Monthly Archives: October 2023

1 Comment

by Reid Fitzsimons

The article posted the other day discussed in some detail the financial trickery and misdirection associated with the recurrent fund-raising drives of Wikipedia, and how Wikipedia is not true to its oft-stated claim that it is "Not For Sale," and that "it doesn't belong to the highest bidder, the advertisers, or corporations." They have a number of pitches suggesting to the masses it's a grassroots effort and relies primarily, if not exclusively, on a multitude of small time donors: the common man, so to speak. This is all complete fabrication, and I thought perhaps I could give them a hand by rewriting their fundraising narrative to reflect the truth. So here is what they would say if they were concerned about things like honesty and integrity:

Wikipedia is not for sale! because it has already been bought. We never mention the fact that we receive millions upon millions of dollars from elite and massively wealthy globalist corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook, because that might dissuade chumps like you from making your small donations. Nor do we mention that we've received millions of dollars from perhaps the wealthiest, most powerful, and pernicious left wing/anti-American/white superiority activist in the world today, George Soros. We like to project the image that we are pretty much a shoe-string operation for the "little guy," and certainly don't advertise the fact that we have something like $250,000,000 in assets in addition to our $100,000,000 "endowment." Are you able to give us just $3? Because if only 170,000 people do this we can cover the annual compensation of our COO without touching our $350,000,000?

Did I (Jimmy Wales) mention we launder our money through the Tides Foundation, an extreme leftist organization that caters to enormously wealthy people and institutions? What about the fact that our operating expenses are a mere fraction of our assets and income, but we want to keep getting richer and richer by suckering people like you into making small donations? Kind of like a corrupt televangelist who gets rich by conning lots of average people to make small donations, thinking they are buying salvation while they are really helping buy a private jet. Please help us maintain this wonderful money-making scheme we've developed that uses volunteers to do the bulk of our work while we pay numerous staff members salaries in the $250,000 to $400,000 range, all under the guise of being a "non-profit." Sure, we're not perfect in terms of always achieving objectivity, but can you really expect unbiased information considering the politics of the elite and privileged we've hopped into bed with?

So please, ignore our deceit and misdirection, and just pretend we are a wonderful "non-profit" that only wants to control- I mean share- the knowledge of the world. And remember, every dollar you give keeps getting me invited to the exclusive World Economic Forum gala meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Sweet!


by Reid Fitzsimons

From the current Wikipedia solicitation: "It is hard to know what to trust online these days. Disinformation and scammers are everywhere. Wikipedia is different: not perfect, but also not here to make a profit or to push a particular perspective" AND "Wikipedia is different in that it doesn't belong to the highest bidder, the advertisers, or corporations." As we'll see, this is pure fabrication...disinformation.

Twenty-plus years ago McDonald’s had a slogan of “We Love To See You Smile.” I sometimes wondered about this: exactly who at McDonald’s would love to see a customer smile?” The 16-year-old guy with the pimples earning money for the latest video game? The middle-aged shift manager who pondered why he was a middle-aged shift manager at McDonald’s? The answer is obvious: the slogan was advertising nonsense. If sued for propagating a lie, could the McDonald’s corporation have proved they truly loved to see people smile?

When is a lie a lie? When is the truth “disinformation, and when does “disinformation become the truth?” When does adding a simple adjective turn a fact into bias? Search the internet for the words erupts or explodes and you will find endless mentions. It could involve a celebrity, politician, or any given event, but is there really an explosion? There are ostensibly serious news organizations that provided a count of the number of lies Trump told during his term as President, with the number being 30,000+ (30, 573 false or misleading claims, according to the Washington Post). Here’s an example: “(I) built the greatest economy in the history of the world,” stated at least 493 times.

Joe Biden claimed he was a child coal miner; perhaps he is in this photo of exploited child coal miners

It doesn’t really require a highly educated sophisticate to realize the claims of an ego-driven blowhard are absurd exaggerations and not lies, rather it apparently takes a highly educated sophisticate to think they are. I randomly searched the phrase “world famous” and discovered a BBQ restaurant (Swadley’s) is “World Famous.” I have no idea what that means- is the average person in Myanmar familiar with Swadley’s? I tend to doubt it, but there is a difference between a boast and a lie, and any person of average intelligence understands this. Here, however, is a statement that is a provable (and utterly stupid) lie: “I hope you won’t hold it against me, but I am a hard-coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, Pennsylvania.” This, of course, was Joe Biden from a 2008 speech (for the record, Biden lived in Scranton from the ages to 7-10, so not only was he a coal miner, he was an exploited child coal miner). We all know that Biden has ejaculated numerous outright lies during his 50 years in politics, but somehow we never see a Washington Post make a count of Biden’s lies, rather it ignores or rationalizes them.