Editors with an agenda to re-write history at Wikipedia ?
Who are they and what is going on?
By Colin Andrews
January 5, 2010.
"The views expressed by others are not necessarily shared by me personally but consistent with the paradigm we have entered, all views and perspectives are respected and hold equal weight"
The CIA have been busy: "Black September
in Jordan" contains wholesale additions,
with specific details that read like a popular
history book or an eyewitness' memoir. Many
more are simple copy edits, or additions to
local town entries or school histories. One
CIA entry deals with the details of lyrics sung
in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode.
"Politics  :  Online Rights.    
See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the
CIA, a Campaign.  As has been previously
reported, politician's offices are heavy
users of the system. Former Montana Sen.
Conrad Burns' office, for example,
apparently changed one critical paragraph
headed "A controversial voice" to "A voice
for farmers,"
John Borland
"I invented the term 'Crop Circle' during the 1980s and hence
was responsible for the term eventually entering the Oxford
Dictionary in 1990. This used to be referenced on the 'crop
circle' page at Wikipedia until one day last year (2009) it
suddenly disappeared along with other important historical
facts" I attempted to correct these and was told if I continued I
would be banned.
Colin Andrews - Crop Circles
"On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user
deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting
machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of
the company's machines. While anonymous, such changes
typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about
the contributor, such as the location of the computer used to
make the edits.

In this case, the changes came from an IP address reserved
for the corporate offices of Diebold itself".
John Borland
"A BBC (UK) report on the same study, quotes Wikimedia UK
as saying that it is seeking more expert contributors: “We're
trying to engage a bit more at the moment with people who are
very knowledgeable, people who are experts, so working with
museums was the obvious next step,” said Michael Peel of
Wikimedia UK.  
Yet we know of many instances of expert knowledge being
ignored and editors being barred for attempting to improve
articles on which they are knowledgeable, especially if the
topic of discussion is something "alternative" and believe me,
it doesn't have to sway much from textbook descriptions to be
labelled alternative! "
Dave Smith.
"For years I've engaged in a running battle with the nitwits
who "edit" Wikipedia. They consistently trash any alternative
subjects that challenge mainstream viewpoints. The hash
they've made of my bio and of the Starchild's entry are both
ludicrously wrong, and they refuse to change anything to the
actual truth. Now we know why".
Lloyd Pye - Starchild
             Llyod Pye - Starchild

Confirmation of my gripe against Wikipedia: For years I've engaged in
a running battle with the nitwits who "edit" Wikipedia. They consistently
trash any alternative subjects that challenge mainstream viewpoints.
The hash they've made of my bio and of the Starchild's entry are both
ludicrously wrong, and they refuse to change anything to the actual
truth. Now we know why. If interested, check this new article about their
well-deserved woes (Below).
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/davesmith_au.htm

Starchild eBook: www.starchildproject.com
Starchild paperback book: www.amazon.com

Everything You Know Is Wrong: www.iUniverse.com

Mismatch (hi-tech spy thriller): www.iUniverse.com

A Darker Shade of Red (football novel): www.amazon.com
YouTube address: www.youtube.com/officiallloydpye

http://www.facebook.com/#/pages/LloydPye/214837897032

      =================================

Wikipedia Woes -
Pending Crisis as Editors Leave in Droves
by Dave Smith  
December 26, 2009  

Observation: It is difficult to ignore the many complaints which we at the
Thunderbolts Project receive about Wikipedia. The horror stories
circulating recently about the way in which Wikipedia has been taken
over, including experiences we can vouch for ourselves, really do
suggest that the "people's encyclopedia" is moving rapidly toward a
complete breakdown of confidence, particularly on subjects that
challenge common theoretical assumptions or the "consensus" that
underpins orthodox science.

A recent physorg.com article cited a report indicating a ten-fold
increase in the number of "editors" leaving Wikipedia between the first
quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. Whilst Jimbo Wales was
understandably quick to defend his encyclopedia, the figures speak for
themselves and the hard question needs to be tackled. Why is
Wikipedia in the wars?     

Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales' vision for Wikipedia:
“Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given
free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're
doing.”
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
[Click to enlarge]  

Let me first state that the concept upon which Wikipedia was founded
is both noble and admirable, however the activity of some of its most
prolific editors cannot easily be reconciled with the integrity of Jimbo's
vision. It must be made clear that this article is NOT an attack on
Wiklipedia, but an attempt to highlight the danger of collapse that this
wonderful resource is likely to face if those running the show cannot
curtail the actions of editors who have taken it upon themselves to
exorcise any and all challenges to the present consensus. Challenges
to the consensus are the lifeblood of progress in the sciences.
(PhysOrg.com) -- The findings of a Spanish study claiming that
Wikipedia's editors are leaving at an alarming rate have been refuted
by the Wikimedia Foundation and by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy
Wales.

The report by Dr Felipe Ortega, a research scientist with Madrid's
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, was published in the Wall Street Journal
on 26 November. It reported a ten-fold increase in the number of
editors leaving Wikipedia at the beginning of 2009 compared to the
number in the equivalent period of 2008.

Wikipedia is open to contributions and relies entirely on volunteer
contributors (editors), who create content, check the facts, correct
errors and refine the entries in the online encyclopedia. Editors can
contribute anonymously or can open a free account and become
logged editors.

It should be made clear that whilst someone with a "free account"
becomes a "logged editor" they still remain anonymous if they choose
to, through the use of pseudonyms and Wikipedia rules about not
"outing" editors. That is, not revealing their true identity even if this is
known and pertinent to the discussion. This is a big problem when one
considers another finding of the study, that:

... There was also a growing inequality in contributions
becoming more biased towards a core of very active editors. It
is this bias which is a major concern, and could well account for
editors leaving in droves. Quite simply, new editors are treated
with contempt and discouraged from contributing if their edits
are not consistent with the highly conventional beliefs of the
editors who have seized control of particular topics.

In the latest study Dr Ortega found a continuing decline [in the number
of editors], with a net loss of 49,000 editors in early 2009, but only
4,900 in the same period in 2008 ...

The Wikimedia Foundation responded to the latest report saying it was
inaccurate and the number of editors is stable, but Wikimedia counts
only those who have made five or more contributions, while Dr Ortega
counts those who have made one or more. This means Wikimedia's
number of editors is around one million, while Ortega's number is
approximately three million.

A BBC (UK) report on the same study, quotes Wikimedia UK as saying
that it is seeking more expert contributors:

“We're trying to engage a bit more at the moment with people who are
very knowledgeable, people who are experts, so working with museums
was the obvious next step,” said Michael Peel of Wikimedia UK.

Yet we know of many instances of expert knowledge being ignored and
editors being barred for attempting to improve articles on which they
are knowledgeable, especially if the topic of discussion is something
"alternative" and believe me, it doesn't have to sway much from
textbook descriptions to be labelled alternative!

Take Eric Lerner, author of The Big Bang Never Happened, (Wikipedia
username Elerner) for just one example. His biography reads more like
a debunking of his ideas than an explanation of his life's work. A check
on the "history" of the page, will show that user ScienceApologist is
responsible for a large number of the edits of this biography. In fact, of
the last 500 edits to the page, around 150 are by ScienceApologist!
What does Lerner have to say about ScienceApologist?

Schoerder [sic] (scienceapologist) has been consisently attempting to
make this article [Lerner's biography] as unfavorable to me as possible
and eliminate anything favorable. He has a major conflict of interest
because he is a graduate student in astronomy, working directly under
astrophysicists who disagree with my work. He should be banned from
editing this article. I would remind you that I was banned from editing
the article on plasma cosmology because I work in that field. How can
Scienceapologist be allowed to edit the article on me when he too now
is in the same field, cosmology, and has made it his special task to
attack anything that disagrees with what his professors think?Elerner
(talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) [Emphasis added]

Here we see that Lerner is banned from editing Plasma Cosmology, a
subject in which he is very knowledgeable, and for which he is widely
known. Yet at the top of the article is this notice:

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
It is very difficult indeed to reconcile this situation with the comment
above from Michael Peel. An expert in the subject is barred from
editing it yet another editor with a clear conflict of interest and who is
no expert in Plasma Cosmology has had more input to the article than
any other single editor!

A quick look at one other topic. The biography of Halton Arp, famous
for his Atlas of Peculiar galaxies and after whom a good number of
same are named, includes a list of "categories" which the biography is
said to belong in. I find it incredulous that someone in the categories of
20th-century astronomers, 21st-century astronomers, American
astronomers, Harvard University alumni, California Institute of
Technology alumni and Indianna University is also in the category of
fringe physics, especially as the fringe physics category is within the
category of pseudoscience, defined as topics that have “very few
followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief
in a flat Earth).” What an insult to one of the preemninent astronomers
of the twentieth century, clearly the leading authority on peculiar
galaxies. Who was it that added the fringe physics tag to his
biography? No prize if you guessed correctly.  

Please take our survey
In an attempt to better understand why editors are leaving Wikipedia,
we have developed a survey which we invite all readers to consider,
and will only take a couple of minutes to complete.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/66DSYZZ

Please feel free to distribute this article broadly, so that we can gather
as many responses as possible. Results will be published once a
considerable number are to hand.

Dave Smith.  

Survey results and weekly updates
Remember you can keep in constant touch with everything that is
happening on the Thunderbolts Project by subscribing to our free
weekly updates. We will include selected survey results and link to
comprehensive results as they come to hand.  

           =============================
See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a
Campaign
By John Borland  08.14.07

On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15
paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold,
excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While
anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints
offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the
computer used to make the edits.

In this case, the changes came from an IP address reserved for the
corporate offices of Diebold itself. And it is far from an isolated case. A
new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia
entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts
comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation,
which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of
specific allegations.

Wikipedia Scanner -- the brainchild of Cal Tech computation and
neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith -- offers users a
searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to
organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-
referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of
internet IP addresses.

Inspired by news last year that Congress members' offices had been
editing their own entries, Griffith says he got curious, and wanted to
know whether big companies and other organizations were doing
things in a similarly self-interested vein.

"Everything's better if you do it on a huge scale, and automate it," he
says with a grin.

This database is possible thanks to a combination of Wikipedia policies
and (mostly) publicly available information.

The online encyclopedia allows anyone to make edits, but keeps
detailed logs of all these changes. Users who are logged in are tracked
only by their user name, but anonymous changes leave a public record
of their IP address.

The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million
organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to
Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their
organization's net address has made.

Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding
positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths
of critical material.

Voting-machine company Diebold provides a good example of the
latter, with someone at the company's IP address apparently deleting
long paragraphs detailing the security industry's concerns over the
integrity of their voting machines, and information about the company's
CEO's fund-raising for President Bush.

The text, deleted in November 2005, was quickly restored by another
Wikipedia contributor, who advised the anonymous editor, "Please stop
removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."

A Diebold Election Systems spokesman said he'd look into the matter
but could not comment by press time.

Wal-Mart has a series of relatively small changes in 2005 that that
burnish the company's image on its own entry while often leaving
criticism in, changing a line that its wages are less than other retail
stores to a note that it pays nearly double the minimum wage, for
example. Another leaves activist criticism on community impact intact,
while citing a "definitive" study showing Wal-Mart raised the total
number of jobs in a community.

          ==============================

Politics  :  Online Rights    
See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a
Campaign
By John Borland  08.14.07

As has been previously reported, politician's offices are heavy users of
the system. Former Montana Sen. Conrad Burns' office, for example,
apparently changed one critical paragraph headed "A controversial
voice" to "A voice for farmers," with predictably image-friendly content
following it.

Perhaps interestingly, many of the most apparently self-interested
changes come from before 2006, when news of the Congressional
offices' edits reached the headlines. This may indicate a growing
sophistication with the workings of Wikipedia over time, or even the rise
of corporate Wikipedia policies.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales told Wired News he was aware of the
new service, but needed time to experiment with it before commenting.

The vast majority of changes are fairly innocuous, however. Employees
at the CIA's net address, for example, have been busy -- but with little
that would indicate their place of apparent employment, or a particular
bias.

One entry ( place this link on word entry:  
http://en.wikipedia.
org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=77017195 ) on "Black September in
Jordan" contains wholesale additions, with specific details that read like
a popular history book or an eyewitness' memoir.

Many more are simple copy edits, or additions to local town entries or
school histories. One CIA entry deals with the details of lyrics sung in a
Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode.

Griffith says he launched the project hoping to find scandals,
particularly at obvious targets such as companies like Halliburton. But
there's a more practical goal, too: By exposing the anonymous edits
that companies such as drugs and big pharmaceutical companies
make in entries that affect their businesses, it could help experts check
up on the changes and make sure they're accurate, he says.

For now, he has just scratched the surface of the database of millions
of entries. But he's putting it online so others can look too.

The nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, did not
respond to e-mail and telephone inquiries Monday.

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker

                =========================

Crop Circles.
Colin Andrews

The fact that I invented the term crop circle and was therefor
responsible for its inclusion as a new term in the Oxford Dictionary in
1990 was for some while accurately recorded on the crop circle page
of Wikipedia until one day in October 2009 when both references
suddenly were removed.  Each attempt to remedy this was immediately
squashed by immediate deletions. Eventually I received an email from
Wikipedia telling me that what I was doing was self promotion and if I
continued to edit this page I would be banned. I did not make any
attempts to insert many new and useful historic references which were
lacking nor correct the many errors on the page.  All I felt strongly
about was that the starting point of the subject should be accurately
recorded for those who use Wikipedia.

A professional colleague who works with my archive, the largest and
most complete in existence on this subject and has seen all the
evidence that supports my statement also tried to edit the page back to
reflect the earlier information. His entries were also removed
immediately. The editor running this page clearly has an agenda and
that is not to record accurate historic facts, why?

This was my final email to the appropriate invisible and unnamed
editor, to which Ive received no reply to this date:

Copy of your message to Russavia: Wikipedia e-mailFriday, October
02, 2009
8:58:37 AM
From: XXXXXRemoved (Colin Andrews private e-mail address)

My name is Colin Andrews and I would like to know how to dispute
information presented on Wikipedia and important historical facts that
have been removed.

Ive researched this subject for nearly 30 years and my work has
provided the basis for the majority of scientific results currently quoted
on your site without being credited to me. I have tried many times to
correct information or add specific items only to be told that I am self
promoting, when it is my work being referenced without a source. It is a
fact that I wrote the first book on the subject Circular Evidence with Pat
Delgado in 1989, in which I first placed in writing the new term crop
circle which I invented and which was added to the Oxford Dictionary in
1990. These are simply facts which are easily checked and not self
promotion.

As advisor to my Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Queen
Elizabeth and other prominent people around the world on this subject,
it seems to me that these are important historic details which anyone
wanting the history should be given.

Its curious that references to people who claim to be hoaxers abound
on your pages, yet it was my work that substantiated the actual facts
that surrounded many of their claims. And so it is concerning to me as
it should be to anyone that one side of this phenomenon is being given
heavy bias on these pages. Bizarre that unsubstantiated claims of
hoaxers are recorded as facts on your page, while I am now the only
person alive that holds the evidence surrounding the beginning of
modern day research into the crop circle subject and I have been
edited off the page while those who have been the perpetrators of lies
and deception are well represented by name and the deception and
inaccuracies continue with Wikipedia's direct involvement.

I am writing again to ask how readers of Wikipedia are to be given
accurate historical data from the original and largest database in the
world on this subject ? As one of four of the first researchers into this
subject and owner of that knowledge I am willing to share it on your
pages but am denied the ability because its seen as self promotion.  I
am not trying to sell anything.  Just make available through your pages
accurate information.

I am happy to supply more supporting evidence but you can take a
look at my bio or read my books or view the many early television
programs I took part in to satisfy yourself about the validity of my
entries.

My telephone number is XXXXXXXRemoved

Colin Andrews at www.ColinAndrews.net
--
This e-mail was sent by user "CircularEvidence1" on the English
Wikipedia to
user "Russavia". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail
account, and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further
information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and
removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
Email>.

Final message from Wikipedia to attempt to re-place the source of the
new term crop circle and also its entry into the Oxford Dictionary:

Line 3: Line 3:

[[Image:Information.png|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of
the [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]] you added in <span class="
plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar?diff=317407279
this edit]</span> to the page [[:Maya calendar]] do not comply with our
[[Wikipedia:External links|guidelines for external links]] and have been
removed. Wikipedia is [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#LINK|not a
collection of links]]; nor should it be used for [[Wikipedia:
Spam|advertising or promotion]]. You may wish to read the [[Wikipedia:
Introduction|introduction to editing]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-
hugglespam1 --> [[User:Alexius08|Alexius08]] ([[User talk:
Alexius08|talk]]) 03:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)  [[Image:Information.
png|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the [[Wikipedia:
External links|external links]] you added in <span class="plainlinks">
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar?diff=317407279 this edit]
</span> to the page [[:Maya calendar]] do not comply with our
[[Wikipedia:External links|guidelines for external links]] and have been
removed. Wikipedia is [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#LINK|not a
collection of links]]; nor should it be used for [[Wikipedia:
Spam|advertising or promotion]]. You may wish to read the [[Wikipedia:
Introduction|introduction to editing]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-
hugglespam1 --> [[User:Alexius08|Alexius08]] ([[User talk:
Alexius08|talk]]) 03:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
+  
+
== Self-promotion ==
+  
+ Please do not use Wikipedia for self-promotion. If you
continue to add references to yourself and your work you may
be [[WP:BP|blocked from editing]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b>
<small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 06:38, 2 October 2009
(UTC)
"Observation: It is difficult to ignore the many
complaints which we at the Thunderbolts
Project receive about Wikipedia. The horror
stories circulating recently about the way in
which Wikipedia has been taken over,
including experiences we can vouch for
ourselves, really do suggest that the
"people's encyclopedia" is moving rapidly
toward a complete breakdown of confidence,
particularly on subjects that challenge
common theoretical assumptions or the
"consensus" that underpins orthodox
science".
By Dave Smith - Thunderbolts.info
If any of you feel strongly enough to correct the historic facts related to
crop circles or other subjects - go to Wikipedia, log into the crop circle
page (or other) and make your own edits where you see details are
needed. Just as in the case of the attempts of the British Government to
re-write the history of the crop circles through the head of the UFO desk
Nick Pope, its important we move together to ensure agendas within
Wikipedia are not similarly biased - in their case by unseen editors with
dubious agenda's.

Look out the facts and make your own edits to the crop circle page here -
they need to hear from 3rd party contributors like you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle  
and select top tab marked
EDIT.

If the invisible editors at Wkipedia, be they CIA or people holding personal
malice or agenda's are not held to some standards then once again
history will be re-written as a lie.
WIKIPEDIA
HOME  CONSCIOUSNESS   UFOs   PHOTOGRAPHY  NEW POSTINGS  CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH   PRESENTATIONS   FARM MONITOR  
STORE   MEDIA   BIOGRAPHY   2012 DEBATE   CLIMATE CHANGE   QUOTATIONS   LETTERS   BLOG   CONTACT    OBSERVATORY   WELLNESS     
Important update
October 15, 2015
See bottom of page.
Regarding the findings reported
here: I can vouch for the same
findings of my own five years ago.
Updated thanks to Dave Haith (UK)
15 October, 2015
CA: From personal experience in the pages of Wikipedia, the social engineering mafia has finally
been nailed.An eye opening presentation on Astroturf and manipulation of media messages by
investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson at TEDx - University of Nevada.
veteran investigative journalist shows how astroturf, or fake
grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special
interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages
"There needs to be an
independant
investigation into
Wikipedia. Who are
they and who funds
them ? - for whom are
they re-writing history
with lies??? Looks
mighty like an arm of big
brother's social
engineering agenda"

Colin Andrews
"There needs to be an
independant
investigation into
Wikipedia. Who are
they and who funds
them ? - for whom are
they re-writing history
with lies??? Looks
mighty like an arm of big
brother's social
engineering agenda"

Colin Andrews