February 13, 2008
The lords of Wikipedia have announced they will delete the Bilderberg attendees list entry on the site because it is allegedly a “totally un-reliably-sourced list [and] possibly defamatory towards living persons.” The announced deletion will occur five days from 2009-02-18 at 14:53.
Wikipedia offers people concerned about this possible deletion the ability to edit the page. “You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.”
In response, an editor interested in retaining the page added references. Soon after the references were added, however, somebody went on the page and removed them, according to a comment.
Obviously, certain Wikipedia editors are determined to have the page removed and will engage in vandalism in order to have this happen within the five day period announced. Considering the history and allegations leveled at Wikipedia, this should not come as a surprise.
In 2007, Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith developed a software tool that revealed the identities of organizations that edit Wikipedia entries (see Wikipedia ’shows CIA page edits,’ BBC, August 15, 2007). The software revealed editorial changes made by the CIA, the FBI, Diebold, the Democratic Party and the Vatican.
“The Democratic and Republican parties, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institute of Health have also made their fair share of edits. As far as corporations go, Diebold, Amgen, Pfizer, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Apple, and Exxon Mobil have all made changes. Not to be outdone, the news agencies of Fox News, the New York Times, and Al-Jazeera have also participated,” writes Manila Ryce.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
“According to clues accumulated by ordinary citizens around the world, it could be that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are riding the information wave and planting disinformation on Wikipedia,” explains Ludwig De Braeckeleer. “The fact that most Internet search engines, such as Google, give Wikipedia articles top ranking only raises the stakes to a higher level.”
After independent UK journalist and columnist Neil Clark claimed his Wikipedia entry was “consistently maliciously edited” after he critically reviewed a pro-war book penned by Oliver Kamm writing for the Daily Telegraph, the Byzantine Blog wrote that “most internet users who consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information on a whole range of issues, including history and politics, are entirely unaware of” the claim “that Wikipedia is infiltrated by the Western secret services which use it to manipulate truth and prevent the inconvenient facts reaching the wider public, by planting their governments’ official versions of events through Wiki articles.”
And, while the official mainstream media is still filled with praises for the highly dubious Wikiality, independent sources have confirmed Wikipedia is neither “open”, nor “egalitarian”, and certainly not “free”. Unless one thinks CIA and MI5 are veritable fountains of unvarnished, solid-as-gold truths, generously shared with the rest of world for no other purpose but to inform, educate and enlighten the slumbering masses.
Before deciding to rely on Wikipedia as a source of information for serious research on any political subject and most other issues (except for, say, tapeworms and sessile leaves), one would be well advised to heed the warning of founder Jimmy Wales, who personally instructed users not to cite Wikipedia as a source.
Uri Dowbenko is a little more to the point: “Claiming to be a ‘free online encyclopedia,’ Wikipedia is actually a shill for corporate and other internet disinformation, just as AP, also known as Associated Propaganda (or Press), is the Media Cartel’s syndicator of choice, spreading false ‘nooz’ in hometown papers throughout America,” writes Dowbenko. “Wikipedia is the undisputed kudzu weed of the Internet. Just wait till it’s revealed that Jimmy Wales’ Wikipedia is an NSA-CIA-Pentagon PsyOps scam.”
As of this writing, there is no definitive evidence Wikipedia is associated with the CIA or other intelligence agencies. However, other prominent internet information corporations have a well-defined association with the spook world. For instance, Robert David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer and a former clandestine services case officer with the CIA, told Alex Jones in 2006 that “Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up” and the search engine company is “in bed” with the CIA. “Let me say very explicitly – their contact at the CIA is named Dr. Rick Steinheiser, he’s in the Office of Research and Development,” said Steele.
In 2008, Steve Watson wrote that Google is in the business of providing the search features for a private Wikipedia-style site, called Intellipedia. “Google is selling storage and data searching equipment to the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, and other intelligence agencies, who have come together to build a huge internal government intranet,” Watson reported.
Like Wikipedia, the CIA’s platform is based on the open-source MediaWiki software.
Wikipedia’s Bilderberg entry may be of interest to the CIA considering former CIA director John M. Deutch is a member, according to the entry now up Wikipedia’s chopping block. Walter Bedell Smith, a former CIA director, and Cord Meyer, a former CIA official, are also listed as members.
Again, there is no definitive evidence the CIA is complicit in the recent vandalism of the Bilderberg entry on Wikipedia, however the fact Virgil Griffith’s software caught the agency in the act of editing entries is highly suspicious, to say the least.
Finally, if Wikipedia does indeed delete the entry in question, we have replicated it here for the sake of posterity.
This article was posted: Friday, February 13, 2009 at 2:27 pm