Federal Govt Employee is behind Wikipedia covering up Pizzagate (v/pizzagate)
submitted 2 minutes ago by llm2016
One editor of Wikipedia ( points out reasonable arguments to state Pizzagate in a neutral tone:
Afternoon Acroterion, per something that popped up on my feed there seems to be an insistence on using the word "false" regarding any claims relating to Pizzagate, as if putting it in wikipedias voice is somehow a solution for the problem of unfounded allegations related to BLP. So rather than actually citing reputable sources to demonstrate the opinion of reliable sources who have investigated the claims, we are instead declaring without citation that it is false. I am not aware of any other conspiracy theory situation where we evidently describe them as 'false' outright, or declare things to be 'unfounded' without also citing such a source. The situation in question is available here where you will be able to see recent edits by NorthBySouth which seem to think putting "false" and "unfounded" in front of stuff absolves us of any BLP risk. I am of the opinion that it doesn't change the BLP risk if there is any (we're still repeating the information), and instead creates a non-neutral POV. I have a few main points of contention for this:
- I believe this sets a very slippery slope in allowing blanket "this is false" approaches to any contentious subject (BLP or not) where if suitably strong opinion editors decide something is 'false' then they can approach a subject without citation, source or otherwise, make blanket changes threaten to pull in administrators. Which, while fun, merely brings up more issues.
- If the claims are suitably BLP offending, then adding "false" and "unfounded" to the front doesn't actually make it any better. We're still repeating the claims, joining the dots and wiki-linking the content. I believe if the subject matter is contentious to that extent the policy is to remove it, rather than make our own op-ed about it.
- If approach 2 is taken, then this opens the door to serious BLP risks elsewhere on wikipedia where you can literally -post anything you like, so long as you say "falsely" first (with or without citation). I don't believe that is appropriate to any article, let alone anything people suggest is a BLP risk. Koncorde (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)> However, she/he got shut down by other editors repeatedly who put 100% faith only in the MSM BS. More details: Pizzagate Edit War
I was not certain if they were just random SJW, not govt-recruited shills until I saw this editor's profile NorthBySouthBaranof: On the right side, it says "This user works for the US Federal Government."
Yes, we now have direct evidence as to why Wikipedia insists on labeling Pizzagate fake. Below is how NorthBySouthBaranof threatens Koncorde who speaks to remain neutral on the subject:
You need to read the sources. The claims are false and have been widely debunked as meritless. Policy and common sense requires that we describe false, defamatory claims about living people as what they are: false. As the cited article from The New York Times states, None of it was true. While Mr. Alefantis has some prominent Democratic friends in Washington and was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, he has never met her, does not sell or abuse children, and is not being investigated by law enforcement for any of these claims. ([3]) Reliable sources are unanimous in describing the claims this way. If you revert again, I will request administrative intervention. You're a longtime editor and should know better. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)>
NorthBySouthBaranof Threatens Koncorde