Wikipedia Bias

OK, just a quick update: My original message to Wikipedia stated, in short: “This article doesn’t contain an ounce of objectivity. It is filled with statements that are specifically designed to create bias in the mind of the reader. It is guilty of everything it accuses Burzynski’s documentary of. It doesn’t belong on Wikipedia.”

I received a terse reply from an administrator named “Guy Chapman” and, suffice to say, it ended any doubts about impartiality. Guy referred to Eric Merola as a “propagandist” and essentially dismissed him as a Truther / conspiracy theorist; the ANP, according to Guy, is nothing more than an “astroturfing group.” After a little more digging, I found that somebody else on Wikipedia named "Guy" (I assume it’s the same administrator) unequivocally denounced Burzynski's treatment as “fraudulent" and, in a follow-up email to me, Guy admitted: “My opinion is that the sources supportive of Burzynski are junk.”

Question: What are the odds of this administrator allowing entries that might balance the tone of the Burzynski article?

As others have noted, Wikipedia is put forward as an unbiased and, as such, trusted source of information. I think that most people would be surprised to learn that agenda-driven administrators are using their power to shape public (and government[1]) opinion as they see fit.

Apparently, this is all a big joke to administrators like Guy. He is a member of the “Rogue Administrators”[2] group which is apparently connected with “SCREW” (Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia)[3] which boasts on its Wiki page:

This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects the supreme wishes of the Supreme Cabal. If in doubt... well, don't press your luck”.

This is a list of the cabals which dominate Wikipedia, ruthlessly abusing its content for their own evil purposes. All of these cabals control the encyclopedia, and dictate its content, although it is unclear how all the different cabals can each control Wikipedia at once. It is likely that there is One True Cabal which secretly controls all the other cabals, but no one yet knows which cabal is this master-cabal. (Except, of course, the master-cabal members themselves.)

Needless to say, this hardly rises to the standards that I think most people expect from Wikipedia. Until articles like the one on Burzynski’s clinic are improved (and clearly biased administrators are kept in check), I will be withholding all future donations to this organization.

**** Note: I have taken a video screen capture and saved the HTML pages (in their current form) for the references below; just in case they are changed.

[1] From the “Talk Page” on the Burzynski article: “The tone of the Wikipedia article is absolutely correct according to our policies, and as long as it remains so, it is a risk for them. Legislators and staffers will and do check Wikipedia, and I have heard of legislators referring letter-writers to Wikipedia for balanced information. It's great that they trust us.”



2015 Edition
Please reload