6 February 2019

Wikipedia propaganda and disinformation habits exposed

While still soliciting funds for being a supposed neutral community-based encyclopedia edited by everyone across the world, Wikipedia's politics pages are prone to be stuffed with clownish North America First propaganda.

On the topic of alleged interference by Russian spies in the North American regime's disputed 2016 election, the paranoid claims of the regime and its media are treated as unquestionable and the matter is regarded as closed:
"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political discord in the United States."

Read no further, it is a closed matter! According to the logic of its lackeys, the North American regime is the most neutral source - not just for talking about its own internal matters, but also Russia's.

With the regime-loving press being cited to back every point, North American loyalists and apologists have been sneaked into Wikipedia's editing circles and given carte blanche to edit the English language version of the site to only publish their opinions.

Doubt is not tolerated at Wikipedia, where there is an inquisitorial insistence on certainty and the sole kind of opinion it is permissible to have. To establish that absolute certainty, only the sources approved by the North American regime are deemed reliable in every case. Opinions from Neocons and bellicose propagandists rambling about the regime's democratic purity and the martyrdom of the regime-picked ruler Hillary Clinton are defended as factual statements conforming to impeccable standards of neutrality. All the supposedly neutral sources jokingly trace back to the North American regime's own newspapers and television networks, where the lies are faxed in directly from the regime to be adored by its sycophants and employees.

As for the scandalous possibility of any Russian contributing to a Wikipedia article about his or her own nation on this supposedly neutral international website, that cannot be contemplated by the editors, who refuse even to respond on the matter. No Russian version of the article is allowed, as that would require the cooperation of culprits who have not shown enough adoration of the North American regime like Wikipedia's editors.

Without receiving any direct answer from the editors, one user put the question to the article's authors in its talk section:
"The article presents assessments by various US bodies as factual because they said so, and no comparable effort is made to show responses and perspectives from Russia. The complete lack of a Russian language version is curious. Is there an active effort here to prevent any Russian-speakers or Russian IP addresses from being involved at the page, and why?"

A quick scan through the extensive talk archives at the contested Wikipedia page shows many North Americans have taken issue with the way the article presents its dodgy claims and tries to encourage adoration of the regime.

A common tactic in North American propaganda is to load any lead section of text or television broadcasting with the most overbearing and least credible claims of the regime, using fact-file-like media to portray these as verified facts told with great integrity.

The intention is to abruptly stop readers from reading further, encouraging sleepy acceptance of regime statements. As far as the Wikipedia editors are concerned, only the first sentence of their article should be read as it contains sufficient propaganda from the regime and closes the case, encouraging loyalty and discouraging questions.

This tactic occurs over and over again in North American propaganda on many websites, and now affects the supposedly neutral Wikipedia too. Wikipedia is especially useful to the regime because it allows its lackeys to obfuscate their circular reasoning, clouding criticism and wasting the time of potential critics wishing to look further. Such dissidents will be directed on a long chase through supposedly "neutral" sources that ultimately trace back to nowhere except the regime and its choir.

For the North Americans to have loaded their supposedly "neutral" Wikipedia with state propaganda and shallow nationalism is a loss to the internet and shows us something about the regime's ideology. Whatever it is really fighting for, it is not accuracy or accountability. This regime and its lackeys are guilty of treating everything - including encyclopedias and perhaps even maps and dictionaries - as Cold War geography. For them, all things can be used as cover and every critic is a Russian assassin. Things like neutrality and trust, as far as the North American regime is concerned, are worth destroying to win their war.

What the regime may not have considered is that its erosion of journalistic integrity and neutrality only fuels the ridicule and criticism of its policies. So far, no evidence shows the regime achieved any success in reversing the North American people's criticism of its violence, repression and bellicosity.

Wikipedia is already not taken seriously in any proper political discussion, although its Cold War hijacking may help the regime misinform less politically-aware members of the public. In discussions on propaganda, critics should be quick to point to Wikipedia's already discredited status on political matters and poor record in challenging lies. It is just a rag.

Subscribe for email updates with our linkhttps://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=TheClubOfInfo&amp%3Bloc=en_US

The clubof.info Blog

31 January 2019

The "People's Vote" might have a people problem - here's why

Despite gaining support from visibly large crowds of people in the UK, the "People's Vote" campaign for a second Brexit referendum vote demonstrates serious problems engaging with the broader British public on social media.

Local chapter pages of the "People's Vote" movement based on Facebook have insignificant numbers of followers and unremarkable levels of engagement, with the only page with a significant following being a single page that makes heavy use of advertising, titled People's Vote UK. In the case of this page itself, more problems appear.

Looking to the page's posts and the responses is no useful way to assess how British people actually perceive its message, since these posts are likely to have been shared by pro-EU groups and individuals. However, the group does target ads to the general public, and here its claims of popular support begin to look dubious.

Negative comments are being left when the ads appear in people's news feeds

Most visitors to People's Vote UK social media pages are leaving positive comments, but the majority seems to shift to negative comments when the group tries to target the broader public with advertising through news feeds. The resulting barrage of negativity has an effect of drowning out the voices of exasperated EU supporters, who can't tell why they are suddenly faced with offensive comments.

This could be the work of trolls trying to demoralize the pro-EU movement in the UK. But, if so, why are such comments only flooding the page's content when the group tries to advertise to the public? One explanation is that the negative response to the People's Vote campaign actually originates with the campaign's own target audience - the British public.

What is described above hints that the poll data supposedly showing a shift in favor of the UK remaining in the European Union could be dodgy, and there are numerous ways such data could be seriously flawed.

"Leave" may simply have turned quiet and content in their victory, rather than actually losing supporters as the "Remain" camp is fond of claiming. When directly provoked by flooding their news feeds on Facebook they do appear to respond viciously as described above.

Data favoring "Remain" could be flawed because, as well as more eagerly taking part in polls, EU supporters never stopped campaigning. This creates the unrealistic sensation that they have more influence or power, or have now won the debate. Their desire to keep their cause alive through constant adverts, polls, petitions, columns, etc. is clear. The "Leave" campaign, in contrast, is undertaking no similar project to maintain public backing and isn't even watching the polls. Their sole position is that the debate is over and they already won.

So, even if polls and news stories supporting a people's vote do show an accurate cross-section of the population, these are a poor basis to predict a pro-EU victory in a second referendum. The anti-EU side has yet to counterattack or produce its own new slogans and talking points, as it is too busy in power. A decisive lead for pro-EU forces in the polls, while the other side is not campaigning, might become irrelevant as soon as the other side begins a counter-campaign if its plans are really contested.

Treat all this as speculation. Unfortunately, comments on Facebook ads are extremely difficult to capture or prove because Facebook withholds the data once ads go inactive and takes them out of the page's feed itself, allowing posts that receive negative responses to quickly be buried while the page only displays posts that received positive responses. However, you can easily view the comments for yourself if you catch the ads while they are running or see them in your news feed.

Don't take our word for it. Give it a go!

The clubof.info Blog

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

20 January 2019

Utopistics: is it time for an alternative social system?

The Blog

Can and will there be an alternative world-system? In social science, this is what the emerging field of utopistics is for.

Use the video below to get a brief breakdown of what utopistics is about...

... or, continue reading

Utopistics is a necessary field, because of the crisis-ridden nature of our present economic system and the fact it is constructed of injustices and exploitation. Part of world-systems analysis or world-systems theory (a theory of International Relations from Immanuel Wallerstein), utopistics focuses on paradoxes and choices that will lead to the transformation of present world political and economic relations.

Current reigning economic and political theories focus overwhelmingly either on a nationalist-protectionist settlement of perceived faults and injustices in the global economy or - conversely - the neoliberal model of hyper-capitalist globalization and US political dominance. Anti-systemic movements are movements of minorities, anti-imperialists and the political left, aimed at securing a non-capitalist economic model. While their grievances against injustices and exploitation are clear, such movements are perceived to not offer a clearly defined alternative to the current neoliberal economic consensus. It is this alternative that utopistic study could produce.

It appears that parties of the political left give little heed to the works of sociologists at present and derive their ideas mainly from other prominent economists, such as Mariana Mazzucato in the case of the UK's Labour Party.

The clubof.info Blog

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner
Top 5:

Dissident Voice on Media

Subscribe for Email Updates:

Delivered by Email


Wikipedia propaganda and disinformation habits exposed

While still soliciting funds for being a supposed neutral community-based encyclopedia edited by everyone across the world, Wikipedia...


L'Ordre - Friend of the Mont Order:

L'Ordre all

L'Ordre - Delivered by Email:

Follow by Email

Other Mont Order Bloggers:

Mont Order English Vol 1

Mont Order English Vol 2

Mont Order English Vol 3

D News

Steve Topple – Mr Topple


Mont Order Voices

Follow Me on Twitter