The Facts: Wikipedia, the people’s encyclopedia, a supposed resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, is violating its own policies and non-profit status by favoring donors’ worldview through exerting undue editorial influence.
Reflect On: If we can’t trust Wikipedia, the people’s encyclopedia, does that mean we can’t trust anything we hear and read about?
By Richard Enos
Those of us who make a habit of challenging our current worldviews in order to uncover deeper truths and expand our understanding of reality, will have probably come to realize by now that much of the ‘skepticism’ out there that is supposedly founded in ‘science’ is nothing more than the preservation of the mainstream perception that is constantly being promoted by our hidden authorities and their minions.
It is likely that every one of us has encountered frustration in dealing with the ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ type of skeptic among family and friends. Some hold it as a badge of honor that they refuse to be ‘fooled’ by suggestions that the world is not exactly as it seems, or that there is anything substantial going on behind the scenes, as long as the mainstream media continues to ridicule it and use labels like ‘unproven pseudo-science’ or ‘debunked conspiracy theory.’
Now, this is not to dispute that some skepticism is healthy. Not at all. One should not believe everything one hears indiscriminately, and all claims should be evaluated based evidence, coherence, logic, and common sense. When skepticism is in balance with an open mind, it helps us develop discernment, and enables us to build and expand a coherent worldview that begins to incorporate and make sense of more and more of the subtle mysteries the universe has to offer.
However, an extreme brand of skepticism that is not open to possibility until it becomes self-evident is damaging to human inquiry and the flourishing of new ideas. Joe Martino and I discussed this skepticism in our latest episode of ‘The Collective Evolution Show’ on CETV, and went on to examine how this philosophical position is at the heart of the censorship efforts of mainstream media and the now co-opted social media giants, indiscriminately labeling ideas and analyses of world events outside of the mainstream perception as ‘fake news’ and characterizing it as ‘dangerous’ and something the public must be protected from.
Below is a clip from that episode exploring how dogmatic skepticism is holding us back. Become a member on CETV to watch the full episode of The Collective Evolution Show.
In the full episode, we go on to discuss specifically how Wikipedia has become one of the latest information sources to fall under the control of the mainstream authority. We talk about how instead of being ‘the people’s encyclopedia’ and being open to all ideas, it has adopted the very strict skepticism of the mainstream. Among other things, it systematically denigrates those scientists, researchers and medical professionals that promote alternative modalities to Western medicine.
Some will say ‘I’m a scientist. And therefore I’m a skeptic.’ In some ways, this makes sense–a real scientist does not come to any conclusions unless the evidence in their experiments bears them out. However, it often represents someone who is not open to possibility, and will not seriously consider anything that is not proven and established, meaning what they have ‘seen’ with their own eyes.
When this type of person says (usually informally) that they are a ‘scientist,’ what they really mean is that they ascribe to scientific materialism, a philosophical position founded on the belief that only the material world, the world perceived by our senses, is what is real. We don’t even need to get into the fact that quantum physics has long demonstrated that this position is no longer tenable in the real world, and that non-material forces are exerting influence on the world all the time.
In a banned TedX talk entitled ‘The Science Delusion,’ biologist Rupert Sheldrake performs a brilliant dissection of scientific materialism and all the questionable assumptions it is founded on, and is clear to distinguish between real ‘science,’ which is exploration and experimentation designed to expand knowledge, and the philosophical dogma of scientific materialism which, in mainstream discourse, is considered ‘science.’ No wonder it was banned. Watch this one, it is well worth your time.
Now it must be said, anybody refuting scientific materialism is pulling the rug out from most of the skepticism used by mainstream forces to control the narrative. And so, as you might expect, whenever the mainstream media has the opportunity to comment on who Rupert Sheldrake is or the value of his work, they are not likely to be very complimentary.
Wikipedia On Sheldrake
In an article entitled ‘Wikipedia’s Assault on Scientific Progress: The Case of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake,’ Gary Null makes a very persuasive case not only that Wikipedia attempts to marginalize Rupert Sheldrake as a ‘pseudoscientist,’ but they exhibit a draconian control over the editorial content of Sheldrake’s Wikipedia page, quite against their own stated policies.
Sheldrake’s original Wikipedia biography, created in October 2002, was limited to two sentences and a link to his personal website: “Rupert Sheldrake (1942-) is a British biologist and author of several books. In his 1981 book A New Science of Life he put forward the hypothesis of formative causation which basically suggests that memory is inherent in nature.”
That’s it! Today, his biography has grown to 9 major headings and 12 subheadings. Instead of identifying him as a biologist — only noting this title in the past-tense — the article falsely identifies Sheldrake as a “parapsychologist” in the lead paragraph. Although he conducts experiments in telepathy, he approaches the topic from a biological viewpoint, in keeping with his scientific training. Reviewing the many thousands of edits made to his biography during the past 16 years is a lesson in how brutal and vicious the Wiki wars spawned by Skeptics can become.
Sheldrake’s Wikipedia “Talk” page begins with the warnings:
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don’t take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.
Here we observe Wikipedia’s own Committee showcasing flagrant bias in identifying Sheldrake’s scientific research as “pseudoscience.”
Wikipedia’s Violation Of Its Non-Profit Status
The concept of Wikipedia, the people’s encyclopedia, a resource for the open sharing of wisdom and knowledge, where respect for opposing points of view was maintained, is what made Wikipedia popular and trusted to begin with. However, the potential profits that would be possible from this trust and Wikipedia’s popularity seems to have become too tempting for its owners and of course Big Business to resist.
This letter written to the IRS by Neal S. Greenfield, lawyer for Dr. Gary Null, in which he explicitly details the ways in which Wikipedia has blatantly violated their 501 (c)(3) non-profit status, as well as their own stated values and objectives, will certainly help you to see Wikipedia in a different way than what it pretends to be.
Of note in the summary on page 1 is the contention that ‘Wikipedia has selectively permitted pay-to-play editing and institutional conflicts of interest, particularly where generous donors are concerned.’ It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. We are coming to realize that our entire economic and political systems are founded on the corrupt influence of the powerful and wealthy. The maintenance of their power is founded on keeping people ignorant, which is the brute impact of scientific materialism and the skepticism that follows from it.
Every day there seems to be new information out about another previously trusted source of information that has shown itself to be unworthy of trust. But rather than rue the destruction of the naive innocence of humanity, we should bless these revelations as stepping-stones to achieving a higher discernment. Certainly, the majority of humanity, when released from these corrupting influences, will be able to be trusted to act in a way that is ultimately for the benefit of all. This higher discernment will allow us as a collective to separate the wheat from the chaff, and create a world where truth, transparency and the open exchange of ideas will be supported.