One editor of Wikipedia points out reasonable arguments to state Pizzagate in a neutral tone:
... I have a few main points of contention for this:
1. I believe this sets a very slippery slope in allowing blanket "this is false" approaches to any contentious subject (BLP or not) where if suitably strong opinion editors decide something is 'false' then they can approach a subject without citation, source or otherwise, make blanket changes threaten to pull in administrators. Which, while fun, merely brings up more issues.
2. If the claims are suitably BLP offending, then adding "false" and "unfounded" to the front doesn't actually make it any better. We're still repeating the claims, joining the dots and wiki-linking the content. I believe if the subject matter is contentious to that extent the policy is to remove it, rather than make our own op-ed about it.
3. If approach 2 is taken, then this opens the door to serious BLP risks elsewhere on wikipedia where you can literally shit-post anything you like, so long as you say "falsely" first (with or without citation). I don't believe that is appropriate to any article, let alone anything people suggest is a BLP risk. Koncorde (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)>
However, she/he got shut down by other editors repeatedly who put 100% faith only in the MSM BS. More details: Pizzagate Edit War
I was not certain if they were just random SJWs,or govt-recruited shills until I saw this editor's profile NorthBySouthBaranof: On the right side, it says "This user works for the US Federal Government."
Yes, we now have direct evidence as to why Wikipedia insists on labeling Pizzagate fake. Below is how NorthBySouthBaranof threatens Koncorde who speaks to remain neutral on the subject:
You need to read the sources. The claims are false and have been widely debunked as meritless. Policy and common sense requires that we describe false, defamatory claims about living people as what they are: false. As the cited article from The New York Times states, None of it was true. While Mr. Alefantis has some prominent Democratic friends in Washington and was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, he has never met her, does not sell or abuse children, and is not being investigated by law enforcement for any of these claims. ([3]) Reliable sources are unanimous in describing the claims this way. If you revert again, I will request administrative intervention. You're a longtime editor and should know better. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)>
NorthBySouthBaranof Threatens Koncorde
PS: Can somebody help archive the links before they delete them? Thanks.
view the rest of the comments →
Royce_of_Veason ago
I disagree categorically with the wealthiest or most circulated sources being considered "reliable." NorthBySouthBaranof is either purchased, pressured, or prejudiced.
Mooka_Molaka ago
Oh I recognize the name. That fuckface is indeed one of a cabal of the white knights that will camp wiki pages day and night, just waiting to revert any and every edit that he/they/their special little group disagrees with. And they are dying to label you all of the usual BULLSHITTERY in efforts to make sure you will be discredited and either banned or get the page locked and "protected" to ANY new edits. Even if new information comes out.
They are SJWs on crack-steroids and if you don't fall in line with the SJW cult, it's proof that YOU ARE LITERALLY HITLER, YOU #RACIST #SEXIST #MISOGYNIST #TRANSPHOBIC #HOMOPHOBIC #ISLAMAPHOBIC #RIGHTWINGER #WHITESUPREMACIST #BERNIEBRO #TRUMPLOVER!
Yeah, over the past 2+ years, I learned that I am "a stupid white #GENDERTRAITOR who is suffering from #INTERNALISEDMISOGYNY and that I should kill my self for being a supporter of #GamerGate and #NotYourShield" from quite early on.
Sorry I can't link atm (I have trouble on my little iPad mini/don't know how) but I will try to get back and link some stuff about the group of HORRIBLE 'editors' on Wikipedia who will bury stuff if it doesn't fit the preferred narrative they've got going over there.
They will also arbitrarily change what is considered a "reliable source" depending upon which sources share their preferred narrative. Arbitration and such barely took care of any of it. One nut got subject banned but kept right on editing and reverting edits he didn't like, took almost 2 years before they even got sick of his "dragon" ass and gave him the boot. I hear he haunts rational wiki or some other wiki now and now that I think of it I think he got chucked from one of those too.
But yeah, bunch of goal-tending, nest-sitting, campers who will always cover for each other and are all suspected of having multiple sock puppet accounts. I learned that Wikipedia is even worse than I thought and recalling this crap has me clenching my jaw till it hurts and gives me a headache! Frustrating fuckers!
Also, jimbo could NOT CARE LESS. He just shrugs, trusts the long-existing clique and claims that "everything will work itself out". Ask or tweet him more than once and he will start with the #LABELING of you too.
Fuck Wikipedia.
And God or Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless ALL OF YOU 💗
Don't give up, just find ways around these types who are either too stupid and stubborn to see the truth or are actively involved and complicit in this nightmare.
CredAndBercuses ago
Links? I think the ipad uses longpress for select all/copy...