Wikipedia is not trust worthy in controversial topics. Here’s a trick I use to extract heterodox views on topics which are otherwise censored in Wikipedia.
- Visit the wikipedia article for any controversial article
- Click ‘View history’
- Look for large reverts in bold red (which are not obvious vandalism)
- See what got removed
You can also review the “Talk” page to help narrow this search (see the second example below).
Examples
Feminism
The topic of sexual objectification is not exactly uncontroversial. Heterodox views are periodically censored out of its Wikipedia article by power users (senior and woke editors). The removal of views by Christina Hoff Sommers and Naomi Wolf on the subject is a good example. If you were just reading the latest version of the Wikipedia article, you would only get the censored version - but if you perused the page history and unearthed these deleted passages, you get to see a more comprehensive (i.e., umm … encyclopedic) view on it.
Here’s another example (one that I find more interesting) from the same article acting as an illustration of what I call ‘soft censorship’. Here, the editor censored out a bunch of entries from the ‘See also’ section, presumably because it goes contrary to the doctrine of objectification.
Diet and animal foods
Meat is controversial given that Vegan Propaganda 1 have got many otherwise intelligent people by the balls, even to the point of peddling pseudoscience for decades. It is no surprise then that the Wikipedia article on 🥩 Carnivore diet suffers from censorship. Here’s where reviewing the Talk page is particularly illuminating.
As an example, see the Talk page section titled Oxford Academic Study on Carnivore Diet, where it becomes clear that pro-carnivore references are pruned out. As the discussion happend on 14th of February, 2022 - you will want to scroll down the history of the article around that date to find the revision with that reference originally added, which revision happens to be the latest one by user “ReadingRiot” (before “Psychologist Guy” censored it). The censored part from that revision reads – so as to counteract the actual misinformation prior in that passage regarding the diet being “potentially dangerous to health” – “while others have found evidence supporting the idea that there may be some health benefits for certain individuals” which in turn uses this Oxford Academic study, titled Behavioral Characteristics and Self-Reported Health Status among 2029 Adults Consuming a “Carnivore Diet” as reference.
Of course, this article saw even more censorship in the months before. Compare this revision from May, 2021 for instance. It had more balanced content, one of which includes another censored review from the journal “Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes and Obesity” titled Can a carnivore diet provide all essential nutrients?.
Schadenfreude
Finally, even neural seeming articles are “cleaned up” by politically motivated editors. An ealier version of the Schadenfreude article had a statement in the lead saying “adults also experience schadenfreude, although generally they conceal it” which got removed (an act of ‘soft censorship’) to the point that the article now reads — to present a more woke-approved version of the emotion — “Schadenfreude [..] may be an important social emotion establishing “inequity aversion”.”.
Notorious Wikipedia editors behind censorship
As you peruse the revision history and Talk pages, keep an eye out for these editors:
-
User:Zefr: on medical science articles
Wikipedia user Zefr defends Remdesivir, makes sure nothing good about HCQ gets in, removed Robert Malone from the RNA vaccine page. Zefr defends the Operation Warp Speed & COVAX pages and apparently has a history of shutting down nutricuticals & supplements.
- User:Alexbrn on medical science (and COVID-19 related) articles
- User:Simonm223: on political articles
- User:ජපස (aka. Joshua P. Schroeder, formerly User:ScienceApologist) on Modern Physics
- David Gerard