Lies, Damned Lies, and Wikipedia

The internet is a tool that can be used for everything from sharing recipes to sex trafficking children, and everything in between: it is available to wonderfully moral people and institutions and to those engaging in pure evil, and everything in between. So...Wikipedia, founded in 2001, “seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia (source: Wikipedia),” and is “is the largest and most-read reference work in history.” Wikipedia can exist only because of the internet, and is perhaps one of the best creations of it...or could have been.

I personally consult Wikipedia multiple times a day: you want to know the land area of Uganda, Wikipedia. You want to find when the Punic Wars, occurred, Wikipedia. You’re reading a 900 page Charles Dickens novel and have trouble keeping track of the innumerous characters, Wikipedia.

A few times a year you’ll see fundraising solicitations when you open Wikipedia. Here is the typical pitch from its founder Jimmy Wales: “I ask you to reflect on the number of times you visited Wikipedia in the past year, the value you got from it, and whether you're able to give $3 to the Wikimedia (note it’s not Wikipedia, but Wilkimedia)." A few years ago I felt guilty enough to donate something like $5, but then read disturbing claims that Wikipedia is biased in favor of the political left and cultural progressivism. It didn’t take much effort to discover this is indeed true.

Wikipedia income growth through 2016; at that time they had net assets of about $92 million, six years later that increased to approx. $350 million

My original intent in writing this was simply to document a few examples of this bias (which I might do later), but in researching Wikipedia I encountered some really worrisome facts. First, here are some more statements from the current fundraising campaign: "Wikipedia is different in that it doesn't belong to the highest bidder, the advertisers, or corporations. It belongs to you, the readers, editors, and donors. You're our community, our family. You're the reason we exist and we wouldn't have it any other way; Wikipedia is not for sale;" “Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias…;” “It's readers like you who safeguard our non-profit mission. You help us maintain our integrity, quality, and accessibility.”

It all sounds so wonderful, almost bucolic, like a community picnic where Bob brings the burgers, you bring the lemonade, and I bring to potato salad: we all chip in a little and there’s enough for everyone. The truth is far from these ideals. As it stands today, the owner of Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation (“non-profit”) that has net assets of around $250 million and an “endowment” with an additional $100 million or so, which I believe is itself funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. Once again proof there are huge amounts of money to made in the “non-profit” world, and the beneficiaries are often counted among the wealthy elite: to the average person $350 million sounds like a lot of money; to Wikipedia/Wikimedia it demonstrates they can never have enough, and they will nickle and dime the morons (me included at one time) in their lust for More, More, More.

So, true or false: Wikipedia is different in that it doesn't belong to the highest bidder, the advertisers, or corporations? I guess this is true if you discount the millions of dollars received from corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook. In their defense, they are simply money-grubbing globalist corporations run by elites who, in an other time, would turn a blind eye to concentration camps as long as they had contracts to manufacture Zyklon B at a huge profit.

Perhaps more worrisome is that another $million plus contributor to Wikipedia/Wikimedia is billionaire George Soros, who made his money the old fashioned way- by currency manipulation. Soros is certainly one of the wealthiest and most powerful purveyors of evil in the world today. He is perhaps best known as someone who funds campaigns of extreme leftists running for District Attorney positions in urban areas (having spawned the term, a “Soros DA”). Through measures such as radical bail reform, defunding the police, and declining to prosecute criminals, Soros has succeeded in sowing chaos, destruction, misery, and death in impoverished- and especially minority- communities in many large cities. His march for a world controlled by a cabal of the wealthy and elite is reminiscent of Germany in the late 1920s and 30s, where laws were simply decreed by those holding power, where criminality was based on not what one did, but who one was and what they thought, and enforcement carried out by street thugs called Brownshirts. Soros has his own “foundation-” the Open Society Foundation- and it’s fascinating to read the associated Wikipedia entry, which is essentially a hagiography- they are, like, totally awesome! Of course one doesn’t write the truth about billionaire donors.

In the elite “non-profit” world rich people often receive impressive compensation. For example, the CEO of the Public Broadcasting Foundation (they do love their foundations!) makes a little over $400,000, which translates into, “If just 8,000 viewers like you donate $50 each, you’ll pay the salary of one privileged employee, AND receive a tote bag!” Wikimedia pays their COO about $510,000 a year, so it takes only 51,000 suckers (of which I was one) to donate $10 each to pay the salary of one Janeen Uzzell.

Basically, “non-profits” at the global level are a way to launder money, to transfer donations from both hapless donors and global corporations into the grubby hands of the elite and powerful activists. Wikipedia/Wikimedia have chosen the Tides Foundation as their preferred method of laundering money. The “Tides Foundation is an American public charity and fiscal sponsor working to advance progressive causes and policy initiatives in areas such as the environment, health care, labor issues, immigrant rights, LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights and human rights (source: Wikipedia).” In other words, it is yet another conglomeration dedicated to lining the pockets of the rich and powerful, all the while masquerading as being something benevolent: when you repeatedly use the word “rights” you’ve got to be wonderful, or at least assume people are stupid enough to see it that way.

It’s kind of scary that the organization that “is the largest and most-read reference work in history,” with a goal to control the global dispensation of knowledge, is owned and subservient to some of the most malevolent powers in the world. Use Wikipedia all you want, but always keep in mind they have an elitist global agenda that views the average person with contempt, and PLEASE never donate a dime, let alone a dollar.
Here is an excellent article that further explains the financial trickery of Wikipedia:

2 thoughts on “Lies, Damned Lies, and Wikipedia

  1. Carole Ann Milljour

    Hi Reid, your article was, to say the least, an eye opener! As the rich get richer, the corruption gets greater and greater! Having used Wikipedia lots of times, I never gave it much thought until your article pointed out the deception.

    I did like what Edward Snowden bravely came out with but unfortunately, he ended up seeking asylum in Russia to prevent being prosecuted over here. I could never quite figure that one out when he was so correct regarding the CIA's surveillance of US citizens. Then there was Julian Assange from Wikileaks whom I thought was doing this country a great service by reporting what he felt needed to be told. I don't know, I certainly have a point of view but whether it is an accurate one, I've never been too sure. Both men are seemingly in deep trouble for their input in the scandalous behavior of some of our top governmental agencies.

    I really don't like what I'm seeing. I don't understand how anyone could even want to throw this country to the dogs, but all I see is pathetic fraud, corruption and waste. Who do you trust?!? I get most of my info from Newsmax and sometimes I just can't listen to it for very long periods. I used to have it on a lot more in the past then I do now. With Obama at the helm and the most corrupt and stupid/ignorant running this country into the ground, I am still having a positive outlook on things to come at some point, but it doesn't appear it will be anytime soon and the longer it takes. the more damage is being done. I keep praying and that's pretty much all we can do until the elections and then, just maybe, things will start turning around.

    The last point I want to add is a notation in the Bible wherein it reads as follows: "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and suffers the loss of his own soul. Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (MATTHEW 16:26). Those individuals will suffer much in the end I'm afraid.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.