patrick.net

Ironman says

marcus says

I blame the Washington Post and their fake news department.

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He finally managed to put 2 and 2 together. Pretty good for a math teacher.

Ironman says

Is Seth Rich alive or dead today?

I believe that he's dead, but you might not. After all, it was reported in the WaPo.
Ironman says

Who killed him?

No one knows. You may pretend to know and call me an idiot for admitting that I don't know. But all that will do is prove your own lack of imagination and your willingness to believe whatever fit's your preconceived notions.

Is Seth Rich alive or dead today? Who killed him? Was anything taken from him (wallet, phone, etc.) when he was killed?

I'll add another question-was Thallium found in his body?

Dan8267 says

You may not like the NY Times, but overall, it's a largely credible source. Hell, even Fox News is far more reliable than Wikipedia.

So Wiki is not credible because of an erroneous Plato reference which has just about zero consequence to real world events, and the NY times which published bogus stories including the mobile weapons lab story is credible? Uh....OK, but check your meds.

Ironman says

There, now it's more accurate.

Piggy, you have no write to complain about low-information people as you are a no-information person.

Blurtman says

So Wiki is not credible because of an erroneous Plato reference which has just about zero consequence to real world events,

Oh honey buns, the Plato example is just a clear case that demonstrates the fundamental problem with non-peer-reviewed publications. Anyone can publish anyone.

It is not, however, what makes Wikipedia truly wicked.

Every single article on Wikipedia that in any way involves either money or people is deliberately manipulated by individuals and groups with agendas incompatible with the truth. For example, Pepsi removed information regarding the terrible health consequences of drinking Pepsi. They got caught only because the rank amateurs involved used IP addresses owned by Pepsi. They didn't cover their tracks.

More experience corporations, government agencies, hate groups, financial fraudsters, etc. will cover their tracks using anonymized IP addresses. Such organizations have teams that use many seemingly unrelated accounts to control articles that they have a financial or political interest in. First they build up the reputations of their various accounts by fixing vandalism and errors that they have themselves planted using other accounts. This makes their accounts "credible users" with many badges. Then they use multiple such accounts to censor and manipulate the articles they actually care about.

If you didn't know this is common practice, then you are ignorant of the realities of Wikipedia. This happens all the time. Companies with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake are willing to pay a million dollars a year in salaries to have an army of such users and a bank of such accounts to ensure they control the public perceptions. Governments are willing to spend even more to control the public perception of war and politics. Terrorists organizations are willing to spend their time to accomplish the same thing.

Dan8267 says

Every single article on Wikipedia that in any way involves either money or people is deliberately manipulated by individuals and groups with agendas incompatible with the truth.

That would never happen with the MSM, would it?

Russkies probably have pictures of Murray with underage kids that they honey trapped him with in Uzbekistan and forced him to say that.

Tim Aurora says

While that is correct, I would still look up for basic knowledge from Wikipedia. You can always vet it by looking at other reliable sires.

Even with your assumption, at best, Wikipedia offers no benefit. At worst, it points you in the wrong direction.

Since you cannot tell what information is deliberately misleading, even your basic information must be confirmed by another source. So all you are doing is adding an unnecessary step that gives you nothing and requires some work. Also, by quoting Wikipedia instead of your alternative source, you are subjecting your audience to potential misinformation while denying them the citation of your alternative source. Again, there is no upside and plenty of downside.

Worst still, you probably look at the footnotes on the Wikipedia pages for your alternative sources. These footnotes and external links are also maliciously manipulated. External citations that provide evidence contrary to what the malicious parties want the public to believe are censored while external links that support the parties' agendas are promoted regardless of whether or not those sources have been debunked.

Even using Wikipedia as a stepping stone to other sources contaminates your evidence chain with propaganda and deliberate and deceptive bias. It's all bad.

Tim Aurora says

Nobody is perfect but Wikipedia is mostly better than other sites.

No, it is not. It is far, far worse than most of sources even Fox New, and that says a lot.

Because Wikipedia is very popular and the uneducated masses treat it as an unquestionable authority, it is very useful to governments, corporations, and political groups for manipulating public opinion. Such organizations have the time and resources to manipulate and control articles on Wikipedia covertly and very effectively.

Also, it is a false dichotomy to call a serious problem a non-issue simply because nothing is perfect. No one has ever claimed that any source is perfect. That does not mean that any source is therefore acceptable. There are very large variations in degrees of imperfection. A source that states the Battle of Hastings took place in 1065 is wrong, but not nearly as wrong as a source that states the battle was between dinosaurs and aliens. There is also a huge difference between an honest mistake and deliberate and deceptive manipulation by nefarious organizations with hidden and malicious agendas.

Tim Aurora says

And since it is run by small donations, it is less likely to be politically motivated

This is utter bullshit. Wikipedia is a target of anyone with a political or financial agenda simply because it is popular. That has nothing to do with how Wikipedia funds itself. The people running the website and administering the database do not have to be involved at all with the deliberate misinformation entered into it by the organizations with agendas. The Wikipedia employees won't even be able to tell themselves which user accounts are being used by professional propagandists.

Blurtman says

That would never happen with the MSM, would it?

This is again a false dichotomy. Mainstream media is very limited to what kinds of lies and spinning they can do. First, they lack the anonymity of Wikipedia users. Second, every news outlet has a constant identity. Propagandists can use thousands of accounts that have been built up by grunts. They can use a dozen such accounts in a single article revision war appearing to be unrelated people all agreeing on what is right against the one or two people being censored. The main stream media simply cannot do this.

Dan8267 says

Mainstream media

But one might expect the open policy of Wikipedia to balance out all viewpoints. A corporate owner of an MSM outlet will limit the breadth of viewpoints, and so this source will have a consistent bias. As I have said, utilize multiple sources, and do your own homework.

If you believe that the election was hacked by Russians, you have been reading fake news.

Blurtman says

But one might expect the open policy of Wikipedia to balance out all viewpoints.

Whether or not you expect that is irrelevant. Empirically, Wikipedia does not work that way. All voices are not equal and Wikipedia is not a democracy.

The well-funded organizations who create a multitude of accounts, use grunts to earn badges, and then use those seemly unrelated accounts to manipulate articles will not let your voice be heard if it goes against whatever agenda they have. And they will win. Even a single employee can use dozens of badge-heavy accounts to silent your common man account. And that employee will win every single time. He will appear to be many well-respected and unrelated contributors, whereas you will appear as the sole detractor.

There is nothing democratic, fair and balanced, or transparent about Wikipedia. Multiple viewpoints are never represented. And furthermore, viewpoints are the purpose of an encyclopedia. Facts are the purpose. And facts aren't dependent on points of view.

Blurtman says

As I have said, utilize multiple sources, and do your own homework.

People who quote Wikipedia almost never use multiple source precisely because they think Wikipedia is the only source they need. But even if they did use multiple sources, including Wikipedia at best adds nothing and at worst adds deliberate misinformation.

When talking about the health effects of smoking, you should use multiple sources, but none of those sources should come from the tobacco lobby. If they do, those sources are worse than worthless. They are misleading and counterproductive. Wikipedia is a lobbyists' wet dream.

"If you believe that the election was hacked by Russians, you have been reading fake news."

It's really sad that I don't believe you are being sarcastic here.

Dan8267 says

People who quote Wikipedia almost never use multiple source precisely because they think Wikipedia is the only source they need.

That would be dangerous thinking. In the field within which I work (not political), I have found Wikipedia to be a reliable source of info. But I would not rely on it as a sole source. And people that post here can post anything, and have no responsibility to verify anything, BTW. Remember, nobody loves you but your mother, and she could be jiving you, too.

Blurtman says

I have found Wikipedia to be a reliable source of info.

That is most likely because you failed to detect the manipulation, not because it wasn't there.

Dan8267 says

That is most likely because you failed to detect the manipulation, not because it wasn't there.

Uh, no. I am an expert in certain areas, and what was posted was spot on.

Blurtman says

Uh, no. I am an expert in certain areas, and what was posted was spot on.

If your an expert, you don't need Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. The entire purpose of an encyclopedia is to be an introduction to a subject, not expert material.

Clueless thread posters need to learn to read,
https://patrick.net/1300247/who-be-the-hackers-

"hack" works in mysterious ways...

I for one am glad that Putin is and has been in charge of this place all along. Had me worried there for a minute that a incompetent Jive ass Ghetto Crunk Boy was up in there running shit.
What a relief!!!

Some strong leader you losers picked for yourselves in 2008 and 2012. .

Ironman says

...How did Hillary win the popular vote??

Less than half the voters were willing to drink the hogwash.

So a majority of voters enjoy their bacon dirty, get sick and leech off ACA freebies...

YesYNot says

Less than half the voters were willing to drink the hogwash.

Ironman says

...How did Hillary win the popular vote??

Inquiring minds want to know????

Isn't it a complicated question for simple minds?

"You didn't answer the question, if it's true Putin hacked the election, why didn't he just add a few million votes to Trump's total to guarantee his victory?"

Maybe Putin knows how the electoral college works? And that Trump didn't have to win the popular vote to be guaranteed victory?

There's only one way to stop russian cyberwarfare - extraordinary rendition of the operatives followed by Kempeitai interrogation techniques. They will not learn any other way - they have been perfecting their craft on ongoing basis since 1917.

dublin hillz says

There's only one way to stop russian cyberwarfare - extraordinary rendition of the operatives followed by Kempeitai interrogation techniques. They will not learn any other way - they have been perfecting their craft on ongoing basis since 1917.

Nah, too complicated, too long to work. Swift retaliation by cutting off SWIFT (he-he) and oil/gas exports would stop the shenanigans much faster.

dublin hillz says

There's only one way to stop russian cyberwarfare - extraordinary rendition of the operatives followed by Kempeitai interrogation techniques. They will not learn any other way - they have been perfecting their craft on ongoing basis since 1917.

Long before 1917, pal. The Tsar had plenty of Siberian workcamps himself with a similar death rate, as well as secret police, and plenty of 'blame the minorities' crap via the Black Hundreds.

As for extraordinary rendition of operatives, I'm sure you realize that kidnapping Russians from Russia to torture them is a bad idea given the thousands of nuclear warheads the country possesses.

And for SWIFT, Russia's #1 Trading Partner is already building entirely new, non-Western controlled networks using their massive powers of production the US and Europe can do nothing about, unless they want to see hyperinflation of consumer goods.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

And for SWIFT, Russia's #1 Trading Partner is already building entirely new, non-Western controlled networks

Yeah, me likes "news from the future" too. As was said before, Russians are the best in that particular genre. The one about "South Stream" couple of years ago was a real gem.

Cutting off SWIFT the next day something of value is hacked here would deal a swift kick to the Putin's balls now-now-now. Same for oil/gas embargo. Would the fucker curl up and die? No. Will he feel tons of pain? Abso-fucking-lutely. And this is the point.

Now they know for sure that all they get in response is lovely lecture on what's good and what's bad from a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

I thought the assertion is that the Russians hacked into the DNC and Clinton campaigns to get emails for Wikileaks? And if these are real emails detailing conspiracy how are they "hogwash?" Seems like the Democrats are allergic to truth.

So they may have hacked Podesta's account and used it to release some embarrassing (but true) data. Are you saying that Americans are better off being lied to?
Russia clearly had a stake in this election.
Hillary wanted to continue baiting the bear, hurting Russia economically, and threatening to start WWIII. Trump wants to get along with russia and make America's economy great again.
Easy choice. I'd be shocked if Russia didn't interfere!
I agree with trump's approach.
If there's one thing I'm allergic to it's nuclear fallout.
But maybe that makes your feathers grow better? There has got to be some reason you support that war mongering murderous old bitch!

Any nuclear fallout is more likely to come from a Middle Eastern bomb than a Russian one. By your logic, we should cozy up to Pakistan or Saudi then?

Must bite...

If we have to look at ex presidents, Washington wasn't a natural born citizen either.

Ironman says

...How did Hillary win the popular vote??

Inquiring minds want to know????

-

-

Has anyone heard THAT explanation from the Liberal MSM??

Perhaps they only hacked it in counties that are greater than 50 km from major cities in close states? And the hacking was graded, as one draws away radially from the center of cities, the Trump support increased in the populace.

Think of another reason ...... ...... this one is fallacious, and even a first year law student would be flunked for proposing fallacious, fake, or false concepts.......

It gets better by the day, the birther question is apparently in play again. If this is no hoax and it turns out the long form was doctored together and the lamestream media is not occupied too much with spreading fake news, this story could get some legs and apologies would be in order.. ;) https://market-ticker.org/post=231719

Bbbbbbuut his birth was confirmed by the CIA! Who also confirmed that Russia stole the election! Hmm. We be suckered?

Heraclitusstudent says

If we have to look at ex presidents, Washington wasn't a natural born citizen either.

That may be true, but Washington didn't present a doctored certificate, which - if confirmed - is a felony.

mell says

That may be true, but Washington didn't present a doctored certificate, which - if confirmed - is a felony.

A bit late to worry about that, I'd say.