I vaguely remember reading that Brietbart article back in the day. My Ukrainian collusion article here ranks #1 on Bing, #5 on Google, and #1 on DuckDuckGo. It had some challengers during late 2019 and early 2020, but never fell below #16 (it was #1 at the outset). The page (and some of its subpages) need some editing, but I'm just one guy here trying to chronicle current events. RobSFree Kyle! 17:57, 30 March 2021 (EDT)
- Nice. Yeah, I was the editor that started the whole controversy on Wikipedia. Honestly, the only reason I didn't get banned back in October (and why I am not banned now) is because of my status as "Lead Coordinator of Wikipedia's Current Event WikiProject". Too many people liked the work I did before to start any noticeboards to get me banned. In december 2020 alone I had 4 attempts to get me banned. 3 were dismissed (1 after 45 minutes) and 1 ended in me and the editor who started the ban attempt against me getting warned by an admin. To be fair, I still like editing Wikipedia, but Conservapedia has a high potention to match Wikipedia if a lot of people put the work into it.
- ...I also might have had an Ohio Representative backing me...Only followed me on Twitter and fact-checked a website I created that gained 155,000 views between December 2, 2020 and February 5, 2021... (Representative was Mike Loychik). --Elijahandskip (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2021 (EDT)
Wikipedia behind the scenes
Hey! I'd love to know some of the behind the scenes stuff going on at Wikipedia.. particularly why it seems that top administrators continue to delete any edits or new articles that make Democrats look bad
One example is that they have an entire page dedicated to accusations of Donald Trump's racism which each accusation can be easily debunked by googling the fact checks yet anytime somebody tries to create a similar page for accusations against Joe Biden it becomes immediately deleted..
I have done this. Another example could be the more well-known fine people comment where Wikipedia purposely allowed for a very long time accusations on its article that Donald Trump had called Nazis fine people. Even long after CNN admitted to doctoring the footage and even as literally hundreds and thousands of people flooded the talk page with proof and rule abiding edits clarifying that he did not call them find people. That's another example it's just a more high profile example..
It seems that Wikipedia has been violating its own mission statement about removing content just because it negative relief reflects on the subject of the article.. at least it does this when it negatively reflects on democrats. I've made multiple edits on Wikipedia and whenever it's an edit to expand information on a right winger whether that information is neutral or biased against that right winger they allow it. And they're never any problems.. but whenever I've made edits to articles about left wingers even if it's fully proven negative information it becomes immediately deleted and my account gets put on a suspension..
If I didn't know any better it would seem that the Democrats had hired people to monitor Wikipedia and remove anything that might harm them politically.. which when Wikipedia was created was very much against the rules and design of wikipedia. So it is a bit disturbing that they seem to be violating their own mission statements..
And all of that is without even getting into the more problematic things such as the fact that almost every single neutral or right-wing source is banned on Wikipedia But even the most ridiculously far left and discredited sources are allowed as sources. As long as they promote a very far left agenda. Breitbart not being allowed but the Huffington Post and mother Jones being allowed. The NY post not being allowed but the NY Times and salon and the root and other far left discredited websites being allowed..
I don't know if you have any kind of insider information as to why that might be or if there might be anything untoward going on but as much as I would like to hear about it I'll just want to remind you that if you do ever come across any kind of information that might be particularly interesting in regards to Wikipedia's management I'm sure that project veritas would be very interested to hear if that is their job. They regularly release whistleblower information on politicians and organizations.. so basically if you have any information I'd love for you to get that information out and otherwise just maybe keep your ears open