If Wikipedia were really run by the CIA, surely there would be evidence for it in a subtle bias say, for attacking ‘Communists’ and Marxists, and promoting the views of US political ‘hawks’...



In a section headed 'Communism and Fascism',

next to a picture of Adolf Hitler being saluted in the Reichstag which is adorn with Nazi symbolism, we learn authoritatively that 'Hitler admitted that he had "learned a great deal from Marxism "' and that 'he conceded that:

"The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the workers' sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specifically for the comprehension of the masses; all these methods of political struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All I had to do is take over these methods and adopt them for our purpose... National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order". '

There is even a footnote to add weight to this uncharacteristically chatty Hitler' but only to a secondary source... one 'Richard Pipes' writing in . Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime 1995. In fact, the quote can be tracked back to a book called 'Conversations with Hitler' published in 1939 by one Hermann Rauschning, a former Nazi who attacked Hitler from the right (!) and who did not even pretend that these quotes were 'real ones', but were rather his way of presenting what Hitler thought. ([reliable source ]reliable source[/url] )

This is 24 carat misinformation and anti-Marxist propaganda. In case you don't remember, Hitler HATED the Marxists...

Curiouser and curiouser - this unreliable source peddler has exalted status on Wikipedia - Richard Pipes, "national security advisor to Ronald reagan', has had his own page (and colour photo) since 15 October 2004 ...

Is he linked to the CIA? Well, his Wikipedia page boasts it: Pipes was head of a 1976 group of civilian experts and retired military officers agreed to by then CIA director George Bush at the urging of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) to promote the view that the Soviet threat was being underestimated..

Amazing - highly notable person has Wikipedia article with photo.

This would seem somewhat offensive to the memory of the tens of thousands of Europe's communists who died in Nazi concentration camps, but a Web 2.0 "encyclopedia" is unlikely to give a care about a people out of political fashion, no matter what injustice they suffered.

I looked at that picture of that guy and immediately knew he was Jewish. Therefore with him writing about the Nazis it may not be as neutral as it could be.

I've noticed this kinda thing elsewhere. Take the Atlantic slave trade article.

"Historian Walter Rodney has argued that at the start of the slave trade in the 16th century, even though there was a technological gap between Europe and Africa, it was not very substantial. Both continents were using Iron Age technology. The major advantage that Europe had was in ship building."

Unsurprisingly enough, Walter Rodney was black, and also has a "conflict of interest" of sorts when writing about slavery, meaning that his writings may not adhere to a supposed NPOV. I'd say that from what I know about history, to suggest that the technological gap between Europe and Africa in the 16th century was "not very substantial" is nonsense.

Is that Richard Pipes? Or Daniel Pipes.

Are they related? I've heard of the latter, and he's really big with the neocons.

This line of discussion really bugs me, frankly, re: religion.

There's a nonsense rumor that Wikipedia Review is anti-semitic, because one of the first guys running the site had issues of that nature. He's gone. He was asked to leave. Still, the rumor persists. Apparently "some people's" memories have a long half life. And their mental reflexes don't exactly "go with the flow", as in "that was three years ago, honey, get with the program".

If you want to find out if there's any CIA link to Wikipedia, see if any of the admin types also edit on Intellipedia, or if Wikipedia gets any funding from In-Q-Tel.

I'd be surprised if there's no link, actually.

No, no, no....

You are getting everything mixed up.

That was Slimvirgin in 2004 at the Presidential Commission on Intelligence and WMDs, with Peter Murray and John McCain.

Wikipedia is not run by any body other than the Wikimedia Foundation, and i think they've made their ownership transperant enough. These conspiracy theories are frankly growing tiresome; perhaps when there is irrefutable *proof* in conspiracy, there'll be a topic to talk about.

That's funny. I can't see any horns in the photo.

So who can write impartially about the Nazis? David Irving?

Guy.... I if I told you once, I've told you a million times.....

.... you've GOT to stop ripping off on Sasha Baron Cohen's "Borat". He's better at horn jokes than you. You simply have to accept that.




I want to make a snappy comeback here.....but the only person I think is able to joke about Nazis with impunity (while actually managing to be funny, and managing to "get away with it") is Roberto Bagnini (hint: "Life is Beautiful").

First: It is spelled, "transparent", not "transperant".
Second: Ah yes. Yet another WR-er with less than six weeks of membership with amazingly cogent, salient viewpoints on Wikipedia and US intelligence. (Confused look) Yes, there as so many of you who just joined, was it, um, "last week"?
Somey, Guy? Do you have statistics on new membership? It seems to have spiked, and with persons amazingly (dare I say 'shockingly'?) ready to discuss the CIA (like flash) and anything intel-related (or political), with a vengence. Hell-bent on defending you know who and her bony you-know-what. Picking at any implied anti-semitism (Months ago, I had three different newbies PM me, in relation to the cartoon issue, probing if I thought X about Y.). But I digress. Allow me to explain.



There are no "conspiracy theories" chez moi. I'm in DC following up on a ridiculously large number of internal investigations concerning a ridiculously "many" number of intelligence agencies for a ridiculously "many" number of felonies and such, which I have every reason to believe commenced and was engendered by persons (being generous in that appellation) employed to sit on Wikipedia, using Federal tax dollars, working as "chat room influencers", "information warfare bloggers" or whatever the hell you want to call people employed by some Federal agency for the purpose of screwing with information such as that winds up on the internet, under the guise of somehow, sort-of bipartisan information. Cyber-Propaganda Love Monkeys is my personally favored appellation.

Normally, I don't care about such things. It's not my job. But I've been confronted with it. What I see? Abusive behavior. Waste of resources. A scary and disturbing new 'dorky' factor in U.S. intelligence strategy. I never even thought about U.S. intelligence strategy - outside of spy movies. Now I'm looking at it, head-on, it's all kind of embarassing. No wonder we missed 9/11. We'd miss it today too. Our intel is running around on chat boards - like maniacal-HUAC-cum-stasi-afficinados-on-crack- kicking the metaphorical collective ass of people who don't like Jimbo Wales. See in this bizarro world™, a low-class cheeseball of a former online porn dealer™ is viewed as defensible 'national critical infrastructure'. Could it get any worse? Yes. My recent research has yielded that "all this insane behavior" is freakishly policy coherent. What gives me the right to complain? Well. Some complete babbling moron(s) decided (incorrectly) that my work, where I lived, and some ancillary factoids designated me, and my work as anathema. This led to a group of people with various forms of egomania augmented with sundry untreated personality disorders™ to move into various forms of action. cough, Durova, cough, Slimvirgin, cough, et al., cough.

Ergo the ridiculous utterly bizarre chain of events leading up to where I'm sitting in a DC hotel, organizing Cxngrexxional staff follow-up, faxing a ridiculous number of fexexal agency insxecxors gxnxral and communicating with non-US governments officially interested in criminal pursuit of illegal acts which transpired on their territories. Exciting? No. My real job is exciting. This is bullshit. It's a lot of unpaid work; basically babysitting that a ridiculous number of investigations are done - and acknowledged. Why? If I don't, the abuse will continue. Besides, I *hate* living in a conspiracy theory. All this puts me in a position where my credibility is a priori questioned. I love my credibility - I've worked hard to earn it. I take attempts to damage it quite seriously. Thus burdened with events, and being a reasoned, intelligent person, who works with Governments as a profession (including "ours"), I've used those professional skills to invoke serious (very real, and not "theoretical") investigations, which I highly doubt will find nothing. I'm dedicating several months to this defensive, necessary (and patently lame) responsibility.

[i]Milton Roe? DHS Sooper Spook? Kalamazoo?





** I love that name, Kalamazoo. It sounds like a circus ride. Or something you shout before going to battle, or before overtaking a large wave, like "Cowabunga"!

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I.. got a girl in Kalamazoo.

Congratulations. I'm glad you finally got a girl. Midwestern winters are damned cold.

So what is it called? Kalamzoophilia?












MAWHHM!
ps: Milton Roe's a spook, a part-time spook, cum-DHS -press-officer spook! Pass it on!
pss: It's not national-security-related, if it's grade-school antics™.
psss: It's tattling, not outing.
pssss:He started it.
psssss: They started it.

Disillusioned Lackey:

Please, consider this an invitation to let us all know exactly who's abusing what on there. Is there submittable proof of government (anyone's government, not just the U.S.) infiltration of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia bureaucracy?

Is there proof of spooks editing, adminning, or arbcomming? Should Wikipedia consider a policy to prohibit this sort of rampant abuse?

He may be highly notable in neocon circles, but he sure ain't noted in any 'normal' reference works... I've come across this 'notablity' citerion elsewhere - someone used it to say that anyone who had ever played a cricket test was 'notable'.. it's really a meaningless turn of phrase used by Wikignomes.

BTW, the editor who created the Pipes page is Christofurio - who seems to have a fairly steady anti-marxist line, and considerable 'influence' on Wikipedia. He even gives out long lists of 'tasks' to his followers on his user page...



taks for you...

I'm not DL but I'll tell you something: there's no way Wikipedia can avoid being infiltrated by all sorts of power organizations, be them the CIA, the FSB, the Israel Lobby or whatever. Why? Because Wikipedia has become a too important media and they naturally want to control what it says, specially in matters that are sensible for them (that affects specially modern history and all sort of articles on political issues, maybe the economy too - but I'm not aware of abnormal bias in that sector). If Wikipedia could uncover an agent (what I doubt it can but anyhow) it would be soon replaced by another. It's not like they are going to lose control of such important medium easily: they have all the resources they need.

The only possibility is that Wikipedia splits itself in many replicants, each one autonomous or totally independent from the rest. That way the mediatic power of Wikipedia would not be concentrated anymore on a single site easy to manipulate but spread diffusely in many different sites each one healthily competing (and cooperating, why not?) with the rest for the best quality encyclopedia. If one organism becomes sick like happens with the only and one Wikipedia now, then editors will quickly migrate to other sites of their preference (once they lost all hope of changing things from inside, I guess). The sick "wikipedia" would then either die or, more likely, go through a cathartical near-death experience that would cause spies to look for some other target. And so on.

We have to understand two things:
- secret agents are parasits that are bloodsucking the Wiki to death
- that's how Internet (and a hypothetical healthy free market) works: not by concentration of power but by distribution and competence

In brief: the only way to heal Wikipedia is by making it to lose power, and the only way I can think of doing it is by "cloning" it many times. It can be done from inside or it will happen from the outside anyhow, sooner or later.

Is it just me who gets confused by the claims on this thread?


HINT: research the language on this thread and spot the bullshitter!

I'm making sure that it is investigated properly, by official investigators - with requisite security clearance - and that persons with relevant oversight see it. Persons who pay their salary. Persons we elect.

Ok, now you are messing with me. Abuse on there is standard practice.

Yes.

To find bullshitters, I think we should all research Robert Roberts at Baylor University and spot the spook. Of course, then we'd be a heck of a lot more confused. Baylor U ought to be called Spook U. When I was doing a lot of weird research tracking down (apparently) fake identities in this strange situation I found myself, I found a "Charles Taylor:, who was there as a psychology professor. He's now up on a UNA.edu server claiming to be a Philosophy professor, at Northwestern. Weird.

The fake Psychology professor had similarly bizarre articles, one of them referenced in a DOJ case, which was one reason I looked him up. Another being that the CT name was linked to my case, peripherally.

All of this sort of gives me the idea that these guys are operating like a new kind of Federally-funded 419 operation. At least, that was the case as I was concerned - or how I experienced it.

There's a lot of intel guys on WR. Many have just joined. I don't know why they are poking at me. Either they are out of the loop, or they think that this stupid giant batch of investigations of totally freaking illegal activity won't touch them.

They really should back off from me. Really. I bite.

Please don't PM me again with your crankpot ranting.

Yes, in one of your now deleted posts, you insinuated I was. Who else do you think is?

I never insinuated that you were a spook dear.
Would you like me to?

When I informed you that when Verizon uses the acronym DIA they mean direct internet access, you said in part -

I apologize deeply. A lot of sincerely bizarre things have gone on, and I was rightfully angry.

If I offended you, I'm really sorry.

No worries,