by: Sarah Landers
(NaturalNews) According to Bolen Report, Wikipedia is not a website we should be trusting when it comes to unbiased, accurate information. Wikipedia is an example of “skeptic” leadership – with the “skeptics” actually being an organized hate group that claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth.
“Skeptics” are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter medication – and opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, massage therapy, energy medicine and homeopathy, as reported by Natural News.
According to research by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, “skeptics” believe that all vaccines are safe and effective – even those that have never been tested – and that all people should be vaccinated – even against their will. “Skeptics” also believe that that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs, including antidepressants, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, sleeping drugs and pretty much everything else – all at the same time, as we have previously reported.
Wikipedia is available in almost every language, and is presented as a seemingly friendly and reliable source of information. However, on closer inspection, the popular information site is full of errors, biased information and omissions – particularly around the subjects of health, environmental safety and agricultural sustainability. Wikipedia is pretty much run by the “skeptics.”
One of the main reasons that people are fooled into believing that Wikipedia is posting the truth, is the fact that it has a very high authority level in the Google search engine. This is surprising, since Google equates its ranking system with credibility, with more credible sources ranking more highly. Should Wikipedia really be appearing high on Google searches when the site can be altered by critics, liars and computer hacks?
Wikipedia claims to be run by volunteers, but it is actually edited by corporate-paid trolls – particularly on topics such as GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals. Many of the “volunteers” are actually paid by drug companies, food giants and the biotech industry to censor information that they would rather the public did not know, as reported by Celebrity Reputation.
Founder and ex-porn film giant Jimmy Wales is a key operator of the “Hillary Clinton Protection Network,” according to Celebrity Reputation, meaning that he goes to great lengths to alter or remove any negative information posted about Hilary Clinton. It is noteworthy that, “despite the steady wave of scandals that have begun to erode even the New York Times’ portrayal of Hillary Clinton, her image remains unblemished on Wikipedia. Since he first started editing her page in June 2005, Hillary’s ‘Wikipedia watchdog’ has been guarding against slanders, accusations, unfair assumptions, and distortions on the high-traffic, heavily footnoted, highly policed Hillary Rodham Clinton Wikipedia page.
Combating this dishonest and unreliable information source
Wikipedia ranks highly on Google and that is a problem – because it means that it is one of the first links people will see when they are searching for information. However, Bolen Report suggests that there is in fact a way to take this dishonest website down. Wales will not reveal who contributes the real money behind Wikipedia – this is “hidden behind his U.S. Non-Profit (501) tax filing (form 990) Schedule B.” If a lawsuit was filed against Wikipedia that forced open that Schedule B file, it “would make it very clear that Wikipedia is NOT what it says it is,” according to Bolen Report. By U.S. law, a non-profit organization is not supposed to benefit any one individual; it is required to be “a corporation or an association that conducts business for the benefit of the general public without shareholders and without a profit motive.”
As noted by Bolen Report, “Wikimedia argues overall, though, that it is protected from liability by the Communications Decency Act (CDA), whose section 230 protects a publisher from liability for things said by other people on its electronic services until it is made aware of the comments. At that point it must take action or risk becoming liable.” Bolen Report plans to take action against the media giant and bring the truth out into the public eye.