![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/conservativeproletariat.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/jimmy-wales-world-economic-forum.jpeg?ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\nTwenty-plus years ago <\/strong>McDonald\u2019s had a slogan of \u201cWe Love To See You Smile.\u201d I sometimes wondered about this: exactly who <\/em>at McDonald\u2019s would love <\/em>to see a customer smile?\u201d 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\u2019s? The answer is obvious: the slogan was advertising nonsense. If sued for propagating a lie, could the McDonald\u2019s corporation have proved they truly<\/em> loved to see people smile?<\/p>\n\n\n\n When is a lie a lie? When is the truth \u201cdisinformation, and when does \u201cdisinformation become the truth?\u201d When does adding a simple adjective turn a fact into bias? Search the internet for the words erupts <\/em>or explodes<\/em> 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\u2019s an example: \u201c(I) built the greatest economy in the history of the world,\u201d stated at least 493 times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It doesn\u2019t really require a highly educated sophisticate to realize the claims of an ego-driven blowhard are absurd exaggerations and not lies, rather<\/em> it apparently takes a highly educated sophisticate to think they are. I randomly searched the phrase \u201cworld famous\u201d and discovered a BBQ restaurant (Swadley\u2019s) is \u201cWorld Famous.\u201d I have no idea what that means- is the average person in Myanmar familiar with Swadley\u2019s? I tend to doubt it, but there is<\/em> 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: \u201cI hope you won\u2019t hold it against me, but I am a hard-coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, Pennsylvania.\u201d 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\u2019s lies, rather it ignores or rationalizes them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>, founded in 2001, \u201cseeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia (source: Wikipedia),\u201d and is \u201cis the largest and most-read reference work in history.\u201d Wikipedia can exist only because of the internet, and is perhaps one of the best creations of it...or could have been.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019re reading a 900 page Charles Dickens novel and have trouble keeping track of the innumerous characters, Wikipedia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A few times a year you\u2019ll see fundraising solicitations when you open Wikipedia. Here is the typical pitch from its founder Jimmy Wales: \u201cI 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\u2019s not <\/strong>Wikipedia<\/strong>, but Wilkimedia<\/strong>)<\/em>.\" 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\u2019t take much effort to discover this is indeed true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 <\/strong>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<\/strong> is not for sale;\" \u201cWikipedia <\/strong>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\u2026;\u201d \u201cIt's readers<\/strong> like you who safeguard our non-profit mission. You help us maintain our integrity, quality, and accessibility.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s enough for everyone. The truth is far from these ideals. As it stands today, the owner of Wikipedia <\/strong>is the Wikimedia<\/strong> Foundation (\u201cnon-profit\u201d) that has net assets of around $250 million and an \u201cendowment\u201d 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 \u201cnon-profit\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, true or false: Wikipedia <\/strong>is different in that it doesn't belong to the highest bidder, the advertisers, or corporations? <\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cSoros DA\u201d). 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 \u201cfoundation-\u201d the Open Society Foundation- and it\u2019s fascinating to read the associated Wikipedia entry, which is essentially a hagiography- they are, like, totally awesome! Of course one doesn\u2019t write the truth about billionaire donors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the elite \u201cnon-profit\u201d 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, \u201cIf just 8,000 viewers like you donate $50 each, you\u2019ll pay the salary of one privileged employee, AND receive a tote bag!\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Basically, \u201cnon-profits\u201d 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 \u201cTides 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).\u201d 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 \u201crights\u201d you\u2019ve got to be wonderful, or at least assume people are stupid enough to see it that way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s kind of scary that the organization that \u201cis the largest and most-read reference work in history,\u201d 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. 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 ...continue reading <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n
Here is an excellent article that further explains the financial trickery of Wikipedia: https:\/\/unherd.com\/thepost\/the-next-time-wikipedia-asks-for-a-donation-ignore-it\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"