Is Wikipedia a Front for Fascism?

Repost from the old site.

Check out this crap article. Not that such a thing does not exist, but in the true sense, it doesn’t really. Communists usually don’t go around blowing up markets and whatnot. I can’t believe Wikipedia even has an article like this – it’s blatant anti-Communist propaganda.

There used to be lots of BS articles like this – Kurdish Terrorism, Palestinian Terrorism, on and on, you get the picture. Of course, they were created and maintained by nationalist assholes, in the first case, Jewish nationalist assholes, and in the second case, Turkish nationalist assholes. Most of those articles have been deleted.

You really need to understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The very idea of an article called “______ Terrorism” is virtually an Neutral Point of View (NPOV) violation right there.

I am not saying that Wikipedia is complete crap. When it works as intended, it’s actually pretty nice. NPOV is often properly invoked, and articles are tempered down to be as objective as possible. The whole problem with Wikipedia is there are all these evil little cabals running around. In most cases, proper Wikipedians simply deny the cabals the opportunity to infest the site with their propaganda crap and lies.

Problem is that a few cabals have been allowed to run amok on Wikipedia – specifically, Jewish nationalists, Ukrainian nationalists and Indian Hindu nationalists. The anti-Communist cabal is apparently also being given free reign.

Problem here is that the top end of Wikipedia is completely overrun by conservative to libertarian types. The Jewish and Hindutva cabals have also been allowed to penetrate into the highest echelon. The anti-Communist line probably just goes along with the hard rightwing philosophy of the top Wikipedians.

It’s notable that Ukrainian, Hindutva and Jewish nationalism are all far rightwing ideologies that are frequently accused of being fascist movements. When you combine this with the extreme anti-Communist line that was often used by fascist movements, the frightening possibility here (And I do not mean to exaggerate, really!) is that Wikipedia is actually a front for various forms of fascist ideology.

It’s really too bad that this nice encyclopedia is so corrupted like this. The flaw is in the design. I have never seen a World Book or Brittanica article anywhere near as propagandistic as the worst Wikipedia stuff. In this sense, Wikipedia is never going to kill the best encyclopedias. The real encyclopedias’ criticism of Wikipedia is correct – in too many cases, it simply is an unprofessional joke.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “Is Wikipedia a Front for Fascism?”

  1. Communist = JEW terrorist. And some 99 percnt of all jews are communists. Simply because communism is an updated version of the jews Talmud filth.

    JEW communist blew up people in Russia the year 1881. Hotel King David in Jerusalem 47 = JEW communist terrorists. The JEWs invented terrorism.

  2. One can question whether or not “Communist terrorism” is a widely accepted and documented concept in the relevant literature. This seems to be an active point of discussion on the talk page. I can’t agree however that an article titled “____ terrorism” would be NPOV by definition. Few articles would be possible if only truly neutral concepts would qualify for an entry. “multicultural society”, “God”, “Intelligent design”, “critical race theory”, “near death experience”, “ghosts” etc. are valid subjects, not because of universal acceptance of their definition, existence or validity, but simply because they are concepts used by part of society and there are enough independent sources discussing or defining them. In contrast to for example the term “anarcho-fascism” which has not gained real acceptance (yet?).

    I’m maybe a bit biased when it comes to wikipedia. People in forum discussions sometimes reject my arguments with the snide remark that “they can hardly take people serious who use wikipedia as a reference”. As if one can judge the validity of a statement by merely looking at the domain name of the reference. I find wikipedia topics about physics, chemistry, maths, biochemistry, astronomy, electronics, etc. to be very reliable (at least the english version, the dutch one is crap), and a simple google search is enough to verify the formulas and values quoted. But when it comes to politics, history, current events etc. I will check the talk page and the references and look for additional sources to complement the information. That’s just common sense imho.

    About the communist terrorism article and an anti-communist bias in general: I noticed on the talk page some attribution notes (parts of the article copîed to other topics), something I’ve not really seen being used much elsewhere. So I can’t help but wonder if their main purpose might not be to prevent deletion of the article. Your claim of certain groups having penetrated into the highest echelon of wp is hard to verify, given the sheer volume of articles, edits, archives, discussions, arbitration actions and so on.
    I must say that the quality of the disputed articles I’ve seen isn’t exactly up to the standards I’ve come to expect. “Communist terrorism” has little structure, no real definition, the examples seem random, they focus on events that aren’t usually considered terrorism but rather guerilla, rebellion, civil war, repression, genocide etc.. And they hardly address ‘typical’ marxist groups like Action Directe (France), CCC (Belgium), Brigate Rosse (Italy), RAF (Germany).
    The same lack of content is present in “United States and state terrorism”. The article seems based mostly on Chomsky’s work. Maybe evidence that sometimes it’s more about the title than the content? By contrast, “CIA sponsored regime change” looks much better.

    So yes, wikipedia is far from perfect. But judged by the same standards, your statement “Wikipedia is actually a front for various forms of fascist ideology” deserves a big NPOV flag as well. A comprehensive overview and analysis of the actors involved would be the minimum requirement to support such a statement imo.

  3. If you want a really good laugh, have a look at the controversy on Wikipedia between German and Polish writers and editors on the nationality of Copernicus. Given that 99% of the world is neutral on this issue (unlike re Palestine) it’s amazing how much hatred is generated and how difficult it is to find a NPOV.

    1. A subject doesn’t need to be popular for huge edit wars to occur. If you have a guy zealously promoting one viewpoint and then another guy steps up with an equally zealous viewpoint and both really can’t be reconciled without trying to address both at more or less equal length, then there’s plenty of room for debate not just on the subject itself, but on making sure the end result doesn’t come out as “X is correct, but some say Y is as well even though they’re dumb.”

  4. First of all, fascism is a type of nationalistic rule.

    Authoritarianism is what Wikipedia is, and in wikipedia authoritarianism often shows it’s most evil side in service of the “correct truth”, recently often sided by a hidden marketing message (see who edits the “worlds largest hamburger chain” -articles, for example, and how the criticism gets handled versus the marketing message).

    Wikipedia is a failure, sadly.

    All of Wikipedia is pretty much worthless as a result of these failures.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.