Skip to comments.

Who Controls Wikipedia? Who Sponsors Wikipedia? ( George Soros )

Posted on by Halfmanhalfamazing

Is Wikipedia/Wikimedia foundation funded by special interest groups? A list are major donors to Wikipedia below Financial Reports Wikimedia Foundation

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (Press release)

Omidyar Network

Stanton Foundation (Press release)

Arcadia

Richard Lounsbery Foundation

Open Society Institute (George Soros founder)



(Excerpt) Read more at docs.google.com ...

TOPICS:

Extended News

KEYWORDS:

sorospedia

wikipedia

wikisoros

And that's not all. I encourage everybody to take a look at the wikimedia's own webpage: Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board Search the page for "soros" or "open society" and right there for all of us to see, three of them! Melissa(Hagemann) manages the Open Access Initiative within the Information Program of the Open Society Institute (OSI)/Soros foundations. Ethan(Zuckerman) also works with Open Society Institute's Information Program, along with Melissa Hagemann. Trevor Neilson is a Partner in the Global Philanthropy Group , a company that advises philanthropists on the development and implementation of philanthropic strategies. Neilson formed DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) with Bill Gates, Bono and George Soros, served as a founding board member, and stays involved as a member of DATA's policy board. There's also a fourth member of the wikimedia foundation who is from OSI. Seeing the following is what made me curious enough to look for this info. You can see that here: Wall Space (MacKinnon Formerly of CNN, now works for Soros) http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2434590/posts I cannot say I'm at all surprised at how incestuous all of this is, but I can say I'm not surprised that there are not more conservative blogs that have thought to look this up. I hope they'll see this posting and this will become a big topic some day.



To: Halfmanhalfamazing

It works great for ordinary stuff that is not part of a political debate... LOL...



by 2 posted onby Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

To: Star Traveler

I kept putting this in and they keep taking it out. From the Harvard Crimson; John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress

By Samuel Z. Goldhaber,

Published: Wednesday, February 18, 1970 -snip- Pulling Out Immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, Kerry said, would take about seven months due to complex logistics problems. During that interval he would allow only “self-defense return of fire.” “Logistic suport is now what Nixon is talking about leaving there and I don’t want to see that. I don’t think we should leave support troops there and I don’t think we should give Vietnam any more than the foreign aid given any other one country.” He does not feel there would be a massive slaughter of American, sympathizers once the United States pulled out. In America, “everybody who’s against the war is suddenly considered anti-American,” Kerry said. “But I don’t think they can turn to me and say I don’t know what’s going on or I’m a draft dodger.” Referring to the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by L. Mendel Rivers (D-S.C.), Kerry said, “I want to go down to Washington and confront Medel Rivers, who never fought in a war. “I as effectively as anyone else in the country, can address myself to the issue of Vietnam,” Kerry said. “I’m very realistic, though. I’m just going to be one man adding to the work of men like Lowenstein.” Kerry is a pilot, and on October 14 and 15 he flew Ted Kennedy’s advisor Adam Walinsky by private plane throughout the State of New York so that Walinsky could give speeches against the Vietnam War. But Kerry was smart enough not to put down “Moratorium” on the Navy signout sheet for that Tuesday and Wednesday. The following month, Kerry was sick and did not engage in the November moratorium activities. He supports a volunteer Army, “if and only if we can create the controls for it. You’re going to have to prepare for the possibility of a national emergency, however.” Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.” On other issues, Kerry wants “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.” He also favors a negative income tax and keeping unemployment at a very low level, “even if it means selective economic controls.” http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/2/18/john-kerry-a-navy-dove-runs/



by 3 posted onby jessduntno (If Bawney Fwank talks in his sleep, is it considered wetting the bed?)

To: Star Traveler

Even with some stuff that is part of a political debate, you can find things on there that are useful. For example, I use this chart a lot in the Global Warming debate here on Free Republic, and in relation to the sunspot activity and cosmic rays and the relationship to Global Warming and Global Cooling... I refer to this article... "Maunder Minimum" and this chart below...







by 4 posted onby Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Nothing you read on wikipedia can be trusted.



To: Star Traveler

Wikipedia is great for trivia but next to useless for any kind of serious research. What I like best about it is that it is updated instantly. For example, whenever somebody famous dies, just try to get to the person's Wikipedia entry before it is updated. I swear, for every celebrity, there are people out there this moment with their finger poised on the ENTER button, ready to be the first one to upload the obituary.



by 6 posted onby SamAdams76 (I am 30 days away from outliving Jim Jones)

To: jessduntno

What’s the discussion on the topic say about the removal of the material. Usually you can find something in there that is a “rationale” and then from that rationale, you can find a way to include material that you want in there... Also, if you go to a series of mainline publicized original sources (and they can be published books by recognized authors, too)..., you can sometimes assemble a group of facts that can do the same thing that you’re trying to insert by just one article. Go back and use the source material that the author of that article used and then quote that source material, instead of the article you did quote. These are just suggestions for a work-around and something that may work.



by 7 posted onby Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

To: Astronaut

You were saying ... Nothing you read on wikipedia can be trusted. Well, in actuality, nothing you read anywhere can be totally trusted. You always have to verify information, so that's not saying too much, really. On the other hand, for just normal stuff, like I want to find out when Elvis Presley was born, and when he died (for an example)... there's absolutely no reason not to go to Wikipedia. Another example is that someone asks me about some TV show (again, I'm just giving you examples of how it can be trustworthy and useful for everyday stuff), or I want to know about a TV show/series. I'll just type it into Wikipedia, and I'll get a rundown of the seasons, the individual shows and the descriptions of the shows and the characters and who played in what particular show on what date and other information like that. I've found a whole lot of trustworthy stuff on it. Just look at that chart I posted up above. I use that chart a lot for the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum (just for one example).



by 8 posted onby Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

To: Astronaut

I found that out when I got in a fight with some gay folks on a soap newsgroup once—they got angry when I stated my Christian viewpoint and started attacking my faith—they even went into wikipedia and under the heading of ‘Christian persecution’, THEY CHANGED THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. Instead of info about Christian believers being persecuted over history, it became a crapfest of how Christians *persecute* gays and abortion rights promoters, etc. Got pretty ugly. Fortunately I had saved the original copy and having signed up for wiki, I kept going in and replacing what they kept replacing. After a day or so they got tired of it. That’s when I learned anyone can post anything they want on wiki, especially concerning political or religious issues.



by 9 posted onby pillut48 ("Stand now. Stand together. Stand for what is right."-Gov.Sarah Palin, "Going Rogue")

To: Star Traveler

“These are just suggestions for a work-around and something that may work.” I’ve done it, using the link in that post to the Harvard Crimson article and footnoted. It is irrefutable and he has acknowledged it. It gets pulled and there is never an explanation. It happened multiple times prior to the 04 campaign, of course, and I redid it every week or so, but finally lost interest after Kerry was defeated...insert it again occasionally, but from what I understand, Kerry has someone on his staff policing it...and remember, Tides Foundation and Soros are linked...Tides is Tah-Raisah’s baby...



by 10 posted onby jessduntno (If Bawney Fwank talks in his sleep, is it considered wetting the bed?)

To: jessduntno

Well... I wouldn’t try to get that entire section in there, if that’s what is happening. I would try to insert facts (which are the ones that are shown in the article) in there in a piecemeal fashion.. but again, from other sources and not this one. Now, I don’t know what the objection is, but someone is watching this particular source... so use another source, insert material in piecemeal fashion and from (let’s say) a mainstream press source (something that they like, doncha know... LOL...) and then you might be able to “assemble it” gradually... :-) But, I understand that it might not be worth the effort and so, if that’s the case, then I would just forget it. Otherwise, the piecemeal trick and a little bit at a time... might work.



by 11 posted onby Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

To: Star Traveler

Tried that too...with this little nugget. Don't know how they view the Harvard Crimson, but it sure ain't a right wing rag; Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/2/18/john-kerry-a-navy-dove-runs/



by 12 posted onby jessduntno (If Bawney Fwank talks in his sleep, is it considered wetting the bed?)

To: Star Traveler

It works great for ordinary stuff So do thousands of other websites that have nothing to do with the America-hating Nazi-collaborator.



by 13 posted onby WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Some men just want to watch the world burn.)

To: jessduntno

That’s when I would like to have that subscription to LexisNexis and do that research online, instead of hot-footing it down to the library. I’m sure that quote is found in other mainstream press outlets. It sounds like you could pick that one up at the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times, I bet... :-) That’s one thing that even the MSM is good for... they can provide quotable material and it’s hard to deny the sourcing for them..., on a place like Wikipedia... :-)



by 14 posted onby Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

You were saying ... So do thousands of other websites that have nothing to do with the America-hating Nazi-collaborator. Well, just for example here... I can do a quick search for details in a date, or a name or a connection to a topic and find it easily there and it's all ordinary stuff. It can be done in mere seconds... And if I'm posting here, I don't want to spend about ten minutes searching other sources and lists of links to arrive at what can be easily found there, in seconds (and I do mean that... literally seconds). So, if you've got the time to fiddle around and to that with the overall web, taking some guy's webpage from his Cox cable account (that no one has vetted for accuracy in ordinary details -- and who cares about some Joe Blow's home webpage... doncha know) -- then you can do that. But if you want it quick, fast and with as little problem as possible, I'll guarantee you ... that's the place to go... I'm sorry you don't like it, but "them's the facts" of the matter on how it actually works in "real life"... :-)



by 15 posted onby Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard



One might think he was Ernest Hemingway,Frank Lloyd Wright

and Mother Teresa all rolled into one. I Love the Wikipedia page on Mao Zedong.One might think he was Ernest Hemingway,Frank Lloyd Wrightand Mother Teresa all rolled into one. Not the brutal dictator that murdered 78 million of

his own countrymen. According to Wikipedia when Mao farted

a plume of rose petals gushed out.



by 16 posted onby DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

I’ll give you an example of what I’m talking about, versus the general “web” (i.e., the Internet). Can you find a good chart like the one I posted (above on Post #4) about the Maunder Minimum, showing also the Dalton Minimum and being clear and labeled well like this one is? And also, so it’s easily “linkable” for posting on Free Republic? And if so, how long does it take?



by 17 posted onby Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)

To: DaveTesla

From Wiki: Mao's policies and political purges from 1949 to 1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 50 to 70 million people. The site also lists three sources for this statement.



To: Star Traveler

Wikipedia is a good starting point but should NOT be taken as gospel. When I use it for research, I skim the article and see if there are any useful links — there usually are — and go from there. I would never cite Wikipedia as a source.



To: Halfmanhalfamazing

Who Controls Wikipedia? Who Sponsors Wikipedia? LOL - Who, in their right mind, reads at Wikipedia?



Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson