is wikipedia right about pizzagate? ( pizzagate )

submitted by magol

wikipedia tells the internet that pizzagate has been debunked, why aren't you guys editing the garabge they write because they're are going to make this like some kind of bigfoot theory. i've even seen that they have it in german as debunked

3141592653

Just go to wikipedias page on ritual abuse and you will know who really runs the show over there. Fwiw, about ten years ago i tried multiple times to edit the page and someone immediately changed/deleted any work i added.

Wikipedia...no page for Lawrence king. No page for Johnny coach. Anthony weiners page doesnt mention his main offense, texting explicit material to a kid. It only mentions him texting adults.

Wikipedia is controlled disinfo.

DoughMallet

Wikipedia is controlled, so it's not the most useful tool for exposing people to the facts. What we could do, however, is try to use it to expose the fight.

senpaithatignoresyou

There was a concentrated effort to destroy wikipedia in the mid 2000s, and it succeeded. When wikipedia first came about, it was viewed as an extreme threat, both financially and politically. A lot of money is made controlling information, so when an open source encyclopedia came about it was viewed as an extreme threat. They destroyed it by making sure their people got into it to gatekeep most of the articles. They used the same methods that they use to attack other industries: they put highly connected, over educated cronies into university think tanks and then got them into editing positions in the wikipdia community.

Babylon5

This video by David Icke is a fantastic starting point on why Wikipedia simply cannot be trusted on issues such as PizzaGate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lv7xVDQDy6U

ESOTERICshade

Just fyi, if you don't edit your post and add the wikipedia link to the body of your post the mods will have to delete the post.

AndrewBlazeIt

Because wikipedia is full of censorious powermod faggots who aggressively revert any attempts to revise articles they consider "their territory."

Wikipedia hasn't been open-edited for years. Their most active users are all shitlibs who'll circle the wagons to defend each other, and they ban people for editing articles to say anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

It's still a decent enough jumping off point for non-political, highly-technical topics, but anything that can be seen as remotely political will be gatekept by them.

Just look at the articles about Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, or Anita Sarkeesian and you'll get what I mean.

Kekmet-Peperoni

seconded. Dont trust wikipedia as a source use it as starting point to gather info on a subject your new to but vet the info try to find sources that arn't quoting the same original source, us the advance search function of StartPage or if your not afraid of google, try google scholar.

magol

i don't trust wikipedia about political topics but most of the people using the internet are "normies" or whatever do you want to call them believe every single word wikipedia writes.

Onetime1

This is why the 8 Chan board for q research has a thread for red pilling normies.

It goes far beyond merely displaying factual data as people adamantly do NOT want to believe these horrors can be real.

The most effective path I have found is the visual, such as the picture of the little girl taped to the table from Alefantis' Instagram.

Anyone can see and count the 14 pieces of tape that JA told Megyn Kelly was put there by the girl's sister.

An obvious, blatant lie.

Another visual is the face carved on Cathy O'Brien's vaginal wall.

This can be seen at the 9 minute mark of the video Most Dangerous Game.

Please keep up your efforts in this Great Awakening as we are finally effectively reaching a wider audience.