Wikipedia and lies

[rodin]

[karlos]

but Rodin as you know anyone including you can edit wilkipedia
ive done it loads of times myself

[Dogsmilk]

[karlos]

[Bushwacker]

Has this thread any relevance to this forum except to demonstrate once again your obsessive hatred of the Jews?

[coconut]

[Bushwacker]

[coconut]

Okay, question. I can imagine it would be loosely connected, topic-wise. Wikipedia is known for its inaccuracy and sidelining of criticisms to the official story of 9/11, labelling them "conspiracy theories", while rodin's grievance would also be referred to as a loony conspiracy theory.

[Bushwacker]

[Long Tooth]

[TonyGosling]

[Bushwacker]

[ian neal]

Under bigger picture or other controversies users can discuss subjects beyond the 'war on terror' so no problem there.

Why Rodin would choose to put this in critics corner is unclear but the post is about the suggestion that wikipedia leaves out important information that were it to be included would give the reader with a very different understanding

The example Rodin uses illustrates

1) Bankers make huge fortunes from war
2) Bankers often by finance both sides in a war
3) Bankers make huge fortunes from insider knowledge
4) Bankers can make huge fortunes from share price collapses just as much from share price rises
5) One way bankers seek to profit is by spreading deliberate disinformation

Why is this relevent to today? Because

war is still immensely profitable especially to bankers
war is still based on official lies and lies in the media. Wikipedia has become a significant player in on-line media
etc.....

Promotion of hatred against jews or any other section community is not allowed on this forum.

If you care to show me specific examples/posts where a user has promoted hatred and where no action has been taken, I will investigate.

[ian neal]

As I say

[pepik]

I don't think war is especially profitably for bankers these days. Time to update the assumptions a few hundred years.

[marky 54]

[pepik]

Arms companies and contractors like KBR can make money from war. But banks? How do banks make money from war? Holding the US Treasury bonds that fund it? Not really.

[marky 54]

i see so its more about speculation and personnal opinon.

[pepik]

I'd say its about logic. If you see anything wrong with my logic, feel free to point it out, otherwise I'll have to assume that you disagree with me for no particular reason other than argumentativeness. Keep in mind you never questioned it when Ian said the opposite, and he didn't even provide logic, let alone "a link".

[marky 54]

im not saying theres no logic or that i disagree, just that its speculation and your personal opinon. you cannot tell me you know for sure what your saying is true unless you have something solid that say's it is true other than just thinking it.

[pepik]

Logic is not an opinion. I prefer logic, since anything else can just be waved off as "the media" or "the mainstream media". Logic is harder to dismiss, although that doesn't stop people from trying.

But if you want links, start here.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11771

[marky 54]

ok so who does profit from way?

http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/who-profits.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd02152003.html

or who does and dos'nt profit from war?

http://www.warresisters.org/profit-21.pdf

there are lots of companys/people who profit or lose profit from war, but im not seeing much mention of banks.

so the question is where do the goverments that are involved in wars find the money to fund the wars during the whole duration of that war?
no one wants to lose a war so they must find a way to sustain it or be defeated when the money pot runs low.

[pepik]

Your sources tare a mixed bag, the third one is complete rubbish, and the second is editorial from the Moscow Times. The first is somewhat useful, it mostly documents Halliburton contracts but that is something everybody already knows about. I guess the interesting thing is that with so much contracted out these days, its not just arms dealers that are making money, its the logistics companies supplying much more mundane goods and services. In fact the arms part of the Iraq budget probably isn't that big.

[marky 54]

the point in the links was to show the mixed bag, its unclear who profits from war if you only believe one source everyone would go around believing differant things. my point was only that many profit and gain from war and many loss out but the issue was whether banks profit or not.

taxes is what i thought was the income for wars/other things also, so we agree on that. but how does that work exactly.

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

so who do they borrow from then charge the tax payer?

see here:

War means enormous increases in national debt and enormous profits for the banks. Massive government borrowing and money creation by banks is required to fund a war effort. Financiers and bankers have covertly funded both sides in both World Wars and many other conflicts before and since.

more...

http://www.fdrs.org/money_system.html

so is there anything that says otherwise to this?

[marky 54]

my whole point is simply that nobody is wrong because there are sources of information everywhere that support a perticluar view, and its all becomes a case of "my information is correct" "no my information is correct" and around in circles people go.

then people say that it boils down to which is the most likely scenerio, but you have truthers who are cautious of the world they live and can see goverments don't always play fairly, or people like jref'ers who seem to think goverments/people would not do that and anyone saying differant is a conspiracy theorists. yet information is put out to please both views.

so it's still a case of who is right, what is right? not once during the whole process does it occure to people both sides could be right and wrong about differant things because they get sucked into the game of proving each other wrong and having to be the one who is right.

the truth is regardless of if you like it or not or i like it or not, nobody knows the truth no matter how much they like to think they do.

everbody has their own interpetations for what a sceptic/critic is and what a truther is based on their own views and from information they consider the truth even though there is information to the contray regardless of what you believe.

the fact is there are people lieing and putting information on the web that misleads, who knows what information that is? you will not think its the information you think is true. and i will not think its the information i think is true. so we are always stuck at stale mate.

we are all truthers but none of us can have the truth, it will not be all one way and that is a gaurentee. ie only what jref'ers say is true or what ever truthers say is true. it will not always be one way on any subject.

but as long as information is put out there to please your view or to please my view there will never be a way of knowing what the truth is, other than what we are told it is offically.

which means powers have control over which reality they want us to believe regardless of what the truth is or isn't. as long as there is information out there to cover all possibilities, regardless of if some think the information is wacko or not, the information they don't want us to believe is dismissed as wacko conspiracy theories the information they want you to believe is promoted via the mainstream media. that dos'nt mean any of the information in either case is'nt true, they just control which information is allowed to be accepted.

so we could pick any subject you like, ill beable to find information that says one thing, and you'll find information saying another.

then you get debunkings followed by debunking the debunking and on and on and on. both sides debunking each other for ever.

which is why only a fair, properly funded investigastion will ever settle it and confirm the facts non facts, that are being currently promoted over the web by each side of the arguement regardless of what the issue is about.

the web is just a place that pleases everyones beliefs regardless of what you believe. the mainstream media gives you your allowed reality(the one that is ok to believe). thats not to say either or both are true and we know the truth.

[marky 54]

the only differance is that without the web your reality is controlled and may or may not be the truth or a mixture of the two. with the web people have more freedom to choose which information(or reality) is the truth as it is not controlled mostly.

prior to the web or a controlled web or no web just means a controlled reality.

orwells prediction on information control is all ready here and has been for quite some time.

[marky 54]

if i want to believe dinosaurs still exsist i can.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp

if i want to think the earth is hollow i can

http://www.ourhollowearth.com/

if i did'nt want to think these things then i can just look for the correct site.

dinosaurs are all dead
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/a.buckley/dino.htm

earth is not hollow.
http://www.jimloy.com/pseudo/flat.htm

and there will be many many examples of this what ever the subject and each site will please somebodys belief system or appeal to their veiw point.

but most make their decisons on what the man/women in the box tells them is reality and therefore becomes offical on anything they tell us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/default.stm

of course any of the above could be truth or lies.

and anything you tell me will be from your belief system and viewpoint much of which we are taut in school, but again just more information being fed into your brain.

so who the hell can say what the truth is for sure? are we controlled or do we know the truth?

[TmcMistress]

holocaust promoter

What now? Last I checked, Auschwitz didn't have a Mountain Dew banner out front.

Listen... the Holocaust HAPPENED. You can criticize Israel and acknowledge this in the same breath. They aren't mutually exclusive. Israel still = bastard-tastic.

[TonyGosling]

Wow!
This is news to me - the tekkies have finally proved what we suspected for so long. What utter Egyptian slavedrivers they are for trying to edit their evil deeds out of history. Now we know why he US economy is in such a mess wasting all that dosh on this!

CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits
http://in.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idINIndia-29017220070816? rpc=401&=undefined&sp=true

Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:56AM IST
By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.

The changes may violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.

The program, WikiScanner, was developed by Virgil Griffith of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and posted this month on a Web site that was quickly overwhelmed with searches.

The program allows users to track the source of computers used to make changes to the popular Internet encyclopedia where anyone can submit and edit entries.

WikiScanner revealed that CIA computers were used to edit an entry on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. A graphic on casualties was edited to add that many figures were estimated and were not broken down by class.

Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited by CIA computers to expand his career history and discuss the merits of a Vietnam War rural pacification program that he headed.

Aerial and satellite images of the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were removed using a computer traced to the FBI, WikiScanner showed.

CIA spokesman George Little said he could not confirm whether CIA computers were used in the changes, adding that "the agency always expects its computer systems to be used responsibly."

The FBI did not have an immediate response.

Computers at numerous other organizations and companies were found to have been involved in editing articles related to them.

Griffith said he developed WikiScanner "to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike (and) to see what 'interesting organizations' (which I am neutral towards) are up to."

It was not known whether changes were made by an official representative of an agency or company, Griffith said, but it was certain the change was made by someone with access to the organization's network.

It violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute to an entry about it, said spokeswoman Sandy Ordonez of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization.

However, she said, "Wikipedia is self-correcting," meaning misleading entries can be quickly revised by another editor. She said Wikimedia welcomed the WikiScanner.

WikiScanner can be found at wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

[ukginger]

Please Stay On Topic !

Reminder . . .

Wikipedia lies by ommission . . .

The Red Shield Family, backed all sides during the conflict.