Wikipedia Exposed Media - WEM www.wikipediaexposed.org

FREEDOM TO PROVIDE FACTS, INFORMATION, OPINION AND DEBATE WIKIPEDIA EXPOSED MEDIA - TRUTHFUL NEWS MEDIA, ENCOURAGE OPEN DEBATE

 "Wikipedia exposed as a CIA disinformation front – NaturalNews.com" 

https://naturalnews.com/2019-12-12-wikipedia-exposed-cia-disinformation-front.html

Wikipedia exposed as a CIA disinformation front

Thursday, December 12, 2019 by: Ethan Huff
Tags: Big Tech, brainwashed, CIA, deception, disinfo, disinformation, Exposed, Fake, Jimmy Wales, lies, official narrative, propaganda, tech giants, Wikipedia

This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the authorBypass censorship by sharing this link:

(Natural News) A new report has uncovered detailed evidence about who really controls Wikipedia, and it’s not ordinary folks volunteering their time like the platform’s creators claim.

As it turns out, Wikipedia is a deep state propaganda tool masquerading as an online “encyclopedia,” and none other than the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) monitor it 24/7 to ensure that only pre-screened misinformation makes it through the censors.

While Wikipedia may have started out as something more innocent, it has since been co-opted by government spooks who quietly edit certain key entries, including those about 9/11 and the war in Iraq, to prevent the actual truth from going public.
IP logs obtained by a program known as WikiScanner, which was developed by Virgil Griffith from the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, reveal that CIA and FBI agents are constantly making changes to Wikipedia entries as part of a covert information manipulation operation of which most everyday people are unaware.
WikiScanner data grabs show that CIA computers edited a Wikipedia entry about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while an entry about former CIA chief William Colby was similarly altered to expand his career history and praise a Vietnam War rural pacification program he led.
Wikipedia censors about 1,000 IP addresses per DAY, says investigator
Wikipedia is also engaged in a massive censorship effort whereby it bans the IP addresses of users who try to input truth into the site that contradicts the lies being spread by the CIA and FBI.
Insiders say that Wikipedia bans upwards of 1,000 IP addresses per day, even as it claims to present “neutral,” “unbiased” information about events, people and organizations.
As we’ve also reported, long gone are the days of Wikipedia being “the people’s encyclopedia,” as the site routinely censors natural health content, as well as entries that expose the criminal racket known as Big Pharma.
It’s time to face the facts: Wikipedia is just another mainstream media outlet spreading fake news
Whether it’s the establishment “right” or the establishment “left,” Wikipedia exists to ensure that only the official narrative is put out there for mass consumption. Anything that doesn’t conform to the deep state’s version of “truth” is quickly scrubbed, often in a matter of seconds, by government jackboots who sit around all day altering Wikipedia entries as they see fit.

For the ordinary man and woman, it’s a near-impossible feat to even gain access to Wikipedia entries for the purpose of editing them, seeing as how the site has constructed a clever hierarchy process that makes it difficult to attain the same top-level privileges that the CIA and FBI have.

For all intents and purposes, Wikipedia is really just another mainstream media fake news outlet like CNN or MSNBC that spreads deep state propaganda as “facts.” The evidence is there if you’re willing to actually take a look.
“Wikipedia is part of the Establishment by all means – it’s no different from an information perspective than the CIA’s very own CNN,” reveals DisruptiveFare.com.

“So a discussion about the MSM and CNN is appropriate here. Wikipedia’s main citation, the #1 ‘news’ source and #1 most credible news organization is – you’ve guessed it – CNN … CNN is no different than the Russian Pravda (which means in Russian ‘Truth’) used during Soviet times to spread government propaganda and politically assassinate enemies of the state.”
Be sure to check out the full DisruptiveFare.com exposé on Wikipedia as republished by Zero Hedge

You can also keep up with the latest news about mainstream media deception, including the kind being pushed by Big Tech corporations like Wikipedia, by checking out Propaganda.news.

Sources for this article include:
ZeroHedge.com
NaturalNews.comPrevious :Tyrannical New York State Supreme Court rules that Amish must vaccinate students attending their private schools
Next :Joe Biden celebrated by left-wing media for fat shaming obese man who leads sedentary lifestyle… Biden rudely challenges him to pushup contest
 

"Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA

Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA
Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al. is a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and several other organizations against the National Security Agency (NSA), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and other named individuals, alleging mass surveillance of Wikipedia users carried out by the NSA. The suit claims the surveillance system, which NSA calls "Upstream", breaches the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Subsequent action(s) Dismissal appealed by the Wikimedia Foundation
Affirmation of dismissal of 8 of the 9 plaintiffs' complaints (Wikimedia excluded) by US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Dismissal of Wikimedia Foundation's allegations concurrently vacated and remanded

"Wikimedia Foundation appeals Russian fine over Ukraine war articles - The Verge" 

https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/13/23164768/wikimedia-foundation-appeals-russian-court-disinformation-decision-ukraine-war-articles

he Wikimedia Foundation is challenging a Russian court’s ruling that it violated disinformation laws in articles about the invasion of Ukraine. The organization filed its appeal last week, arguing that the articles contained “well-sourced, verified knowledge” and that Russia did not have jurisdiction over the globally operating Wikimedia Foundation.
The Moscow court fined Wikimedia 5 million rubles (around $65,000) after an April ruling that covered seven Russian-language articles, including Russian Invasions of Ukraine (2022), War Crimes during the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, Shelling of Hospital in Mariupol, and Massacre in Bucha. The decision followed an order from Russia’s tech and communications agency Roskomnadzor, as well as the passage of a “fake news” law that attached criminal penalties to basic reporting on the invasion, including referring to well-documented Russian casualties and war crimes or describing the operation as a war. Google was also fined in April, and its Russian subsidiary declared bankruptcy after its bank account was frozen for non-payment.
“This decision implies that well-sourced, verified knowledge on Wikipedia that is inconsistent with Russian government accounts constitutes disinformation,” said Stephen LaPorte, associate general counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation, in a statement. “The government is targeting information that is vital to people’s lives in a time of crisis. We urge the court to reconsider in favor of everyone’s rights to knowledge access and free expression.” It filed the appeal on June 6th, and Russia’s government will have the chance to respond in the coming weeks.
Roskomnadzor has periodically asked Wikipedia to remove content in the past, but its war on Wikipedia — and other websites — intensified following the invasion. Wikipedia volunteers have also faced challenges outside Russia, including the arrest of an editor in Belarus in March


Wikipedia's Deep Big Ties to Big Tech by Micael Olenick April 5th 2021

"Wikipedia’s Deep Ties to Big Tech | Institute for New Economic Thinking" 

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech
The Institute for New Economic Thinking


Contrary to its image as a cash-strapped, transparent public service, Wikipedia is a wealthy NGO with close ties to big tech companies that it tries to obscure

There are no polls, but it is a safe guess that the general public thinks of Wikipedia, the ubiquitous online encyclopedia, as one more plucky non-governmental organization in which poorly remunerated, public-spirited scholars and savants struggle to bring enlightenment to an extensively unappreciative world. Feeding this soothing impression are Wikipedia’s online fundraising efforts that highlight its dependence on donations for its continued functioning,[*] its assurance that it is “super transparent with the public,” and occasional threats to run ads to assure Wikipedia’s financial stability. Most users probably also assume that Wikipedia’s content, even if sometimes mistaken or incomplete, is basically harmless, with occasional errors the price of straitened production conditions and limited staff.

The truth, though, is rather more complex. Wikipedia’s use of an objective and authoritative writing style, without commensurate safeguards for quality or disclosure of conflicts, creates an ethical conundrum for both Wikipedia and parent Wikimedia.

Wikipedia Is Wealthy & Works with Big Tech

Despite frequent protestations to the contrary, Wikimedia – the San Francisco-based parent non-profit of Wikipedia – has enormous financial reserves. There is no immediate need for more funds and its long-term strategy plan, Wikimedia 2030, lacks specificity about how additional money might be spent.

According to its latest financial disclosures, the Wikimedia Foundation has net assets adequate to run its servers for 75 years if it receives no further funds nor interest on its savings. Beyond that, the servers can hum along an additional 63 years from funds in a Wikimedia Endowment held by a partner charity, the Tides Foundation. Put into perspective, Wikimedia servers can function just under nine years from a one-time donation Wikimedia sent to Tides Advocacy in their last financial statement. They have about $1 million in reserves for every employee. Wikipedia is in no danger of going dark in our lifetime.

As a non-profit, Wikimedia does not have direct access to the wealth their for-profit Big Tech cousins enjoy. Instead, the firm relies on donations which, as illustrated below, are more than adequate to meet its needs. Its latest fundraising report lists about six million active donors large and small.

However, it is not lost on the firm that Wikipedia content powers extraordinarily wealthy businesses. “There has long been a feeling among community members that these companies should do more to reinvest in the Wikimedia communities for the benefits they gain from the content and resources they use,” wrote members of the team implementing a new service, Wikimedia Enterprise, a for-profit Delaware-based company to charge Big Tech for easier electronic access to Wikipedia content.

Lest there be any ambiguity about who “these companies” are, they explain high-volume commercial reusers include “the ‘infoboxes’ .. shown in search engine results,” “voice-operated virtual assistants such as Siri and Alexa,” and “augmented information .. such as in-flight entertainment systems or smartphones.” For those who still don’t get it, the term infoboxes links to a Wikipedia article about Google’s knowledge panel.[1]

Wikimedia argues for-profit high-volume information “reusers” (its term) have repeatedly asked for a dedicated service to efficiently funnel information away from the site and money towards it. Big Tech wants a contractual arrangement along with a service level agreement (SLA). Wikimedia argues it is unable to offer a contract or provide an SLA under its current legal scheme.

When asked, Wikimedia representatives responded that the Big Tech businesses are uncomfortable supporting the non-profit through donations and that they’d prefer a more explicit fee-for-service arrangement.[2] Furthermore, the ongoing practice of embedding Wikimedia content into the websites and information outlets of others deprives Wikimedia of an ability to advertise for donations which, over the long-run, may impact its ability to fundraise. Of course, many non-profit organizations charge for services. For example non-profit hospitals, universities, daycare’s, gyms (YMCAs), subscriptions (Consumer Reports), and museums all charge for services without for-profit subsidiaries.[3]

Wikimedia argues it currently subsidizes Big Tech by providing the labor required for the coordination of information dissemination. The implication is that there are resources at Wikimedia with an incremental cost to feed data to Big Tech. A question asking for a guesstimate about how many people spend how much time on this activity went unanswered, along with all other written questions.

Funding

Based on current spending patterns and absent any major expansion, Wikimedia does not need more money. The firm’s most recent disclosures show net assets of $180.3 million. A charity Wikimedia works closely with, the Tides Foundation, holds an additional $62.9 million in a separate Wikimedia “endowment” an amount projected to reach $100 million in 2021. Wikimedia sends $5 million per year to the Tides Foundation for the endowment with the funds marked as grants in disclosure statements. It also sent an additional $8.72 million to Tides Advocacy, a different but related organization, in the year ending 2020.

The company’s most recent audited financial statement, for the year ending June 30, 2020, shows Wikimedia spent $55.6 million on salaries and wages plus $2.4 million on internet hosting.[4] Other expenses include grants (disproportionately to Tides) of $22.9 million, professional service expenses of $11.7 million, and other operating expenses of $10 million. The vast majority of Wikimedia’s value to ordinary people – the website we know and use – costs the firm about 30 percent of their $112.5 million operating budget ($33.75 million) to maintain according to Lisa Seitz Gruwell, Chief Advancement Officer at Wikimedia. Its 2020 revenue was $129.2 million with $120.4 million of that from donations.[5]

Table 1 (all figures in millions)

Year Ending

Net Assets

Salaries & Wages

Awards & Grants[6]

Internet Fees[7]

2020

$180.3

$55.6

$22.9

$2.4

2019

$165.6

$46.2

$12.7

$2.3

2018

$134.9

$38.6

$13.6

$2.3

2017

$113.3

$33.7

$11.2

$2.2

2016

$91.8

$31.7

$11.4

$2.1

2015

$77.8

$26.0

$4.5

$2.0

Wikimedia has 255 employees, 141 who earn salaries of over $100,000. Another 22 independent contractors earn more than $100,000. Outgoing CEO Katherine Maher was paid $374,658 in 2019 while the lowest-paid officer, Angela Reid, Chief of Community Engagement, earned $163,037.

The Wikimedia Endowment

As noted above, Wikimedia created an endowment in 2016 at Tides separate from the Wikimedia Foundation. The endowment, set up by Jimmy Wales, aims to raise $100 million. As of its last funding disclosure, the endowment has $62.9 million in savings and Lisa Gruwell recently stated it is likely to reach the $100 million goal in 2021. Besides the $5,000,000 annual donations by Wikimedia, others also donate directly including at least one $2 million donation from Google. The endowment is in addition to the $180.3 million in net assets Wikimedia currently holds on its books.[8]

The Wikimedia Endowment at Tides lists its purpose: “Tides or the Wikimedia Foundation may choose to transfer the Endowment from Tides to the Wikimedia Foundation, or other charities identified by the Wikimedia Foundation that are engaged in activities that further the Wikimedia Endowment’s purpose.”

Wikimedia Lacks Transparency

Tides runs a series of charities that enable donors to anonymously pledge money which Tides then uses for grants to progressive organizations. There are several related but legally separate Tides charities, the largest being the Tides Foundation with 2019 net assets of $558 million. Tides are Donor Advised Funds: anonymous donors may direct Tides what to do with their donations though they may also choose to leave funding decisions to Tides. Tides discloses its largest benefactors by the amount donated without listing the identities of the individuals or organizations. Disbursements are reported but whose money went to which cause is entirely opaque.

Wikimedia both donates to the Tides Foundation and simultaneously receives money from the organization. Despite repeated donations of $5 million, and a badge listing Wikimedia on their homepage along with other major donors, Tides does not list the $5 million donations from Wikimedia except for one year.

Screenshot from the Tides homepage, March 17, 2021




In 2014 and 2015, Tides Foundation listed the top nine benefactors; the Wikimedia grant is presumably one of two $5 million entries. However, beginning in the year ending 2016, Tides lists fewer benefactors (four entries for 2016 and 2018 and five for 2017 and 2019). None of the benefactors are for exactly $5,000,000 and the figures seem to cut off just over the $5 million mark.

Table 2 Tides Foundation Major Benefactors (from Form 990, in USD)

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014  $197,947,813  $204,620,137  $8,848,405  $8,311,427  $8,859,861  $9,401,898  $49,500,646

$51,259,307 $32,116,172  $26,196,158  $15,453,383  $11,890,643  $34,978,137  $13,000,000  $130,805,743  $133,530,144  $3,556,658  $8,055,292  $24,652,866  $9,151,058  $7,623,001
$6,456,298  $21,169,373  $30,586,622  $11,190,255  $13,404,088  $5,000,000  $3,000,000  $3,770,580  $3,500,000  $4,288,229  $3,567,084  $3,311,103  $4,278,351  $5,000,000   $10,018,607

Google’s former charity, Google.org, shuttered the year ending 2018.[9] Google made two large donations to Tides Foundation, a total of $50,264,173 listed in their 2018 disclosure (consisting of three donations: $43,844,348, $844,448, and $560,055) and $76,385,901 in 2017. Neither matches a line-item amount Tides Foundation reported for the corresponding years.[10] Google also contributes money directly to both Wikimedia and the Wikimedia Endowment, announcing a $7.5 million donation at the 2019 Word Economic Forum.[11]

While Wikimedia donates money to Tides – to support its endowment and Knowledge Equity Fund (via Tides Advocacy) – Tides also donates money to Wikimedia. However, the Tides donations do not appear in Wikimedia annual reports, which list major benefactors who donate amounts above $50,000 except for a pass-through donation from Google (“The Google Foundation of Tides Foundation[12].”). Other donations from Tides to Wikimedia are presumably lumped into the group of anonymous donors.

Table 3 Tides donations to Wikimedia

Year Ending

Tides to Wikimedia

2015

$25,000

2016

$25,000

2017

$25,000

2018

$867,900 + $25,000[13]

2019

$2,541,000

On October 7, 2019, Amanda Keton joined Wikimedia as General Counsel. She came to Wikimedia from Tides where her work included setting up the Wikimedia Endowment and serving as CEO of Tides Advocacy, the Tides charity that Wikimedia donated $8.7 million to in 2019, the year Keton switched. That donation is in addition to Wikimedia’s ordinary annual $5,000,000 contribution to the endowment. As with other funds held at Tides, donations are separate from expenditures making it impossible to definitively trace what the donated funds were used for.

The extensive ties to Tides – an organization which often hides funding sources – is an odd choice of partners for the purportedly transparent Wikimedia.

Wikipedia is Sometimes Biased, Inaccurate, or Conflicted

Conflicts of Interest: Wikipedia

I stumbled on conflict issues with Wikipedia when I attempted to add information to a Wikipedia article about deceased business executive Archie McCardell, former CEO of Xerox and International Harvester sourced to an article I wrote about McCardell. That edit was promptly deleted by one of Wikipedia’s pseudo-anonymous editors, “Tim1965,” with the claim that it was self-serving despite no benefit beyond Wikipedia’s vaunted knowledge spreading.[14] To clarify, my article was already second in Google search results about McCardell, with Wikipedia first, so there was no search engine optimization benefit. While there was no benefit to the link, the editor of the page wrongly accused me of conflict. However, reading his profile on a different page, I discovered he is a union activist editing the page of an infamous union buster, a serious and undisclosed conflict of interest.[15] This was my first realization that, paraphrasing the Bard of Avon, something was rotten in the state of Denmark.

Knee-jerk deletions are common enough that the Wikipedia community gives users who engage in the behavior a name, deletionists. There used to be a dedicated page on Wikipedia deletionists until the deletionists deleted it.[16] The goal of deletionists is to prevent “vandalism,” a broad term spanning the common-sense meaning of the term to anything a Wikipedia editor disagrees with.[17] Of course, an error by omission – whether purposeful or not – can render an underlying article inaccurate and misleading. Because it is far harder to identify errors of omission than errors of commission, the work of deletionists can be classified as a pervasive but largely invisible form of digital vandalism.[18] Wikipedia’s vandalism page notes that wrongful deletions are a form of vandalism, though every example of vandalism cited involves the purposeful inclusion of information rather than exclusion.

For example, take Wikipedia entries concerning Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, the Pablo Escobar of the 1800s. He smuggled vast amounts of opium from India to China in cooperation with the British East India Company. The British supported the smuggling to avoid paying silver for tea, which they then brought back to sell in England. At one point, Jeejeebhoy and his British conspirators purposefully addicted at least ten million Chinese who then traded the opium, which cost the British almost nothing, for the valuable tea. When China predictably fought back, confiscating the smuggled opium, the British launched a war, the First Opium War, described in detail in Wikipedia. Jejeebhoy’s Wikipedia page does note the opium sales though omits it was smuggled and co-mingles it with the cotton trade. However, there is no mention of Jejeebhoy at all on the primary page about the First Opium War, a seriously misleading omission. Jejeebhoy is a hero in India, knighted and celebrated as a philanthropist. This omission in this shameful chapter of history is no doubt the work of Indian nationalists.

Taiwan and China famously clash non-stop about the status of the country and Hong Kong police have continually edited Wikipedia entries. In the latter case, during a crackdown by the Chinese government last year, a Wikipedia editor with a 13-year history characterized attempts by pro-democracy protestors in dismissive language. “The level of disruptive editing against the government, particularly from sources in Hong Kong, is significantly higher,” said Wikipedia editor MarkH21 who declined to give Reuters his real name.

The Wikipedia search result for antitrust law redirects to “competition law” and doesn’t mention Google, Amazon, Facebook, or Apple despite worldwide investigations into monopolistic practices by all four firms. Google’s nearly 8,000-word Wikipedia entry mentions monopoly or monopolistic behaviors only five times, three of those in the last paragraph. Facebook and Apple have two mentions of monopolies; Amazon’s entry has just one.[19] None of the entries mention Wikipedia’s link to the businesses nor Wikimedia’s business dealings.

Conflicts of Interest: Wikimedia

In annual disclosures, Wikimedia lists expenditures for major vendors. Only two vendors appear every year for the last four reported years.[20] One is its primary law firm, Jones-Day (a connection not noted on the Jones-Day Wikipedia page), and the other is a small public relations firm, Minassian Media, Inc., which does not have a Wikipedia page. Wikimedia paid Minassian $363,489, $374,334, $406,957, and $436,104 for the years ending 2019, 2018, 2017, and 2016 respectively. There are no amounts paid to Minassian for years prior to 2016 and the 2020 disclosure has not been made public at this time. Minassian has or had only three known current or former employees, Craig Minassian, Jove Oliver, and Dasha Burns.[21]

Craig Minassian, founder of the firm that bears his name, is a full-time executive at the Clinton Foundation.[22] Disclosures there show he works 50 hours per week on average and was paid a total of $256,771 in 2019 and similar amounts in prior years. Minassian is listed as an officer on Clinton Foundation Form 990s in the 2015, 2018, and 2019 disclosures, the last published.[23] The Clinton Foundation website confirms he remains in that role as of 2021. Minassian is also a former HBO executive and worked in various roles for both Bill and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns and as an assistant press secretary and director of television news in the Clinton White House.

Jove Oliver is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, along with outgoing Wikimedia CEO Katherine Maher. Besides his own firm, Oliver Global, Politico referred to Oliver as a partner at Minassian Media in a Nov. 26, 2020 article. Oliver’s own firm, Oliver Global, has no information at all. Oliver’s academic credentials include an undergraduate degree from the University of Evansville and a Master of Arts in International Relations (MAIR) from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. Bios refer to Oliver as a director at the Clinton Global Initiative from 2006-2010 though Clinton Foundation Form 990s, going back to 2003 (the year after he graduated from the Maxwell School), do not list him as an officer or director.[24]

Public searches turn up only one Dasha Burns, a reporter at NBC. After inquiring through Twitter whether she is the same Dasha Burns that worked at Minassian she asked about the reason for the inquiry. After explaining it is research for this report, she never answered. Presumably, an unrelated Dasha Burns would have answered in the negative.

A 2016 CNN piece, when Burns may have been working for Minassian and Wikimedia, contains the following Editor’s Note: “Dasha Burns is a writer and works as a strategist and creative content producer at Oliver Global, a consulting agency where she focuses on leveraging media and digital technology for global development.” Her editorial expresses empathy with young woman voters who prefer Sanders over Clinton but goes on to explain why they should support Clinton instead. “While young voters are educated and engaged, they are also newer to politics. They don’t have the perspective that experiencing many election cycles may bring,” she wrote. No mention is made of her connection to Craig Minassian despite his status as a member of the Clinton campaign.

In a 2018 Forbes article, Minassian notes a breakdown between professional news gatherers and public relations: “…communications departments are being rebranded as ‘newsrooms’ to emphasize their goal to produce relevant, informative content…”[25] This statement seems germane in the context of a nexus between Minassian, the Clinton Foundation, Wikimedia, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook.

Wikipedia is a Potentially Dangerous Conduit for Disinformation

Wikipedia’s undisclosed conflicts of interest, including clear examples of political manipulation, is a serious threat not only to discourse but arguably to national security. Wikipedia information is used in three primary high-level use cases:

1. As general background information through the web or mobile strongly identified as sourced from Wikipedia.

2. Pushed as objective fact through third-party portals, sometimes with little or no attribution (ex: Google’s infoboxes, Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Google Assistant, etc…).

3. Used as a baseline for truthfulness, for both human moderators or artificial intelligence (AI) agents when discerning fact from fiction or fake news.

The first use-case, reading and gathering information from Wikipedia, is the most benign. Teachers and professors routinely warn students not to use Wikipedia as an authoritative source of information. Individuals sourcing information directly from Wikipedia know where the information is from and can judge the accuracy of the information on the merits.[26]

Wikipedia information pushed through third-party portals, identified as being sourced from Wikipedia in small print or not at all, becomes far more problematic. Reliance on virtual assistants is likely to increase over time and the source of information, vetted by a not always nor entirely disinterested group, is troublesome.

However, the third use case, Wikipedia as an arbiter of truth, has the potential to be a serious problem. Fake news is already pervasive and has been used to sway elections and political decisions throughout the world.[27] Using Wikipedia as a bastion of truthfulness for human-based moderators, who might not have a deep background in history, enables bad-faith actors to project their version of reality. This problem compounds when Wikipedia information is used to train artificial intelligence agents, an apparently not uncommon use case. Whereas even individual people without a strong background in history might realize something sounds suspicious, AI’s have no similar intuition nor curiosity.

State actors who wish to control and project their version of reality need merely take control of those topics on Wikipedia and their version of truth would then be broadcast as a near-absolute truth to the human and AI-based moderators at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and elsewhere.

As an example of how this might play out, take the Solar Winds hack of 2020. Simplifying, Solar Winds makes software that helps manage servers, the computers that run the internet. A state actor (Russia is often cited) hacked the Solar Winds software to gain entry and then appears to have remained dormant. Eventually, countless businesses and government agencies throughout the world updated their own systems, unknowingly introducing the vulnerability from Solar Winds. The state-actor then used the entry they’d created to put in place other, more difficult to detect, malware. To summarize, Solar Winds acted as a relatively benign single-entry point to countless other systems. However, it enabled the malware to metastasize into countless other systems.

Similarly, a state actor that wanted to run a disinformation campaign could take control of the relevant Wikipedia pages and use that control to enable their disinformation campaign more widely. Facebook AI’s and moderators would flag corrections to the disinformation as itself incorrect. Google AI’s would push the disinformation out. Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa would speak the disinformation into living rooms. The only protection against this nightmare scenario is the Wikipedia safeguards about disinformation which, no doubt, would probably quickly collapse under a coordinated attack by top-tier state-based hackers including China, Russia, or the United States.

Early in the life of the site, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger expressed concern about accuracy and expressed some need for oversight by experts. He was soon marginalized and run out of the organization; his views discounted by the libertarian Jimmy Wales.[28]

Conclusion


Wikipedia nowhere notes ties between Wikimedia, Tides, Google, Apple, Amazon, or Facebook. Concerns about monopoly are minimized. Minassian Media does not have a Wikipedia page despite being a major Wikimedia vendor for several years. The Clinton Foundation Wikipedia page mentions Craig Minassian only in passing, noting no ties to his ownership of a consulting firm nor the sizable billings by that firm to Wikimedia while Minassian was allegedly working 50 hours per week for the Clinton Foundation. There is no mention on Google’s Wikipedia page about the firm’s support for Wikimedia. Jones Day, Wikimedia’s law firm, does not note its representation on the firm’s Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia page about the Council on Foreign Relations includes no mention that Wikimedia CEO Katherine Maher is a life member despite a sizable list of other well-known members.


Wikimedia Enterprise, the new for-profit conduit between Big Tech and Wikimedia, asserts the purpose of its revenue-generating project is to create a “legal relationship” with Big Tech. Wikimedia Enterprise community liaison Liam Wyatt explains:

Instead of simply trying to appeal to moral arguments that it is “good” and “right” for these organizations to donate to WMF to invest in the free knowledge that sustains their business model… this project is attempting to build a product that the[y] want to buy - that in no way restricts the existing options… With a legal relationship in place, we will be in a much more strong position, a more sustainable position, to talk about things like correct and consistent attribution. (emphasis in the original)

Wikimedia already has a legal relationship with Big Tech. There may not be a written contract but there are various open-source licenses no doubt carefully scrutinized by a worldwide army of intellectual property attorneys concerned about copyright infringement claims against their deep-pocketed clients. There is simply no way Google, Amazon, and Apple would republish Wikipedia content at the scale they do without a rock-solid assurance their firms were shielded from a blizzard of meritorious copyright litigation. Contractually shifting this liability from the firms to Wikimedia, in exchange for funds not needed, seems like poor stewardship of Wikipedia.[29]
As illustrated above, neither Wikimedia nor the Wikimedia Endowment appears to need more money. The firm already uses nowhere near the amount they already receive. The Endowment is well on its way to fulfilling its $100 million goal without a for-profit subsidiary. Google has demonstrated a willingness to donate to Wikimedia both directly and through Tides. Given the amount of content Google relies upon, they’d no-doubt increase their funding if they believed there was any real danger of Wikipedia folding, a prospect that seems far-fetched. Collusion by Big Tech for any purpose is troublesome but to support a single information source seems like it could, would, and should attract the attention of both antitrust regulators and anti-monopolist advocates.[30]

Finally, the last stated reason for Wikimedia’s stated need for additional funding – to increase coverage to more languages – rings hollow. There are already 319 editions of Wikipedia. Content is created entirely by unpaid volunteers and, sometimes, machine translations. Funding makes no difference at all to increasing participation by the former group and the latter would likely be better served via a partnership with a machine translation business. It’s unclear why more funds are needed to improve, for example, the Latin, Yiddish, Sanskrit, or Old Church Slavonic editions of Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Enterprise argues other non-profits control for-profit divisions. Context is important. Mozilla Foundation, which oversees the non-profit Firefox, is attached to the Mozilla Corporation because it was originally spun-off from for-profit Netscape. Linux Foundation operates a for-profit training service which is entirely different from their core mission. The Open Data Institute relies in part upon for-profit businesses for data. None of these organizations rely upon volunteers to the extent Wikipedia does nor do they enjoy the level of funding, relative to operating costs, that Wikimedia is fortunate to have.
Wikipedians, a slang term for the vast majority of contributors who write and curate the various Wikipedia websites, expressed displeasure at the for-profit enterprise and the constant fundraising. On March 18, 2021, user Krassotkin, of Russian Wikipedia, wrote:
You know, a typical pattern for 99% of wiki contributors is writing and improving articles (uploading images and the like). The vast majority of Wikimedia users do not participate in discussions on the very small community that has developed around the Wikimedia Foundation and enjoying its benefits. Moreover, most Wikimedia users don’t speak English and cannot participate in these discussions at all. In fact there are essentially two disjoint Wikimedia movements. The first ones to create wiki projects and make money (through donations). And the second, who spend this money on some strange projects. That’s why the communities don’t know about Foundation’s initiatives and reject them. We must put an end to this.

Please note that all the contents of this URL Web Page has been completely removed as a result of the demands by
Charles Mehrtens Roslof Lead Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Foundation as per the below demand

​https://www.wikimedia.org/
Wikimedia Foundation's Mission Statement
"Wikimedia is a global movement whose mission is to bring free educational content to the world. Through various projects, chapters, and the support structure of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia strives to bring about a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge"

"WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION 

Wikipedia Sucks!" 

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2415
Wikipedia Sucks!
BADSITEBADSITEBADSITE

Board indexWikipedia DiscussionWikipedia In The Media
WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATIONForum rules
DaWikiTruth
Sucks Noob

WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post Sun Mar 06, 2022 6:54 pm[:shrug:]  Is there section (and it should be) of history of lawsuits against shitty wmf?
Top
wexter Sucks Critic

Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post Tue Mar 08, 2022 11:06 pmThey have structured themselves to be judgement proof.

WMF is not responsible for content on Wikipedia (they are independent from Wikipedia )
Wikipedia is a platform that is not responsible for content (they hide behind 230 as a hosting platform, they are independent from their editing base)

As a Wikipedia editor you could possibly be sued, but that is unlikely.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” Asimov
Top

[User avatar]
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin

Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION

Quote

Post Thu Mar 10, 2022 6:02 amFor the book wiki I tried to compile all the legal actions involving the WMF. Major problem: like most sleazy corporations now, if a settlement is reached out of court, they force all parties to sign NDAs. Thus minimizing "bad publicity". Situation not helped by the tendency of journalists to give the WMF a "free ride", because THEY use Wikipedia for fact checking.

The WMF itself has attempted to sue, to stop things they "don't like". AND THEY HAVE FAILED. Without Section 230 and a few other laws dealing with telecom, the WMF would be doomed. But they are soooo arrogant now.....
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=5517
https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/

Feel free to ask the little fucks about Arnnon Geshuri.

And BTW, if you ever want an example of Wikipedia openly defaming someone: Otis Ferry is still a "classic".

And don't start me on judges and lawyers using WP as a "reliable source".
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха
Top

Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior

Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION

Quote

Post Fri Mar 11, 2022 8:37 am

DaWikiTruth wrote: ↑ [:shrug:]  Is there section (and it should be) of history of lawsuits against shitty wmf?There is only one legal action filed against the WMF anyone who wants to destroy Wikipedia needs to be aware of. A man named Lomax (who goes by Abd) wanted to know the reason why he is Globally Banned from Wikipedia.

A Global Ban is their highest sanction, and allegedly results from an internal investigation by staff of their "Trust and Safety" department, and is usually (but not always) reserved for people who have had prior extensive dealings with Wikipedia's volunteer run governance apparatus.

It is widely understood, based on the WMF's own policy, that while the specific reasons for a Global Ban are never released, either publicly or privately, these things are reserved for the most serious behaviour. Think danger to children or hatred of Jews, that sort of stuff. They are permanent, apply to online and real world activity, and cannot be appealed.

Understandably therefore, people can get mightily pissed off if they end up getting Globally Banned and they haven't actually done anything as serious as be a danger to children or advance Nazi ideology. This might not be an issue if you only ever engaged with Wikipedia as a pseudonym, but it obviously has serious implications for those who engage under their real names, which is the case for Lomax.

It has long been suspected that in practice, over time, the WMF has become more willing to issue Global Bans for lesser crimes, such as harassment. It is generally understood by most fair and reasonable people, people without skin in the game, that Lomax probably got banned for the mere crime of being a serial annoyance to multiple people, staff and volunteers, over email.

That is bad, perhaps, but it isn't pedophilia or racism. And it is pertinent that the nature of the annoyance was likely based on a genuine belief he had been mistreated by the governance apparatus, and this was their way of continuing to appeal (albeit likely in defiance of their statements that he was all out of appeals, and should give it a rest for a year, the standard waiting period).

This is perhaps all speculation, but it's reasonable based on what is publicly known of Lomax's very long period of interaction with Wikipedia.

And so Lomax took the WMF to court, with the not unreasonable case that people out here in the wider world being led to believe he is a pedophile or a racist, is defamatory, and he had suffered material harm.

Rather than stand up in court and let the world know the precise reasons why Lomax had been Globally Banned, and therefore lay out before the court all the evidence and procedures that would presumably in their eyes show they had, as has been often claimed, been more than fair and reasonable, they went an entirely different route.

The WMF clearly saw the threat of having their internal processes exposed to the scrutiny of a court, and likely be found wanting in either the facts or the process, and so they hired a bunch of seriously expensive lawyers to fight to get the case dismissed before it even got that far.

The fact nobody out there in the real world seems to realise this is what a significant proportion of their "price of a cup of coffee" goes towards (even those who are vaguely aware the WMF budget has ballooned to epic proportions, far beyond what would be minimally necessary to keep the lights on and edits flowing), is a big reason why people should hate Wikipedia and want to see it destroyed.

And this is where it gets fucked up. Their sole, complete argument, was to refer the Court to Wikipedia's little known but always there, Terms of Use. A legal contract that Lomax had agreed to simply by virtue of signing up. Didn't even need to tick a box, let alone one marked "are you an idiot, tick yes if you are". Buried in there was an obscure article which essentially says, Wikipedia is just a private corporation and so they can remove their service from you for any reason, including no reason at all.

And so quite literally, before the Californian Judge appointed to hear arguments, the WMF successfully argued the case be dismissed as groundless. That Lomax doesn't need to know the reson for his ban, because legally speaking, people can be Globally Banned from Wikipedia for "any reason", including "no reason at all".

Ergo, it's not actually defamatory to publicly say Lomax is Globally Banned, because that doesn't state he touches kids or is a fan of back uniforms. Nor does it say he is a serial email pest. It says nothing.

Note that this includes the fact it also doesn't say, apart from being buried down in the Terms, people on this list might have been banned for "any reason", including "no reason".

The WMF doesn't owe Lomax a dime, much less his day in court, because he hasn't been "harmed" in the legal sense.

Regardless of his own actions, Lomax has been fucked over by the Wikipedia cult, many times, that much is clear. But his reward for funding his own legal action to figure out why and get some restitution, or at the very least have his name removed from the public wall of shame that is the List of Globally Banned users, was to simply get the biggest, royalest, fucking over of his life.

That legal judgement can be summarised thusly, in the eyes of the victorious WMF:

HA HA FUCK YOU THANKS FOR PLAYING THIS RIGGED GAME BUH BYE NOW LOOOZER!?!?!?1

This is Wikipedia.

Not a great look for an organisation that in other contexts, through PR guff mainly, the stuff lazily passed on by clueless journalists, is trying to convince people it is more than just a wierd little hobby. That it is the collective effort of a small kind charity which manages the technical and fund raising side of what a group of well meaning volunteers has built out of the goodness of their hearts of pure gold. Bless their little cotton socks.

That it is more than this, allegedly. That it is an essential human service/utility, that it should be "ubiquitous", indeed, that it should become and perhaps already is, a "fundamental human right" to be able to not just read, but participate in, the Wikipedia movement.

That Wikipedia is freedom itself.

Uh huh.  [:roll:]

Maybe Russian freedom, perhaps. Or any place where the decision of who is and is not a citizen is decided solely by the citizenry, via their duly elected representatives, and there doesn't need to be a reason if the powers that be choose to destroy your passport, without any of that fancy stuff, like due process and separation of powers.

The primary purpose of a Global Ban being, the permanent and irreversible removal of your ability to participate in said movement.

Granted, there is a small pro-independence faction within Wikipedia that aspires to see the movement have a divorce, to see the volunteers throw off the shackles of their corporate masters, and become something different. Something better. But I have seen no variation of this proposal that seeks to have decisions the WMF currently makes, such as Global Bans, be passed to truly independent actors with care for evidence and due process. And in truth, it is long passed time when even tbe most ardent of separatists has seemingly realised that Wikipedia is now too dominant, too massive, too complex, for a notional "fork" to be viable.

Wikipedia is, and probably forever will be, what it legally is.

A private club.

You are either in or out, and that is at the sole and complete discretion of those who are in. Self organising, self policing, legally limited only to the extent of the actual law, which for all private clubs, necessarily avoids matters of membership.

I guess many people sort of already understood this is what Wikipedia is, it being rather obvious to anyone who dips more than a toe in, but I don't think they truly understood it. I don't think they knew that it is something so crucial to Wikipedia's very existence, they would hire expensive lawyers to make it a settled legal precedent. Just as crucial, if not more so, than this idea they are a platform not a publisher.

The law cannot force a private club to accept you as a member. Which is perhaps how it should be.

But that is also why it isn't left to private clubs to educate your children, offer public health messaging, much less deliver what anyone would define what is and is not a fundamental human right or essential service (except in such cases where the government contracts such services, like water and power).

It is also why, in most civilised countries anyway (but notably not America, the home of Wikipedia), you can't call yourself a newspaper or a broadcaster if you don't have due regard for truth and bias, and that is duly regulated by an independent party.

And argument can already be made that Wikipedia is indeed essential and should be ubiquitous, even a human right. If so, then bring it under government regulation. Make sure that people like Lomax, or indeed anyone, can't ever realistically say they have been treated unfairly much less excluded without due care for his rights, because the people would know what their crimes were.

Civilised society can and rightly does remove certain rights for certain crimes.

This is what governments do. Transparency and due process. And where they do not, this is where the Courts step in.

Wikipedia, not so much.

I am assuming people here accept that whatever Lomax is, he was not a terrorist, or any other type of unusal case which would merit the sort of closed proceedings you can sometimes see in a civilised society.

It is clear from this one startling but little known decision, what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.

This wasn't a surprise to me, I'd noticed that obscure Term many years ago, and had appreciated the implications well before it had become a legal tested reality. But the way the Lomax case went down, with this "no reason" clause being key, was apparently a surprise even to some so called allegedly experienced Wikipedia critics. Most of whom are sadly useless fucking idiots working against serious critics, including the illustrious Administrator of this forum, Eric Barbour.

For context, there are some out there who claim I am Globally Banned, and poor Eric seems to think he knows what that says about little old me; my wants, my desires, my truth. Fucking prick that he is.

I have never confirmed or denied this, and one of the many supremely fun reasons why I take that position, is the knowledge that the WMF have no way of convincing anyone if this is true or not.

It could even be said that the timing of the Ban, post Lomax, shows that I'm a devious bastard who decided to get Globally Banned just for shits and giggles, the hilarious amusement of being able to say to anyone who thinks they know who I allegedly am and what I've allegedly done in the eyes of Wikipedia, that in the eyes of Californian law, something the WMF paid serious money to defend in court, the reason I might be banned could be no more thought out than they don't like the cut of my jib. That perhaps I was Banned simply because they have the power to do so and there doesn't need to be a reason. That I was Banned perhaps because I write posts like this on external forums.

And as we know from all the press reports and other testimony, the Wikipedia community are a pretty racist bunch. Getting Globally Banned because your face doesn't fit, is totally believable. Mother fucking Martin Luther King himself could probably quite easily get a Global Ban from Wikipedia, simply by being himself.

Is this my truth? I couldn't possibly comment.

All I know is, this is serious shit. You show this post to anyone who the WMF or Wikipedia volunteers try to "partner" with, and they will be left wondering, quite rightly, who the fuck are we dealing with here?

This is no Mom and Pop encyclopedia store. These people are fucking fascists.

Admittedly they might not be trying to kill Jews or annex Poland, but your ability to stop them if they wanted to, from the position of being one without the True Blood, is realy quite limited. Your options are basically, writing mean stuff on the interwebs, or violent resistance.

Hence why everyone in the Wikipedia movement wants to make sure that this is the one legal action involving the WMF that NOBODY EVER FINDS OUT ABOUT.

Given that, why would you want or need to know of any other actions, which are all merely boring variations of the whole Section 230 tedium.

Hence why anyone who tries to make light of this one case, or even takes the WMF's side, which is unsurprisingly what the sell out forum Wikipediocracy did, and anyone who doesn't have the time or intelligence to understand it, cannot legitimate be called a Wikipedia critic.

They can be called what they are.

Uncle Fucking Toms. Neville Fucking Chamberlains.
Collaborators.
Enemies of the people.

Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:31 pm
Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑
DaWikiTruth wrote: ↑ [:shrug:]  Is there section (and it should be) of history of lawsuits against shitty wmf?

There is only one legal action filed against the WMF anyone who wants to destroy Wikipedia needs to be aware of. A man named Lomax (who goes by Abd) wanted to know the reason why he is Globally Banned from Wikipedia.
A Global Ban is their highest sanction, and allegedly results from an internal investigation by staff of their "Trust and Safety" department, and is usually (but not always) reserved for people who have had prior extensive dealings with Wikipedia's volunteer run governance apparatus.
(rant shortened)i doubt i could be called an Uncle Tom for wikipedia. several of the key players in my own wp ban work/worked for wmf so i figured it was best if i dont engage them at all. the last thing i heard from wmf was a legal threat related to wikipedialogs.com so they seem really serious about not wanting me there.
i would say "not an Uncle Tom", certainly not for wikipedia. but i would edit for pay. i know how to get away with shit on wikipedia afa behavioral and technical workarounds but i wouldnt volunteer to help their encyclopedia-esque sites.
PS: if you stopped blanking posts, i wouldnt have to quote the entire post. your posts are decent enough that they should not be blanked like that.
#starveForUkraine
Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post Tue Mar 29, 2022 8:48 pmi asked for the list of lawsuits filed by wikimedia foundation, especially on privacy violations... you must file it against wmf as en entity, but you can put katherine maher, jimbo wales in parenthesis or some no good administrator like dannyS712!!!  [:flamingbanana:]
wexter
Sucks Critic
Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:08 pm
DaWikiTruth wrote: ↑i asked for the list of lawsuits filed by wikimedia foundation, especially on privacy violations... you must file it against wmf as en entity, but you can put katherine maher, jimbo wales in parenthesis or some no good administrator like dannyS712!!!  [:flamingbanana:]WMF was a named plaintiff vs the NSA and lost; but this was a pile on type of action
WMF has been sued for defamation and it never sticks due to Section 230
WMF sent a cease and desist to these guys (years ago) https://wiki-pr.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_e ... _Wikipedia
As mentioned before, WMF and Wikipedia are judgement proof.
(I wonder how important Wikipedia will be a year from now when folks start to get worried about quality of life issues and food security)
Kapito said that many people who had always had everything available to them at the supermarket would soon face “scarcity inflation”—the consequence of shortages in anything from workers to oil, housing or silicon chips. “I would put on your seat belts because this is something that we haven’t seen,” said Kapito - Blackrock
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” Asimov
Top

[User avatar]
boredbird
Sucks Mod

Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION

Quote

Post Fri Apr 01, 2022 9:29 pm

DaWikiTruth wrote: ↑i asked for the list of lawsuits filed by wikimedia foundation, especially on privacy violations... you must file it against wmf as en entity, but you can put katherine maher, jimbo wales in parenthesis or some no good administrator like dannyS712!!!  [:flamingbanana:]Go away thnx.
Top

[User avatar]
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin

Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION

Quote

Post Sat Apr 02, 2022 8:55 pm

boredbird wrote: ↑Go away thnx.[:flamingbanana:]

Take a wild guess who that is.
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха
Top

[User avatar]
FUCK WMF
Sucks Noob

Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION

Quote

Post Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:30 amWhoever tried to sue why he/she was blocked was waste of time, who cares if one is blocked. Just open gazillion of new accounts and log in for each one from sampe IP and wikibastard stewards will never catch you as long as you do proper edits. DUH!  [:!:]   [:idea:]

Lawsuits against shitty and wikignorant wikimedia foundation are possible and in small courts for privacy violations and defamations, wikimedia's level of ignoraqnce is amazin and all articles are incorrect there as succinctly proven: archive.is/Y0BB They claim they have very strong privacy policy which is pure BS, they are wikihypocrites, just read comments to refute their lies:  [:flamingbanana:]

twitter.com/wikimedia/status/1199039937103818752?lang=en  [:roll:]
WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATIONForum rules
Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post by Kumioko » Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:08 pmWhat needs to happen is, instead of suing the WMF they start going after the editors or, potentially the donors. I feel like a case could be made that a donor could, in some situations, be considered an accomplice or party to the crime. For example, hosting child porn on commons; copyright violations and libel to name few. Even if you lost, if it happens enough times editors and donors may be scared off and so far the WMF has shown no desire to represent the community in court.
#BbbGate
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:14 pm
Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post by FUCK WMF » Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:38 amstrike jimbo/jewbo in his pocketbook and his WMFOffice, his umbrella for wikiterrorism.. and this guy cant wait to file lawsuit against WMF, im following him, he has been persecuted too long and linked to somebody he is not, damages done to his good name are irreversible, here somebody posted his final post #53:
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =215336037  [:shrug:]
I have the list to all the donors/stupid benefactors (benefactors@wikimedia, donate@wikimedia spam those wikimotherfuckers), going after them is the key to demoralize WMF... as they are wikioccultism which consist of wikignorance, wikiarrogance, wikicontradictions, utmost wikistupidity: here wikihomopedoidiot eptalon (like rest of them) was even told how to spend intelligentsia, he reverted it anyway but that is just a drop in an ocean of wikishit where shit must happen 24/7, otherwise it would not be wikipedia "encyclopedia"!!!  [:shock:]   [:o]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph ... id=8157149  [:flamingbanana:]
[User avatar]
wexter
Sucks Critic
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 109 times

Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post by wexter » Thu Aug 18, 2022 1:12 pm
strike jimbo/jewbo (really?) in his pocketbook and his WMFOffice, his umbrella for wikiterrorism.. (with links provided to incoherent rambling)
Sarcastically speaking; Maybe you should focus your efforts here
http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=1545
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jew-or-not ... ism-group/
Or this bizarre classic from Wikipedia "who is jew are you?"

You just cannot make this nonsense up?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

Even more hilarious

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wh ... is_article

Even more hilarious yet; the same regular Doug Weller of "Who is Jew" and "Wut is Manatee" fame; has been on a mission to destroy the "Goyim Defense League " all ten of them.. Stay tuned, it looks like the jig is up for Doug.

And 200,000+ apolitical edits later;
https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/doug-weller


The far right has been active on Wikipedia since it first went online in 2001, but in the past two years, its presence has grown with the emergence of the alt-right and the surge in rightwing populism in Europe and North America, says administrator Doug Weller.https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 ... ck-puppets


Re: A nice day for a hanging
Post by ericbarbour » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:23 pm
FWIW Marek has made himself some Gamergater enemies. He's being pilloried on Breitbart and on r/wikiinaction this week, along with Doug Weller (who actually does deserve some abuse). The Breitbart article was written by someone claiming to be "The Devil's Advocate" -- the one and only! Surely you remember him!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goyim_Defense_League

For Doug, it was either the Goyim Defense League or (sans the anchovies) the Caesar Salad wars.
edit war over ancient Roman recipe
I would ask the user or users who keep adding this content to discuss here before doing it again:"Contrary to popular belief, Caesar Cardini did get his original recipe from an old Roman transcribed text that shared a popular victory dish that gave a seminal recipe to this modern salad."
This is pretty clearly the IP editing from an account. Hard not to see it as vandalism. I've warned them on their talk page as well. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ceasar salad invented by Rome? That is funny. -Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.80.24.2 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dogie-boy has cancer, Parkinson disease, a CPAP machine and over 16 years wasted on Wikipedia.
What Doug does not realize is that he wasted and squandered his valuable and irreplaceable lifetime for naught.
Try all he might, clicking away hours on the keyboard, he will leave life without a lasting legacy.

At least the "dustbin" of history has dust, Wikipedia will simply disappear into the void of volatile memory. Another 20 years for Wikipedia?
Next stop liver surgery
Possibly followed by more chemo Doug Weller talk 16:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg
https://hmongwiki.de/wiki/User_talk:The_Gnome
http://mynewbestarticles.blogspot.com/2 ... pedia.html
And on the same "bat channel" other idiots (idiots other than Wikipedians) are up to no good.
According to Tampa-based media outlet Creative Loafing, flyers handed out by the group were published by the Goyim Defense League — an organization the Anti-Defamation League describes as a “small network of virulently antisemitic provocateurs led by Jon Minadeo II of Petaluma, California” known for spreading “antisemitic myths and conspiracy theories” through social media and highly coordinated public stunts.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ce-1388015
/

I knew I saw all ten of these guys somewhere; wheeling around Florida in the Scooby-Jew-mobile.
We are talking TEN ridiculous-incredulous losers here; TEN! You could find more than ten people that "don't believe in evolution" or "think the flat earth is sitting on the shell of a turtle swimming through space" or believe in Wikipedia (or its influence)

Scooby Doo and his ten buddies - pay them no mind
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files ... k=yF1huRvF" alt="Goyim Defence League"/>

The Scooby Jew Mobile - lunatics winning hearts and minds
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files ... k=3VeJ9OX7

Doug and would be Nazi's have something in common - they both think they can drive a narrative.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” Asimov
Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post by ericbarbour » Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:49 pmI've got material on Doug Weller, ask and receive. (Not sure about him being Jewish, and that's OT anyway. If "FUCK WMF" posts like that again, he's tossed.)
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха
Re: WHAT ARE ALL THE LAWSUITS VS WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Quote
Post by wexter » Sat Aug 20, 2022 1:16 am
ericbarbour wrote: ↑
Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:49 pm
I've got material on Doug Weller, ask and receive. (Not sure about him being Jewish, and that's OT anyway. If "FUCK WMF" posts like that again, he's tossed.)Would you mind "Honoring Doug" on his own thread?
I don't get all the folks "wasting away online"
Nothing whatsoever offends me
--"we-culturally" need to be more offensive
--"we" definitely need to be more direct
--"can do" got replaced by "he said she said"
--IMHO let the nonsense have a "voice" - Wikipedia is banning the boomerang that is going to come back around to kill them.

“This is America. People do whatever the fuck they feel like doing, you got a problem with that? Because they have a right to. And because they have guns and no one can fucking stop them.”― Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” Asimov


New York Times: Former evangelical activist claims he knew of 2014 Supreme Court decision before it was released

By Shawna Mizelle, CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito/index.html
Sat November 19, 2022
[The Supreme Court of the United States is seen in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2022.]
The Supreme Court of the United States is seen in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2022.
Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images
CNN — 
A former evangelical activist claimed in a letter to the Chief Justice of the United States that he knew about the outcome of a 2014 Supreme Court decision involving contraception and the Affordable Care Act by the court prior to the formal announcement, according to The New York Times.
Rev. Rob Schenck wrote in the letter this summer to Chief Justice John Roberts, which was originally obtained by the Times, that he was informed by a wealthy political donor, Gayle Wright, about the verdict of the ruling prior to it coming out.
According to the letter dated in June of this year but not sent until the following month, Wright had dinner with Justice Samuel Alito and his wife and spoke of the upcoming ruling at the time.
“She suggested that in their table conversation, she might be able to learn the status of the case, something she knew I had an interest in knowing. I received a follow-up message from her notifying me she has indeed obtained the information during that visit. We spoke on the phone, and she detailed the revelation,” Schenck wrote, according to the Times.

A source close to Schenck confirmed the letter to CNN.
“Mr. Schenck confirms the extensive details and facts he provided regarding these events.” the source told CNN.
Schenck said in a statement sent to CNN on Saturday that he was motivated by “truth-telling, which should be at the heart of Christian faith and practice.”
“My behind-the-scenes role at the Supreme Court and that of my cohorts are tangential to my purpose in coming forward,” he said. “I think it’s time for the Court, all of the government, and society to examine what we mean by ethics, justice, and accountability. Still, it’s even more critical for those of us who call ourselves Christians to do so.”
The 2014 ruling involved the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. A 5-4 court held that closely held family-owned corporations like Hobby Lobby could not be required to pay insurance coverage for certain types of contraception under the Affordable Care Act without violating a federal law aimed at protecting religious freedom. Alito authored the opinion.


Alito, in a statement provided to CNN by the Supreme Court on Saturday, called the allegations concerning the dinner conversation “completely false.”
“My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship. I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so,” Alito said.
Wright vehemently denied Schenck’s claims in an interview with CNN on Saturday.

“This whole thing is unbelievably misconstrued,” she said, adding that Alito would never have discussed a specific case and she would never have asked about one.
“Cases are never discussed, everybody knows that,” she said.
Wright confirmed to CNN the she and her husband had dined with the Alitos at their home and she remembered falling ill during the dinner and Alito offering to drive her home. It was the only time she had dined at the justice’s home, but she said she has seen him occasionally over the years. She called any allegation that they had discussed the outcome of a case “patently not true.”
A source told CNN on Saturday that Schenck never heard back from the court about his letter.

Schenck said in the letter that he was sharing the information now to assist in the ongoing investigation into the leaked draft of the opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade. The Times report said that “Mr. Schenck’s account of the breach has gaps” but that a series of emails and conversations imply he knew the outcome of the case ahead of the public ruling.

“Considering there may be a severe penalty to be paid by whoever is responsible for the initial leak or the recent draft opinion, I thought this previous incident might bear some consideration,” he wrote.
The draft opinion in this year’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case was written by Alito and appeared to have a five-justice majority to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Politico obtained and reported on the draft opinion in early May, and the leak that rocked the court was the cause for protests around the nation. The official Dobbs ruling overturning Roe came out in late June.
The unprecedented investigation into the breach of confidentiality at the nation’s highest court prompted sudden requests for private cell data from law clerks but there has been a lack of transparency about where things currently stand, and the possibility of a previous leak could be damaging to the court for which public trust is already at a record low.
Brian Fallon, the executive director of the liberal group Demand Justice, called Saturday for the Senate Judiciary Committee “to investigate the apparent leak.”
“The whistleblower in this report, Rev. Rob Schenck, should be called to testify about both the leak and the yearslong lobbying effort he once led to cultivate Alito and other Republican justices,” Fallon said in a statement.
Committee Chairman Dick Durbin said the panel “is reviewing these serious allegations, which highlight once again the inexcusable ‘Supreme Court loophole’ in federal judicial ethics rules.” The Illinois Democrat called for the passage of a proposal from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) that would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics for justices.
“It is unacceptable that members of the highest court in the land are exempted from the judicial code of ethics when wealthy special interests are spending millions of dollars in dark money to influence the Court’s decisions,” Durbin said in a statement on Saturday.
CNN’s Ariane de Vogue and Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.


 Subject: Attention: Charles Mehrtens Roslof Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
Date: 2022-11-06 19:19
From: legal@inltv.co.uk
To: legal@ipwikimedia.org, Legal@INLtv.co.uk, Charles Mehrtens Roslof <croslof@wikimedia.org>
Charles Mehrtens Roslof
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 839-6885
legal@ipwikimedia.org
 # 305608 - Attorney Licensee Search (ca.gov)
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/305608
 "Charles Mehrtens Roslof" <croslof@wikimedia.org>
Charles Mehrtens Roslof # 305608 - Attorney Licensee Search (ca.gov)
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/305608
Phone: 415-839-6885  |  Fax: 415-882-0495
Email: croslof@wikimedia.org  


Dear Charles

All the original content from this URL Web Page that was uploaded in January 2021,, and not changed or updated since, January 2021, has now been removed to comply with your complaint on behalf of Wikimedia Foundation that something in the original on this URL Web Page, without specifying exactly what words breached the Trademark Rights of Wikimedia Foundation.

 We requested that you and Wikimedia Foundation specify exactly what words breached the Trademark Rights of Wikimedia Foundation., so just those words could be removed from this URL Web Page that was uploaded in January 2021,, and not changed or updated since, January 2021, rather than having to remove all the original content from this URL Web Page that was uploaded in January 2021,, and not changed or updated since, January 2021, as part of this history of the Biden US Presidential January 2021 Inauguration.

However, as you and Wikimedia Foundation have refused to specify exactly what words breached the Trademark Rights of Wikimedia Foundation, one of the ways our Hosting Provider, GoDaddy, could legally remove the suspension on the whole of the website www.wikipediaexposed.org stopping the public viewing the other URL Web Pages on the website www.wikipediaexposed.org, and unblocking the INL News Group's internal offline research media files and the INL News Group's internal offline draft webpages, was to provide an undertaking to remove  the original content from this URL Web Page that was uploaded in January 2021,, and not changed or updated since, January 2021,

We hope this Wikimedia Foundation Trademark complaint is at an end., as the INL News Group has fully complied with your request by completely removing all the original content from this URL Web Page that was uploaded in January 2021,, and not changed or updated since, January 2021, 


Yours kindly
Paul Murphy, INL News Group's Legal and Investigative Team
Email: Legal@INLtv.co.uk 


Dear GoDaddy,
Wikimedia Foundation holds exclusive worldwide rights to all Wikimedia names and trademarks. Our marks are protected around the world under U.S. and international trademark law.
Wikimedia Foundation offers its products and services through websites including wikipedia.org, wikimediafoundation.org, and store.wikimedia.org. Wikimedia Foundation's trademarks are registered worldwide and include:
US Registration Nos. 3,040,722; 3,505,429; 4,780,015 (WIKIPEDIA)
Madrid Protocol Registration Nos. IR839132, IR907474, IR1239634 (WIKIPEDIA)
According to various WHOIS sources, you are the Internet Service Provider to the following domain(s):
Domain: ....... wikipediaexposed.org
IP Address: ... 76.223.105.230
Infringing URLs:
URL: ..... https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwikipediaexposed.org%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Creview%40secureserver.net%7C08d64d82e5194ec4442e08dab082a6ea%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C638016372442389228%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=WvfOtmPZVzuqSgtFJzf5%2BwI75JvdvJ0oPjNy337Gz9s%3D&amp;reserved=0
Landing URL: ..... https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikipediaexposed.org%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Creview%40secureserver.net%7C08d64d82e5194ec4442e08dab082a6ea%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C638016372442389228%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=5U0XaW8vbXFTZuzelwfgdNaRxxVodF3pII4IldOx6cw%3D&amp;reserved=0

This site uses Wikimedia Foundation's trademark(s) on its site without authorization. This use falsely suggests Wikimedia Foundation sponsorship or endorsement of the website and violates Wikimedia Foundation's exclusive rights. The website also violates your acceptable use policy as an Internet Service Provider.
We informed the registrant of our complaint, but were not able to resolve this issue. In addition to the legal action Wikimedia Foundation, may take against the registrant, we request that you immediately suspend the site from publication for the offenses outlined above.
I am providing this notice in good faith and with the reasonable belief that rights my company owns are being infringed. Under penalty of perjury I certify that the information contained in the notification is both true and accurate, and I have the authority to act on behalf of the owner of the trademark(s) and copyright(s) involved.
Should you wish to discuss this further please contact me at the email address below.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Roslof
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 839-6885
legal@ipwikimedia.org

No Such Thing As An Objective Journalist: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

No Such Thing As An Objective Journalist: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix – Caitlin Johnstone


https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/11/06/no-such-thing-as-an-objective-journalist-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/

I feel like we haven’t been talking enough about the fact that US government agencies were just caught intimately collaborating with massive online platforms to censor content in the name of regulating the “cognitive infrastructure” of society. The only way you could be okay with the US government appointing itself this authority would be if you believed the US government is an honest and beneficent entity that works toward the benefit of the common man. Which would of course be an unacceptable thing for a grown adult to believe.
It’s still astonishing that we live in a world where our rulers will openly imprison a journalist for telling the truth and then self-righteously bloviate about the need to stop authoritarian regimes from persecuting journalists.

Look at this scumbag:
Look at him. Can you believe this piece of shit? The gall. The absolute gall.
There is no such thing as unbiased journalism. If someone tells you they are unbiased they are either knowingly lying, or they are so lacking in self-awareness that you should not listen to them anyway.

The divide is not between biased journalists and unbiased journalists, it’s between journalists who are honest and transparent about their biases and journalists who are not. There are no unbiased journalists. There are no unbiased people. You’re either honest about this or you’re not.

Of course journalists should try to be as fair and honest as they can. It’s just the epitome of childlike naivety to believe that western mainstream journalists do this.

Reporters who support the mainstream worldview are just as biased as reporters from Russian or Chinese state media; they espouse a peculiar perspective and concrete interests and agendas. The problem is the mainstream worldview is so normalized it looks like impartial reality, so you’ll get mainstream western journalists speaking disdainfully of Julian Assange or The Grayzone or whoever because those people have biases and agendas, as though they themselves have no biases or agendas and are nothing other than impartial arbiters of absolute reality.

Which is plainly ridiculous. The worldview which facilitates the abuses of oligarchy and empire and the status quo politics which serves as their vehicle is anything but impartial. It’s not even sane. But because it’s been normalized by propaganda it looks like baseline reality.

The only reason the mainstream worldview is mainstream is because the world’s most powerful people have poured a tremendous amount of money into making it mainstream. That’s the one and only reason. It’s not the moderate perspective, it’s just the most funded and marketed perspective.

All journalists have biases, and all journalists have agendas. It’s just that most of them have the mundane agenda of becoming esteemed and well-known, and the easiest way to do that is to espouse the mainstream worldview where the tide of propaganda can carry you to shore.

The easiest way to become rich and famous in news media is to promote the interests of the rich and powerful people who own and influence the news media. The easiest way to become reviled and marginalized is to attack those interests. Your values determine which path you choose.
There’s no such thing as a Hollywood ending.
There’s no such thing as an objective journalist.
There’s no such thing as a moral billionaire.
There’s no such thing as a humanitarian intervention.
There’s no such thing as an honest war.
People should learn all this in grade school.
Who understands that narrative control is power? Empire managers. Plutocrats. Propagandists. Smearmeisters. Manipulators. Abusers. Cult leaders. Bullies.
Who does not understand that narrative control is power? Pretty much everyone else.

This is the source of most problems.
Platforms censoring hate speech is not the same as platforms censoring political speech and speech which criticizes the agendas of the powerful. Censoring hate speech is done to benefit the platform’s profit margins; censoring political speech is done to benefit powerful government agencies. You can make slippery slope arguments, but they’re not equal, and they’re not similar.
You can argue with the reality that for-profit platforms will always censor the most repellent forms of speech in order to prevent their audiences from being driven from the platform, but that is reality. And it is very different from censoring on behalf of US alphabet agencies. If what you want is a platform where all legal forms of expression are allowed, then for-profit platforms are not a good vehicle for that. Perhaps you want a nationalized social media platform funded by taxpayers with robust speech protections built into its terms of use.
There’s a massive difference between a platform banning speech which makes that platform a gross place that nobody wants to hang out at and a platform banning the way people talk about a war or a virus because government agencies told them to. It’s unhelpful to conflate the two.

And the conflation goes both ways. People who just want to spew hate will pretend to care about fighting the power, and the powerful who want to censor the internet to suppress inconvenient speech will pretend to care about stopping hate. It’s important to be aware of these obfuscations.

There’s a night and day difference between people who oppose censorship because they don’t want the powerful controlling human speech and people who oppose censorship because they want to say ethnic slurs. They’re not the same. A good tool for making these distinctions is to examine whether the agenda punches down or punches up. If it seeks to suppress speech on behalf of the powerful or harm disempowered communities, it’s punching down.

Nobody’s ever been able to answer this question: if Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine had nothing to do with western provocations, how come so many western experts spent years warning that the west’s actions would provoke Russia to invade Ukraine?

Ukraine is a far more celebrated and aggressively defended centerpiece of hawkish American fanaticism than Israel ever was.

If you find yourself rushing to defend the foreign policy of the most militarily, economically and culturally dominant nation on earth, ask yourself why that is. Ask whom that impulse benefits. Ask how that impulse came upon you. Ask if it could have been put there by propaganda.


It is false to claim that capitalism, competition and greed are “human nature”. I cite as my source for this claim the fact that I am human. The truth is that those who claim capitalism, competition and greed are “human nature” are not actually telling you anything about human nature. They are telling you about their own nature.
And it isn’t even really accurate to call it their “nature”; it’s just their conditioning. And we can all change our conditioning. The only people who deny this are those who haven’t sincerely tried to yet.

One reason I publish poetry and share insights about philosophy and spirituality on top of my political and foreign policy commentary is because as the information ecosystem gets more polluted it’s not enough to tell people what you think, you’ve got to show them who you are. As more and more energy goes into distorting and manipulating public understanding of the world, it becomes more necessary to bare your soul to the furthest extent possible so people can decide on their own whether you’re the kind of person they want to pay attention to.

People are very distrusting in today’s environment, and rightly so; we swim in an ocean of lies. You can get around that distrust by manipulating people into thinking you’re trustworthy, or you can do it by taking transparency to the furthest extent possible and letting yourself be fully seen so that people can make up their own minds about you for themselves.
I can’t promise that I’ll always get everything right or that I’ll always be seeing things the most clearly, but I can promise to always be honest and to always be running on maximum transparency about who I am, where I’m coming from, and what my biases and agendas are.
__________________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, buying an issue of my monthly zine, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.

Type your paragraph here.