Vatic Note: I put most of my vatic notes down in the body of this article since it was specific and directed to what he was saying. He is right about Wikipedia, but he is wrong about who is doing it. That is expected from those who are insulated from the truth by the powers that be and that is why they have "need to know" criteria, to prevent those doing these deeds from understanding what these projects will be used for, which is to bring down the USA and to attack her on many different levels.
We saw that with the gulf blow out. So these scientists are insulated from the real agenda. They will be the ones to suffer for their lack of knowledge. If they would just listen to JFK's speech in 1961, that would probably change their orientation, since JFK warned us this was going on and he was in the process of doing something about it when he was conveniently assassinated.
What’s Your Go-To Research Site? Wikipedia Exposed
http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/whats-your-go-to-research-site-wikipedia-exposed/
We saw that with the gulf blow out. So these scientists are insulated from the real agenda. They will be the ones to suffer for their lack of knowledge. If they would just listen to JFK's speech in 1961, that would probably change their orientation, since JFK warned us this was going on and he was in the process of doing something about it when he was conveniently assassinated.
What’s Your Go-To Research Site? Wikipedia Exposed
http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/whats-your-go-to-research-site-wikipedia-exposed/
23 April, 2014
MessageToEagle.com – Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia is growing. Wikipedia has now been accused of controlling information, filtering out unwanted science material and abusing its readership.
One of Wikipedia’s goals is to improve skeptical content .
Journalists, researchers and scientists avoid using Wikipedia because it is an unreliable source. However, the general public uses the site as source to learn more on a variety of topics.
But just how reliable is Wikipedia and what’s really going on behind the scenes?
A very interesting article appeared recently on Epoch Times in which Tara MacIsaac elaborates on the editing war that is currently taking place at Wikipedia.
According to the Epoch Times “A team of activists under the label “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” are making concerted efforts to change science content on Wikipedia. Some are concerned this group could skew public perception of scientific principles and studies.
The Guerrillas started their work not long after so-called “Climategate” scandal in 2009. Green Party activist William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 articles on Wikipedia, including many related to the politics of global warming and scientists whose views did not correspond to his own on the issue, according to reporting by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. When Connolley became a Wikipedia website administrator, he removed 500 articles and barred more than 2,000 contributors “who ran afoul of him,” wrote Solomon.
“Most people have no scientific expertise and believe that science is objective,” he said on his website. But he argues that strict materialism-the ideology of the Guerrilla Skepticism team-is a subjective worldview that does not maintain the supposed objectivity of science. (VN: That means the group is making headways into the sites controlled opposition and they don't like it. I just keep remembering the pro-climate change problem advocates, were hacked by a hacker and all their emails planning to manipulate the public, AND criticizing the disagreeing scientists, were put out for all to see and it killed the carbon tax issue which later proved to be just another money making scam by the khazar banker elitests.)
He accuses the Guerrilla Skepticism team of systematically abusing the trust of the Wikipedia readership. Susan Gerbik runs the team of almost 100, said Sheldrake, and “their aim is to ‘control information’ … Ms Gerbik glories in the power that she and her warriors wield.”
Guerrilla Skepticism’s website states: “The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages.”
“Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote.
“Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.”
He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”
(VN: yes we were warned about this a long time ago by The credible "Veterans Today" team that found Wikipedia was being trolled by hackers from Israel to monitor all the criticism of Israel, but it was not "criticism" per se, it was truth and facts about what they were doing and how they were manipulating the information. So, those catching this new Israel agenda, went behind them to reinstitute the truth as it was documented. But the computer volunteers in Israel would change it to support Israel in the end and not the truth. So I can see where this group had to organize to counter the propoganda and disinfo the Israeli's were doing. I have only used Wikipedia to get the biographies of those I am suspicious of and see if they are affiliated with an Israeli or elitest supported Institutions of learning. Otherwise I go to my public library!)
One of Wikipedia’s goals is to improve skeptical content .
Journalists, researchers and scientists avoid using Wikipedia because it is an unreliable source. However, the general public uses the site as source to learn more on a variety of topics.
But just how reliable is Wikipedia and what’s really going on behind the scenes?
A very interesting article appeared recently on Epoch Times in which Tara MacIsaac elaborates on the editing war that is currently taking place at Wikipedia.
According to the Epoch Times “A team of activists under the label “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” are making concerted efforts to change science content on Wikipedia. Some are concerned this group could skew public perception of scientific principles and studies.
The Guerrillas started their work not long after so-called “Climategate” scandal in 2009. Green Party activist William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 articles on Wikipedia, including many related to the politics of global warming and scientists whose views did not correspond to his own on the issue, according to reporting by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. When Connolley became a Wikipedia website administrator, he removed 500 articles and barred more than 2,000 contributors “who ran afoul of him,” wrote Solomon.
| Oxford University researchers found in a recent study that the two topics fueling the most heated editing wars on Wikipedia are Israel and God. “Everyone knows that there are opposing views on politics and religion, and many people recognize a biased account when they see it. But in the realm of science, things are different,” wrote Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist and author educated at Cambridge University and Harvard who is known for his controversial theories. (VN: Both are elitest secret Society schools and funded (Harvard) by Israel big time.) |
“Most people have no scientific expertise and believe that science is objective,” he said on his website. But he argues that strict materialism-the ideology of the Guerrilla Skepticism team-is a subjective worldview that does not maintain the supposed objectivity of science. (VN: That means the group is making headways into the sites controlled opposition and they don't like it. I just keep remembering the pro-climate change problem advocates, were hacked by a hacker and all their emails planning to manipulate the public, AND criticizing the disagreeing scientists, were put out for all to see and it killed the carbon tax issue which later proved to be just another money making scam by the khazar banker elitests.)
He accuses the Guerrilla Skepticism team of systematically abusing the trust of the Wikipedia readership. Susan Gerbik runs the team of almost 100, said Sheldrake, and “their aim is to ‘control information’ … Ms Gerbik glories in the power that she and her warriors wield.”
Guerrilla Skepticism’s website states: “The mission of the Guerrilla Skepticism editing team is to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. We do this by improving pages of our skeptic spokespeople, providing noteworthy citations, and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages.”
“Skepticism is a normal, healthy attitude of doubt,” Sheldrake wrote.
“Unfortunately it can also be used as a weapon to attack opponents. In scientific and medical contexts, organized skepticism is a crusade to propagate scientific materialism.”
He said: “Fortunately, a few editors arguing for a more neutral point of view have not yet been bullied into silence. An editing war is raging as you read this.”
(VN: yes we were warned about this a long time ago by The credible "Veterans Today" team that found Wikipedia was being trolled by hackers from Israel to monitor all the criticism of Israel, but it was not "criticism" per se, it was truth and facts about what they were doing and how they were manipulating the information. So, those catching this new Israel agenda, went behind them to reinstitute the truth as it was documented. But the computer volunteers in Israel would change it to support Israel in the end and not the truth. So I can see where this group had to organize to counter the propoganda and disinfo the Israeli's were doing. I have only used Wikipedia to get the biographies of those I am suspicious of and see if they are affiliated with an Israeli or elitest supported Institutions of learning. Otherwise I go to my public library!)
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment