WIKIpeeDIA

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

WIKIpeeDIA

Unread post by sharpstuff »

Wikipeedia

Wikipeedia is a pro-zionist, americo/judeophilic or judeophilic/americo conglomeration of works (with occasional literary merit and possible accuracy) controlled by unknown ‘writers’ and ‘editors’ of doubtful and unknown provenance or repute who work within their agenda of trying to disseminate what they consider are truths according to their agenda but in reality are propagating their own views about the World which they have created and most of which they aim to destroy for their own nefarious ends. (Good luck in the bunkers!)

It was allegedly started by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger* [citation required] as an attempt to reclassify/distort/fake/define/redefine ‘historic’ events, whether real or imaginary to suit their purposes of mis/disinformation (etc.) according to their agenda. It has become a bastardisation of Richard Stallman's notion of a free (but editable) version of an encyclopaedia.

*Difficult to get the correct Judaeo aspect but both suspect of at least having Jewish interests at heart (in the negative context) and may well be the victims of a certain disrespect for their genital organs by others.


As with all lies, scams, hoaxes, out-right fakery and such-like negative propaganda (etc.), it serves to keep their lies/myths/hoaxes perpetually active from any possible real truths (decided from first-hand observation/experiment/results and the limits of human sensual proclivities) from the general public which it strives (and derives geld) to convince whatever it is in their (the public's) interest.

Thus, these entities are interested only in propagating the myths and legends which have afflicted mankind from ancient times and contribute to Man’s ultimate non-survival, by attempting to be controllers.

However, given the ‘general’ public’s apparent support of Main Sewer News (M.S.M.), however presented, their deliberations are rife in a World created by psychopaths (rather than osteopaths or such-like) and the ignorati (data less) apparently have no means whereby they can counter the offensive (to use military terms) to help them survive by whatever means necessary and at a level in which they can survive and perhaps, may enjoy their lives from others’ expensive (monetary or otherwise) peregrinations towards that survival.

On controversial subjects, Wikipeedia is not to be treated except with contempt in this respect.

Any subject of a ‘controversial’ nature is always contested through vilification of observable, credible and forensically viable evidence from even the most decrepit of thinkers.

One reserves the correctness that ‘humans’ are also animals, albeit on two legs and not four (or more). Maybe Triffids are animals?

Thus references to animals as humans (or humans as animals) in any negative is unjustifiable.

For example, ‘people’ (referring to ‘humans’) is not equatable to ‘sheep’ or other animals for any reason. (The notion of human creatures as ‘sheep’ or other creatures is inexcusable).

************************************************************************

According to http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/wiki, the term ‘Wiki’ comes from:
“1990s: from WikiWikiWeb the name of the first website of this kind, from Hawaiian… wiki wiki 'very quick' “.

Aside: We might conclude that the notion of ‘web’ relates to a spider’s web. The spider’s web is created to trap its prey, yes?

The so-called World Wide Web, could therefore relate to the ‘very quick entrapment’ of the human population, which is not unlike what seems to have happened, especially in/on (?) sites like Faceless book and so forth (or even fifth).

From this definition and the apparent agenda of Wikipeedia, it is obvious that the ‘very quick’ refers to the editing of content that it does not deem suitable/appropriate to pursue its agenda of mis/dis information/propaganda unless that mis/dis information/propaganda cannot be refuted by rational ‘humans’ because it can...

Wiki-Wiki (quick, quick ) pee (as in litotes: ‘I need to urinate rather soon’: U.K. British slang) dia [no definition of suffix known].

Wikipedia is, in my view, at least, a sort of ‘Daily Mail’-type press (or whatever your local ‘news’ paper or television/radio news might be) to distract any human sensual respect for other human creatures and delegate decent (positive and caring) human experiences to a turd incapable of being picked up by the clean end by supplementing trivia about other supposedly ‘human’ entities that you may never have heard of.

So much to be said, so little time.

It is very difficult to be unindoctrinated.

The World is fake.

The earth is real.
Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: WIKIpeeDIA

Unread post by Apache »

I came across a very interesting expose of Wikedpedia some time ago.

wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/11/how-rational-wiki-abuses-its-google-page-rank-for-personal-attacks-slander-and-harassment/
The Rational Wiki editors who created an article on me as a form of harassment are very same Wikipedia editors who began this campaign against me for editing Rupert Sheldrake’s article back on Wikipedia, a piece of online real estate that skeptic activists have been guarding on Wikipedia since 2013.
(my emphasis)
To this day, Rational Wiki pretends that the publication of an article on me is because I am a crank – and therefore the educated, progressively liberal and pro-science demographical spectrum should be warned about my activities. They certainly don’t disclose to their readers that Rational Wiki’s article on me has anything to do with my publication of Wikipedia, We Have a Problem or harassing me while editing on Wikipedia articles their collective was guarding.
If anyone is in any doubt about the sock puppetry and guardianship that goes on at Wikedpedia I recommend reading Rome Viharo's full story:

wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/we-have-a-problem/
your guide to the study of online harassment on this site and abuses occurring in wiki wars on Wikipedia, which now carry over into Rational Wiki and Encyclopedia Dramatica, where the same editors participate.
Painterman
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: WIKIpeeDIA

Unread post by Painterman »

Here's what the site itself claims is the origin of its name. Though this claim could be a deception, we should take it into account, for completeness:

"Wikipedia (WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə) is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on a model of openly editable content. The name "Wikipedia" is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning "quick") and encyclopedia. Wikipedia's articles provide links designed to guide the user to related pages with additional information."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:about
Apache wrote:If anyone is in any doubt about the sock puppetry and guardianship that goes on at Wikedpedia I recommend reading Rome Viharo's full story:
I'd say sock puppetry and guardianship are ubiquitous on the internet. Any website of social or political significance either was "one of theirs" from day one (e.g. Google, Wikipedia), is purchased outright using the NWO's effectively infinite bankroll, or is targeted for hijacking using clown teams of astroturfers that scramble about verbosely perpetrating the "cognitive infiltration" / colonization / theft of other people's intellectual property.

That seems to be how New Media social control (a.k.a. the Matrix) was always designed to be run: as a collection of mostly anonymous "information age" astroturf psyops. Contrariwise, the Old Media model of social control (e.g. TV networks, Hollywood) consists of overtly corporate "space age" mega-projects fronted by celebrities.

old media : new media :: astronaut : astroturf

Kham speculated that 90 percent of YouTube videos are the work of the culture-counterculture creators (or similar words). She could be right about that.
Post Reply