View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Wikipedia's bias against paranormal and conspiracy topics

Discuss General Topics.

Wikipedia's bias against paranormal and conspiracy topics

Postby Scepcop » 05 Aug 2009, 01:29

I was wondering something.

When there are disputes in Wikipedia's entries, who decides who wins and what content will be in the entries? Are there levels of editors whereby higher editors overrule the lower editors? How does it work?

So for example, in paranormal topics on Wikipedia, what happens when skeptics and believers disagree on the content? Who decides who wins?

It would seem that the skeptics have far more control in Wikipedia, for the entries on every paranormal topic are almost always pro-skeptic and anti-paranormal. Each paranormal topic ends with the sentence "But mainstream scientists reject these claims" as though that were the last word.

What I've noticed is that Wikipedia only presents paranormal arguments that it feels that it can debunk with skeptical explanations. If the paranormal or unconventional arguments are irrefutable or undebunkable, then Wikipedia leaves it out completely. Definitely a bias and agenda there. That's the pattern I've noticed.

Same goes for conspiracy arguments. Wikipedia makes sure that the establishment and elite are protected, it seems. All Wikipedia articles are biased against conspiracies and claim that only government sources are true and credible, and that if the government denies any conspiracy, then it's unproven or untrue.

I wonder why.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Questions about Wikipedia's bias and hierarchy

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Aug 2009, 02:02

I don't know if this will answer all of your questions but it looks like a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Wikipedia's bias against paranormal and conspiracy topic

Postby Scepcop » 16 Jun 2015, 00:26

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. Here's the Wikipedia entry for "conspiracy theory":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Notice on that page, it claims that the only "proven conspiracies" are Watergate and the Iran Contra Scandal. So according to Wikipedia's standard of logic, if the government admits to a conspiracy and confesses to it, then Wikipedia considers it to be "proven". Otherwise, it is considered "unproven", no matter how much evidence or proof there is to support it. In other words, Wikipedia goes by the axiom that AUTHORITY=TRUTH, or that truth comes from authority, not from evidence or reason. See excerpts below:

Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies,[1] it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate.


A conspiracy theory that is proven to be correct, such as the notion that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[19]


Conspiracy theories are sometimes proven correct. Examples include the theory that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate,[19] and the theory that aides of President Ronald Reagan's conspired to cover up the Iran-Contra affair.[29][30]


Pretty sad isn't it? This means that even PROVEN well documented conspiracies such as the JFK Assassination -- which has been proven by all standards of reason, evidence, and logic -- are considered "unproven" as long as the US government REFUSES to admit to them. In other words, if the government denies something, then it's untrue or proven, regardless of the evidence.

So much for Wikipedia's neutrality and objectivity. Not!

How does Wikipedia get so many propagandists to edit their articles for free to support establishment views? What do they get out of it? Are Wikipedia editors paid propagandists hired by government agencies?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Wikipedia's bias against paranormal and conspiracy topic

Postby SydneyPSIder » 12 Jul 2015, 22:11

I've read something recently that suggests that Watergate was really a 'conspiracy inside a conspiracy' -- that it was falsely constructed to get rid of Nixon who wouldn't obey the deep state cabal, that the journalist Bob Woodward was a longstanding CIA plant in the media, and so on. They used it to elevate their crony Gerald Ford into the presidency without a popular election being required, who promptly made the 'unknown cleanskin' G H W Bush the head of the CIA -- where it seems likely GHWB was in the CIA since leaving Yale, and his oil company was just a front. He was also named in a couple of communications around the JFK assassination 10 years earlier -- and couldn't tell us where he was when JFK died.

Scepcop wrote:Here is an example of what I'm talking about. Here's the Wikipedia entry for "conspiracy theory":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Notice on that page, it claims that the only "proven conspiracies" are Watergate and the Iran Contra Scandal. So according to Wikipedia's standard of logic, if the government admits to a conspiracy and confesses to it, then Wikipedia considers it to be "proven". Otherwise, it is considered "unproven", no matter how much evidence or proof there is to support it. In other words, Wikipedia goes by the axiom that AUTHORITY=TRUTH, or that truth comes from authority, not from evidence or reason. See excerpts below:

Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies,[1] it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate.


A conspiracy theory that is proven to be correct, such as the notion that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[19]


Conspiracy theories are sometimes proven correct. Examples include the theory that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate,[19] and the theory that aides of President Ronald Reagan's conspired to cover up the Iran-Contra affair.[29][30]


Pretty sad isn't it? This means that even PROVEN well documented conspiracies such as the JFK Assassination -- which has been proven by all standards of reason, evidence, and logic -- are considered "unproven" as long as the US government REFUSES to admit to them. In other words, if the government denies something, then it's untrue or proven, regardless of the evidence.

So much for Wikipedia's neutrality and objectivity. Not!

How does Wikipedia get so many propagandists to edit their articles for free to support establishment views? What do they get out of it? Are Wikipedia editors paid propagandists hired by government agencies?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Wikipedia's bias against paranormal and conspiracy topic

Postby NinjaPuppy » 14 Jul 2015, 22:54

Interesting
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44


Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest