Ninguém deveria confiar na Wikipédia, diz criador da plataforma https://www.tecmundo.com.br/amp/internet/221317-ninguem-deveria-confiar-wikipedia-diz-criador-plataforma.htm
Sanger, que quando deixou a Wikipédia a acusava de “pouco confiável”, agora também a considera parcial como fonte de informação. Para ele, voluntários “de esquerda” trabalham constantemente para eliminar qualquer notícia que não se encaixe em sua agenda, considerando-as fake news.
George Soros, founder of Open Society Foundations, invests in the future of free and open knowledge https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2018/10/15/george-soros-invests-future-free-open-knowledge/
George Soros financiando a Wikipédia.
Outras fundações também dão dinheiro para manipular a Wikipédia. https://wikimediaendowment.org
Principais doadores da Wikimedia:
Amazon
Google.org
Musk Foundation
George Soros
Facebook
The Rothschild Foundation
Os Rockefeller também doaram 1 milhão de dólares para a Wiki
Wikimedia Foundation (2022) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/grant/wikimedia-foundation-2022/
New York Post: Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’ https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/amp/
(Com participação de Larry Sanger) Tucker Carlson: This is a problem for all of us https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TpZahO5ghrk&feature=emb_title
Inside Wikipedia's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashedThe online encyclopedia, which claims "anyone can edit", is the 13th most popular website in the world, according to Alexa's web rankings. Google gives it special placement in search results.
But critics – including Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger – tell Fox News that many Wikipedia pages have become merely left-wing advocacy essays.
[...]
Weiss mentioned one Wikipedia "administrator" as an example. Administrators are a select group of people who make final calls about what goes on pages. One has a photo of Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin on their profile paired with a Lenin quote about how even "The most democratic bourgeois republics" are "organs of class oppression."
Weiss is in the top 100 Wikipedia editors by contributions, having made more than 415,142 edits on the site since 2006, mostly on sports-related pages.
Where Fake News Is Born: How Wikipedia Spreads Hoaxes https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/08/05/where-fake-news-is-born-how-wikipedia-spreads-hoaxes/
As Big Tech suppresses conservative views in the name of fighting “fake news,” tech titans like Google and Facebook turn to Wikipedia to provide another “fix” to the problem. Despite messaging from Wikipedia’s owners encouraging this trend, over the years, Wikipedia and its sister sites have pushed hoaxes and false information into the media and academia.
[...]
However, various incidents in Wikipedia’s history show that its open-editing model not only has an abysmal track record for preventing long-running falsehoods, but also that it has been a source of fake news itself.
[...]
The coati is a Brazilian relative of the raccoon and, at one time according to Wikipedia, called the “Brazilian Aardvark” by some people. In 2008 “some people” referred to a New York teenager who added this alternate name to Wikipedia after mistaking the animal for an aardvark on a trip to Brazil. A New Yorker exposé revealed the hoax and the claim was removed. Before the removal, the bogus claim had appeared in numerous British news outlets (one being cited on Wikipedia in support of the alternate name), Swedish news , a book published by the University of Chicago, and a Scientific American blog .
Despite the New Yorkerexposing the fake information and subsequent reporting of the hoax, the “Brazilian Aardvark” name persisted. It still appeared in local British press reports as well as the Guardian, the third most-cited news source on Wikipedia. Most notably, the alternate name is provided in a 2017 academic study published by Brazilian scientific journal Iheringiain its zoological series. This was not the only time a Wikipedia hoax survived beyond its exposure and removal from the site.
[...]
In the article for diabetic neuropathy, an edit in 2007 added a fictitious condition called “Glucojasinogen” to the page. The bogus condition subsequently appeared in medical journals from Nigeria, India, and Iran. Following its removal, it appeared in another Indian medical journal, though none of these sources were cited to support the claim as it remained unsourced when it was removed.
[...]
Things Rush Limbaugh Never Said
Hoaxes have also been spread by Wikipedia’s sister site WikiQuote, which contained fake quotes attributed to conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh. Added back in 2005, the quotes included one praising Martin Luther King Junior’s assassin and another arguing slavery had merits. The quotes endured several months until an editor removed them, noting another quote was adapted from an Adolf Hitler quote. However, the quotes ended up in a blog post and two later ended up in a 2006 book by Jack Huberman. The bogus quotes were restored in 2008 citing the Huberman book and became the subject of repeated edit wars.
When Limbaugh became part of a bid to acquire the St. Louis Rams NFL team, the quotes surfaced in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch before continuing on to Detroit Free Press, the Washington Post, CNN , MSNBC, and many others. After Limbaugh denied and refuted the attribution, these outlets were forced to retract with several defending themselves by essentially saying, “everyone else was doing it.” Limbaugh was subsequently removed from the Rams bid. The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto stated in response to the controversy “journalists . . . have not only done him wrong but have fallen short of the most basic professional standard.” Edit wars on WikiQuote resumed in light of the controversy and the fraudulent quotes were finally removed. The responsible party later joked about it on Wikipedia.
[...]
The Fake News Site Anyone Can Edit
Varying from the silly to the defamatory, Wikipedia’s reputation for hoaxes and false claims has haunted it since 2005 when journalist John Seigenthaler was falsely accused of being a suspect in the Kennedy assassinations. Hoaxes on the site have been able to last nearly a decade or more at times before being detected, lead to an entire set of hoax articles, get high honors after community review, and even end up as the basis for prizes in crowd-funded board games. Sites associated with Wikipedia, such as Wikidata, have had similar problems, such as when Wikidata vandals had First Lady Melania Trump labeled a “sex worker” on the site for a week. Citogenesis, where these hoaxes generate “reliable sources” to then cite on Wikipedia, remains a bigger threat to the reliability of information online than any Macedonian troll farm.
How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-a-raccoon-became-an-aardvark
In July of 2008, Dylan Breves, then a seventeen-year-old student from New York City, made a mundane edit to a Wikipedia entry on the coati. The coati, a member of the raccoon family, is “also known as … a Brazilian aardvark,” Breves wrote. He did not cite a source for this nickname, and with good reason: he had invented it. He and his brother had spotted several coatis while on a trip to the Iguaçu Falls, in Brazil, where they had mistaken them for actual aardvarks.
“I don’t necessarily like being wrong about things,” Breves told me. “So, sort of as a joke, I slipped in the ‘also known as the Brazilian aardvark’ and then forgot about it for awhile.”
Adding a private gag to a public Wikipedia page is the kind of minor vandalism that regularly takes place on the crowdsourced Web site. When Breves made the change, he assumed that someone would catch the lack of citation and flag his edit for removal.
Over time, though, something strange happened: the nickname caught on. About a year later, Breves searched online for the phrase “Brazilian aardvark.” Not only was his edit still on Wikipedia, but his search brought up hundreds of other Web sites about coatis.
Wikipedia: Fake News & Propaganda – A Tool of the Deep State? https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/wikipedia-fake-news-propaganda-a-tool-of-the-deep-state/
Wikipedia is a professional propaganda organization that allows fakes news and outright illegal propaganda to dominate the internet. Most schools no longer accept Wikipedia as a valid source for citation in universities.
[...]
They claim that all editors are anonymous, so you have to go to court to fight to try to find out who is posting. Even their moderators they call “SysOps” are anonymous, which breeds secrecy and encourages fraud.
[...]
There are absolutely NO qualifications required. Absolutely anyone can apply to be an editor. They do not even verify their identities.
Resposta à Wikipedia e suas ‘fontes confiáveis https://youtu.be/ByySAffT_RI
Wikipedia não tem legitimidade para dizer quem é ou não uma fonte confiável https://parlamentopb.com.br/wikipedia-nao-tem-legitimidade-para-dizer-quem-e-ou-nao-uma-fonte-confiavel/
“Mais uma das tentativas de instrumentalização da informação, que têm se sucedido nesse tempo distópico de ‘pós-verdade’”.
Em ano eleitoral, Wikipédia vira 'campo de guerra' para edições de biografias de políticos https://oglobo.globo.com/politica/em-ano-eleitoral-wikipedia-vira-campo-de-guerra-para-edicoes-de-biografias-de-politicos-25440226?versao=amp
Após a eleição de Bolsonaro, seu artigo chegou a ficar no ar com frases com descrições como “Presidente eleito do pobre Brasil” e “sinal sombrio de retorno aos anos 1930 Hitler” — ambas removidas rapidamente pelos editores.
[...]
A deputada Carla Zambelli, por exemplo, admite que sua equipe já tentou mudar “umas 40 vezes” seu perfil na página. Porém, após análise dos editores, suas alterações são sempre rejeitadas. Ela afirma não enxergar problemas que o artigo sobre ela contenha críticas. Porém, acredita que a plataforma é ideologicamente desfavorável para conservadores e diz que está preparando uma ação para mudar o texto de sua biografia.
[...]
No ano passado, a biografia do ministro da Infraestrutura, Tarcísio de Freitas, ganhou um parágrafo dizendo que ele participou de uma “macabra motociata promovida pelo presidente da República para comemorar os 500 mil mortos vítimas da Covid, ajudando a causar aglomeração”.
Censura: Wikipédia classifica Oeste como fonte ‘não confiável’ https://revistaoeste.com/brasil/censura-wikipedia-classifica-oeste-como-fonte-nao-confiavel/
Fact check: As Wikipedia turns 20, how credible is it? https://amp.dw.com/en/fact-check-as-wikipedia-turns-20-how-credible-is-it/a-56228222
Politicians manipulating Wikipedia?
Several cases of politicians editing the entries about them have been reported. In Germany, the energy lobby has been accused of tweaking Wikipedia entries in order to "greenwash." Celebrities such as the US actor Lindsay Lohan have been declared dead.
A Wikipédia virou um site de ativismo esquerdista e um instrumento de grandes corporações. Ao passo que virou uma ferramenta de ataque a grupos e pessoas de direita (cristãos e pessoas anti-establishment também são atacados), a Wikipédia passou a proteger figuras, grupos e ideologias de esquerda, blindando e escondendo escândalos das biografias dos “grandiosos” esquerdistas. É uma máquina de assassinato de reputação, se forem checar os artigos sobre figuras mais “direitistas” como Danilo Gentili, Jordan Peterson, Jair Bolsonaro ou Ben Shapiro (a versão inglesa de alguns é pior), a Wiki sempre promove uma abordagem depreciativa e tenta passar a pior imagem possível dos caras, tentando desidratar essas figuras ao máximo.
Fora que qualquer pessoa pode editar os artigos da Wikipédia e criar suas próprios narrativas travestidas de abordagens isentas e formais, fingindo não ter viés algum.
Outros sites têm bem mais honestidade em seus artigos do que a porcaria da Wikipédia (e também é por isso que eles tem menos artigos, já que os textos são feitos com mais cuidado), não é à toa que até o Larry Sanger (co-fundador da Wikipédia) passou a criticar essa postura do site que formou.
Palavras do próprio Larry Sanger:
Wikipedia Is Badly Biased https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given.
Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. Beyond that, a neutral article must fairly represent competing views on the figure by the major parties.
[...]
Wikipedia can be counted on to cover not just political figures, but political issues as well from a liberal-left point of view. No conservative would write, in an abortion article, “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine,” a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices. More to the point, abortion opponents consider the fetus to be a human being with rights; their view, that it is not safe for the baby, is utterly ignored. To pick another, random issue, drug legalization, dubbed drug liberalization by Wikipedia, has only a little information about any potential hazards of drug legalization policies; it mostly serves as a brief for legalization, followed by a catalog of drug policies worldwide. Or to take an up-to-the-minute issue, the LGBT adoption article includes several talking points in favor of LGBT adoption rights, but omits any arguments against. On all such issues, the point is that true neutrality, to be carefully distinguished from objectivity, requires that the article be written in a way that makes it impossible to determine the editors’ position on the important controversies the article touches on.
Of course, similarly tendentious claims can be found in other articles on religious topics, as when the Christ (title) article claims,
[...]
This article weirdly claims, or implies, a thing that no serious Biblical scholar of any sort would claim, viz., that Jesus was not given the title “Christ” by the original Apostles in the New Testament.
[...]
Clearly, Wikipedia’s claims are tendentious if not false, and represent a point of view that many if not most Christians would rightly dispute.
It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. This point is perfectly obvious to anyone who actually follows any lively scientific debate at all closely. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when certain people seem unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted as the Establishment one, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.
The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective.” In all these cases, genuine neutrality requires a different sort of treatment.
[...]
It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.6 It might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.
Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.
The world would be better served by an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network, such as I proposed with the Encyclosphere. We will certainly develop such a network, but if it is to remain fully independent of all governmental and big corporate interests, funds are naturally scarce and it will take time.
Encyclosphere https://encyclosphere.org/projects
EncycloReader https://encycloreader.org