Control wikipedia control the narrative

I understand that ecelebs are generally shit but what Cernovich said at the beginning of this: periscope.tv/w/1lDGLNYEdnkxm memescope is exactly right.


Except it hasn't. What's the number #1 google result for ANYTHING?

WIKIPEDIA

Whats the #1 normie info source for ANYTHING?

WIKIPEDIA

What can ANYONE edit at ANY time?

THAT'S RIGHT WIKIPEDIA

We need to hound the alt right wikipedia page like crazy starting 10am Reno Time (Hillary's Speech) so that whenever normies google alt right they see EXACTLY what we want them to see.

It will be the greatest viral marketing campaign for our ideology of all time.

THE HITPIECES BY THE MSM WON'T MATTER BECAUSE WE CAN CONTROL THE UR-NARRATIVE FORMER: WIKIPEDIA

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dolphin-class_submarine#Syrian_claim_to_have_sunk_an_Israeli_Dolphin-class_submarine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irondome
encyclopediadramatica.se/Travis_Mason-Bushman
youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q
newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/31/know-it-all
cbsnews.com/news/wikipropaganda-on-global-warming/
chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/
breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/
washingtonexaminer.com/the-hunting-ground-crew-caught-editing-wikipedia-to-make-facts-conform-to-film/article/2576792#.Vk53g5TgJcs.twitter
findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
red*dit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/32tdzk/google_wikipedia_best_friends_forever/
campusreform.org/?ID=5028
archive.today/5BTHg
kcur.org/post/kansas-city-edit-thon-aims-close-gender-gap-wikipedia
archive.is/C7B1I
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/
wikipediocracy.com/2016/04/17/full-measure-covers-the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/
fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-wikipedia
youtube.com/watch?v=Wsu-QGi-ZWY
wikipediocracy.com/2016/06/16/diversity-conference-at-national-archives-not-so-open/
newslines.org/blog/google-and-wikipedia-best-friends-forever/
archive.is/6p6pm
directorblue.blogspot.
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yeah right dude you'll have an equally successful time "taking down facebook from the inside"

just don't use them

The users is what gives them power

now this is what I'm talking about.
let's do it and make us look like some proper fashy goys

First reply every time without fail

This is a good idea OP

all you need is a couple of hours from the start of hillary's speech

you just need to blindside them. Edit it faster and with more shock troops than the (((moderators))) can handle.

You don't need to take over. You just have to hold it through speed and numbers during the critical normie window around the speech

Cancer. Go back to reddit, lad.

They will just lock the article.

I take it you haven't heard of GG's experience with Wikipedia. Trust me, proverbial and literal kikes are in full control.

wiki fag here

Their mods lock articles if they don't like the narrative though, right?

I was always under the assumption that wikipedia is a bunker at this point.

Great idea though OP.

Seconding this user.

To elaborate on the GG example, for all of its failings, they did have autism-honed persistence. Some very devoted anons kept up on trying to fix the Wikipedia article for months. Fucking months. They did manage to get one noteworthy super-sperg (Ryulong, aka double-dragon) banned, but there was always another ready to take his place.

Wikipedia is a rigged game. Some autist or special interest writes an article that supports the general narrative, the media cites it in articles, those same articles reinforce the original point even if it was pulled out of someone's ass. Blatant double standards will be applied as to what constitutes a noteworthy source. Facts don't matter, only approved sources and editor seniority and nepotism.

Gamergate wasn't able to stop leftists from doing whatever they wanted with its wikipedia page. How will this go down any differently? They're gonna call us a bunch of cucks lead by a nigger dick loving Jew.

Wikipedia is a Leftist stronghold. Rest assured, there won't be any truth about the Alt-Right to be found there.

A full year, we managed to get 2 banned. But look at the article, its still a load of bullshit. Kikepedia isn't something we can alter.

Cancer; I stayed away from that shit


wrong strat. You just need it for a handful of hours around the speech. Critical normie window from 10am - 2pm or so Reno Time

…go on?

Certainly a better strategy than trying to fix things for good, but I fear the moment they figure out something is going on, they'll just revert and lock.

A better long term goal would be working to undermine faith in wikipedia. A difficult battle, sure. No one wants to think when they can have someone else think for them, but still easier than trying to fight the enemy in a place where they make the rules.

That said, pic related.

Wasn't his second most edited article about Dildo's?

Wiki has so many SJW fucks on there that have no life. They put anyone who posts on Holla Forums to shame if I remember correctly another guy who got doxed worked for the government and was into wearing diapers. The problem is they have no life other than being on that site. As soon as Ryulong got banned he started again on rational wiki.

Don't forget literal JIDF.

Heh, I remember that. Didn't it get to the point where even the other wiki-rejects on that site told him he needed to cool it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dolphin-class_submarine#Syrian_claim_to_have_sunk_an_Israeli_Dolphin-class_submarine

this is my favorite wiki talk page fucking hilarious

Of course they will. The plan is that by the time that happens thousands of normies would have already watched the speech googled "alt-right" and read our stuff. So what if they changed it afterwards? Then you get Streisand Effect

Indeed if we can cook our wikipedia version to trigger the Streisand effect upon being removed that would be fucking great

Oh and here is my favorite user

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irondome

They lock the article and restrict it to a few moderators.

Even fucking Jimbo the founder told him to cool it. He still didn't.

lol no

Only a few percent of all people on Wikipedia are allowed to have their edits stay or get final say on what is contained in articles.

lol no

The users that have control on the site will spend almost half the day stalking pages for anyone else that dare edit a page so that they can change it back to whatever they envision to be 'right'.

If you only spent an hour a day editing on wikipedia, then when anyone contested the page you would find those autistic users, that spend most of their life on the site, would be the ones deferred to in order to decide the Wikitruth.

You have to be an obsessive autist that lives on that site to get any sort of say in what goes in articles. And it doesn't matter what evidence or sources to back you up, your edits will not remain if one of those autists has anything to do with it.

Jimmy Wales, the guy behind Wikipedia, has even defended this practice that has led to those obsessive nutjobs have the most control on the site which allows for absolutely no neutrality to prevail on most any article.

How? A few people would see one version, while the media would be pushing another and the original site would be removing any mention of this other version. Any place you went to so that you could link to an archive that seemed reasonable would then have people dismissing your link as some erroneous edit because most people are dumbasses that believe whatever Wikipedia is saying is true.

gamergate was one of the most successful Holla Forums operations ever done. It redpilled thousands of gamers.
Who cares if the majority wasn't converted? That's still thousands we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. You'd be shocked at how many I saw talking about how they were good little liberals at the start of gamergate and how IQ scores are racist that are now constantly tweeting for Trump or making videos supporting him.

This is a great thread for identifying who the third exodus+ faggots are.

You retards have no idea.

encyclopediadramatica.se/Travis_Mason-Bushman

Have your edit contain a big, memorable, easy to search image filled with hatefacts

This is exactly what I was thinking. It's an impenetrable bunker at this point. I'm pretty sure articles with a lot of activity get flagged. We'd last 5 minutes at best before lock/revert.

I like your energy OP, but their whole system is designed from the top down to stifle any challenge to their narrative.

What we really need to do is make a redpill thread full of completely solid information and have it stickied. That way its the first thing people see if they do come on the board.

Do you find images with hatefacts spread like wildfire on many sites? Cause I don't.

...

...

I had some success with the article on white supremacy. As it stood, their version meant essentially, anyone who believes that "hurr durr, whites are better than blacks". I edited it and included the Oxford Dictionary definition, which requires ruling over other races. I went round and round with one of the pilpuller editors and finally wrote something like, "fine, keep it that way. I'll just cite the entry in my propaganda as an example of how hopelessly partisan and biased Wikipedia is. His next post announed that he'd thought about it and I was right and they changed the article to include a requirement that a white supremacist must desire to rule over other races. I'm not sure if they've changed it back, though.

Then how about the other direction? Slandering it to the point of ridiculousness.

(((1)))

GG is what got me into all of this in the first place. I'd still be defending kikes otherwise.

hatefacts is just a descriptor for content. doesn't mean you need autistic bell curve graphs. I dunno something like a redpanels comic might work

The Norwegian Brainwash documentary is also great, normie friendly shit that might be able to stay up on an alt-right wiki page:
youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q

also nice hitler dubs

The problem is, people often end up deciding what is true based on what the popular media narrative is. If you are putting forth information that disagrees with the media, then you'll find you often hit a wall with those people.

as much as I liked this idea I gotta agree with him
as I've edited pages on wikipedia before.

Once I got banned from further editing because I went to the holocaust page, where it said holocaust deniers it usually went "Holocaust deniers base their thesis on faulty evidence and wrong stuff like (link)"
Link was actually a bit legit although not hte strongest argument against the holocaust i've seen. And all I did was remove the "faulty" "wrong" "flawed" from the page, which tends to skew people into an opinion instead of just presenting the facts.

And just for that I got banned from editing. Can always change my IP but at this point eeh. Granted you might be able to get that up for 2 3 hours but those topics are very heavely watched so I doubt it. it would only take 1 mod to realize what's happening and he'd lock that article and stop anyone else from editing it.

Gold or silver lock?

Silver lock is no big deal, you only have to wait 4 days and make 10 edits.

With gold lock you have to apply to edit, which is a herculean labor.

Was thinking of Gold Lock was the most probably way of action as the OP states this op is all about timing we dont need it to stay that way only for a few hours, so it's highly likely they'd gold lock it for those hours mby a day or two and just unlock it after all the normies were bluepilled.

and silver lock is still a big deal since this op is a thing of mere hours.

Look it's already silver locked, probably due to someone going over it already which ended in a silver lock so if you want to do this you need to do it 4 days in advance in which time a mod would probly go over it and just refuse that edit and make it gold locked.

At the very minimum you need years of experience and over 10,000 edits to become a mod.

Reminder that nobody should read Wikipedia:

newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/31/know-it-all

Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

cbsnews.com/news/wikipropaganda-on-global-warming/

"Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don't apply to Connolley, or to those he favors.

"Peisers crap shouldn't be in here," Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an "edit war," as they're called. Trumping Wikipedia's stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding."


A professor of history isn't allowed to correct a page on the topic he's an expert on:

chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/

Wikipedia’s Seven Worst Moments

breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/05/wikipedias-seven-worst-moments/

1. Removing Orlando from the “Islamist Terrorist Attacks” List

2. Attempting to remove references of left-wing activist’s praise for Osama Bin Laden

3. Doxing the editor of Adland and revealing her home address

4. GamerGate, one of the most biased pages on Wikipedia

5. Placing a long-standing editor on trial for “off-site harassment” without presenting any evidence of such to the wider Wikipedian community — or to the editor!

6. The Grant Shapps Debacle

7. Trying To Get A Tech Journalist Fired For Things He Never Said

'The Hunting Ground' crew caught editing Wikipedia to make facts conform to film

washingtonexaminer.com/the-hunting-ground-crew-caught-editing-wikipedia-to-make-facts-conform-to-film/article/2576792#.Vk53g5TgJcs.twitter

>A crew member from "The Hunting Ground," a one-sided film about campus sexual assault, has been editing Wikipedia articles to make facts conform with the inaccurate representations in the film.


The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia

findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html

10. You must never fully rely on any one source for important information.

9. You especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it.

8. The contributor with an agenda often prevails.

7. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.

6. Sometimes “vandals” create malicious entries that go uncorrected for months.

5. There is little diversity among editors.

4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined.

3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute.

2. Accurate contributors can be silenced.

1. It says so on Wikipedia.


Google & Wikipedia: Best Friends Forever

red*dit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/32tdzk/google_wikipedia_best_friends_forever/


Colleges offer credit to students who enter ‘feminist thinking’ into Wikipedia

campusreform.org/?ID=5028

Mass Wikipedia Edit To Make The Internet Less Sexist

archive.today/5BTHg


Kansas City Edit-A-Thon Aims To Close Gender Gap On Wikipedia

kcur.org/post/kansas-city-edit-thon-aims-close-gender-gap-wikipedia


A Feminist Edit-a-Thon Seeks to Reshape Wikipedia

archive.is/C7B1I


Wikipedia itself admits it's not reliable for anything:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that is not citable with something else.


A Compendium of Wikipedia Criticism

wikipediocracy.com/2015/08/16/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/

...

Full Measure covers The Dark Side of Wikipedia

wikipediocracy.com/2016/04/17/full-measure-covers-the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/


Dark Side of Wikipedia

fullmeasure.news/news/politics/dark-side-of-wikipedia

This.

youtube.com/watch?v=Wsu-QGi-ZWY

What you want to do is create a opponent for wikipedia, something like metapedia, but broader, more focussed on the alt-right and then you want to do two thinks, create a better version of what wikipedia is and directly compete with them and try to undermine them at every turn.

With some luck and elbow greese, you might succeed in a few years to attack wikipedia's central position.

Diversity Conference at National Archives not so ‘Open’

wikipediocracy.com/2016/06/16/diversity-conference-at-national-archives-not-so-open/

>The National Archives will be the site of a controversial “Diversity Conference” hosted jointly by the Wikimedia DC organization and the federally-funded Archives. The June 17-18 conference is billed as “open to everyone”, but that’s a small falsehood being presented to the public. Specifically, your trusty reporter who covers the Wikimedia movement (the mostly volunteer initiative to build the openly-edited Wikipedia encyclopedia and related reference projects) was banned from the event, and his ticket purchase rejected in less than four minutes. Neither Wikimedia DC nor the National Archives staff will disclose exactly why your convivial documentarian was banned.

some sort of Factopedia

if it's not a tightly citeable fact from approved sources :^) theres no reason to include it in an article

I use to think having an offline offsite backup of wikipedia would be a good thing to have for an eventual happening or shit hits the fan event. But now I don't think even specifically backing up only the science and math related articles is a good idea. The entire site has become so pozzed over the last five years. That I don't think they even bother pretending to be unbiased anymore.

Really? I don't think anything's changed since the start, except maybe the openness of the bias.

Thanks for those, I didn't have them all.


The problem with this is first you need a search engine to replace Google that actually promotes the new and better -pedia.

So basically we're back to shoving jews in an oven before anything can be done

We've tried this before with GamerGate. The owner of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales is a huge ass cuck and will support his SJW admins. (Yes, they are SJWs) even when confronted with hard evidence of them being bias.

So we make a website, even a wiki, to watch Wikipedia and track evidence of bias, in order to discredit it.

Let's just destroy Wikipedia's credibility every time we can , it's not worth conquering even if it was possible. Being spoonfed isn't how you should be looking for information online and Jimmy Wales is full of shit.

>red*dit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/32tdzk/google_wikipedia_best_friends_forever/
Don't screw up links like that, retard.

To stop reddit links being used to track stupid channers, remove the ""

The rest now isn't turned into a link (correct or incorrect) by 8ch, obviously needs to be pasted in the url bar, and works fine when it is:
reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/32tdzk/google_wikipedia_best_friends_forever/

Christ, you didn't even link to the original article the reddit thread was discussing:
newslines.org/blog/google-and-wikipedia-best-friends-forever/
archive.is/6p6pm

implying shitipedia is trustworthy. no one who has more than five braincells knows that kike-a-pedoa is full of shit. this is a waste of time and energy. and i suspect a kike behind this post, so sage it to the oven

directorblue.blogspot. com/2016/08/confirmed-nyt-asks-google-to-censor.html

Guess (((who))) control wikipedia already?

Wikipedia has a pro-Palestine bias, as part of its broader leftist bias, so I'm gonna guess not who you're >implying.

Huh?

Did you watch the fucking video?

...

Wikipedia is fuckig garbage lads