Subscribe to Receive the Daily Report

Sunday, February 10th, 2019

The Rise and Fall of Wikipedia

Author:    
Source:     emfacts
Publication Date:     23 NOV 16
Link: The Rise and Fall of Wikipedia
Stephan:   I know from personal experience that anything that has to do with complementary medicine, consciousness research, continuity of consciousness, alternative forms of agriculture is not to be trusted on Wikipedia. It is a bastion of materialism, corporatism, and orthodoxy. It took me over a year of complaining, dozens of emails and, finally, threatening legal action to get them to take down a page Wikipedia had on me that was filled with slander and disinformation. And many other friends of mine in consciousness research, organic agriculture, and alternative integrative medicine have had similar experiences. I NEVER recommend Wikipedia. Here are some comments from the academic literature: "Most Wikipedia articles representing the 10 most costly medical conditions in the United States contain many errors when checked against standard peer-reviewed sources. Caution should be used when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care." Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2014 May;114(5):368-73. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2014.035. This report is another.  

Ever venture into natural healing or alternative medicine on Wikipedia and find the answers become totally skewed in favor of corporate medicine?

Don’s Comment: For example, check out the disinformation on “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity At the end of the Wikipedia entry is a link to Pseudoscience.

Anyone who uses the Internet to search for information is very likely to be familiar with the Wikipedia site. Wikipedia is very often among the first results that pop up on queries like, “What is the population of Kazakhstan?” or “How many French speakers are there in the United States?” To questions like this, with little or no commercial impact, and no scientific or political controversy surrounding them, Wikipedia sometimes offers decent answers.

But venture into natural healing or alternative medicine and the answers become totally skewed in favor of corporate medicine. Naturally, Big Pharma is one of those entities willing to pay to control the flow of information. Those pages are not identified as being advertising or propaganda.

This phenomenon is not limited to health topics. Here is a link to one of the “Pay for Play” controversies: http://www.cnet.com/news/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/
And another […]

Read the Full Article

2 Comments

  1. Rev. Dean on Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 9:28 am

    You are right about them. I tried to look up “non-local consciousness” and they had no good response to that also, even as we know it is a very well researched topic.

  2. Giles Nowak on Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 11:11 am

    I am disturbed by this.

    Sadly it isn’t surprising that the medical/pharmacological industry is able to keep these Wikipedia pages awash with their iron-bound, and money-making views