Wikipedia relies only on media and only mainstream media is accepted.
As the owners of mass media employ only journalists which are following the globalist point of view, the result will be that the 21st century and to a lesser part earlier history is only shown in the globalist view.
Every modern event is pictured as the mass media is describing it: wars, revolutions and elections. Moreover thats a way to legitimate articles with a so called "anonymous" source.
Another problem is that some institutions pay people to write articles and moreover to become moderators. Wikipedia isn't an encoclypedia as there is no scientific discussion. It's a place where you can read the mainstream narrative.
The real drama is that wikipedia doesn't prefer historians and their books, but some "journalists" without education.
So 90% of history and social science articles are lies. Only in natural sciences you can rely Wikipedia,
view the rest of the comments →
jack_of ago
Wikipedia relies only on media and only mainstream media is accepted.
As the owners of mass media employ only journalists which are following the globalist point of view, the result will be that the 21st century and to a lesser part earlier history is only shown in the globalist view.
Every modern event is pictured as the mass media is describing it: wars, revolutions and elections. Moreover thats a way to legitimate articles with a so called "anonymous" source.
Another problem is that some institutions pay people to write articles and moreover to become moderators. Wikipedia isn't an encoclypedia as there is no scientific discussion. It's a place where you can read the mainstream narrative.
The real drama is that wikipedia doesn't prefer historians and their books, but some "journalists" without education.
So 90% of history and social science articles are lies. Only in natural sciences you can rely Wikipedia,