Wikipedia Asks For Donations

[Albert Doyle]

I've been banned from Wikipedia for trying to add correctly-referenced and sourced edits to their articles. When I showed the banning was wrong according to their own rules they responded with a lengthy set of procedures in order to apply for reinstatement that is an admirable example of legal obfuscation and double talk. I don't understand it it is so confusing. From what I can see it says even though we both know you are innocent you still have to prove you aren't a danger to Wikipedia. Wikipedia now wants donations so the public can support their own abuse by this machiavellian site.

Wikipedia is like the US Government. An excellent source you are forced to use while it screws you. I say starve them out.

Jimmy Wales is an ex internet porno developer from the McAdams homeland of the deep south. He is now in charge of the internet's main body of referenced information.

[Magda Hassan]

The only real cost is severs, which admittedly would be quite a lot of server space, as the work is voluntary Jimmy is up for it. Don't feel obligated to donate.

[Albert Doyle]

I was more concerned about the real bigger picture 'cost' of Wikipedia's overall effect. The reason I was banned by Wikipedia was because I had pointed out on the "Talk" page behind the article that Wikipedia was not using the best and most 'reliable' sources for the article according to its own rules. The next thing I know a super-moderator swooped in and banned me for "defamation" (wha?). When I pointed out that their claim was wrong according to their own site rules the super-moderator left a note telling the other moderators to view his reasons for banning before considering any appeal (In other words this was a serious offense deserving heightened notation). I was then subjected to pretentious, obnoxious moderators who obviously got off on their site power and knew how to apply a never-ending list of obfuscating site rules designed to hamper the site user in an impossible swamp of phony rules that were always at the whim of those same moderators. It was basically a license to deny you for any reason they decided while leaving you begging, even though they were clearly wrong by their own definitions.

Meanwhile the wrongful entries I pointed out in the article are still there. They are so grossly inaccurate that they have succeeded in changing the public's perception of the subject of the article. The moderators know they are wrong because they were what I was discussing on the "Talk" page before my censorship. Also, the "Talk" page has the site-favorable routine of being erased and refreshed periodically, meaning my protest has been removed and is out of sight along with me. I noticed that the "Talk" page for this misleading article is now blank and has been for months. The super-moderator has achieved his purpose. That is, removing any visible sign of Wikipedia corruption and inaccuracy. My protest specifically said that, according to Wikipedia's own rules, they should have used the better and more accurate sources I cited. I wrote that Wikipedia had a tendency to favor 'politically correct' sources and editors, like the media, which then led to misleading information in their articles, even though better and more accurate sources were clearly available.

I consider myself to be one of the world's top experts on the subject of the article. Because of that I can see those inaccurate entries have been included on purpose with specific intent. I know this not only because I complained about it but because I can see the present article is so well referenced and researched that the editor had no reason to not include the more accurate information. Especially after I pointed it out on the "Talk" page. It is more than obvious the editor chose to couch the inaccurate information within the very well arranged, accurate, and deeply-referenced other material. In other words, it was clearly his intent to deliberately mislead. I think this is more than clear evidence of political editors and moderators controlling content on Wikipedia by corrupted means. All tightly enforced by a sharp cliff they push you over if you expose this too clearly.

This is creepy because Wikipedia is captained by Jimmy Wales who comes from an Alabama background that is not the traditional homeland of free academic/intellectual speech in America. Just the opposite, this origin is completely in line with a recent political movement in America where southern reactionary sympathies have been resourced for mainstream American politics. Those precincts and personalities tend to line-up neatly with pro-military, CIA politics and it isn't coincidence that Jimmy Wales is the chair of that particular entity.

For Jimmy Wales to then appeal to the public to fund this kind of abuse is a real travesty considering. The public should be actively shutting him down and not paying for its being lied to with corrupted intent. CIA's Mockingbird Program offers just enough tempting birdseed to mix in its poison without most of the pigeons noticing.

[Magda Hassan]

Yes, Wikipedia is tightly controlled in the sensitive subject areas like JFK assassination. The hierarchy of moderators is also suspect. One of the reason we decided to make our own JFK Wiki.