Originally published October 25 2013
Wikipedia admits hundreds of 'sock puppet' editors gang up to make distorted edits to their pages
by PF Louis
(NaturalNews) A sock puppet uses fictitious names to praise his or her work, attack others' works or otherwise be deceitful. The internet makes this practice, which goes back a few hundred years, more readily accessible and easier to avoid detection.
Sure, there's always IP addresses to determine the same user pretending to be different people. But there are ways to avoid that detection for savvy internet users as well. One could simply use different internet cafes or access online services that support secrecy by covering your actual IP with theirs.
So, according to a flurry of recent articles, both mainstream and computer geek oriented, Wikipedia is undergoing a major sock puppet clean-up. So far, 250 accounts have been discovered as posers who either attack Wiki articles by editing them, since anyone can edit a Wiki article, or deleting them or who are paid to promote specific services and businesses.
It's been called the largest sock puppet investigation in history by thedailydot.com. Wikipedia's open forum does invite sock puppetry. Wikipedia members are those who have contributed (without pay) a certain amount of articles. They are entrusted with policing Wiki articles, since anyone can contribute and edit an article at anytime.
There is a loosely assembled group of long-standing members who can call the shots, and apparently they are paid as administrators under non-profit status guidelines. But almost all the content and editing is gratis.
As a result of this worldwide encyclopedic information free-for-all, Wikipedia is the sixth most used website in the world with half a billion users and articles in several languages, over a million of which are in English.
Although often handy for some quick, detailed geographic or basic science information, when it comes to natural health solutions, Wikipedia is extremely biased.
Wikipedia: A sock puppet collective for the medical mafia?
Any mention of an herb's medical research is instantly nullified by an authoritative medical source. It's bias with a "balanced" appearance.
A generally good write-up on Linus Pauling includes a statement in the third paragraph by vaccine developer/pusher pediatrician Paul Offit: "[Pauling] was arguably the world's greatest quack."
This was in reference to Linus Pauling's vitamin C and mega-dose supplement approach to preventing and reversing disease.
But the Wiki article on Paul Offit glows with his "accomplishments" and includes how he has received hate mail for his efforts to debunk vaccinations as a source of autism, portraying him as an innocent scientific victim.
There is no mention of Offit's outrageous statement that an infant can tolerate 10,000 vaccinations. And there are no mentions of his mainstream media reported allegations of financial improprieties.
An even more dramatically caustic illustration of bias toward natural health remedies and "alternative" treatments occurs in the Wikipedia page titled "Alternative cancer treatments," which is nothing but major disinformation.
It even quotes Quackwatch while slighting several valid alternative cancer treatments. See it here (http://en.wikipedia.org). Well respected natural health advocates like Dr. Russell Blaylock are portrayed obliquely as tinfoil hatters.
In addition to the constant bias totally supporting toxic "evidence based medicine," an article about Natural News is blatantly one-sided and inaccurate, quoting several medical mafia ministers of propaganda.
The article reminds this author of assassin hack-for-hire Brian Deer's malicious and slanderous attacks on Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which still stand as valid with Wikipedia.
Apparently, this large group of contributing writers and editors are able to use their undisclosed identities and "official" establishment references to avoid direct accountability.
Wikipedia seems to be the modern manifestation of the biblical Tower of Babel totally influenced by mainstream medicine.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.independent.co.uk
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.theguardian.com
http://en.wikipedia.org
http://www.chabad.org
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml