignorant and manipulated. How hard it must be for you to come face to face with the reality, that without liberals, and especially of the free thought variety, that there would be no computers, no Internet, to allow your kind to come here and pretend that you are superior to liberals.

 

P

If your "accuracy" is anything like what you post, it is little wonder that your errors would be corrected.

 

Nonresponsive. Not at all surprised.