Wikipedia and the Abuse of Truth

[ExomatrixTV]

How Weaponized Wikipedia Is Used To Smear People!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bhGDSavk3hs

For believers proof is not necessary ... for non-believers proof is never good enough or "impossible" ... BOTH believers & non-believers suk! ... Because they want everything to be spoon-fed to them! ... It takes more effort to go beyond the conditioning (for or against).

I avoid the use of the word "believe" for a very good reason ... I rather consider ... or I know ... or I am aware ... or I have experienced ... etc. etc. ... (believe systems often begs to be corrected) ... the moment some one asks you: "Do you beLIEve?" it is a MIND TRAP to lure you in to assuming that there is "nothing" to know or to experience.

Am not seeking agreement ... nor the opposite ... as long as I stay in my own integrity and self-honesty ... we all have to deal with (partial altered) perceptions ... with many assumptions that are based upon what has been spoon-fed to all of us in a certain way ... Letting go of the "need for agreement" is very liberating and still respecting other points of view! ... Nobody has "all the right answers" and nobody has all the "wrong answers" either. There a lot people who want to control the narrative fanatically (left & right). This extreme need to force one-sided thinking is often a sign of severe insecurity.


Real Honest Conspiracy Researchers studies Proven Conspiracy Facts and sometimes have "Theories" about KNOWN liars mixed with hard evidence of corruption, colluding, deceptions etc. To label some one "Conspiracy Theorists" is to falsely assume that some one "only" cooks up "theories". This need to control the narrative by MSM is part of mass dumbing down of a nation!

Look up the word "Conspiracy" in any (LAW) Dictionary ... then ask yourself is that "science fiction"? ... When 2 or more people prepare to commit a crime or to do harm is that so "far fetched"? ... What MSM tries to do is you to be associated with certain people that are FAR from being a true researchers or being an honest conspiracy analyst. The reason MSM never can share an honest representation of that what they attack is because they assume most will not verify their own sold claims & judgemental assumptions to them! So they count on you being lazy!

cheers.
John Kuhles aka ExomatrixTV

[O Donna]

Thank you for the clarity ExomatrixTV.

I often find that important things should never be taken at face-value (the value that is projected). Questioning things, specially mass produced media leads to a realization of the deep rooted tricks the hierarchy of this world uses to keep the status quo. Those that have the most to lose, should the status quo be successfully challenged, have learned that PSYOPs controls the 'herd' better then concrete and metals bars ever could.

[Mashika]

The reason MSM never can share an honest representation of that what they attack is because they assume most will not verify their own sold claims & judgemental assumptions to them! So they count on you being lazy!

From what we know these days, they don't count on it, they mostly "make sure" we'll be

Sadly for them they kind of fell behind of times, so now people are getting smarter

A friend of my grand father said something kind of like this to me, time ago "new generations are smart and can have a way to learn a lot more than we did, but they'll have to figure out a completed messed up world at the same time. And once my generation is gone, no one but a few will be there to stop your generation from fixing things, if you want"

There will be always people who try to bend reality like that, in the TV and gov mostly, but if people are not there listening at all, who will fall for the fake truth? I know i have not watched a tv for the past 10 years or so, and my friends only use their tvs to play games, we mostly go by reading stuff on the web from people who are not on payroll by the TV companies or the gov (mostly the same group i guess )

I can see on my little sis that she already has a notion of "Everything on the tv is fake" and she was raised without a tv on our house, she learns all her stuff through other ways, so she never had a chance to get her mind setup to think what the news people on the tv say is true. Watching the way she thinks of those people is amazing, like she has a very well configured BS radar/detector builtin LMAO

An example of that is watching documentaries on tv, and i can see her sometimes looking on the web to read about stuff we watched, just to make sure it's true, and she loves to call people on their BS when she figures out they are lying, sometimes very violently sometimes very funnily, but you can bet she will do either way

I guess what i want to say is, there are still people who fall for things like "the official" truth, and this also happens with Wikipedia, if it's there it must be true, right?

But if we focus on making sure new generations are not so gullible and understand that just because it's "official" or looks like it doesn't really mean it is true, then eventually that control tool will have to go away

Some people will not change but awareness for younger people will make sure they don't fall anymore for it

[wegge]

The question is, where does official truth end?

If you look for example at spiritual systems, they also sell you their version of a truth, which is even harder to analyze.
Is it 12 astral dimensions or 33, etc...? And which kind of beings inhabit these lands? What does scripture, the specific author say?
How can you prove, disprove that for yourself?


And which also goes on to people, often of good meaning, giving you their slant of reality, of how things are.
And once we accept and swallow that, which comes in on the level of hypnotic suggestion, we fall a little bit deeper into a hypnotic trance, which basically means a world is erected for us in our minds, instead of us erecting the world by ourselves.

For example one could think of statements from parents towards their children.

[Mashika]

Posted by wegge (here)
The question is, where does official truth end?

If you look for example at spiritual systems, they also sell you their version of a truth, which is even harder to analyze.
Is it 12 astral dimensions or 33, etc...? And which kind of beings inhabit these lands? What does scripture, the specific author say?
How can you prove, disprove that for yourself?


And which also goes on to people, often of good meaning, giving you their slant of reality, of how things are.
And once we accept and swallow that, which comes in on the level of hypnotic suggestion, we fall a little bit deeper into a hypnotic trance, which basically means a world is erected for us in our minds, instead of us erecting the world by ourselves.

For example one could think of statements from parents towards their children.

But that is the thing, right?

If a new generation comes up and hasn't been preprogrammed at all, and has a complete blank slate (tabula rasa), without bias....

You see what i mean, right?

I believe it takes one intermediary generation to completely break apart the cycle. And that's us, if we make the effort

[wegge]

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by wegge (here)
The question is, where does official truth end?

If you look for example at spiritual systems, they also sell you their version of a truth, which is even harder to analyze.
Is it 12 astral dimensions or 33, etc...? And which kind of beings inhabit these lands? What does scripture, the specific author say?
How can you prove, disprove that for yourself?


And which also goes on to people, often of good meaning, giving you their slant of reality, of how things are.
And once we accept and swallow that, which comes in on the level of hypnotic suggestion, we fall a little bit deeper into a hypnotic trance, which basically means a world is erected for us in our minds, instead of us erecting the world by ourselves.

For example one could think of statements from parents towards their children.

But that is the thing, right?

If a new generation comes up and hasn't been preprogrammed at all, and has a complete blank slate (tabula rasa), without bias....

You see what i mean, right?

I believe it takes one intermediary generation to completely break apart the cycle. And that's us, if we make the effort

Yes I get it!

Another thing to consider is that technology has an programming effect, like small displays entraining your perception on smaller and smaller scales, then also the cuts of the movie, how long a scene lasts until the next one comes - shortening attention span...on and on.

[kfm27917]

Wikipedia Fraud EXPOSED: Troll farms and the CIA have hijacked the once open platform
12/9/2019 -- Somewhere, USA -- For those who value knowledge, this comes as a sad surprise. Wikipedia once was a free and open source encyclopedia, where anyone could contribute.

It was never perfect, but it was usually pretty accurate, except about controversial topics, current events, conspiracies, and some other unique topics. But starting in 2016 the quality started deteriorating rapidly across the board. We wanted to know how, so we signed up. What we learned was shocking.

We need to get into the weeds here a bit to understand how this scam operates. Wikipedia was a system setup by Jimmy Wales a long time ago, and the rules have evolved over time but still maintain the same guidelines established in the beginning. No one really owns Wikipedia which is perfect for the Elite because there's no one to point the finger at. Best part for them - all the moderators called "SysOps" are anonymous. There is a hierarchy that requires you make 500 edits before having more privileges. At any point, if a SysOp doesn't like an edit or comment you make, the threats start, you can be blocked. They can ban your IP. You can always READ but you cannot EDIT. Of course this can all be circumvented, but here's the point: They are about form not essence.

The good and honest Wikipedia editors that aren't trolls, they are sticklers for rules and are trying to build an open public document about everything which is a monumental task - FOR FREE. Everything is volunteer so no one gets any sort of 'benefit' for editing. Here are the basics of the rules (in summary):
more at

[URL="https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-12-09/wikipedia-fraud-exposed-troll-farms-and-cia-have-hijacked-once-open-platform"]

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/

[Kryztian]

How Wikipedia Covers Up for A Cult Leader

A friend of mine was talking about a past relationship with someone who was an abusive narcissist, a cult leader, and, as she eventually found out, a convicted murderer. She mentioned that he had been part of a cult. "Which One?" I asked. She replied "The one run by Prem Rawat." So I looked it up on Wikipedia and, after giving it a quick read, thought, "well, it doesn't sound that bad, and they hardly mentioned the word 'cult'" and then thought I had better dig a little deeper. Sure enough, there are many articles such as How I Reclaimed My Life after 10 Years in a Cult, The Greedy Guru, TV Investigation, Why the Prem Rawat/Maharaji cult is a cult, and Spiritual Predator: Prem Rawat AKA Maharaji .

But the most interesting one was on how Wikipedia was actively cover up the cult like behaviors of a man who had his followers to call him "Lord of the Universe", had them line up to kiss his feet, and wouldn't even give his employees who worked for him a bed to sleep in. The article Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe' describes how a high level administrator kept the word "cult" out of the article on Prem Rawat for many years.

One of the site’s leading administrators ... , Jossi Fresco, is a longtime student of Prem Rawat - formerly Guru Maharaj Ji - the India-born spiritual leader who styled himself as the "Perfect Master" and fostered a worldwide religious movement encouraging followers to call him "Lord of the Universe." ... Fresco maintains strict control over Wikipedia’s Prem Rawat article and countless related articles, keeping criticism of his guru to a bare minimum.

The article is now 13 years old, it seems Mr. Fresco's account has been closed and he has been using sock puppet accounts. The word "cult" does technically appear in the article, but in sentences like this:

During the 70s and 80s, the movement attracted substantial adverse publicity when it was thought to be a cult.

In other words, the idea that Rawat is a cult leader was just an unfortunate idea of the past. Well, that is not the common media perception of Rawat and this is just another example of how Wikipedia is doing "public relations" (the polite word for "propaganda') for toxic organizations.

Even though Mr. Fresco may no longer be employed by Wikipedia, I have no doubt that cult members using sockpuppet accounts are still patrolling the article and editing out and revising and softening any information that would warn people how toxic and fraudulent Prem Rawat is.

[Kryztian]

[Bill Ryan]

https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/52477

[Bruce G Charlton]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/52477

An alternative that I often use is Infogalactic.com - which was created by Vox Day.

I often use it - although it is blocked from most of the major search engines - so one needs to type-in the URL.

Infogalactic seems to have been made by using much of the Wikipedia material, but stripping out some/ most of the extreme woke inversions and lies.

[Icare]

In my experience wikipedia is used by young people not only as their main source of information on anything, beginning with the definition of a certain term, but actually the only one.

This makes it a great tool for TPTB to influence future generations in any way they like which makes it a dangerous tool. Orwellian Newspeak comes to mind.

We need to hold on to our physical encyclopaedia, otherwise they can twist anything they want at the stroke of a keyboard.

[Bill Ryan]

Reported on Russia Today:

https://rt.com/news/580735-cia-fbi-edits-wikipedia

~~~

Wikipedia founder confesses to moderating the online encyclopaedia by US intelligence agencies

Intelligence agencies have been manipulating the online encyclopedia for more than a decade, Larry Sanger has claimed

Wikipedia is one of many tools used by the US liberal establishment and its allies in the intelligence community to wage “information warfare,” the site’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, has told journalist Glenn Greenwald.

Speaking on Greenwald’s ‘System Update’ podcast, Sanger lamented how the site he helped found in 2001 has become an instrument of “control” in the hands of the left-liberal establishment, among which he counts the CIA, FBI, and other US intelligence agencies.

“We do have evidence that, as early as 2008, that CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia,” he said. “Do you think that they stopped doing that back then?”

Activity by the CIA and FBI on Wikipedia was first made public by a programming student named Virgil Griffith in 2007. Griffith developed a program called WikiScanner that could trace the location of computers used to edit Wikipedia articles, and found that the CIA, FBI, and a host of large corporations and government agencies were scrubbing the online encyclopedia of incriminating information.

CIA computers were used to remove casualty counts from the Iraq War, while an FBI machine was used to remove aerial and satellite images of the US prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. CIA computers were used to edit hundreds of articles, including entries on then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, China’s nuclear program, and the Argentine navy.

Some edits were more petty, with former CIA chief William Colby apparently editing his own entry to expand his list of accomplishments.

“[The intelligence agencies] pay off the most influential people to push their agendas, which they’re already mostly in line with, or they just develop their own talent within the [intelligence] community, learn the Wikipedia game, and then push what they want to say with their own people,” Sanger told Greenwald.

“A great part of intelligence and information warfare is conducted online,” he continued, “on websites like Wikipedia.”

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Reported on Russia Today:

https://rt.com/news/580735-cia-fbi-edits-wikipedia

~~~

Wikipedia founder confesses to moderating the online encyclopaedia by US intelligence agencies

And now on Zero Hedge. Here's the whole article:

https://zerohedge.com/political/wikipedia-co-founder-describes-us-intelligence-manipulation-worlds-largest-online

US Intelligence Has Been Manipulating Wikipedia For Over A Decade: Wiki Co-Founder

The co-founder of Wikipedia has revealed a bombshell concerning long-running suspicions of US intelligence interference and manipulation on the world's most well-known collaborative online encyclopedia. The site's co-creator Larry Sanger spoke to journalist Glenn Greenwald on his "System Update" podcast, and outlined the known "information warfare" efforts of US intelligence, which have to some extend make Wikipedia a tool of "control" by the left-liberal Washington deep state.

Some observers who have long watched and carefully documented US government involvement in major social media platforms as well as Wikipedia itself have commented, "the CIA Is running Wikipedia, Wow, what a shocker. Sanger asserted during Greenwald's show, "We do have evidence that, as early as 2008, that CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia," before posing: "Do you think that they stopped doing that back then?"

Sanger explained that the intelligence agencies "pay off the most influential people to push their agendas, which they’re already mostly in line with, or they just develop their own talent within the community, learn the Wikipedia game, and then push what they want to say with their own people."

"A great part of intelligence and information warfare is conducted online," he added, and then specified: "on websites like Wikipedia." For that reason along with others explored in the interview, Sanger calls it "the most biased encyclopedia" in history.

He described that US intelligence manipulation of the immensely large platform and repository of information had been going on for more than a decade (Wikipedia was founded and appeared online in 2001).

In particular, Greenwald brought up Wikipedia's entry for the topic Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, and pointed out that "there is a mountain of evidence showing that Hunter Biden was paid $80,000 a month by Burisma executives." It is an established fact that Burisma executives were "getting a lot in value in the way of access to Joe Biden, the most important US official on Ukraine," Greenwald said. "And yet, according to the Wikipedia article, this evidence doesn’t exist, it’s just a complete conspiracy theory."

"Remember, this is supposed to be an ideology-free, neutral encyclopedia”, Greenwald then quipped sarcastically.

Watch the full interview with the Wikipedia co-founder:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YR6dO8U8okk

Below is a section of the Sanger interview transcript wherein Greenwald lambasts Wikipedia's treatment of the whole Biden-Ukraine scandal:

"The very first sentence reads ‘The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was Vice President of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma."

"As part of efforts by Donald Trump and his campaign in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump’s first impeachment, these falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage Joe Biden’s reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign," the Wikipedia entry still reads.

"So notice: The Biden-Ukraine scandal is – according to Wikipedia – the ‘Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory’ but the Trump controversy involving Ukraine is ‘the Trump–Ukraine scandal’. Everything is written to comport with the liberal world view and the Democratic Party talking points."

The two also agreed that Covid entries were heavily subject to propaganda and skewed information:

"Let me tell you a fact," Greenwald said. "The view of the leading scientists in the US Department of Energy as well as the FBI is that the most likely explanation for how the Covid pandemic emerged is through the research that was being funded by the United States and conducted in the Wuhan lab. You would have no idea that was true – on one of the most important questions of the last decade: Where the Covid pandemic came from."

"Every word (on Wikipedia) is designed to suggest that only right-wing conspiracy theorists would invest any plausibility in the theory that the virus came from a (lab) leak and not from a naturally occurring event, even though the top virologists in the world wrote to Dr. Fauci at the start of the pandemic and were adamant that the evidence was consistent with manipulation in a lab."

"If you asked Joy Reid to comment on the Covid pandemic, that’s exactly what she would tell you. And that’s true of almost every entry. It shocked me when I started looking at (Wikipedia) over the last six months, how blatant it has become."

https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/...30794445750272

Sanger explained that prior to a decade ago, Wikipedia "used to be kind of anti-establishment" but then it seemed to be hijacked. "Between 2005 and 2012 or so, there was this very definite shift to Wikipedia becoming an establishment mouthpiece. It was amazing. I never would’ve guessed that in 2001," the site's co-founder concluded.

[shaberon]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I never would’ve guessed that in 2001," the site's co-founder concluded.

I would have guessed that.

I mean just look at their page on New World Encyclopedia.

Actually don't. There is nothing on it!

It is a re-written copy which, according to feedback:

It's a wiki with generally somewhat okay information on non-scientific and philosophical matters, but with a strong pro-creationist, anti-atheist (to the point of bigotry) stance.


Oh.

Merely the opposite bias.

Wiki is still pretty good for general information. There is *nothing* big that can be trusted for religious or political issues.

There never has been that I am aware of.

Nothing.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Jimmy Dore’s Wikipedia Page Edited By CIA/FBI/MOSSAD?/Big Corporations:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dblXf0RGuMc

In 2007 a hacker and tech whiz named Virgil Griffith revealed that the CIA, FBI and a host of large corporations and government agencies were editing pages on Wikipedia to their own benefit (or the benefit of associates). Now Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is reporting that the intelligence agencies are still at it, routinely editing pages relating to the Iraq War body count, treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and China’s nuclear program.

Jimmy and The Convo Couch host Craig Jardula discuss this modern-day version of information warfare taking place on the pages of Wikipedia.

[Bill Ryan]

Bumping this thread with a new post from Ravenlocke on the Israel vs Palestine thread:

~~~

https://x.com/AJEnglish/status/1801641999596143070

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/...seirat-assault

Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel’s deadly Nuseirat assault

Rescue operation or massacre? Wikipedia editors clash over the recent Israeli raid in the central Gaza refugee camp.

A fierce “edit war” has broken out on Wikipedia over a page dedicated to a deadly Israeli raid in the Nuseirat refugee camp near Deir el-Balah in central Gaza on the morning of June 8.

The bloody attack – ostensibly to free four Israeli captives held there – killed nearly 300 displaced people and injured more than 700, overwhelming the nearby Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital.

Now, the Israeli raid has become the focus of a heated editing dispute on Wikipedia, which has been forced to restrict editing access to the page dedicated to the incident.

This is what we know about the creation of the Wikipedia page and the spiralling online war it has triggered:

Who created the Wikipedia page about Nuseirat and why?

The Israeli raid on Nuseirat grabbed global headlines due to the freeing of the four Israeli captives – Noa Argamani, 25; Almog Meir Jan, 21; Andrey Kozlov, 27; and Shlomi Ziv, 40 – who had been taken by Hamas from a music festival during the October 7 attacks on southern Israel. To explain what happened during the raid and rescue, a Wikipedia editor known only by the username “Galamore” created an article dedicated to the incident.

Wikipedia allows editors to remain anonymous with their names and countries of origin hidden. However, it does not guarantee that an editor’s identity cannot be discovered by means outside its control.

Molly White, an American software engineer and technology researcher, who has been a Wikipedia editor for the past 18 years, editing mostly political pages, told Al Jazeera: “Some argue that anonymity actually helps because, based on a person’s personal identity, you’re not assuming things about them that might be accurate or not. However, she added: “I think it can be challenging if you don’t know much about a person to evaluate biases that they might have, where they’re coming from, their level of expertise”.

After its creation, the article on the Nuseirat raid was edited 627 times by 103 users in just one week. This is an unusually high number of changes made to a single article on Wikipedia. By comparison, the Wikipedia page about the October 7 Hamas attacks has been edited 1,705 times by 368 people over the course of eight months.

As is common practice when an “edit war” breaks out, Wikipedia administrators quickly locked the page, allowing access to only a few select editors. For anyone else trying to access the page to make changes to it, a notice appears stating “only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it”.

A registered editor becomes an “extended confirmed user” once their account has existed for 30 days and once they have made at least 500 edits.

The article’s creator, Galamore, has been registered as a Wikipedia editor since December 25, 2023, and has made 1,186 edits on different Wikipedia articles, largely those with profiles of Israeli personalities, including the footballer Yehezkel Chazom, the board game designer Ephraim Hertzano and chess master Moshe Aba Blass. According to Wikipedia, making more than 1,000 edits puts an editor in the top 0.1 percent of Wikipedia editors in terms of number of edits.

What is an ‘edit war’?

An edit war happens when two or more editors persistently change each other’s contributions to an article, causing a repetitive cycle of reversions. This is also known as “vandalism” by users of Wikipedia and includes the “deliberately disruptive or malicious editing” of any page. This might include deleting content or changing it so it becomes intentionally biased, libellous, offensive or degrading.

Edit wars are not uncommon on Wikipedia pages. White said: “This actually happens all the time. It’s particularly common with things that happened recently like breaking news topics.”

White said an edit war had broken out on a page she was involved in editing about the January 6 Capital riots in Washington, DC in 2020. “There was a huge, months-long argument over what that article should be titled, whether it should be the January 6 ‘insurrection’ or ‘riots’ or ‘attack’ on the Capitol.”

According to Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, pages should be written from a neutral point of view “without editorial bias”. It operates a set of monitoring tools that can alert it if an edit war appears to have broken out.

Wikipedia users can also add a “dispute tag” to a page, indicating that the neutrality of an article has been called into question. This may trigger a wider discussion among Wikipedia’s staff on how to resolve the contentious topic and placing the page in “protection mode” – restricting editing access to certain editors only – until the issue has been resolved.

How did the row over the Wikipedia article on Nuseirat unfold?

These are some of the key changes that were made to the article in its first 50 hours. All times are GMT:

• June 8, 11:17: The Wikipedia page titled “Nuseirat operation” is launched by Galamore. The article names the retrieved captives and mentions that Gaza’s Ministry of Health has reported “dozens of people were killed”.
• June 8, 12:00: Galamore renames the page “2024 Nuseirat rescue operation” and adds: “Following dozens of deaths and injuries among Hamas, the operation was called by Hamas the ‘Nuseirat Massacre’.”
• June 8, 14:22: An unknown user identified only by an IP address changes this line to “the operation was dubbed the ‘Nuseirat Massacre’”. This user also adds “biased language” as a comment explaining why the edit was made.
• June 8, 15:40: User “JDiala” changes the article to state that the death toll has reached at least 210 Palestinians and cites “Palestinian health officials” as a source. JDiala registered as an editor on Wikipedia on July 29, 2013, and has made 1,957 edits since. The user’s profile has a Palestinian flag and a quote from Amira Hass, a columnist for the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
• June 8, 16:51: A user called “Favonian” adds “protection” to the page to limit edits, citing “contentious topic” as a reason, effectively locking the page.
• June 8, 17:05: User “Dynamo128” posts on a discussion page linked to the article, writing “to the people who keep deleting my edits, … better to calm down for now.”
• June 8, 18:54: A second Wikipedia page chronicling the Nuseirat raid is launched by user “Dylanvt”, named “Nuseirat refugee camp massacre” and addresses the Palestinian casualty statistic in the first sentence. This page has garnered 37,029 views, nearly half as many as the first page, which has 78,862.
• June 9, 02:43: A user named Daniel Case adds “protection” to the second Nuseirat page, also limiting who can edit it.
• June 9, 04:48: A now-defunct account owned by a user named “Owenglyndur” adds: “Following the operation, Hamas threatened the remaining hostages,” citing The Times of Israel.
• June 10, 14:16: Dylanvt, the creator of the “Nuseirat refugee camp massacre” page, posts on the discussion page for “2024 Nuseirat rescue operation” that the mention of massive civilian casualties has been removed “from the lead twice. Why? Are the removers disputing this fact?” adding that the Israeli army “is claiming 100-ish casualties per sources. Is that not enough to be ‘massive’?”
• June 10, 21:24: “Is there any evidence that the [Israeli military] were responsible for civilian casualties? This was in Hamas-controlled territory,” user “KronosAlight” wrote as part of the response to Dylanvt’s discussion.
• The article sparked anger among many X users who were particularly upset that upon searching for the keywords “Nuseirat massacre” on Google, only the Wikipedia article that includes the words “rescue operation” in its title showed up on the top results page.

But when these users tried to edit the article themselves, they said they were unable to because Wikipedia had restricted editing access to the page. This sparked more anger.

Why did Wikipedia freeze the Nuseirat page?

While most Wikipedia pages are open to any registered user to edit, an exception is made for certain articles that are locked or “protected” to prevent “disruptive editing on controversial pages”, the Wikipedia homepage explains. When pages are locked, the new settings limit and slow down the number of edits made to the pages.

There are various levels of locking. Both the Nuseirat pages have been “fully locked”, which means only Wikipedia extended confirmed users and administrators may access it.

Editors trying to access either page are currently being redirected to the discussion page.

Have edit wars broken out on Wikipedia before?

High-profile politicians connected to legal scandals or other controversies are popular targets for content “vandalism” on Wikipedia. In 2018, for example, the Wikipedia page of Pakistani politician Maryam Nawaz was locked or “protected” after several vandalism attempts. Nawaz is currently serving as the chief minister of Punjab. She is also the daughter of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. She was handed a seven-year jail sentence in a corruption case but then acquitted by an Islamabad court in September 2022.

Former United States President George W Bush has one of the most edited Wikipedia pages with 48,105 edits. He ordered the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and many critics disputed his administration’s claimed evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The issue was a topic of contention for many Wikipedia editors.

The COVID-19 pandemic Wikipedia page became a hotbed for tens of thousands of edits with some entries covering conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus. The speculation around the virus being born from bats or a lab leak from Wuhan, China, became infectious themselves. Wikipedia was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

[ExomatrixTV]

• source

• rumble.com/search/all?q=Wikipedia Larry Sanger