I was planning to write about Wikipedia at one point, but I moved doing so up the queue as recently journalists discovered one of Commander Breivik’s Wikipedia accounts and did a little bit of investigative reporting, if you can call it that.
The account in question is named Conservative and the 4 edits made by the account can be viewed on Wikipedia’s contribution log of Conservative. What is interesting in this case is that Breivik is accused of fabricating facts when he added notes to a text about Sigurd the Crusader.
In one part Breivik clearly emphasizes situations where crusaders freed people from Islamic oppression in Spain. This information was obfuscated in the original research article that Breivik’s adaptation was based on.
In another part Breivik is accused of changing a battle of Sigurd the Crusader against Vikings to a battle against Muslims. If you closely examine the text it becomes clear that Breivik added a note that Viking pirates off of the coast of Spain were most likely Muslim pirates, but he does clarify that the source he uses called it a Viking force. Sigurd’s crusade was documented by an Icelandic poet named Haldor Skvaldre, and the degree of historical accuracy is questionable, and it’s more than reasonable to wonder whether a Viking king on a crusade would attack Viking pirates.
The other accusation is more obscure, as Haldor Skvaldre describes a sea battle at the straight of Gibraltar without mentioning who the opponents were. One researcher claims this was a Viking force, but doesn’t provide any sources for this claim other than the description of Haldor Skvaldre, which doesn’t make a mention of Vikings. Breivik, who is clearly doing his own research based on original sources, draws the conclusion that the opponents were Muslims. I would have to side with Breivik here, and it’s clear that anyone wanting to make the exceptional claim that this was a Viking force would have to provide exceptional proof.
Of course this shows a weakness in society in general, most journalists are incapable of questioning the status quo because (like most people) they have a strong desire to conform, so the only conclusion (if Breivik says something out of the ordinary) is that Breivik is manipulating, delusional, or lying. There is scarce room for objectivity, not to mention there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by reporting objectively on Breivik.
What is interesting as well is Breivik’s edit of the entry of Kungälv, a Scandinavian city, and the flurry of activity that followed. At first someone deleted all of the information added by Breivik, which someone put a stop to. Then one paragraph and a source was removed with the claim that the source did not back up the text in the paragraph. The source most likely did back up the text, but like everyone else I don’t care enough to double check, and go back and forth with some idiot trying to get the information to stay until some admin with Cultural Marxist leanings blocks you for disruptive behavior.
What might dawn on some from this example is that Wikipedia is perhaps one of the most saddening examples of political correctness. In order to write anything on Wikipedia you need a source from a respectable publication, and in order for a publication to be respectable it needs to be political correct. Even if you find one source that’s politically incorrect there will be ten sources to counter it, and Cultural Marxists will be quick to engage into a game of tug of war once they notice that you are trying to rewrite political correct history or reality.
If you create a new account and edit the most controversial and sacred articles first you’ll most likely get banned right off the bat for being a ‘single purpose’ account. This may seem retarded, especially if you correctly source your contributions, but that’s how Wikipedia works. This means that in order to edit controversial articles you first need to spend a considerable amount of time editing a variety of uncontroversial articles.
Even if you manage to create a good enough reputation to avoid getting banned (without a trial) you’ll find out quickly that Wikipedia is in essence a utilitarian democracy, meaning that the group with the most fanatic idiots wins. In recent years this means that Muslims have gained a lot of influence on Wikipedia, with some help from their Marxist friends.
Wikipedia remains useful for uncontroversial articles. An alternative for Islamic articles is WikiIslam which was created by Wikipedia editors who were tired of seeing their contributions erased by Muslims and their appeasers. The quality of WikiIslam is mediocre however, as is often the case with Wikipedia offshoots.
Metapedia is a White Nationalist clone of Wikipedia, but if you look at the article about Anders Behring Breivik it quickly becomes clear that the same type of people are in charge who’ve made any kind of meaningful nationalist resistance impossible for the past decades. It’s difficult to classify this group, but their mental state is highly emotional (just like with Cultural Marxists), and one important benefit of 7/22 is that a line has been drawn in the sand that separates the wheat from the chaff.
One project of interest could be to list all Wikipedia articles that show an inherit bias, and include the omitted information. This has the added benefit that you can get a clear overview and concentration of knowledge that is deemed forbidden by the Cultural Marxist ideology. Creating our own version of Wikipedia is impractical for a variety of reasons, the most important one being that Wikipedia is the best environment to learn to create objective, factional, neutral, and well sourced/documented articles.