A glimpse of some of "debunked" "conspiracy theories" later been proven true: 1
1. Government's illegal spying on Trump campaign.
2. The authenticity of Hunter's laptop.
3. The veracity of UFO reports over the decades.
4. Secret govt. plots to perfect mind control on unconsenting Americans (ie MK Ultra).
5. Tuskegee syphilis experiments secretly done on black men without their consent.
6. US govt secretly infecting population with pathogens (ie Operation Seaspray).
7. Secret US govt tests of nuclear devices with thousands of citizens exposed to dangerous radiation.
8. CIA weather control efforts in warfare (ie Operation Sober Popeye).
9. The CIA targeting Martin Luther King.
10. Secret news manipulation by govt propaganda (ie Operation Mockingbird).
11. Govt spying on US journalists (ie me, AP, Rosen).
12. Govt spying on US citizens after denying it (ie Clapper and Snowden).
13. Polio vaccine contaminated with cancer causing virus.
14. Polio vaccine can cause polio (oral version) Vaccines are scientifically linked to autism, immune disorders, and many other illnesses.
15. US funded gain of function research with China involving bat coronaviruses.
16. The deliberate controversialization of the phrase "conspiracy theory" was launched by the CIA to discredit certain questions about JFK assassination:
There are over 500 hundred misinformation conspiracy theories1 turning out to be true, of course “debunked” by Wikipedia, and listed among clearly false ones (like flat-earth, ETs) in order to make them sound ridicule:
The term “Conspiracy Theory” was used by the CIA to discredit those who questioned the Warren Commission Report on the assignation of President Kennedy. Ironically, the term was originally used to describe those who questioned the shooting of President Garfield in 1881. The Warren Report was merely a political document by former CIA Director mason Allen Dulles, who President Kennedy hated and actually fired.3
What else are they hiding?
Conspiracies are so common that the burden of proof should be on the debunking side. Is there any conspiracy theory out there which is not a conspiracy fact?
We've got a very small window of opportunity to fight or ... die (they want to murder 95% of us).
President John Quincy Adams: “Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong - essentially wrong - a seed of evil, which can never produce any good.”
Great list. I would request an open mind about flat earth. though. All the "scientific proofs" of the heliocentric model have turned out to be beliefs and/or fraudulent NASA imaging. Most flat earthers subscribed to the globe earth model until they tried to disprove flat earth. Just say'n.
Sorry, that one is too easy to discern and debunk. I am open to discussing anything and have seen some very good attempts to trick people into accepting flat earth theories.
I am a private pilot and have flown at high enough altitudes that I can see the curvature of the earth. Not one of the flat earth arguments have passed scientific analysis. They are only used to confuse people and make them think that knowing the truth is too difficult. You aren't going to get very far here arguing such.
Bruce, I'm curious but I don't want to risk a prolonged discussion here, which could skew the stack. I'll wait until Jenna addresses the subject so our comments would be more relevant to the subject matter.
You did follow the visit to the 24hour sun at the south pole I hope. This was a hard line in the ice for most flatearthers until the visit was planned and then it no longer mattered. So if you want to live your life believing in systems that change their goalposts when the truth gets too close you can. However know that there will be a karmic cost to telling others that it is the truth when you have no way to prove it.
Radio Amateurs from South America can communicate with counterparts in Australia if they both point their directional antennas due SOUTH. I know the only way this can work on a flat earth is if the radio signal is directed by the ice wall into a plasma channel under the earth and pops out on the other side so it can be detected coming from the most distant ice wall. Obviously there is another plasma channel that crosses that will tunnel radio signals from South Africa to New Zealand. I suppose it could be a secret NASA fiber-optic supported radio relay too or perhaps one of those lighter than air satellite thingies.
There are only three possible reasons to promote flat earth, ignorance, gullibility or malice. None of them are a good look.
I am so honored by this post and will share it with my tribe. There's an interesting footnote (which I am writing about as well; I will link THIS post in that one as well). Thank you sincerely for your support! :)
This is the same too-big-to-fail condescension that preceded the falls of IBM ("We tell YOU what you want in a personal computer."), Coca-Cola ("You'll drink NEW Coke and LIKE it!"), and Anheuser-Busch ("SWALLOW it! Bitches!") It's not surprising that it's also characteristic of upper echelons of socialist "paradises" right before they implode. Day after day the "little people" have to put up with one more humiliation until one day they don't.
What will replace Wikipedia? or will it be 'fixed'? Do you think AI could scan all publications and flag the logical errors? Clearly the AI they are using serves their purpose. But that doesn't mean a credible AI can't give an undisputable report on the errors and bias all of which can be traced back to an editor...
If the perverse incentives were removed then Wikipedia would self correct. For non medical and non political pages it is surprisingly good as a first port of call if you do not know what book to read or paper to download. I have written a couple and edited a handful of pages and find that technical pages get better with time.
Oh, you do, do you? This is just your way, like my big sister does, of reminding me that it was THIS brain that worked out that drooling Joe would abdicate in favor of The Kamala, the Harris, just before the election and the euphoria of issuing in the First Female POTUS would carry her and lard-ass Timmy across the finish line...
Like you didn't remember. And like I'll ever live it down. It's like my brain now has a tattoo right across the front lobes: "JENIUS!"
Well, THIS brain simply COULD NOT conceive of the Maelstrom of Mutual Loathing that characterized The End.
Clearly there is something wrong with this brain. It is not a new brain. It is a used brain... ...and not being always "right there," it often still wants to go out and parade. I should say "No!"--and even "Oh, HAIL no!" much more often, but frankly, I'm too often myself in its gibbering thrall.
Thank you for yet another confirmation that Wiki is biased. I get so tired of their obvious editorializing while they claim to be neutral. Every single medical person whose opinion I respected during the 'pandemic' had the "disinformation" tag, while Fauci and all of his mainstream cohorts who WERE actually spreading misinformation did not -and do not to this day, despite being proven liars and evil quacks where public health is concerned -- and that's being generous.
Still, Wiki serves a purpose: it tells you exactly how the deep state wants you to think, and I consider that valuable information in itself.
I'm not sure when their misinfo and smearing really got going but it's easily been well more than a decade. My guess would be that it was likely co-opted/taken over by intelligence as 9/11 info began spreading rapidly.
When I worked as a technical writer in 2000, I relied on Wikipedia to explain what a certain kind of data storage device was. I never felt that I could not trust W's explanation. The thing that bugs me - still - is the lack of an introduction.
Introductions are the curse of the writer. Summarize the key points, do not introduce minor points. Demonstrate that you know what you are writing about.
Admittedly, journalists seem to have abandoned introductions - it doesn't work well with their storytelling.
Are you teasing me?
For me, tech writing was about explaining some obscure technology to some poor sap who was responsible for it. I needed to draw the big picture so the guy (and it was always a guy) could orient himself. I was good at it because I was highly technical.
Yeah, pretty hard to politicize data storage devices I would think. Or stuff like 'what's the capitol of Botswana, what's the population of such and such, but for important political and social issues it's all about narrative control for the powerful. I am curious though how you relied on Wikipedia in 2000 when it didn't launch until 2001? : )
Some thoughtful person Edited Musk as the current president of the USA in a list and I happened to see it before it was reverted back to Trump when I refreshed the page. Kind of funny to see how fast popular pages are edited to follow the narrative/facts.
I admit I could not remember when Wikipedia started. I grabbed 2000 out of thin air because I am sure I worked as a tech writer then. The business about the data storage devices was probably 2002, I was working at The Gap in SF.
Ah the time honored “attitude adjustment” was a term used by my parents, mostly my Dad, when one of us kids needed to get our shit together and stop being little fuckers. Other parents called “grounded” except we weren’t sent to our room. We had to do physical labor like weed the stone driveway, move a pile of mulch from one side of the yard to the other, wash everyone’s cars, etc.. I’ll tell you what our attitude adjusted pretty damn quick. I, in turn blessed my own boys with the same. Maybe wokapedia needs to get their hands dirty to get themselves sorted out.
Any time on twitter one uses Wikipedia as a source of whatever narrative I am disagreeing against, I simply have to say "you can't trust that source, it's Wikipedia."
In truth I could say that for any major medical journal as well. "You can't trust that source, it is backed by government money or big pharma money."
I agree that Wikipedia has credibility issues, but a smart person can wade through the deception. Wikipedia does have ability to talk about the articles. You can review that for a different skew to some things. The links can point to some very good sources and there are some articles that are very factual. When you venture into certain areas (big pharma for example) the skew from factual science gets much larger.
So many people say "That isn't a source I would trust" and self censor themselves. Here is an article that discusses this in more detail:
Yes, a smart person can wade through the deception, but many smart people were also deceived by the COVID narrative due to an almost implicit trust in institutions. Some of the closest and smartest people I know were deceived. I also assume that I am still wrong about things that I have yet to address.
I don't dismiss the Wikipedia article out of hand, but I just know going in that I can recommend edits of it. It's a little more difficult to recommend edits and challenge aspects of a Lancet study.
You're right about self-censoring, and I don't like that either. By all means, use it, but realize it is as credible as say any other source out there. People act as if there is some external infallible force that conjures up documents out of the ether. The Dictionary didn't just create itself out of nothing.
As an editor you can flag any page to ping you when it is edited. Reading an edit in the diff history only takes moments and if you are clued up on the message the page is supposed to convey a counter narrative can be reverted fast. Also for those not editing regularly making basic errors like leaving out references or editing your own page will get it reverted for technical reasons.
Sure there are bound to be some bots that are programmed to revert basic vandalism (removal of whole sections without edit summary) but I don't think the bad guys trust AI to do the dirty work, too much chance of a bad mistake.
Thank you for writing this and making it clear what these morons are doing with a clear example. I too read Jenna every time she posts something, and it is always refreshing, both for the truth and the humor!
Take a look at what they write about Jews and Israel if you want to see disgusting distortions. Nobody takes wiki seriously anymore but you should feel honored that they care enough about your influence to try to take you down!
It could be too that eye-pleasing conservatives are perceived as "snarky" because they're not liberal and attackers feel compelled to try to out-snark them. Many try, all fail.
(I'm calling up candidates of your description right now, and what ones have come up--andthankyouverymuch--do strike me as having a non-zero snark quotient.)
I have limited experience editing Wikipedia and heard a report that a, if not the, founder complained about leftist infiltration and subversion. I could detail my experience but in brief an editor with more status reversed my edits, that were backed by citations to White House records, and essentially stated that anything from Trump was a lie. I distrust any leftist reports because, as Dennis Prager has asserted, truth is not a left-wing value. Also from Prager: the left ruins everything it touches.
It's a shame, but Wikipedia has long been a battleground of leftist disinformation PsyOps. Mark Levin has also complained about his Wikipedia entry. I imagine that targeting of conservatives by leftists should be considered a rite of passage. I've noticed that edits to some controversial political articles have been disabled, and I imagine that there might be some ways to mitigate the abuse. Otherwise Wikipedia will go the way of other institutions ruined by the left.
Yes. Me too. I used to give them money, but then I replied to them and told them if they changed their ways or explained how what they were doing was the right thing, that I would. As you can guess, they didn't even try to explain themselves. I felt that the feed back would tell them why they were losing contributors. Most likely they found their money elsewhere...
Jenna, I just ordered your book about being in your 40s (I'm 70 but i still remember my 40s!). I am horrified at what wikipedia did. They really are making themselves look very, very stupid though so there's that. I hope you sue the snot out of them and win BIGLY! I love your writing and your humor, it's very much needed for these times IMO. Wiki really, really made themselves look very bad, they are committing suicide at every turn and they are also violating the constitution and all rules for human decency. Just my 2 cents. Keep up with your writing, dear Jenna, it is very much needed in these times. I love your writing and you!
Everything about this comment means the world to me! I appreciate your support and I hope you loved the book. More to come tomorrow about wokepedia… 😉😍
Conspiracy theorist is the narrative version of "racist."
We, those of us who dissent from the "approved narratives," should call one another fellow conspiracy theorists. We should wear it as a badge of honor. We warrant these because we peddle in "dangerous misinformation." Information like COVID-19 not being as dangerous or novel as they said it was.
I agree in principal, however. There is a stigma attached because it says 'theory' which indicates it may be false. I would prefer "Conspiracy Reveal-er" or something similar to emphasize that you are discussing the actions of conspirators and exposing them for the crimes that they are.
The point of my assertion is simply to lean into the stigma. The term is meant to "stigmatize" and "dissuade" when we should wear it as a badge of honor. It means you have ruffled feathers and their only response is to attempt to dismantle and silence. It is a form of ad hominem attack.
Yes. I think you need both. To take back the word, but also educate people on what it really means. Rarely a theory and Usually something that requires investigation.
Well, the term was never meant to be an accurate portrayal of what is being said. They are arguing that because one may think this...they also believe things like the "world is flat" or that "the moon mission was fabricated."
I don't educate, I merely show them the definition which they can look up themselves. But the whole moniker, ad hominem in nature, is meant to devolve the discussion into childish mudslinging.
Agree! You'll read this if you swing by my stack tomorrow, but Wokepedia's response to my initial complaint was to point me to a BLOG POST (!!!) that I wrote four years ago where I accurately defined the term ("By definition, a conspiracy is 'a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.' A theory is 'an idea used to account for a situation or to justify a course of action.' So, a conspiracy theorist is someone who suspects that someone is doing something dirty and then makes choices for their life based on that suspicion.") and then I wrote, "Hi. My name is Jenna, and I am a conspiracy theorist."
See? They were just quoting ME!
I replied, "If I said publicly or in print, which I am sure I have, 'I am such an asshole,' would that have justified your platform declaring, 'Jenna McCarthy is an asshole'?"
Here's the article they referenced, for context: https://jennamccarthy.com/theory-about-conspiracies/ (And meanwhile, they were somehow able to dig up a single sentence in a four-year-old blog post five paragraphs down, but they couldn't find The War on Ivermectin or an updated tally of my TED talk(s) views?
I DO wear the title with pride--I'm in excellent company after all--but since they claim to be neutral, I think they need a schooling. ;)
Wikipedia is one of many sources that all claim to be objective. All the alphabet sources are "legitimate and devoid of bias." Reporting on insurrections minus the arms and objectively reporting on "mostly peaceful protests" that document buildings burning down.
I completely agree. I have not found a conspiracy theory I couldn't endorse. Just like when someone calls me a bitch I chime life's a bitch and so am I.
My awakening to the Wiki-bias was about 6 years ago. A friend told me to type in "Terrain Theory" (of which I had been realizing was the true path to Health), I got the wiki article called "Germ Theory Denialism". I tried to edit that page and was immediately shut down. That was an eye opener.
A glimpse of some of "debunked" "conspiracy theories" later been proven true: 1
1. Government's illegal spying on Trump campaign.
2. The authenticity of Hunter's laptop.
3. The veracity of UFO reports over the decades.
4. Secret govt. plots to perfect mind control on unconsenting Americans (ie MK Ultra).
5. Tuskegee syphilis experiments secretly done on black men without their consent.
6. US govt secretly infecting population with pathogens (ie Operation Seaspray).
7. Secret US govt tests of nuclear devices with thousands of citizens exposed to dangerous radiation.
8. CIA weather control efforts in warfare (ie Operation Sober Popeye).
9. The CIA targeting Martin Luther King.
10. Secret news manipulation by govt propaganda (ie Operation Mockingbird).
11. Govt spying on US journalists (ie me, AP, Rosen).
12. Govt spying on US citizens after denying it (ie Clapper and Snowden).
13. Polio vaccine contaminated with cancer causing virus.
14. Polio vaccine can cause polio (oral version) Vaccines are scientifically linked to autism, immune disorders, and many other illnesses.
15. US funded gain of function research with China involving bat coronaviruses.
16. The deliberate controversialization of the phrase "conspiracy theory" was launched by the CIA to discredit certain questions about JFK assassination:
There are over 500 hundred misinformation conspiracy theories1 turning out to be true, of course “debunked” by Wikipedia, and listed among clearly false ones (like flat-earth, ETs) in order to make them sound ridicule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
The term “Conspiracy Theory” was used by the CIA to discredit those who questioned the Warren Commission Report on the assignation of President Kennedy. Ironically, the term was originally used to describe those who questioned the shooting of President Garfield in 1881. The Warren Report was merely a political document by former CIA Director mason Allen Dulles, who President Kennedy hated and actually fired.3
What else are they hiding?
Conspiracies are so common that the burden of proof should be on the debunking side. Is there any conspiracy theory out there which is not a conspiracy fact?
We've got a very small window of opportunity to fight or ... die (they want to murder 95% of us).
President John Quincy Adams: “Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong - essentially wrong - a seed of evil, which can never produce any good.”
Satanic Secret Societies for dummies:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/sss-for-dummies
Who are The Powers That SHOULDN'T Be ?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/criminal-intent
https://www.coreysdigs.com/global/who-is-they/
The end of money and freedom
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/uncle-sam-altman
LBJ killed JFK for the Federal Reserve, Nam and the Israel A-bomb
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/lbj-killed-jfk
Weaponization of Justice: no democracy with Freemasonry!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/weaponization-of-justice
Illuminati David Rockefeller, finest quotes:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/david-rockefeller-illuminati
Confessions of ex illuminati Ronald Bernard:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/confessions-of-illuminati-ronald
Illuminati Attali, finest quotes:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/attali-illuminati-finest-quotes
Chisholm, father of the WHO’s global pedophilia
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/brock-chisholm-father-of-the-whos
Ex mason Serge Abad-Gallardo:
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/confessions-of-a-former-freemason-officer-converted-to-catholicism
16 laws we need to exit Prison Planet
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/laws-to-exit-planet-prison
Please share, not the articles, but the information! I'm expendable. Saving the free world, is not!
If this were a poster, and I was in college, it would be on my wall.
(Substack.com needs an "archive post" button. But here's my)
Thank you.
(And, I almost missed the candidate for bumper sticker: "I'm expendable. Saving the free world, is not!")
It does have a 'pin' button to move it to the top and keep it there.
Mike, like the refrain in the famous old song, "They're Writing Songs of Love But,"
Not for me.
Great list. I would request an open mind about flat earth. though. All the "scientific proofs" of the heliocentric model have turned out to be beliefs and/or fraudulent NASA imaging. Most flat earthers subscribed to the globe earth model until they tried to disprove flat earth. Just say'n.
Sorry, that one is too easy to discern and debunk. I am open to discussing anything and have seen some very good attempts to trick people into accepting flat earth theories.
I am a private pilot and have flown at high enough altitudes that I can see the curvature of the earth. Not one of the flat earth arguments have passed scientific analysis. They are only used to confuse people and make them think that knowing the truth is too difficult. You aren't going to get very far here arguing such.
Agree to disagree then. All the best to you.
Bruce, I'm curious but I don't want to risk a prolonged discussion here, which could skew the stack. I'll wait until Jenna addresses the subject so our comments would be more relevant to the subject matter.
Agreed. Just calling for an open mind. Honestly I'd be thrilled if we are on a globe. It would make life much easier.
You did follow the visit to the 24hour sun at the south pole I hope. This was a hard line in the ice for most flatearthers until the visit was planned and then it no longer mattered. So if you want to live your life believing in systems that change their goalposts when the truth gets too close you can. However know that there will be a karmic cost to telling others that it is the truth when you have no way to prove it.
Radio Amateurs from South America can communicate with counterparts in Australia if they both point their directional antennas due SOUTH. I know the only way this can work on a flat earth is if the radio signal is directed by the ice wall into a plasma channel under the earth and pops out on the other side so it can be detected coming from the most distant ice wall. Obviously there is another plasma channel that crosses that will tunnel radio signals from South Africa to New Zealand. I suppose it could be a secret NASA fiber-optic supported radio relay too or perhaps one of those lighter than air satellite thingies.
There are only three possible reasons to promote flat earth, ignorance, gullibility or malice. None of them are a good look.
Is Earth held up, then, by turtles all the way down?
Yes. I remember that from a book I read from a very respected man. ;-)
So it must be true...
Nothing is really settled yet. It's a wonderous journey discovering God's creation.
Excellent resource list! 👏
I am so honored by this post and will share it with my tribe. There's an interesting footnote (which I am writing about as well; I will link THIS post in that one as well). Thank you sincerely for your support! :)
So many conspiracy theories become conspiracy truths that there a few left, right?
The USS Liberty conspiracy also turned out to be a copy of Gulf of Tonkin:
LBJ killed JFK for the Federal Reserve, Nam and the Israel A-bomb
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/lbj-killed-jfk
Satanic Secret Societies for dummies:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/sss-for-dummies
This is the same too-big-to-fail condescension that preceded the falls of IBM ("We tell YOU what you want in a personal computer."), Coca-Cola ("You'll drink NEW Coke and LIKE it!"), and Anheuser-Busch ("SWALLOW it! Bitches!") It's not surprising that it's also characteristic of upper echelons of socialist "paradises" right before they implode. Day after day the "little people" have to put up with one more humiliation until one day they don't.
Then, they dance on the ashes of the giants.
I am ready to dance...
What will replace Wikipedia? or will it be 'fixed'? Do you think AI could scan all publications and flag the logical errors? Clearly the AI they are using serves their purpose. But that doesn't mean a credible AI can't give an undisputable report on the errors and bias all of which can be traced back to an editor...
If the perverse incentives were removed then Wikipedia would self correct. For non medical and non political pages it is surprisingly good as a first port of call if you do not know what book to read or paper to download. I have written a couple and edited a handful of pages and find that technical pages get better with time.
I love your brain, David. I really do. :)
Oh, you do, do you? This is just your way, like my big sister does, of reminding me that it was THIS brain that worked out that drooling Joe would abdicate in favor of The Kamala, the Harris, just before the election and the euphoria of issuing in the First Female POTUS would carry her and lard-ass Timmy across the finish line...
Like you didn't remember. And like I'll ever live it down. It's like my brain now has a tattoo right across the front lobes: "JENIUS!"
Well, THIS brain simply COULD NOT conceive of the Maelstrom of Mutual Loathing that characterized The End.
Clearly there is something wrong with this brain. It is not a new brain. It is a used brain... ...and not being always "right there," it often still wants to go out and parade. I should say "No!"--and even "Oh, HAIL no!" much more often, but frankly, I'm too often myself in its gibbering thrall.
But thanks anyway.
David, my card is open for the next dance. Shall we?
[music starting up in the background].
[immediately wets himself and spends rest of dance in boys' room waiting for it all to be over BEE-LUSH...]
Poor boy! Maybe next time.
Do keep up the fantastic work in the meantime! ✨🌟✨
Thank you for yet another confirmation that Wiki is biased. I get so tired of their obvious editorializing while they claim to be neutral. Every single medical person whose opinion I respected during the 'pandemic' had the "disinformation" tag, while Fauci and all of his mainstream cohorts who WERE actually spreading misinformation did not -and do not to this day, despite being proven liars and evil quacks where public health is concerned -- and that's being generous.
Still, Wiki serves a purpose: it tells you exactly how the deep state wants you to think, and I consider that valuable information in itself.
I'm not sure when their misinfo and smearing really got going but it's easily been well more than a decade. My guess would be that it was likely co-opted/taken over by intelligence as 9/11 info began spreading rapidly.
When I worked as a technical writer in 2000, I relied on Wikipedia to explain what a certain kind of data storage device was. I never felt that I could not trust W's explanation. The thing that bugs me - still - is the lack of an introduction.
What do you mean by lack of an introduction?
Introductions are the curse of the writer. Summarize the key points, do not introduce minor points. Demonstrate that you know what you are writing about.
Admittedly, journalists seem to have abandoned introductions - it doesn't work well with their storytelling.
Are you teasing me?
For me, tech writing was about explaining some obscure technology to some poor sap who was responsible for it. I needed to draw the big picture so the guy (and it was always a guy) could orient himself. I was good at it because I was highly technical.
Yeah, pretty hard to politicize data storage devices I would think. Or stuff like 'what's the capitol of Botswana, what's the population of such and such, but for important political and social issues it's all about narrative control for the powerful. I am curious though how you relied on Wikipedia in 2000 when it didn't launch until 2001? : )
Some thoughtful person Edited Musk as the current president of the USA in a list and I happened to see it before it was reverted back to Trump when I refreshed the page. Kind of funny to see how fast popular pages are edited to follow the narrative/facts.
I admit I could not remember when Wikipedia started. I grabbed 2000 out of thin air because I am sure I worked as a tech writer then. The business about the data storage devices was probably 2002, I was working at The Gap in SF.
Ah the time honored “attitude adjustment” was a term used by my parents, mostly my Dad, when one of us kids needed to get our shit together and stop being little fuckers. Other parents called “grounded” except we weren’t sent to our room. We had to do physical labor like weed the stone driveway, move a pile of mulch from one side of the yard to the other, wash everyone’s cars, etc.. I’ll tell you what our attitude adjusted pretty damn quick. I, in turn blessed my own boys with the same. Maybe wokapedia needs to get their hands dirty to get themselves sorted out.
Yes. I have had my attitude 'adjusted' by my parents many times. I believe it made me a better person. Never would have admitted it then though.
Didn't Winston Smith have an "attitude adjustment"?
Lol. Yes he did. But at least I know that 2+2 = 4.
If only it were within our power to "ground" Wikipedia.
Their behavior speaks of hidden subsidies.
Right?!
Any time on twitter one uses Wikipedia as a source of whatever narrative I am disagreeing against, I simply have to say "you can't trust that source, it's Wikipedia."
In truth I could say that for any major medical journal as well. "You can't trust that source, it is backed by government money or big pharma money."
I agree that Wikipedia has credibility issues, but a smart person can wade through the deception. Wikipedia does have ability to talk about the articles. You can review that for a different skew to some things. The links can point to some very good sources and there are some articles that are very factual. When you venture into certain areas (big pharma for example) the skew from factual science gets much larger.
So many people say "That isn't a source I would trust" and self censor themselves. Here is an article that discusses this in more detail:
https://mikemyhre.substack.com/p/whos-idea
Yes, a smart person can wade through the deception, but many smart people were also deceived by the COVID narrative due to an almost implicit trust in institutions. Some of the closest and smartest people I know were deceived. I also assume that I am still wrong about things that I have yet to address.
I don't dismiss the Wikipedia article out of hand, but I just know going in that I can recommend edits of it. It's a little more difficult to recommend edits and challenge aspects of a Lancet study.
You're right about self-censoring, and I don't like that either. By all means, use it, but realize it is as credible as say any other source out there. People act as if there is some external infallible force that conjures up documents out of the ether. The Dictionary didn't just create itself out of nothing.
🎯🎯🎯
Likewise, my past attempts to edit were instantaneously removed. The rapidity means that no human could have possibly been involved. Go Jenna!
As an editor you can flag any page to ping you when it is edited. Reading an edit in the diff history only takes moments and if you are clued up on the message the page is supposed to convey a counter narrative can be reverted fast. Also for those not editing regularly making basic errors like leaving out references or editing your own page will get it reverted for technical reasons.
Sure there are bound to be some bots that are programmed to revert basic vandalism (removal of whole sections without edit summary) but I don't think the bad guys trust AI to do the dirty work, too much chance of a bad mistake.
Thank you for writing this and making it clear what these morons are doing with a clear example. I too read Jenna every time she posts something, and it is always refreshing, both for the truth and the humor!
Jenna, thanks for keeping up your work through all this madness!
Take a look at what they write about Jews and Israel if you want to see disgusting distortions. Nobody takes wiki seriously anymore but you should feel honored that they care enough about your influence to try to take you down!
Wikipedia outright lies about people, but then they run a banner asking us to contribute money. Utter madness.
I don't know how many have noticed, but if the conservative in question is pleasing to the eyes, the attacks against them are noticeably "snarkier".
It could be too that eye-pleasing conservatives are perceived as "snarky" because they're not liberal and attackers feel compelled to try to out-snark them. Many try, all fail.
(I'm calling up candidates of your description right now, and what ones have come up--andthankyouverymuch--do strike me as having a non-zero snark quotient.)
I have limited experience editing Wikipedia and heard a report that a, if not the, founder complained about leftist infiltration and subversion. I could detail my experience but in brief an editor with more status reversed my edits, that were backed by citations to White House records, and essentially stated that anything from Trump was a lie. I distrust any leftist reports because, as Dennis Prager has asserted, truth is not a left-wing value. Also from Prager: the left ruins everything it touches.
It's a shame, but Wikipedia has long been a battleground of leftist disinformation PsyOps. Mark Levin has also complained about his Wikipedia entry. I imagine that targeting of conservatives by leftists should be considered a rite of passage. I've noticed that edits to some controversial political articles have been disabled, and I imagine that there might be some ways to mitigate the abuse. Otherwise Wikipedia will go the way of other institutions ruined by the left.
I need to start a bumper-sticker company!
MRF's submission, quoting Dennis Prager: "Truth is not a left-wing value."
PICTURE the FACES of left-nuts sitting in traffic when they glance at it--AND THEN IT SINKS IN.
Thanks for the first-hand insight! Ironically, they're only an "encyclopedia" because THEY CLAIM TO BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Very clever on their parts...
Wikipedia is completely corrupt and unreliable. Sorry you get entangled with them.
I am always amazed to find a perfect explanation labeled as "conspiracy theory". I no longer give them any money.
Yes. Me too. I used to give them money, but then I replied to them and told them if they changed their ways or explained how what they were doing was the right thing, that I would. As you can guess, they didn't even try to explain themselves. I felt that the feed back would tell them why they were losing contributors. Most likely they found their money elsewhere...
Maybe I'll do a nice, deep dive into where they get their phunding... ;)
From your pen to God's ear.
(Wait... you know what I mean.)
Jenna, I just ordered your book about being in your 40s (I'm 70 but i still remember my 40s!). I am horrified at what wikipedia did. They really are making themselves look very, very stupid though so there's that. I hope you sue the snot out of them and win BIGLY! I love your writing and your humor, it's very much needed for these times IMO. Wiki really, really made themselves look very bad, they are committing suicide at every turn and they are also violating the constitution and all rules for human decency. Just my 2 cents. Keep up with your writing, dear Jenna, it is very much needed in these times. I love your writing and you!
Everything about this comment means the world to me! I appreciate your support and I hope you loved the book. More to come tomorrow about wokepedia… 😉😍
I'm looking forward to wokepedia tomorrow!
Conspiracy theorist is the narrative version of "racist."
We, those of us who dissent from the "approved narratives," should call one another fellow conspiracy theorists. We should wear it as a badge of honor. We warrant these because we peddle in "dangerous misinformation." Information like COVID-19 not being as dangerous or novel as they said it was.
I agree in principal, however. There is a stigma attached because it says 'theory' which indicates it may be false. I would prefer "Conspiracy Reveal-er" or something similar to emphasize that you are discussing the actions of conspirators and exposing them for the crimes that they are.
The point of my assertion is simply to lean into the stigma. The term is meant to "stigmatize" and "dissuade" when we should wear it as a badge of honor. It means you have ruffled feathers and their only response is to attempt to dismantle and silence. It is a form of ad hominem attack.
Yes. I think you need both. To take back the word, but also educate people on what it really means. Rarely a theory and Usually something that requires investigation.
Well, the term was never meant to be an accurate portrayal of what is being said. They are arguing that because one may think this...they also believe things like the "world is flat" or that "the moon mission was fabricated."
I don't educate, I merely show them the definition which they can look up themselves. But the whole moniker, ad hominem in nature, is meant to devolve the discussion into childish mudslinging.
Agree! You'll read this if you swing by my stack tomorrow, but Wokepedia's response to my initial complaint was to point me to a BLOG POST (!!!) that I wrote four years ago where I accurately defined the term ("By definition, a conspiracy is 'a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.' A theory is 'an idea used to account for a situation or to justify a course of action.' So, a conspiracy theorist is someone who suspects that someone is doing something dirty and then makes choices for their life based on that suspicion.") and then I wrote, "Hi. My name is Jenna, and I am a conspiracy theorist."
See? They were just quoting ME!
I replied, "If I said publicly or in print, which I am sure I have, 'I am such an asshole,' would that have justified your platform declaring, 'Jenna McCarthy is an asshole'?"
Here's the article they referenced, for context: https://jennamccarthy.com/theory-about-conspiracies/ (And meanwhile, they were somehow able to dig up a single sentence in a four-year-old blog post five paragraphs down, but they couldn't find The War on Ivermectin or an updated tally of my TED talk(s) views?
I DO wear the title with pride--I'm in excellent company after all--but since they claim to be neutral, I think they need a schooling. ;)
Yes, the media has lost all sense of sarcasm.
Wikipedia is one of many sources that all claim to be objective. All the alphabet sources are "legitimate and devoid of bias." Reporting on insurrections minus the arms and objectively reporting on "mostly peaceful protests" that document buildings burning down.
I completely agree. I have not found a conspiracy theory I couldn't endorse. Just like when someone calls me a bitch I chime life's a bitch and so am I.
My awakening to the Wiki-bias was about 6 years ago. A friend told me to type in "Terrain Theory" (of which I had been realizing was the true path to Health), I got the wiki article called "Germ Theory Denialism". I tried to edit that page and was immediately shut down. That was an eye opener.
SO neutral! 🤦♀️