Wikipedia unreliably on its own unreliability, corporate partiality and political bias



Wikipedia’s confession…

Busted by WikiScanner

Wiki like public restrooms

Unreliable Wiki-Watch and WikiTrust

Hundreds of references and still biased


At Wiki helm


Piotr Bein, 30.3.2021


Wikipedia confesses lack of reliability of some of its articles, but inadequately diagnoses the underlying problems with its editing model and assessments of Wiki content believability.

Extensive quotations document Wiki’s self-assessments as of March 6 to 7, 2021, when I’ve accessed them. Insights in the post rely on own expertise in selected subjects, built on comparing mainstream info with independent research on:

Wiki’s ethical dilemma is germane to all info peddlers today, as globalist covert interests have infiltrated most of our governments and institutions. Info is power and control, and the powers that should not be mean it. Wiki merely reflects this adage, as the wrong hands hold power covertly over the encyclopedia’s contents, contrary to Wiki crowd-editing declarations.

Wikipedia’s confession

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong.

Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues.

Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, years, or even for a decade. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia’s sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth.

Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

It also helps to look at the article’s editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article’s talk page (to see controversies and development).
To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but … caveat lector.

Wiki self-confession article links to related articles on Wiki and to one external:

Wiki like public restrooms

A Wiki essay opinions on Wiki veracity and verifiability, starting with a disclaimer (As a tertiary source, Wikipedia reflects what is written in secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, other tertiary sources. A consequence of this is when these sources are wrong, Wikipedia will be wrong):

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. There are two important consequences to this. The first is that sometimes things that are true cannot be included. The second is that sometimes things that are not true are included. The second of these is often frequently infuriating to those who know the truth. It means that Wikipedia is wrong

[…] Encyclopedias are tertiary sources and Wikipedia is no different in that respect. Tertiary sources collect knowledge that has already been published in what are called secondary sources. […] If what has been published is incorrect then these errors will be replicated in an encyclopedia. […] Wikipedia editors can basically use anything that has a source and it is considered credible. And anyone, of any age, can edit Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is a tertiary source it is unlike an encyclopedia in the regard that a professional pool of researchers compile what are considered facts in an encyclopedia. In contrast, Wikipedia’s editing is open to anyone and if it is a popular subject it is biased to the majority (contemporary) opinion of Wikipedia editors.

Harkening back to Wiki’s confession of unreliability, an encyclopedic Wiki article on the topic quotes Encyclopædia Britannica‘s editor-in-chief:

[H]owever closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler… The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.”[110]

Busted by WikiScanner

Citing material from on-line encyclopedia has consequences. Wiki disclaimer reads in this case in bold: Caution is advised when using Wikipedia as a source. In many academic institutions, references to Wikipedia, along with most encyclopedias, are unacceptable for research papers. See also Reliability of Wikipedia. The article expounds on academic non-acceptability of Wiki as a primary source due to anonymous and malicious editing:

We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki. Anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn’t be citing Wikipedia.

Designed by Virgil Griffith to match Wiki’s anonymous IP edits with a database of institutional addresses, a tool named WikiScanner and made available on a website, has unmasked anonymous editors of Wiki via their IP. A press article elucidated: WikiScanner cannot identify the individuals altering Wikipedia articles. It can show only that an edit was made by a person with access to an organisation’s network. Griffith revealed his motive: to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organisations I dislike

But “minor” was not the software’s unmasking of corporate and government marketing pitches and concealing embroilments through edits of Wiki articles. Griffith cited instances of the companies censoring Wiki articles on Dow Chemical, 1984 disaster in Bhopal and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1987. WikiScanner FAQ archived in 2007 castigates Diabold, Inc. for deleting damning passage in Wiki entry on the e-voting machines.

Other companies and institutions edited Wiki articles: the CIA and FBI, Australian and Canadian governments, Japan government agency for matters concerning the Imperial Family, state of Arkansas, the Vatican, US Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Britain’s Labour Party, Wal-Mart, AstraZeneca, and major media (Disney, Reuters, New York Times and Washington Post), among many more entities

In summer of 2008, WikiScanner advanced to a suite of Wiki-related tools called WikiWatcher that enjoyed a media limelight, but crumbled without continuous care. Beside pinpointing entities who edit articles about themselves, WikiWatcher revealed previously masked business and personal IP addresses, e.g. when in the company’s entry a user at Raytheon had deleted mentions of inflating a government contract. At Dow Chemical, someone censored details about Agent Orange inducing birth defects.

Griffith has provided Wikipedia with a “conflict of interest” filter for tracing censors to corporations. WikiWatcher was able to automatically flag a company editing its own entries. It could also analyze lengthy “edit-wars” on Wikipedia, e.g. between Irani and Israeli IP addresses, when editors clashed over a Holocaust article. 

Unreliable Wiki-Watch and WikiTrust

Wiki transparency underlies also Wiki-Watch, a German university project. Aimed at media professionals, it has produced a software app for public use that automatically assesses reliability of Wiki’s English and German articles. Compared to Griffith’s WikiScanner and WikiWatcher, Wiki-Watch smells of manipulation disguised as a quest for transparency and truth.

In July 2011, one of Wiki-Watch co-founders, professor Wolfgang Stock was alleged to have conflict of interest due to his work for a pharmaceutical company. He had last made edits to Wikipedia articles on pharmaceuticals and health issues in spring 2009, one year before co-founding Wiki-Watch in late 2010. Stock refuted the allegations, but because of ongoing legal dispute, he gave up leadership of the project and his access rights to its Internet platform, while remaining a team-member.

Even without the litigation outcome, the project looks suspect upon examination of the procedure Wiki-Watch boasts about. Namely, it uses a WikiTrust software developed by U. of California Santa Cruz and publically available as Firefox Plugin. Computing reliability of WikiTrust us questionable; for each word in an article it detrmines the author of the word and the revision where the word with surrounding text were inserted. How much the word with its text have been revised by editors that WikiTrust deems “high authority”, rules the computed “trust” of the word — orange text background for “untrusted”, white for “trusted” text.

Imaine a “lone wolf” editor who, before giving up, contends with an editorial majority united in pseudo-scientific “accepted paradigm” or “science concensus”, or “majority opinion” in non-science articles. WikiTrust software would deem him or her untrustworthy, while brainwashed or pseudo-scientific editors come out “trustworthy” and their edits similar to the final version. In effect, the process is similar to media propaganda by repetition od disinfo across all types of media mentioned under “citogenesis” below.

This trick might have been designed into the tool from the beginning. As strangely, the German academics failed to notice it, further incriminating professor Stock.

014-WW-Screenshot-Reliability of Wikipedia.png
Source. Screenshot of Wiki-Watch rating of the Wikipedia article Reliability of Wikipedia with orange marks of untrustworthy text by WikiTrust. Text passages marked in orange are being considered as vague and/or controversial

Hundreds of references and still biased

Armed with 272 references, the article addresses crowdsource editing problems and Wiki “reliability” as gauged by individuals with various bias, and professional groups governed by group-think and subtle corporate coercion socialized into their education and professional culture. Under editing problems, the article’s editors evince the same predicament it purports to hunt for in the Wiki realm.

A problem wrongly ascribed in the article to reliability assessments, looks like an editorial problem, pointing to absence of info tracing by Wiki authors and editors to primary sources, and to their inability to impartially appraise the quality and veracity of information. Every person carries a unique baggage of ideology, education, cognitive acquisition and opinion change in light of new knowledge, etc. In the best case scenario, authors/editors of a Wiki article will honestly try to reconcile their differences, producing for example, an article embracing the diversity of technical and ideological understanding of the subject. There is no compelling reason to adhere to one argument at the expese (or silencing) of the other, both being necessary to strive for a new paradigm. Some examples:

  • “Germ” versus (or together with) microbiome theories undelying therapy, virology, epidemiology, pharmacology and vaccinology
  • Torsion field contra electromagnetic field as the causation of health effects of wireless, electric, and electronic techs.

Science is not about concensus, prevailing opinion, nor paradigm. Rather, it evolves constantly in a quest for truth. Acceptance of the “minority” opinion turns out to be the new paradigm in sciences most of the time, e.g. heliocentricity by Nicolaus Copernicus, or extensions of (very limited) quantum theory and theory of relativity to encompass new ideas, belying the old ones, yielding to novel theories, confirmed by practice of brave, out-of-the-box independents as well as covert science and R&D.

Human nature, however, will pull the other way, producing a biased article when a person dominates the editorial process by various methods, traceable in Wiki editorial kitchen files. Honest people would be discouraged from co-editing Wiki articles with a domineering, funded and perservering editor in the hands of corporate, government or churchly powers.


Deceitful info-circulation starts with fabrication and manipulation. It is commonly practiced in media and politics, but also in technology, sciences, and education. The inoculated source of info-circle stands out as poorly, suspiciously or unclearly documented/substantiated, for example:

Recent example is a corrupted, alleged science source — itself circuitous. It “proves” the existence of SARS CoV-2 virus by its alleged identification and genetic sequencing with PCR procedure that requires pre-knowledge of the pathogen’s genetic code. The circle of producing a fake “science base” is closed and the quackery enters the process of peddling in media circuitry.

Replace “Press” in the cartoon below with “Media”, and it becomes clear how false and manipulated info spreads in society by “citogenesis”, like in an echo chamber. Media include press, radio, television and cinema, social media, scientific publications, institutional databases (e.g. WHO and national CDCs), political statements, education curricula at all levels, and pop culture. They all remain under corporate influence if not control, biased to tech lobby policies, and slanted to polit-correct ideologies.

The “echo” multiplies and reinforces the message by Goebelssian principle of falsehood becoming “truth” with repetition and multiplication of sources with alike ideology. A law approved in Poland few years ago states that the government can declare an epidemic and mandatory vaccinations against it, simply on the basis of press reports!

As falsehood and bias roll through society, greased with manipulative labels “majority expert concensus”, “prevailing science paradigm”, “generally accepted opinion”, “science-based”, “trusted sources”, truth become the casualties of bankster/globalist/corporate info-war on Humanity. There go our rights and freedoms…

Thruth-seekers and -tellers’ accounts are being closed as they speak on the global cabal lackeys’ social media. Risking their job and life, the whistle-blowers are “conspiracy theorists” who “don’t check their sources”, “pseudo-scientists” and “misinformers, manipulators, liers, crackpots and lunatics” feeding on “suspicious internet sources” under “influence of foreign totalitarian powers”, if not sponsored by the latter. They are lucky when spared ad hominem and description of their hairdo, face and dress.

Featured on WHO website devoted to “covid-19 pandemic”, the graphic illustrates propagation of alleged misinformation, in order to flatten the infodemic curve. The schematic is typical of social media created for info-control and mass manipulation by the powers that shouldn’t be. Each node is a person passing a piece of info onto others. Individual decision “stop” or “forward” is pre-conditioned by subjective criteria what is a rumour, a trusted source, how to verify info, or what constitutes thruth — all resulting from socio-engineering and mass indoctrination, by methods such as in the “Press – Wikipedia” cartoon above of forcing a “trusted, reliable source” on society

At Wiki helm

Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia Foundation, a worldwide multimedia charitable organisation directing and supporting Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, and MediaWiki.

The benefactors include millions of Wiki- project users, as well as major benefactors, patron donors ($15,000 – $49,999), leading donors ($5,000 – $14,999) and sustaining donors ($1,000 – $4,999), incl. Google, Microsoft, Bank of America, International Monetary Fund, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, AstraZeneca, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Bloomberg, Walt Disney, GE Foundation, Boeing, Cisco, Intel, Netflix, Caterpillar, Shell Oil Company Foundation, Coca-Cola, eBay, Ericsson, T-Mobile USA, Verizon, Home Depot, Lawrence Livermore Labs, Hewlett Packard, and hundreds of anonymous personal and corporate donors.

Matching gift programs of corporations and their employees: BlackRock, American Express, MasterCard, Goldman Sachs, Visa, Standard & Poor, American International Group, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Chevron, Ford Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly US, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Dell, Nike, Oracle, Qualcomm, Apple, Twitter, PayPal, Disney, and other.

In Wikimedia Foundation leadership is Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Katherine Maher. In a joint article in the wake of George Floyd’s death, Maher and Chief Operating Officer Janeen Uzzell erupted: violent anti-Black racism in America. In sharp contrast StateOfTheNation (SOTN) quoted an intel analyst: This psyop had all the elements of a real hate crime designed to inflame racial tensions across the USA, as it has done.  Like every global psyop of this scope and magnitude, the perps craftily blended reality with hoax so as to confound the investigators. Floyd’s false flag death is readily challenged, but Wiki remains silent about it. SOTN reminds that CIA’s Mockingbird Media reporting in unison on a fake event become the official story:

Just go to the CIA’s encyclopedia for the masses — Wikipedia — to read all the patently false and fictitious history that the victors — those who secretly rule US today — write by the volumes every single hour of the day.

With two neo-marxist revolutionary lackeys of the globalists at the very top of Wikimedia Foundation executive branch, what would one expect from Wikipedia content… With racial bias tuned to CIA planners, in an article tagged Black History Month, Uzzell advocates for more material on Black history in the media, which “tertiary source” Wiki could use in its articles. Another problem is that Wiki policy conceals demographic info on editors, because we take the privacy of our readers and contributors very seriously — writes Uzzell. Surveys show ca. 1% of Blacks among editors in the USA.

I identify with Uzzell’s advocacy. Holocaust Industry media have cooked up fiction on Polish-Jewish WW2 history. Non-existent Polish editor base in English Wiki can hardly begin to rectify the fabrications and distortions, even though there is ample material to cite from primary sources.

By piotrbein