Most of us only use one way of knowing. Disaster. Then to make it worse, on most topics we only use one source as our primary source that we give the most weight to in our minds. We have no awareness we are walking happy-go-lucky through a haunted forest filled with landmines and all manner of okie doke booby traps. We are as naive about the danger we're in as Red Riding Hood and Goldilocks while hitchhiking across deeply troubled waters on the back of a multi-headed pale fox.
Let me loudly repeat: You are in trouble when you have more doubt in your ability for understanding and figuring things out, than you have in the ability of others to do the same. Whatever benefit of the doubt you have, you pass it out. Here take my doubt you expert you. Tell me what to think. Tell me what to do.Wikipedia is the same thing as a blog, a weblog. A fancied blog. A romanticized blog that we've transformed in our minds into the perfect mate to tell us what we need to know. No. No. No.
Wikipedia is written by an enormous committee of anyone who wants to contribute an article. It's a global community. How sweet. How open-sourced, open-minded they must be. That's the place for me.
The main Wikipedia requirement is to state your sources. Wikipedia is not shy about asking for donations; however, something tells me they don't need donations no more than the American Cancerous Society does. If it were true Wikipedia was built through random contributions, they in no way could have almost cornered the information market on any and every possible topic. No way.
This tells me:
1. Wikipedia is funding individuals or a staff to write articles.
2. They monitor search engine searches and write articles like rabbits receiving fertility treatments.
3. Wikipedia is somehow connected to Google to get favored top positions in results. Wikipedia was appearing at or near the top even when they first got started. (Remember, everything communicated by humans is always intended to tell you something and sell you something at the same time.). When you click on the link above, you will see the obvious articles I'm talking about. I can tell you right away that some of those articles are intended to influence our minds to give Wikipedia credibility for reliability by us associating credibility with Google. This causes us to place our trust in the wrong parameters of trustworthiness. Everything put forth by humans is a weapon and tool of war for your mind and the rest of your beingness on many levels.
4. Wikipedia is being funded by big big money. Asking for donations is the okie doke to make you think they are po' folks and have no agenda from a special interest group.
5. In the earlier stages of Wikipedia's existence they must have been getting pushed into top position for some reason that seems unnatural. This still might be going on. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because internet users are going to click on at least one of the top three results. The higher you are, the more likely your link will get clicked on. This makes it look like people prefer that link. What I don't think browsers account for is whether or not the user found the information useful, or at least, modify the number of times the link is click based on how long the user stays on the site. At least half the time I click a link and then close the site in less than one minute because the information is not what I'm looking for and/or the site is filled with way too many extra images and things that makes the site load slowly and respond slowly. I've used Wikipedia and still will, but only if I can't find other sources and only if it's on a topic where there's less of a chance for the suboptimal worldview to impact the information. And this is why Wikipedia is the same as a blog. There's plenty of personal viewpoint based on the choice of sources. The personal viewpoint often comes through repeating information from sources that clearly support the European Miseducate Me and You Worldview and Asili. This is what has miseducated all of us in the first place. I'm fairly certain the main contributors are white males. In my soul of souls, I sense Wikipedia is actually Wickedpedia. I further suspect Wickedpedia is a response to the increased use of the internet to find credible information that tells the truth. This is taking place as more people are waking up and searching and questioning. Wickedpedia's job is to redirect people back to the same mindset as the oppressor racist collective white superiority mindset that projects an informed healthy viewpoint appropriate for everyone. Wikipedia feels like the feeling I get from DNA Testing companies who lie to people with a straight smiling face, subtly. History will confirm or dis-confirm all information. That's one of its purposes, if not its main or only purpose.
History has taken my amazement of how quickly Wikipedia's content “came up” and “rose up” to the top of search results, and turned the amazement into unlikely, turned that into improbable, turned that into confirmation, turned that into warn the gullible. I too was once gulpable, culpable in the suicidalness of drinking the juice, seduced by what the Giri So level of awareness produced.
Browsers Beware
Check all sources and crosscheck those sources using multiple ways of knowing over multiple cycles of time. That's the supreme scientific method approach.Review messages containing “information source.” I'm now having deja vu regarding the reaction of the self-proclaimed internet police after I post this message. I'm telling you what I know. For example, the reaction happened after I wrote an article on Google Alerts and another on genetics changing influences.
Be aware of the browser you're using and the search engine you're using. (see piracy or privacy)
