Wikipedia editors now move on to remove the article on the well-documented historical fact of mass murder under Communist regimes.
The digitisation of news and historical records makes it easier than ever before to change and alter information in the digital age. Should we be concerned about a radicalised big tech business erasing our own past in a literal sense? We should, in fact, do so. The historical facts of mass murder and genocide under communist regimes is being deleted.
The fact that corporate media and big tech are drifting further to the left with each passing year is no longer a secret. Some would even say that these companies have shifted so far to the left that they are employing tactics from the Communist playbook in order to brainwash the general public.
If we can’t put our faith in the news, in what else can we put our faith? Historical facts? Unfortunately, this will not be the case for much longer.
Public schools are filled with radical leftists teachers who flat-out reject historic evidence of the terrible realities of real Communism. Teachers who tell their students not to believe that what they read about history. “It’s a propaganda written by white supremacists,” they say.
Schools are full of extreme leftist teachers who refuse to acknowledge the horrifying realities of true Communism that have been documented over the course of history. Teaching history students not to believe what they read in textbooks is a common practise among educators. Their argument is that the document is “propaganda authored by white supremacists.”
Thousands of students utilise Wikipedia as a source for their research, but even that platform includes radical editors whose aims are to alter, or simply erase, historical records that highlight the faults of communist dictatorships.
According a Wikipedia contributor, a lot of the most active editors on the site are on the far left and are pro-communism.
“This is a 2 man crusade that has been going on on Wikipedia for over 10 years. There’s basically two very active editors on that page, except, they don’t actually improve it anything. All they do is endless bitching and moaning about the poor quality of it, endless nominations for AfD, NPOV, PRODs and so on. All while actively resisting any improvements to the article. They’re intentionally making the article worse, and keeping it bad, in order to try to justify the deletion,” the contributor explained.
Continuing: “Hell, they’re even arguing that policy literally saying that the article can be worked on to improve it while an AfD is ongoing, shouldn’t apply because the AfD is about ‘the current version’ even though policy specifically calls out that this is simply not the case. Had it been another topic, they would both have already been booted a long long time ago but because they’re ‘fighting the good fight’, they get to keep playing their endless games so everyone else have simply abandoned the article.”
Wikipedia terms explained.
- AfD, or Article for Deletion, is basically the formal way to delete an article. You put it up for deletion, everyone gets to make their argument for keeping the article, or deleting the article. This is supposed to focus on the topic itself, though the two here are arguing that it should be deleted on NPOV grounds, which policy says is not actually a reason for delete as that’s something you should be fixing if you have an issue with.
- NPOV, or Neutral Point of View, means all articles are supposed to be written neutrally in regards to the sources. It’s not as some think that it has to give any sort of equal space to all viewpoints. Just that Wikipedia should try to be a neutral representation of the body of work covering the topic, rather than a neutral representation of the topic itself. In this case, they’re essentially arguing that the article is violating this by “unfairly” attaching communism to the mass killings. Now, their argument may very well actually be true. It does appear to be the case actually though it’s a thing that can be interpreted either way really. But as I said above, this isn’t actually a reason to delete an article according to policy. Not to mention that the article has been under their sole direction for the past 10 years because basically no one else wants to deal with their antics… So any NPOV violation of the article is caused by themselves.
- PROD, or Proposed Deletion, refers to a process where you can tag an article with PROD and start a discussion on the talkpage. If no one removes that PROD or responds on the talkpage, then the page can simply be summarily deleted without the AfD process. This is essentially used for abandoned articles and such.
Because Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that is edited by volunteers around the world the website cannot be considered as a reliable source for anything. A lot of schools even reject writings that cite the free encyclopedia as the source.
Anyone who contributes enough time and money into Wikipedia can alter articles. If a large group of activists get together to literally re-write history, they could.
Sadly, this is not just something that is affecting Wikipedia. Archived news articles are being edited or deleted to hide truths and the definition of words are being changed all in the name of politics.
In response to Democratic criticism of Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s use of the term “sexual preference” during Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearings as offensive, the Merriam-Webster dictionary revised its definition of “sexual preference” to include the word “offensive” as well.
As recently as last month, Webster’s Dictionary included a definition of “preference” as “orientation” or “sexual preference.” TODAY they changed it and added the word “offensive.”— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) October 14, 2020
Insane – I just checked through Wayback Machine and it’s real.
(via @ThorSvensonn & @chadfelixg) pic.twitter.com/oOq1SNtCP2
In the dictionary before Tuesday, the fifth definition of “preference” refers to sexual orientation, as in sexual preference.The definition of the word was only changed after the Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono accused her of using a anti-LGBTQ slur.
“Our scheduled updates, which add new words and also add new definitions, usage guidance, and example sentences to existing dictionary entries, take place several times per year. From time to time, we release one or some of these scheduled changes early when a word or set of words is getting extra attention, and it would seem timely to share that update,” Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster’s editor-at-large, explained in a statement to Fox News.
“In this case, we released the update for sexual preference when we noticed that the entries for preference and sexual preference were being consulted in connection with the SCOTUS hearings,” Sokolowski continued. “A revision made in response to an entry’s increased attention differs only in celerity—as always, all revisions reflect evidence of use.”
Perhaps it is time to reexamine the motivations of the modern left, especially in light of the fact that corporate media and now big tech are beginning to portray communism favourably.