Thread by @crabcrawler1

I was going to be more meticulous about it but we'll do it live.

Larry Sanger co-founded Wikipedia in 2001 alongside Jimmy Wales.

Now he's come back to speak out against the FAR LEFTIST BIAS that has come to rule the site. We're going to explore that. archive.is/DrbUX

Let's prove Larry Sanger right, from the get go.

In May 2014 Hunter Biden emails show that he had a PR firm **MONITORING and controlling** his Wikipedia page AS NEWS BROKE about Hunter's infamous "Ukraine job" with Burisma became public.

Sure. A lot of you people are too lazy to read threads and might not have time.

IF YOU WANT THE SHORT VERSION of how Wikipedia screws people over, Lauren Southern explains the dilemma.

But this is also a story about how one person can make a difference.

I'm going to heavily lean on the reporting of Breitbart's TD ADLER twitter.com/tdadler

He was a former Wikipedia regular. And he's one of the ONLY ONES holding the site accountable. breitbart.com/author/t-d-adl…

WHY Wikipedia's bias is important. FOREMOST. IS that the site is partnered with GOOGLE. Gives Wikipedia MILLIONS of $$. Cites them as LEGIT in "fact panels." archive.is/Rmffh

That gives the far left BIAS much more weight to it. (We're going to circle back to this, a lot.)

"For example, Google-owned Jigsaw has used Wikipedia, in part, to train its open source troll-fighting AI."

OH LORD

by the end of this thread we'll establish how problematic that is.

🚨WIKIPEDIA BIAS (Feb. 2018) breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/0…
1. Berkeley students went on an anti-Trump editing spree
2.) Buried CNN's blackmail controversy
3.) Tried to discredit James Damore
4.) Downplayed far-left violence
5.) "Purged" sources critical of the bunk RussiaGate narrative

^^ AND YET

The Democrat Establishment SWEARS by Wikipedia being the CURE to fake news. Despite the far left bias. breitbart.com/tech/2020/11/0…

"New York Post revelations about alleged Biden family corruption being censored as the Post was deemed unreliable. Corroborating Fox News and Daily Caller reports were rejected citing similar decisions against those outlets."

"YouTube incorporated Wikipedia articles into fact-checking “conspiracy theory” videos. Facebook utilized Wikipedia to provide “context” to news links" breitbart.com/tech/2018/03/1…
breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/0…

Remember that baseless rumor about the CPAC stage?

🚨Social media chatter pushed as FACT on CPAC's Wikipedia page. breitbart.com/tech/2021/03/1…

The company that made stage? "DONATES LARGELY TO DEMS, DID WORK FOR MSNBC, BIDEN CANCER INITIATIVE" foxnews.com/media/cpac-sta…

With that said? It's IRONIC that the likes of Wikipedia think they have the AUTHORITY to enact sourcing bans. breitbart.com/tech/2021/07/1…

(It all comes back to the ideological slant)

ONE ADMIN oversaw a "discussion that saw Fox News discouraged from use on contentious political topics. In that discussion, Chapman argued Fox News was “unreliable” citing a book whose author co-wrote a study that copied Wikipedia content to malign conservative sources."

Reminder that a former Democrat Senate staffer used Wikipedia in a VENDETTA against five Senators, posting their personal info to the site.

theverge.com/2019/4/5/18297…

^^ JUST to further solidify the possible harms that ensue from the oft-forgotten about site.

And again. DESPITE THE ABOVE: "Amazon Just Donated $1 Million to Wikipedia." (September 2018) inc.com/justin-bariso/…

BOTTOM LINE: Big Tech companies feed this bias machine that Wikipedia has ended up being. All to enrich themselves and their products instead.

At what cost?

For a FULL exploration of Wikipedia's bias, BEYOND any doubt... TD Adler twitter.com/tdadler wrote basically a NOVEL about how the GamerGate Wikipedia page's edit war ended up PROVING Wikipedia's flaws. tdadlerwp.medium.com/the-wikipedia-…

^^ But I know not many have time for that. TD Adler provides a condensed version. I pray that you people reading this thread have time for THAT. tdadlerwp.medium.com/the-wikipedia-…

^^^ "STILL TOO LONG. PLEASE SPOONFEED ME in one tweet."

Ryulong was a Wikipedia editor. He was biased in making edits that painted GamerGate in a bad light.

Ryulong was banned from Wikipedia, by committee, because of this.

Also Ryulong took bribes. tdadlerwp.medium.com/the-wikipedia-…

.... AND YET. DESPITE another instance of clear Wikipedia corruption?

The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION teamed up with Wikipedia to help weed out "MISINFORMATION." 🤡breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/2…

(To which even Wikipedia people complained about W.H.O. being wrong about stuff. 😂

🚨Big political influence time.

January 2016: WIKIPEDIA had a $100 million grant project set up by the VERY VERY leftist Tides Foundation. archive.is/Lcslf

If you want to claim $100 million dollars does NOT come with strings attached? good luck. influencewatch.org/non-profit/tid…

^ OH BY THE WAY this is a spicy lead because Wikipedia reached their $100 million goal in FIVE years, not ten.

And people think money is making Wikipedia VERY SUS. dailydot.com/debug/wikipedi…

🚨🚨TRANSLATED: WIKIPEDIA has now recently been giving money BACK to the Tides Foundation, which is itself a LEFTIST HIVEMIND OF MONEY that funds all sorts of political projects.

The MONEY FLOW problem having a LEFTIST leaning influencing it.... it creates the media narrative direction.

Someone outlined the process of how media narratives end up on Wikipedia as fact, back during the GamerGate conflict.

This chain of influence CAUSED our societal decay w/ regards to political polarization.

Over time, normies are bound to check out the BIASED articles for
-- Trump: breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/2…
-- Tucker Carlson: breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/1…

And ASSUME Wikipedia editors were "fair."

If the corporate media and liberal establishment REALLY cared about "MISINFORMATION," Wikipedia would be their NUMBER ONE focus. Full stop.

As it's a site where ANYONE can write and edit, and it's a platform DIRECTLY dedicated at trying to dictate what's fact.

🚨WIKIPEDIA: previously called Tucker Carlson a conspiracy theorist man over LAB LEAK theory breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/1…

But when it came POPULAR in the Corporate Media a few weeks ago? wsj.com/articles/the-s…

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ANOTHER WAY to understand how Wikipedia is bureaucratic BOGUS is reading how TD Adler was ousted and banned from the site. tdadlerwp.medium.com/regarding-my-b…

To bring it back around: WIKIPEDIA is now a CORPORATE MEDIA GRIFT breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/2…

"Next Wednesday"

I assumed this was the 21st. But might be the 28th? hmm.

Oh well I'll carry on.

SO. Thus far I've narrowed down the Wikipedia leftist political bias agenda.

-- Push BLM narratives breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/1…
-- Purge Conservatives breitbart.com/tech/2020/11/0…

And this all started coming into play by 2016.
Because of course it did.

For this next portion of the Wikipedia thread, I'm going to go through several years beforehand, so we can get a better idea about the site's rise to prominence.

Enough that Hillary Clinton's people saw fit to hijack it, politically.

What's interesting about Wikipedia is the age. It was founded in January 2001.

Which means going back to 2008 is not enough. At this point in the site's lifetime it has already grown powerful enough for RIVALS to try and copy it, and for governments to try and censor it.

(HOWEVER we're going to go from 2008 onward because online articles about Wikipedia don't really begin showing up TOO regularly, beforehand.)

(The furthest back I was able to go was 2005.)

By the time we hit 2009, you can see a theme.

Wikipedia growing pains.

Normal sort of stuff. Sure there's the BEGINNINGS of "slippery slope" potential here, maybe.

But honestly the decisions made were sensible.

2010! Wikipedia has the beginnings of solidification of its power.

Academia? Yep. Big Tech? Yep. Gooberments? Many yeps.

Also GOOGLE cash to Wikipedia in the form of $2 million. itnews.com.au/news/wikimedia…
news.softpedia.com/news/Wikipedia…

(If I mentioned this already that's fine. Worth bringing up again how far back the money flow goes.)

Nice I don't look completely foolish