Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

It is not neutral or people generated as most think it is.....

https://youtu.be/zwg2yQETiro

Sheer nonsense imo. Two people with a grudge because they were not allowed to edit pages for money making up a non story. Every edit removed can be seen in the edit history. The discussion about edits can be seen. If there is any conspiracy here it is in my view against wikipedia and the very idea of it by those historically attached to the centralised control and dissemination of information. Wikipedia is not perfect nor without it problems and challenges but it is better than anything that went before it in terms of neutrality and the breath and range of opinion in its editing, whilst maintaining a totally public record of such editing.

So at the risk of getting personal can I ask Mr Davidson , have you engaged in editing on Wikipedia ? Have you found your pet theories and agenda's being edited out of pages perhaps ?

Another day another conspiracy.
I wouldn't rely on it to do a thesis but for what it is Wikipedia is ok.
When I really want to get facts you cant beat a youtube video!

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Another day another conspiracy.
I wouldn't rely on it to do a thesis but for what it is Wikipedia is ok.
When I really want to get facts you cant beat a youtube video!

Seeing is believing!

... and at least, I now know how to service my sewing machine!

Another view on it too...

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ss-affair/

erol wrote:Sheer nonsense imo. Two people with a grudge because they were not allowed to edit pages for money making up a non story. Every edit removed can be seen in the edit history. The discussion about edits can be seen. If there is any conspiracy here it is in my view against wikipedia and the very idea of it by those historically attached to the centralised control and dissemination of information. Wikipedia is not perfect nor without it problems and challenges but it is better than anything that went before it in terms of neutrality and the breath and range of opinion in its editing, whilst maintaining a totally public record of such editing.

So at the risk of getting personal can I ask Mr Davidson , have you engaged in editing on Wikipedia ? Have you found your pet theories and agenda's being edited out of pages perhaps ?

Apparently Mr Davidson does not enter into discussions in case someone disagrees with her views.

Mr Davidson wrote:Another view on it too...

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ss-affair/

All I see is another disgruntled individual with an agenda. I see such in their grossly misleading chart with which they start the article. They plot one specific and atypical wikipedia editors pattern of editing behaviour over 14 years and compress it in to a week chart. This is done specifically to create an impression that this editor "runs like clockwork, seven days a week, every waking hour, without significant variation.". Not just on average over 14 years - but actually on a day to day basis.

Firstly the author of this article can only see such stats and then grossly misrepresent them because of wikipedia's transparency. Which also means I can also go and look at this record. Yes this editor edits a lot. I can also see how clearly misleading, with intent imo, the 'chart' showing activity over 14 years is. For example last Friday, 1st June. Does not make an edit till midday. Makes 2 edits at midday. Then nothing till 17:20 when he works through till 22:20. Yes a lot of editing but the author of the article (backed up by the 14 years compressed in to a week graphic) says

"My “timecard” would show where I watch football on Saturdays, go drinking on Fridays, go to the supermarket and for a walk or out with the family on Sundays, and generally relax much more and read books in the evenings."

Yet he has no time card that I or anyone else can see. Unlike the person he is criticising who's editing actions are entirely transparent, his are not. Just from checking one day of philips cross's edits I can see how distorted and prejudice the claims are that 'he does not have time to watch football, go drinking, go to supermarket' etc etc. The claim is wilful distortion as far as I can see.

Not only can I see, like everyone else, how often philip cross makes edits - I can also see exactly what those edits were and on what subject matters. So the author of the article claims "Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative." - yet I can see on the one recent day that I checked and am able to check, because wikipedia is transparent, that not a single one of the edits on those days would support that claim.

It is obvious to me that the author of the article - Craig Murray, has a 'beef' with wikipedia. His beef is that it does not support narratives that are not mainstream - meaning HIS narratives or those he likes. Now I believe challenging orthodoxy is a valid thing to do. However it should by definition be hard to do such, by definition start as a minority struggle and can and will only over throw the established orthodoxy by being demonstrably right, or more right. At which time it then becomes the orthodoxy. That is how it works, that is how it should work. Craig Murray however seems to want a world where HIS challenge to orthodoxy is simply accepted by sites like wikipedia simply because it is his and when he does not get his way he will attack wikipedia using what is in my mind distortion. To my mind this less about the failures of wikipedia than it is about the ego of Craig Murray (also displayed in his self description of his own blog).

I see this often amongst people who seek to challenge orthodoxy seemingly for the sake of it, on just about any subject. They often bemoan their orthodoxy challenging views are 'suppressed' by the 'main stream media'. Yet if they were not 'suppressed' (ignored) by the main stream media then they would BE the orthodoxy and I suspect many of those complaining would be challenging those view and making accusation that these views are being suppressed. If the main stream media narrative was that the moon landings were faked, then I have little doubt that many of those who today claim this and bemoan that their views are suppressed, would instead be claiming they were not faked and their views were being suppressed.

Challenge orthodoxy by all means. I think doing so is a good thing. I do it myself at times. But if you are going to do it , then do not waste your time moaning that the main stream media are not giving you a fair coverage or that wikipedia is subversively suppressing your view points and then attack them using spurious and distorted impressions. Just get on with making your arguments. If you are right and orthodoxy is wrong then sooner or later that view will become orthodoxy. If you want to just believe that you are more clever than everyone else or can see things they can not, understand things they can not and create a notion of being persecuted to help you bolster this image of yourself, then I would say just grow up a bit.

Hmmm nice spin Hedge Fund..you have taken half of my previous comments and morphed them into something else. 'She' does not respond not because people disagree but because 'her' paradigm is so grossly different from that of many of the public and commentators on this post it seems. It is not my place to change people's opinions which are based on what resonates with them. Much of what is said are opinions and people have an absolute right to them. I post on here because I think the information I offer might be seen by even one person who feels that something rings true for them and the majority will take the opposite view. When I have commented in the past it has become about me personally and thats neither here nor there - what other people think of me is none of my business so these types of comments are redundant. If people post a link or some 'evidence' that contradicts info then I will look at it but opinions are simply that. I do not post for one-up-manship or to feel 'more clever' than anyone else. I don't have a need to compete its a waste of energy in my view. But... someone outside of the old guard might be spurred on to do more research and the rest of them can hash it out and spend their time discussing it. However, its pointless trying to bait and draw those in who won't fall into line. I simply offer information and as I have said recently ... 'nothing to see here - move along'. Thats what makes humanity who they are.

Boring who cares?

Exaclty... nothing to see here move along

Mr Davidson wrote:
When I have commented in the past it has become about me personally and thats neither here nor there - what other people think of me is none of my business so these types of comments are redundant. If people post a link or some 'evidence' that contradicts info then I will look at it but opinions are simply that. I do not post for one-up-manship or to feel 'more clever' than anyone else. I don't have a need to compete its a waste of energy in my view. But... someone outside of the old guard might be spurred on to do more research and the rest of them can hash it out and spend their time discussing it. However, its pointless trying to bait and draw those in who won't fall into line. I simply offer information and as I have said recently ... 'nothing to see here - move along'. Thats what makes humanity who they are.

In my experience you post up a link to the latest conspiracy theory and when someone points out that it defies logic you say you are being personally attacked and run off saying 'nothing to see here-move along.'

As for posting for one-upmanship or to feel more clever I don't know your motives but do find that a 'I know something you don't' does seem to permeate through conspiracy theorists. If you challenge them then you are called shepple because you follow the mainstream theory and aren't as well read or knowing as them.

They will quote structural engineering or physics quotes from some 'expert' but when you challenge them on the same basis i.e. for every one scientist you find that say that I can give you a thousand that say the opposite then obviously my thousand are part of the conspiracy.
Even with the experts they select they are selective. The latest guy you are championing on 9/11;

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... _911_post/

In it he says 'I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group.'

Which is pretty much my argument on 99% of the consiracy theories that are forwarded.
If there are potentially twelve people involved then lets look at the evidence. If it would take a thousand, no chance someone will have talked.

As for this guy you could say I'm being selective. I agree, on this I concur but on other stuff not.
Which brings me onto why I asked you your thoughts on the moon landings.
I asked because I wanted to know how selective you are on conspiracy throries. I myself believe there has never been a satisfactory explanation of certain things in the past so have no problem when people forward an opinion that something doesn't smell right.
My main problem with the majority of consiracy theorists is the fact that they believe that EVERYTHING is a consiracy.
A plane crashes and they rush off to youtube or conspracies r us and amazingly find someone who is advancing a theory that the CIA or aliens shot the plane out of the sky.

The more I look at the cited article https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ss-affair/ the more it seems to me to be grossly misleading. Craig Murray claims in this article that

Simply put, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is to make certain that if that reader looks up an anti-war person such as John Pilger, they will conclude they are thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy,

Yet if I look at the current wiki entry for John Pilger I see nothing that backs up this claim ?

Craig Murray says

Sarah Smith, BBC Scotland’s uber-unionist, has had “Philip Cross” kindly delete references from her Wikipedia entry to family ties that (ahem) may have helped her career.

Yet if I look at her wiki entry the family section is there citing her parents and her husband.

Craig Murray says

Right wing columnist Melanie Phillips had her embarrassing climate change denial excised by Cross.

and yet it is there on her wikipedia entry.

and so it goes on and on. It seems clear to me that despite Mr Murrays claims, in the examples he cites that allegedly show that a single editor with bias like philip cross can shape and control the wikipedia entries to their own personal agenda , actually show entirely the opposite. That the editor philip cross does not and can not dominate such entries, despite his 'position' within wikipedia editing hierarchy.

Mr Davidson wrote:Hmmm nice spin Hedge Fund..you have taken half of my previous comments and morphed them into something else. 'She' does not respond not because people disagree but because 'her' paradigm is so grossly different from that of many of the public and commentators on this post it seems. It is not my place to change people's opinions which are based on what resonates with them. Much of what is said are opinions and people have an absolute right to them. I post on here because I think the information I offer might be seen by even one person who feels that something rings true for them and the majority will take the opposite view. When I have commented in the past it has become about me personally and thats neither here nor there - what other people think of me is none of my business so these types of comments are redundant. If people post a link or some 'evidence' that contradicts info then I will look at it but opinions are simply that. I do not post for one-up-manship or to feel 'more clever' than anyone else. I don't have a need to compete its a waste of energy in my view. But... someone outside of the old guard might be spurred on to do more research and the rest of them can hash it out and spend their time discussing it. However, its pointless trying to bait and draw those in who won't fall into line. I simply offer information and as I have said recently ... 'nothing to see here - move along'. Thats what makes humanity who they are.

You post stuff that even David Icke would say is a bit far fetched and then cry foul if someone says it's laughable.

It would seem the sole purpose of these posts is to seek attention.

Just my opinion of course.

Deniz1 wrote: Boring who cares?

Well I think it's fascinating!

Erol, Hedge-fund, EnjoyingTheSun...

Don't Feed The TROLL !

Keithcaley wrote:Erol, Hedge-fund, EnjoyingTheSun...

Don't Feed The TROLL !

Keith, I'm thinking just confused.
Confusion easily happens I remember getting a tattoo of an Indian on my back.
...half way through I asked “can you put a tomahawk in his hand.”
...The tattooist said “Give us a chance mate, I’ve only just finished his turban.”

And doing just a little more cursory digging in to the Craig Murray article and the claims made there. Claims like

“Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018.

I only had top go back to the 15th May 2018 to discover that this claim , that headlines the craig murray article is simply not true. Philip Cross made no wikipedia edits on the 15th May 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?li ... 2018-05-16

EnjoyingTheSun, I can't stop laughing. You made my day. Thank you!

Mr Davidson wrote: I simply offer information and as I have said recently ... 'nothing to see here - move along'. Thats what makes humanity who they are.

Is it information? Or, as seems far more probable, merely regurgitated nonsense gleaned from the postings of inveterate self-declared cognoscenti (actually self-deluding ramblers) that cyber space enables...

Soner wrote:EnjoyingTheSun, I can't stop laughing. You made my day. Thank you!

Pleasure though you don't want to encourage me!

Hours of fun - self-fulfilling prophecy .... thank you all for your comments

Mr Davidson wrote:Hours of fun - self-fulfilling prophecy .... thank you all for your comments

Guess you'll run off and not offer a defence of of Erol's posts?
What youtube 'documentary' can we look forward to next? Bruce Forsyth was really murdered by The Bilderberg Group?
Still waiting for your opinion of the moon landings with baited breath

Mr Davidson wrote:Hours of fun - self-fulfilling prophecy .... thank you all for your comments

Well as for self fulfilling prophecy goes, the second disgruntled person in the you tube video you posted, ends his piece to camera with

Do not step in front of the train because they will run you over

He stepped in front of the train by editing for payment, then boasting about editing for payment publicly and he did so from his employers computers (who were NOT getting paid for such editing). He then got run down by the 'train' and seems to think the fault is the trains ?

erol wrote:
then boasting about editing for payment publicly and he did so from his employers computers (who were NOT getting paid for such editing).

Maybe his employers a front for the CIA?
It's worth looking into, you might find the name of the company is a perfect anagram of CIA after taking some letters away and perhaps adding some.

Mr Davidson wrote:Hours of fun - self-fulfilling prophecy .... thank you all for your comments

What prophecy? And in what way is it fulfilled?

EJS... start the post... 'I believe the Moon Landings occurred as we have been told and in the way we have been told because.....'

Mr Davidson wrote:EJS... start the post... 'I believe the Moon Landings occurred as we have been told and in the way we have been told because.....'

So you think we didn't land on the moon then?
I would imagine that's what you believe you buy into conspiracy theories why not collect the set

Mr Davidson wrote:EJS... start the post... 'I believe the Moon Landings occurred as we have been told and in the way we have been told because.....'

Just to prove that me debunking your theories is not personal I'm going to help you not make a fool of yourself.

Begin it with;
I believe the Moon Landings occurred because if they didn't the conspiracy would have needed around half a million people to keep quiet.
There were 411,000 NASA employees in 1965 so factor in pillow talk etc. Half a million.
It would have also needed the Soviet government to be complicit in the conspiracy. After the space race of the 60s which Russia lost they still were up in space and would have been able to prove pretty easily that the landings were faked. Cold War? The Soviets turning a blind eye rather than embarrass the Americans?

Occam's razor. Try it you'll love it

Mr Davidson wrote:EJS... start the post... 'I believe the Moon Landings occurred as we have been told and in the way we have been told because.....'

...well mainly because the moon shot, landing, take-off and return flight were all observed and reported on by many august scientific bodies around the globe... using radar telescopes.

Groucho wrote:

Mr Davidson wrote:EJS... start the post... 'I believe the Moon Landings occurred as we have been told and in the way we have been told because.....'

...well mainly because the moon shot, landing, take-off and return flight were all observed and reported on by many august scientific bodies around the globe... using radar telescopes.

She loves youtube videos this is a good one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

Mr Davidson wrote:EJS... start the post... 'I believe the Moon Landings occurred as we have been told and in the way we have been told because.....'

Just to prove that me debunking your theories is not personal I'm going to help you not make a fool of yourself.

Begin it with;
I believe the Moon Landings occurred because if they didn't the conspiracy would have needed around half a million people to keep quiet.
There were 411,000 NASA employees in 1965 so factor in pillow talk etc. Half a million.
It would have also needed the Soviet government to be complicit in the conspiracy. After the space race of the 60s which Russia lost they still were up in space and would have been able to prove pretty easily that the landings were faked. Cold War? The Soviets turning a blind eye rather than embarrass the Americans?

Occam's razor. Try it you'll love it

There were 411,000 NASA employees in 1965 so factor in pillow talk etc....I'd estimate 411,001 - well, they are all nerds!

Groucho wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

Mr Davidson wrote:EJS... start the post... 'I believe the Moon Landings occurred as we have been told and in the way we have been told because.....'

Just to prove that me debunking your theories is not personal I'm going to help you not make a fool of yourself.

Begin it with;
I believe the Moon Landings occurred because if they didn't the conspiracy would have needed around half a million people to keep quiet.
There were 411,000 NASA employees in 1965 so factor in pillow talk etc. Half a million.
It would have also needed the Soviet government to be complicit in the conspiracy. After the space race of the 60s which Russia lost they still were up in space and would have been able to prove pretty easily that the landings were faked. Cold War? The Soviets turning a blind eye rather than embarrass the Americans?

Occam's razor. Try it you'll love it

There were 411,000 NASA employees in 1965 so factor in pillow talk etc....I'd estimate 411,001 - well, they are all nerds!

Not an unfair point

I did forget to add the crew of the aircraft carrier who picked up the astronauts.
The geologists from the 135 different countries around the world who were given rocks as a good will gesture and have confirmed they are of lunar origin.
The film crew who faked the video and photos.
The people who built the time machine who took back the video cameras from the future that they would have needed to fake the videos.

Like I said my reality is not yours and the way consciousness creates our reality and how mass mind control can be applied has formed part of my research - not your reality as I imagine. Once again I am personally commented upon as 'making a fool of myself' before it even begins. No it is not I that is making a fool of myself but then again I don't do the competitive stuff but I will say go look in the mirror. So unfortunately you have not managed to create a thread so that you can hold up your 3D logic and drag along the old school applauding and mocking. So it looks like we are back to square one and it ends there. To repeat myself we are worlds apart and people see what suits their underlying principles that give them security. So I won't mock you or deride you as we are exactly where we are supposed to be.

Sorry to disappoint your audience as they put away their pitchforks and stocks LOL.

"Like I said my reality is not yours....."
- I think for once a point on which absolutely total, without exception, agreement will be reached....

jofra wrote:"Like I said my reality is not yours....."
- I think for once a point on which absolutely total, without exception, agreement will be reached....

Yes - and it's a 'reality' that is merely gleaned from dubious websites of those idiots the internet has empowered to make-up stuff in total conflict with fact or logic.... the pretence at research being behind this posturing is laughable.

Other deranged crazies' ideas is not original thought - acceptance of the ramblings of these daft conspiracy theorists whose thought processes defy common sense just betrays a wanton susceptibility to nonsense...

You can't have an alternative reality - a thing is either real or it's not. One might as well argue Flat Earth...

Mr Davidson,

Yes it certainly seems your reality isn’t mine and I guess we are worlds apart, I’m on planet Earth btw.

I’m not a victim of mass mind control I am actually an undercover CIA agent who monitors this forum and attempts to close down all discussion on uncomfortable subjects from brave researchers who have discovered the truth by watching a yotube video.

As for making a fool of yourself being a personal comment, is it?
And I have mocked ‘your’ theories but I don’t know you so I don’t believe I have been personal. If I have I apologise.

By asking you your thoughts on the moon landings I was giving you the opportunity to show that you don’t eat every conspiracy theory up with a spoon.
Here was a chance for you to say well obviously that one is preposterous….
Anyway I’m guessing that I know your answer to that one now and do still wonder if there are ANY theories you have discounted after research.

Erol countered every point on your original thread and was ignored by you because you don’t actually research or do any independent thinking. You post up a link to the latest thread from conspiraciesRus and if someone replies or questions the ‘facts’ you have nothing to counter with so run off.

As for the ‘audience’ is after me with pitchforks that is just woe is me nonsense.

One, I don’t care about an audience if every single person believed that the moon landings were faked I would have to think maybe I’m missing something here and take another look but if the facts stayed the same I’d fight my corner no matter what.
And two, playing the martyr is just pandering to an over developed ego. Most conspiracy theorists I find are supreme egotists.
Everybody can’t see what I can see. People aren’t as intelligent as me. I’m so brave to speak out etc etc.

Thing is, there are conspiracies and cover ups. We saw the recent TV programme on Jeremy Thorpe which had the most biased judge in history. Watergate, the Iraq war I’d even give you a hearing on Princess Di being done in. I certainly believe there is something fishy about JFK.
But all these could have been carried off by a dozen people not needed half a million.
500,000 people wouldn’t keep quiet.

Also the whole conspiracy theory network relies on us buying into the government being ultra- efficient and thinking 20 moves ahead. Why would the government want to pull off a conspiracy that is that complicated and what are the chances on them not cocking it up. Generally they cock most things up.

Mr Davidson,
Moving forward if you want to concentrate on conspiracies that might have some merit here are a few tips.
1. Be selective. Some have more weight than others. Remember the little boy who cried wolf.
2. The conspiracy has to be simple and not too complicated. Planting bombs in the WTC and saying it was a terrorist is simpler than hijacking and flying planes into it. Doing both is really gilding the lily.
3. If it involves more than 1000 people it won’t have been kept quiet. If the moon landings were faked why in 50 years don’t we have any solid proof, given that the Russians would have loved nothing more than to embarrass the U.S. over this.
4. Always ask could our government who have cocked up law and order, the NHS, the economy and pretty much everything they touch be clever enough to have pulled this off.
5. If the answer is yes, then why? If the Americans want to take over Afghanistan then they can work on a regime change by financing and arming a few of the many rival factions out there. It will be a lot cheaper than an on- going war and easier than setting up 9/11.
6. When someone is spouting on about something, make sure they have some knowledge about the subject.
e.g. “Well if you knew anything about structural engineering…..”
No I know very little about it and as you are an accountant I doubt you do either.
7. A proviso to point 5. When you think ‘well here is an actual trained architect saying this so it must be true’ bear in mind that people like to be famous for 15 minutes. There are thousands and thousands of architects who wouldn’t normally get on a talk show. If one says the WTC was made of cheese I can guarantee he will get on the telly. So the odd rogue attention seeking architect, pilot or scientist doesn’t add that much weight.
8. Be more cynical. The guy telling you the government did this for money is writing this nonsense for money.
9. Use logic/common sense. Even if something is possible, is it probable?
10. Just because one thing doesn’t quite seem right it doesn’t mean that the whole thing is dodgy. Occasionally odd things happen
11. When somebody questions your facts answer them. Your facts surely stand up to some scrutiny? After all us mainstream people just accept everything we are told so surely you truth seekers and researchers must have questioned these facts thoroughly?

EJS some tips for you:

If someone posts something that you feel is ridiculous it might be helpful to refrain from reading or responding as it seems to irritate you to a point of intolerance.

Try not taking another persons view as a direct threat to your understanding of reality as this also seems to frustrate you.

Think about a persons right to their own view without needing to show them that your knowledge is more valid - you may just have a different viewpoint based upon your take on things and the material you choose to read/follow or have been exposed to.

Try not to assume you know who people are - such as knowing someones job which can be incorrect and consequently pigeon holing people into 'type'

Think about why you give the impression that others have to be put in their place or derided with sarcastic comments about their persona and project your feelings about how they might be embarrassed and consider what this says about you.

Go inside and consider why you apparently feel the need to bother with someone who quite clearly in your opinion is either deluded or grossly displaced in terms of your understanding of reality

Just because someone (offering up information on a link for example to the internet) might have a past that doesn't suit you or are a 'nobody' or might have said something you totally disagree with...it might be worth considering listening because sometimes those people have valid things to say even if you don't agree with all - try it can produce some interesting results.

Lastly why not be kind if you think someone is crazy and move on... as I keep saying nothing to see here.


*By the way - I think we did go to to the moon but not in a firework tin can. We had assistance in my opinion with advanced technology and in order to keep that information away from the masses a mock up was created to placate the public.... but that might be a leap too far for you. Comments about world governments being legitimate with countries having sovereign policies and not being part of the globalist deep state taking orders is wasted on me. As I said earlier I no longer live in that paradigm. I am ok with people who chose to go along with the program as I respect their view and consequently your world view as your own. If I posted my views about how the world runs, motivation that goes way beyond the deep state and above -- you would think it was so bizarre we couldn't even have a discussion on it. There are many challenges to the things you say above but these are not within the 3D realm of your view. You would need to listen to information from whistleblowers who have been in the secret space program etc. And If I provided those to you - you would be incredulous. We are so far apart it would be impossible. Also why should I provide these links if you were really interested you could find them yourself - but you would dismiss them as fantasy - so there is nowhere to go from here.....However, I do wish that people were nicer to one another and more tolerant.

I personally would like to get back to the topic of wikipeida myself.

Wikipedia is not perfect. It is however, as far as I am concerned, a remarkable resource, the like of which has simply never existed before. My view is that on the whole it is remarkably objective. What is more I would claim there has never been in history such a repository of 'knowledge' (main stream widely accepted knowledge) that has had such a wide and diverse range of editors that compile the entries to it and there certainly has never been such where such editing is entirely and totally transparent. That is has been created on a non profit basis and is freely available to anyone with internet access not just to use but also to contribute to as well in regards of editing just adds to it's uniqueness.

It is an 'encyclopedia'. By definition it reflects and should reflect 'main stream' perspectives. If it had of existed pre Copernicus, it would have listed the planets as orbiting the earth. If Copernicus had of edited the relevant entries to say the planets including the earth orbited the sun, then his entries would have been removed on the basis that there were not sufficient sources to back that up. That is how it works and how it is supposed to work. It is not a 'medium' by which orthodoxy can be challenged. It's whole purpose it to list and categories and make available 'orthodoxy'. Which is why I find the attacks on it, by people who seek to challenge orthodoxy, on he basis that it does not help and facilitate their challenges to orthodoxy, bizarre and essentially based on a total misunderstanding of what wikipeida is and tries to be.

Well Erol, if I am correct you thought the articles posted were biased due to the motivations of the authors/researchers. I read it in a different way and based upon other research I have done they do ring true with me. I don't believe the editing is unbiased as both of the articles (in my view) demonstrated. In this world I feel everything should be questioned and challenged, therefore I stand by it. Your comments once again are based upon your world view which is not mine. It is not dangerous to allow information outside the mainstream. The reason people don't like this is because it underpins someone's security and I left that behind along time ago. However, throughout this post and others you do seem to stay on topic, the only thing I would repeat is everyone has something relevant to say ([authors/researchers) even if you do not agree with 90% of their view and their background is not always relevant either. Thanks you for you comment.

Mr Davidson wrote: If someone posts something that you feel is ridiculous it might be helpful to refrain from reading or responding as it seems to irritate you to a point of intolerance.

Try not taking another persons view as a direct threat to your understanding of reality as this also seems to frustrate you.

I neither get irritated, intolerant or frustrated. Amused would be the best description and I will respond if I think it’s incorrect or ludicrous. If you want to post up something and not have it challenged a start would be to post something that is remotely feasible.

Mr Davidson wrote:
Think about a persons right to their own view without needing to show them that your knowledge is more valid - you may just have a different viewpoint based upon your take on things and the material you choose to read/follow or have been exposed to.

Again I’ll quote Brian Cox;
“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”
You 100% have the right to post whatever you like, I reserve the right to point out it is nonsense. I note that when I or others do you do not reinforce your opinion with some facts you run off or complain you have been abused. You haven’t been abused your ‘fact’s have.

Mr Davidson wrote:
Try not to assume you know who people are - such as knowing someones job which can be incorrect and consequently pigeon holing people into 'type'

Don’t believe I have ever guessed your job or showed any interest. I do find many conspiracy theories do tend to not be selective and believe EVERY conspiracy theory. You have yet to convince me you don’t fall into that category.

Mr Davidson wrote: Think about why you give the impression that others have to be put in their place or derided with sarcastic comments about their persona and project your feelings about how they might be embarrassed and consider what this says about you.
Go inside and consider why you apparently feel the need to bother with someone who quite clearly in your opinion is either deluded or grossly displaced in terms of your understanding of reality

Generally many conspiracy theories just fall into harmless lunacy but if unchallenged they themselves can grow into cruelty or something darker. Two examples were during 9/11. Uninformed theorists with zero knowledge came up with the view that it was impossible for those passengers to contact their loved ones on the ground. It was nonsense but how cruel to cast doubt on the people who heard their loved ones last words. The other was the theory that Israel was responsible for 9/11 and all Jews were warned not to work that day. Also nonsense, Jews died in the same proportion to their demographic as Catholics, Christians and Muslims. Then these theories that people swallow to appear superior or more questioning become dangerous.

Mr Davidson wrote: Just because someone (offering up information on a link for example to the internet) might have a past that doesn't suit you or are a 'nobody' or might have said something you totally disagree with...it might be worth considering listening because sometimes those people have valid things to say even if you don't agree with all - try it can produce some interesting results.

Pure piffle. I have never questioned your past and don’t think anybody is a nobody. I think you are projecting some issues on me here. Like many of your theories, just because you want something to be true it doesn’t mean it is. I do listen but when I challenge you on point/s you offer nothing further and play the martyr. Basically you want to post we all obediently read it and accept it. Sorry it doesn’t work like that and shows total hypocrisy. You pride yourself on challenging the mainstream thinking or opinion but cry foul if anyone challenges your thinking or opinion.

Mr Davidson wrote: Lastly why not be kind if you think someone is crazy and move on... as I keep saying nothing to see here.

Is your alternative thinking equating kind with not challenging nonsense

Mr Davidson wrote: There are many challenges to the things you say above but these are not within the 3D realm of your view. You would need to listen to information from whistleblowers who have been in the secret space program etc. And If I provided those to you - you would be incredulous. We are so far apart it would be impossible. Also why should I provide these links if you were really interested you could find them yourself - but you would dismiss them as fantasy - so there is nowhere to go from here.....However, I do wish that people were nicer to one another and more tolerant.

By all means post them but I assume if I challenge them with my 3D view you will cry foul and play the martyr as you run off

Mr Davidson wrote: I don't believe the editing is unbiased as both of the articles (in my view) demonstrated.

I do not believe any editing of something like an encyclopedia can ever be totally free of bias. Given that, when comparing wikipedia to any alternatives that are edited in different ways to wikipedia, all the evidence I can see leads me to conclude that wikipedia is on the whole less biased than any alliterative in existence that I know of. What is also true of wikipedia, I believe, is that it is more transparent than any other alternative that has ever existed in terms of the editing that is done on it. That to me is an important and germane truth when considering the merits of wikipedia in constrast to alternatives. As I understand it the examples in your first video link were of two individuals who believe that wikipedia should allow and accept edits from people who are paid by third parties to make such edits in favour of those paying for such. Just how this would lead to wikipedia being less biased I can not see ?

Mr Davidson wrote: In this world I feel everything should be questioned and challenged, therefore I stand by it.

I too think everything should be questioned. If such questioning, via reason and logic and evidence, leads me believe that something is wrong or incorrect , then challenge is the next stage from questioning. If questioning does not lead to this then challenge is simply unnecessary

When I went to the article you linked to and saw the 'chart' there, I did question what that chart actually showed in comparison to what the author and presenter of the chart claimed it showed. When I did this , all the evidence led me to conclude that the chart did not show what the author claimed and implied it showed and thus I challenge it. If you were to chart some activity of mine over 14 years, be it picking my nose, going to the toilet, going to lemar, reading posts here or making posts here, in the way the chart in the article was produced, compressing 14 years of activity averaged in to a single week, then such a chart would show that I picked my nose in every waking hour block of every every day of the week. If you were then to suggest 'how do I even find time in any single given day to eat, or interact with other people, given how much I am picking my nose' then my conclusion would be that the chart is with intent designed to portray a baised impression of reality that suits some specific agenda of the person presenting it rather than revealing some objective truth. Which is what I did conclude when I saw that chart in the article you linked to and questioned it. Nor did it get any better from there in my world view.

Mr Davidson wrote:It is not dangerous to allow information outside the mainstream.

Where I have I said anything that would make you think I believe such is dangerous ? To me, from where I am sitting, with my world view this is a classic straw man argument. What I have said is that for me it is ridiculous to expect the main stream media to reflect views that are not main stream to the same degree as it reflects those that are. For me the clue here is in the name. Railing against the mains stream media because it is main stream is like railing against the sky because it is blue. So too with railing against wikipedia for reflecting the main stream more than the non main stream. That is in essence it's purpose, to be as unbiased repository as possible of what the main stream view is on 'everything'.

I am and have been interested in the mass media and it's role and influence in society for a very long time and probably will continue to be so interested as long as I draw breath. I have for example, on my book shelf, the (imo) seminal work by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky - manufacturing consent. I have read (and re read) this book many times, questioned as best I am able the ideas presented within it and found much that I agree with. For me one of the themes within it is the idea of the use of 'distraction'. Would the 'elite' prefer that 'ordinary people' spend their time and energy questioning if the moon landings were faked or not, rather than directing that time and energy to questions like 'how is wealth created and distributed in our society and could there be better ways' ?

Mr Davidson wrote:The reason people don't like this is because it underpins someone's security and I left that behind along time ago.

Again and with respect, this is just an extension of the straw man argument you start with above. The premise that I am saying or believe that it is "dangerous to allow information outside the mainstream" is simply not true. Thus this extension as to 'why' I believe this thing that actually I do not believe, is meaningless imo.

erol wrote:
The premise that I am saying or believe that it is "dangerous to allow information outside the mainstream" is simply not true.

I find it's not what you've said its what MD wants you to say. If you haven't the words will be put in your mouth anyway.

I challenge what you think but you are not allowed to challenge what I think because that is bullying.

My feeling is anyone has the right to post whatever nonsense they like. I reserve the right to point out it's nonsense.
Trying to shut me down challenging their view by accusing me of bullying is passive agressive censorship and a hypocritical tactic from someone who prides themself on challenging views.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

erol wrote:
The premise that I am saying or believe that it is "dangerous to allow information outside the mainstream" is simply not true.

I find it's not what you've said its what MD wants you to say. If you haven't the words will be put in your mouth anyway.

I challenge what you think but you are not allowed to challenge what I think because that is bullying.

My feeling is anyone has the right to post whatever nonsense they like. I reserve the right to point out it's nonsense.
Trying to shut me down challenging their view by accusing me of bullying is passive agressive censorship and a hypocritical tactic from someone who prides themself on challenging views.

Next we will be told that the postings are 'all part of social experiment'...

EJS???


Who is Brian Cox as he is grossly outdated so that is wasted.

Why didn't you respond to the kindness and tolerance point?

You have really proved my point with your responses.

The rest of the comments are exactly as I thought they would be.

Its OK and I don't feel bullied as I said you are entitled to your view and I haven't said it but your views are just as deluded to someone like me yet I don't feel the need to name call. It is your right to say it but it says a lot. Also the amount of energy you invest in me and then tell me I am attention seeking is also amusing.

Anyway it won't stop me posting but I am closed now on this one so feel free to be ungracious in the knowledge I won't be responding - but thanks

Mr Davidson wrote:
Who is Brian Cox as he is grossly outdated so that is wasted.

Brian Cox OBE, FRS is an English physicist who is the professor of particle physics at the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Manchester.
A proper scientist in other words

Mr Davidson wrote:

Why didn't you respond to the kindness and tolerance point?

I did.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Is your alternative thinking equating kind with not challenging nonsense

Mr Davidson wrote:
your views are just as deluded to someone like me yet I don't feel the need to name call. It is your right to say it but it says a lot. Also the amount of energy you invest in me and then tell me I am attention seeking is also amusing.

My views being called deluded to ‘someone like me’ is a compliment thank you.
You’ll have to give examples of names I’ve called you because to my knowledge I haven’t. Think your projecting again there.
Again don’t recall saying you were attention seeking so think you’ve made that up.
And it’s no energy or trouble at all so don’t worry yourself