Wikipedia - Cult Of Neutrality And Consensus

Wikipedia: The Cult of, “Neutrality” and “Consensus” Wikipedia has become a cult of consensus and supposed, “neutrality.” Wikipedia’s legitimacy is in serious question. This is my personal grudge against Wikipedia. It is a personal and rational analysis of the cult of Wikipedia. First, it is against the whole concept of original thoughts and ideas. I disagree with this whole thing against Original Research. I promote it. I encourage it. I back it with my heart, mind and soul. Wikipedia ought to allow everything and anything. Unfiltered. Uncensored. Take it to the extreme. I believe original ideas are great because that is what gets society moving and advancing quickly. Forget about secondary or primary, “reliable” sources that talk about your original ideas or thoughts or innovations. What is reliable to one person may not be reliable to another. Why bother with reliability? It is subjective from the very beginning. Without original ideas, our society would be very stale indeed. There would be no incentive to do anything because everything has to be approved by the status quo. I say, who cares about the status quo? Everyone, I am sure, has, at some point in their lives, wanted to go against the consensus trance of society. By consensus trance, I mean the self-policing of the self by restricting oneself within the narrow, acceptable limits of society’s doctrines. Even if those doctrines are wrong. It is about time we start waking up from that. We may be sheep from the time of our birth and early education (read indoctrination by the state), but surely, as we grow older, we can become wiser and open up to new, original, even insane ideas. I am sure the airplane when it was first invented or innovated by the Wright brothers underwent a lot of criticism and scepticism, but they still did it. Secondly, Wikipedia ought to be about the pursuit of truth, and the Truth, capital T, Truth does not necessarily and is by no means required to conform to Wikipedia’s standards. If the Truth about, say, Barack Obama (my favourite example these days), is a liar, a fraud, a Nazi Zionist Fascist Socialist War Pig, then that is the truth, and should be kept. People can criticize that fact anyway they like, but it does not change the uncomfortable truth concerning the man and his lies (watch The Obama Deception by Alex Jones). Thirdly, Wikipedia does not need Administrators, or any strict system of control, since it is consented by the herd, whom are usually mindless robots anyways, its leaders, if they do exist, are merely a name on the computer. Nobody knows if any of the people they talk with on Wikipedia are real, because it is impossible to meet every single person on Wikipedia. In fact, we can say that Jimbo Wales acts as the invisible Big Brother who watches and observes and enforces Wikipedia’s policies. He is a figure on the screen whom most people abide by. Even those who try to think outside of the box of Wikipedia’s cult of personality and consensus force themselves to stick within the narrow limits of “criticism.” There is no free speech on Wikipedia, that is why my comments about Obama was deleted in the Talk section because one user in Particular, Wikidemon could not get his head wrapped around the notion that Wikipedia is based on consensus of the majority. It is a tyranny of the majority. The kind of criticism when writing articles prevent the truth from spreading out, hence, “controlled conflict.” Controlled conflicts are simply another way of saying, “doublethink.” It requires one to acknowledge and deny the reality of REAL critics, like me, who threaten the status quo of Wikipedia’s many functions and principles, if it does have any of those. When everyone is part of an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia that encourages Neutral Point of View, and “balance” it is in fact organized by nobody, since when everyone is a part of something, it is no longer a part for anyone. Wikipedia’s doctrine of Neutrality is very questionable, since one person’s neutrality is different from someone else’s. After all, there is no real Neutrality in the real world, even if we were to try to imagine that such a thing exists. Neutrality is a day-dream. It will never be accomplished because nobody could really ever agree

on it. There is always subtle differences between one person’s concept of neutrality and fairness and someone else’s. Wikipedia, for its own sake, might as well just scrap it. It is unenforceable, yet it is enforced by its own users and administrators who spend hours reading over Wikipedia’s policies, as if it is the only thing they do and know how to do for the rest of their lives. Wikipedia, for its own sake, is not always reliable, since in order to have a, “consensus” on something, Wikipedia’s users have to go out to the mainstream, and only the mainstream to find out what is, “consensus” about a certain topic. If the consensus out there on the internet is that Hitler never existed, then I can bet the Wikipedians will buy that outright, and without question. If the general consensus out there in the world is that two plus two equals zero, then Wikipedia will embrace it with open arms. If the general consensus out there in the internet and elsewhere is that what is usually science is pseudoscience, then Wikipedia will also buy it without secondthought. By and by, who are these, “administrators?” There is a vote, yes, very democratic indeed, but the problem is, who decides and who watches the, “watchers” the administrators on Wikipedia? Can you honestly rely on Jimbo Wales and his cronies? Nobody has really ever met Jimbo Wales except for perhaps barely one percent of its users who are a self-appointed committee of “arbitrators.” At the end of the day, Wikipedia is enforced by an invisible master who beats the drums of silent obedience and conformity to its many rules and regulations. Its rules and regulations are enforced by its own users. Except, of course, people like me who pushes for the Truth on subjects like Obama’s presidency and who cares not for libellous laws, censorship, and such ridiculous notions. Wikipedia labels everything that is not generally accepted by the majority as, “pseudo” history, science, religion, philosophy, anything and everything. This is very destructive as certain practises like acupuncture, an ancient Chinese art is ignored and labelled by the masses as something that is not reliable, when the opposite is true. Conspiracies are never taken seriously by the Wikipedian zombies who follow the blind instincts of the herd that is Wikipedia’s Administration. To even suggest that something is out of place with the current, accepted reality would result in a lot of defamation and insults, censorship, and silencing of dissent. This is especially true with the current Obama fad. If one were to examine the article properly, one would find that it reads more like a public relations advertisement than an actual, real, critical assessment of Obama. Those who criticize Obama are silenced, called, “anti-Semites”, “racists” and the alike. Even though no such evidence exists to suggest that critics are neither anti-Semite nor racist. A tyranny of the majority in Wikipedia based on, “neutrality” is a lie. Wikipedia is neither about neutrality nor about, “knowledge.” Because if it did, it would actually allow the experts to make the changes and updates that are necessary for, “Wikipedia” to improve. Instead, no, the masses of sheep follow the wolf blindly into their intellectual deaths, since they are self-enforced to obey and stay within the narrow limits of understanding. Instead of having real experts publish and update its articles, particularly about science in general, it is instead updated by 15 year olds and people who obviously lack any credentials whatsoever to understand what the term, “aromatherapy” is and its scientific merits. If something does not match the consensus trance that is Wikipedia, its members, administrators, self-appointed bureaucrats go all out and do everything to keep up the general consensus that knowledge is, “democratic.” No, knowledge is based on facts and original thoughts, innovations and such. Who determines the facts? Obviously not Wikipedia’s members and admins, but people who know what they are talking about, but you won’t find those people on Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s “knowledge base” is for the ignorant 12 year old next to his computer who follows the herd mentality on the web because that is all he or she knows. Wikipedia is not about the spread and synthesis of knowledge, but rather, the monopolization of knowledge into the

hands of the ignorant, the dumb sheep of society who believe that the only way is Wikipedia, which, from now on, I will call Demonpedia, Satan’s Book of Ignorance. That is Wikipedia. Neologisms, must be permitted, unrestricted access. Copyright laws are not important and can be ignored, this is because it is, like Demonpedia, the accumulation, distortion and manipulation of knowledge for the ignorant sheep. In order for something to be, “notable” on Wikipedia, it is not based on whether or not that new idea or innovation is good, or logical, or even scientific, but based on the number of hits on Google, which is just as unreliable as Demonpedia itself. Demonpedia is a fraud. It is not about science, truth, justice, or the real relationship between any of its subjects. It is enforced by 12 year old thought police, backed by a mafia of self-appointed administrators and bodies of gangs of, “experts” who are not really experts (I don’t see them, and I don’t see that they have a resume of their credentials to prove it). If Wikipedia was really about knowledge, notability and copyright would be the least of its worries. Knowledge is for everyone, and I know I sound extreme when I say these things, but it is the truth. Knowledge does not deserve to be copyrighted, nor restricted. There is no such thing as, “intellectual property” since intellectual concepts and ideas are not, “physical property” in the sense that you can grab it in thin air. Knowledge is just knowledge. Just because something is reliable or not, does not necessarily make it trustworthy, nor the fact that something has more Google hits than some other topic. What is considered pseudoscience, pseudo history, and pseudo philosophy is all subjective. Besides, if Wikipedia’s self-appointed science team is so right about things like hollow Earth, 9/11, and astrology, then they might as well become the new religion of the 21st Century. After all, the nonsense on Wikipedia is for 12 year olds to read and believe, not rational, grown up adults. Wikipedia is a corrupt, fascist, cyberpolice force dedicated to the monopolization of knowledge, a false consensus based on the majority, on ignorance, on faulty beliefs that stress the importance of serving knowledge to 12 year olds who do not know anything else. Demonpedia needs a major work over. It is unreliable as anything that contradicts its majority consensus. Wikipedia is a fascist cyber dictatorship bent on the control of all human knowledge to appease a whole new generation of information psychopaths who have no interest whatsoever in the truth about how the world operates on all its levels. If Wikipedia wants to be, “real” then it should not let the self-elected Jimbo Wales keep his position, make a huge constitutional change of its policies, and let the experts, the real experts and truth seekers who demands truth and only Truth to edit Wikipedia. Until then Wikipedia is Demonpedi: The Book of Ignorance for the Ignorance, by the Ignorance, and of the Ignorance.

By: Xinyu Hu