Posts Tagged ‘wikipedia’

Wikipedia Discovers Crowdism

Wednesday, February 15th, 2017

As it turns out, crowd-approved group blog Wikipedia reveals the Crowdist pattern in its “objective” articles and comments:

They concluded that “significant progress could be made by moderating a relatively small number of frequent attackers.” But at the same time, in Wikipedia’s comments “less than half of attacks come from users with little prior participation; and perhaps surprisingly, approximately 30% of attacks come from registered users with over a 100 contributions. These results suggest the problems associated with personal attacks do not have an easy solution… the majority of personal attacks on Wikipedia are not the result of a few malicious users, nor primarily the consequence of allowing anonymous contributions.”

In other words, the wrong people got in power… again. Funny how this happens. In business, in social groups, in volunteer groups and even among fellow employees heading out to lunch. When there is not a clear leader and hierarchy, the snarling Simian ancestry of humans comes forth and we sabotage ourselves by fighting for power like preening animals, “talking monkeys with car keys.”

The problem is us. Crowdism is the theory of what happens when individualism becomes collectivized, and inverts definitions by removing the unpopular complex and unpleasant concepts from within the bigger concept, leaving us with something like a cross between Disneyland and the Soviet Union.

Humans ruin everything they touch. Someone starts up a new idea, and this idea will be powerful so long as it is not widely understood, so that the idea selects its audience. But when people start coming in for demotic reasons — politics, commerce, popularity — then they want to use the idea as a means to the end of their own personal advancement, and they destroy it.

This is why nothing persists in the human world. As soon as something good is formed, it is destroyed. Wherever people gather, they consume whatever they find so that they can advance themselves. Unless this herd instinct is formed, humanity becomes the source of the death of anything good and devolves into squabbling, pretentious rodents who soak up all the resources and leave a wasteland.

We talk a good deal about virtue signaling on this blog, but the fact is that virtue signaling is one method of bullying people out of the way. There are others, but generally, people use language to manipulate each other, not to communicate. As a result, they are like worms creeping through computer data, changing everything into gibberish by redefining it.

Wikipedia provides an interesting model for this because it seems that it would be free of the commercial pressures that are commonly blamed for corrupting everything in the human world. In fact, commerce is just one of the ways that a “tragedy of the commons” occurs, with people acting in self-interest against group interest.

Could Wikipedia be saved? Yes, but only if: it had strong leaders, a caste system, and a strong culture that rewards the honest and punishes the bad. That is the opposite of what it has now, which is a popularity contest. We can see reflections of our society in Wikipedia, and in neither case is the prognosis very good.

Social Media Site Reddit Admits That It Also Fakes The News

Friday, November 25th, 2016


As the mainstream media (MSM) struggles with its complete irrelevance because its predictions failed in all areas of the political process, most have overlooked the manipulative nature of social media which strikingly resembles the MSM in its opinions.

Alternative social media site Reddit has become the latest to reveal its inner void. Leaked mod chat logs reveal that Reddit admins control the moderators of its top “subs” or channels through a private Slack chat.

This includes telling these moderators what posts to delete, and the admission that Reddit has altered its algorithm to avoid favoring right-wing content. Like Facebook and Twitter, both of whom have been featured on these pages many times for their own censorious tendencies, Reddit is a controlled media voice that purports to be an independent one. That makes it a propaganda organ in addition to being a social media site. The propaganda aspects are now more important than the “social” aspects, at least to those who control the site.

As one Voat user said:

I’m not judging them here because they’re liberals; I’m judging them because I read their conversation and saw how flippant, dismissive, and manipulative they all were. That was a group of straight up bad human beings chatting.

The freaky part is just how manipulative it all was. Spez talking about algorithms to disenfranchise and silence part of the user base he deemed undesirable. Those people are rotten to the core.

This comes after the CEO of the company admitted changing user content in the database back-end, suggesting that this is not the first time that activity has occurred:

Reddit’s chief executive Steve Huffman has admitted editing posts made about him by Donald Trump fans on the site.

…He said colleagues were angry with his actions and he “most assuredly won’t do this again”.

Many Reddit members were furious that the website’s chief executive had edited messages, and accused him of censorship.

This is not exactly surprising since other social media sites also follow a pro-Leftist censorship policy. Facebook blocked conservative news from its trending list. Twitter bans and blocks conservatives on a regular basis. Wikipedia not only censors right-wing ideas, but openly promotes Leftist ones. These are some of the biggest sites on the internet who in theory are “open” and “collaborative,” but in fact are controlled by shadow cabals.

Conservatives should not use Wikipedia

Friday, January 23rd, 2015


To use a resource book implies trust in it. To trust it implies a belief that it is factual. When you use a bad source, you are validating its lies as truth.

Such is the case with Wikipedia. Many of us have observed for years that this feel-good social project, arising from a failed porn site and overseen in its early years by a group with too many pedophiles to be coincidental, tends to be abusive toward any idea which does not agree with groupthink.

Since the power handed to it by Google, Inc. as default search results on most term makes Wikipedia near-authoritative, this abuse has only ramped up. Groups that offend the Wikipedia editors are removed from the Encyclopedia and pushed into a black hole; effectively censored, if you will. Since Google and other big internet sites use it exclusively, this quickly pushes them out of the public eye. The excuse that Wikipedia offers is that it did not actually delete the sites in such cases, but merely covered them up, ignoring that as a monopolistic information source it has a duty to the public to be balanced or at least not censor dissenting voices.

Instead Wikipedia chooses to claim that rightist ideas are “not notable” and delete them. For example, the entry for “Cultural Marxism” was removed for this reason. But then the story slowly leaked out that the editor responsible for the deletion was in fact someone who self-identified as a Cultural Marxist. Do you get the rich hypocrisy? He claims the term is not notable but uses it to describe his own outlook on life.

Wikipedia’s undue influence hands the fox the keys to the henhouse and allows otherwise powerless people to drastically influence the direction of our society by literally censoring our most-used encyclopedia. It is time for conservatives to effect a complete boycott of Wikipedia and disregard all sources that endorse it by relying on it. This should continue until Wikipedia has responsible editors who do something to curb the rampant censorship and power abuse that has become all too common in Wikiland.