Is Wikipedia Controlled by the Scum/Filth “Skeptics?” Or is Something Else Going On Here?

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen 

There is no question that Wikipedia is not our friend.  It is obviously “SkepticGrand Dragon Home Base.  Sifting though Wikipedia articles on health care is like being forced to listen to convicted pedophiles talk about their “conquests.”

Wikipedia Health articles are THAT horrible.

And, of course,  when we study the “skeptic” leadership,  and management picture, how that horror happens, becomes obvious.

I am a well known Crisis Management Consultant in health care.  One of the tactics I use on behalf of clients is to set up campaigns that include, among other things, litigation.  So, of course, it should be no surprise I am looking at what litigation, and PR campaign, would be necessary to bring Wikipedia down – just simply destroy it.  Get it off the internet.  Why destroy it?  Because they have been asked nicely, time and time again to fix problems – and they answer with nastiness.

Frankly, I think it is time to just shut it down.  Wikipedia has failed.  It is simply a propaganda tool for the unwashed.

Can We Actually Destroy Wikipedia?

Of course we can.  The whole Wikipedia thing is a sleight-of-hand trick, with Jimmy Wales pretending he has done something wonderful with five and ten dollar “contributions” from millions of people.  That’s bullshit…

The real money behind Wikipedia, I think, is the HUGE anonymous “contributions” that Jimmy never mentions.  And, I think, Jimmy is completely controlled by those contributors.

That’s why, I think, the scum/filth “skeptics” have free rein.  Jimmy has been told.  Jimmy obeys.

Who are those “contributors?”  Jimmy is NOT saying.  He simply hides them behind his US Non-Profit (501) tax filing (Form 990) Schedule B.

But, as I just found, I think the New York Times newspaper inadvertently revealed that income source.  Because of that, I think, a lawsuit against Wikipedia, that forced open that Schedule B file, would make it very clear that Wikipedia is NOT what it says it is.

A Non-profit, by US law, is NOT supposed to benefit any one individual.  It is required to be “A corporation or an association that conducts business for the benefit of the general public without shareholders and without a profit motive.

More, “If the income of a corporation inures to the personal benefit of any individual, the corporation is considered to be profit driven.

So, for instance, if we find that that vast amounts of money are being “contributed?” by Merck, Sanofi-Aventis, Gloxo-Smith-Kline, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC), etc. couldn’t we assume, quite correctly, that Wikipedia was NOT being operated “for the benefit of the public?”  But, was being operated as a “fee for service” company for those that write checks to them?


In other words, to me, if we discover what I think we will find in the “contributors” list, we will find that Wikipedia is strictly a PR firm, operating a PsyOps black operation against those that economically compete against Wikipedia’s “contributor’s” interests.  And THAT would change Wikipedia’s TAX STATUS, from Non-Profit, back to FOR PROFIT.  Wikipedia would be forced to pay full income taxes ALL THE WAY BACK  to its start-up.  And, THAT would destroy it.

More, those revelations would, I think, gut the majority  of the “volunteer” base, most of which haven’t, yet, figured out how they are being used.

The “skeptics” of course, would be willing to stay…  Where else would they find a willing platform allowing them to project their personal self-loathing outward?

What Did the New York Times Reveal?

I was sifting through the internet trying to find relationships between Jimmy Wales  and the “skeptics.”  Like maybe they party together, or something?  I DID NOT expect to find what I am about to show you.

Wait until you read this below.  Wow!…

In the New York Times article, titled “Jimmy Wales Is Not an Internet Billionaire” , published June 27, 2013, written by

It started in paragraph number six.  When I read it, I sat there stunned.

I am going to show you those paragraphs right now.  See if YOU pick it up.  I’ll give you some hints. I bolded the important parts.   Just below, whether you picked up on it or not, I’ll explain.

“London is often described as Britain’s New York, L.A. and Washington all in one — the center for finance, entertainment and politics. But there are conspicuously few traces of Silicon Valley. Wales gladly fills the void. Before he showed me his wedding photos, he talked about his new friend, the British model Lily Cole, who rented office space across the hall. Then he took a call from the Boston Consulting Group, the business-advisory firm, to discuss a speech he would be giving at the World Economic Forum. Wales uses a cheap smartphone made by the Chinese company Huawei that a friend bought him for $85 in Nairobi. The phone, which he often shows to reporters, is the perfect prop to segue to his current obsession of expanding Wikipedia onto mobile devices in the developing world. It is not, however, the perfect phone for participating in an international conference call with the Boston Consulting Group. Several calls were dropped. Wales suggested conducting the meeting over instant messenger, an idea that was rejected.

The Boston Consulting Group?

Now things are getting interesting..

Remember Jake Crosby?  Jake has blog called Autism Investigated.  Jake has written some interesting things about “The Boston Consulting Group (BCG).”

Probably the MOST IMPORTANT  thing, for this reference, is that BCG’s client base is BIG PHARMA.   We’ll come back to that in a second.

But let’s put paragraph six, of the New York Times article, quoted above, into perspective.  Jimmy Wales INTERRUPTED AN INTERVIEW, by the New York Times, probably one of the MOST influential media sources on Planet Earth, to take orders(?) from the Boston Consulting Group on what he, Jimmy Wales, was to say in a speech at the upcoming World Economic Forum…

Did you need me to repeat that, or would you like to just read it once again?

The Real Jimmy Wales Appears…

According to that same New York Times article, Wales started out internet life as a nerd with an interest in internet porn.  She says:

“In 1996, when Wales still wore a shaggy beard, listened to Insane Clown Posse and quoted “This is Spinal Tap” in meetings, he co-founded Bomis, a search engine that came with a “Bomis Babe Report,” a blog with photos of scantily clad celebrities and porn stars. He and Rohan moved to San Diego to get in on the Internet boom. (In 2005, Wales objected on his Wikipedia page to an entry that said Bomis peddled porn. “The mature audience [NOT pornography] portion of the business is significantly less than 10 percent of total revenues,” he told the community.) Porn or not, Bomis’s profits financed Wales’s side project, Nupedia, an online encyclopedia with peer-reviewed entries written by experts and academics that served as the predecessor to Wikipedia.”

It gets better.

“Powerful people like to be around Wales. A common criticism is that Wales likes to be around them, too — and perhaps a little too much. During a visit to Los Angeles in February, Wales tweeted: “Lunch with Felicia. Dinner with Charlize. L.A. is . . . wow,” referring to the actresses Felicia Day and Charlize Theron. He also recently tweeted: “Just got measured for my clothes for Sean Parker’s wedding. This oughta be innerstin’. :-)” But, as I learned at the Clinton Global Initiative, some famous people treat Wales a little bit like their own personal editor.

So, Let’s Look at That Picture…

Here we have a guy who clearly wants to hang out with movie stars and musicians.  How do we know that?  Just look at the number of times Jimmy brought them up in this one NYT interview.  It looks pretty obvious that Jimmy knows that when he doesn’t go along with the establishment he’s going to be back in an IT room, with no windows, staring at porn…

There’s ONE MORE interesting Thing About Jimmy’s Relationship With Boston Consulting Group…

Let’s return to Jake Crosby’s “Autism Investigated” series exposing BCG’s activities.  Jake, in his BCG series, was not talking about Jimmy Wales.  He was talking about Mark Blaxill, the head of the bird-brained Canary Party/Health Choice apparatus.

As many of my readers are aware, I have done my own series on the bird-brains.  They NEVER win any campaigns.   But they have their photos taken a lot.

Jake’s article, titled, “Mark Blaxill Remains Connected To BCG – A Pharma-Tied Consulting Firm,”  explains why, when I first read about BCG’s involvement in Jimmy Wales life, I was stunned.

It was, after all, the Canary Party/Health Choice people that ran the original UNSUCCESSFUL  “No on SB277” campaign at the California legislature.  Blaxill, I am told, funded that effort.  Their mantra was “We know that vaccines are safe and effective (sniff, sniff), but we just want personal choice. (whimper, whimper).”

As Andy Wakefield said about that legislative campaign recently:

So, why, I have to ask, is Mark Blaxill traveling around the country as part of the “Vaxxed” Question and Answer team?


Wikipedia Wants Everyone to Think They are Immune to Lawsuits…

They are not.  On Wikipedia’s page about potential lawsuits it says:

“Wikimedia argues overall, though, that it is protected from liability by the Communications Decency Act (CDA), whose section 230 protects a publisher from liability for things said by other people on its electronic services until it is made aware of the comments. At that point it must take action or risk becoming liable.”

It is time, I think, to push them to the wall and find out.

Stay Tuned…


Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

16 thoughts on “Is Wikipedia Controlled by the Scum/Filth “Skeptics?” Or is Something Else Going On Here?”

  1. I’m in…offering any special help in this endeavor that fits my capabilities and resources. I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to penetrate the Wikipedia travesty regarding medicine and health.

  2. Suing Wikipedia is one thing. Suing them out of existence is another. It would be like disciplining Hillary out of the presidential race – ain’t gonna happen.
    Could a clever guru and strategy replace Wikipedia – first starting with a responsible, detailed medical and health online dictionary? I think so.
    Then, that becomes the proverbial chink in the armor of the enemy.

  3. OH Wiki, gosh didnt you notice like 3 years ago? all the good reports, from real experts, all done for free, got replaced with pharma paid crap? Read Wiki at your own peril! Read REAL RESEARCH PAPERS, ALL ON-LINE< you dont need an interpretation done by a pharm paid schill, to tell you what you can read in real reports, oh, ignore all the shit by CDC, Merck, GSK, etc, etc, read the real stuff………………………

  4. WP is not entirely bad. It is just the key health pages and other “sensitive” pages such as politicians’ biographies that get mindered.
    By contrast WP can be very useful for telling you the atomic number of mercury is 82, that beech is harder than spruce, and so on (in millions of useful pages).
    The problem with WP is the anonymous editing and they system whereby a clique or busybody can take over a page and block all opposition. Plus the lack of transparency and accountability.
    The WP website doesn’t need to be removed. Just Mr Wales (and retinue) at its head.
    In any case more and more people are seeing through its scam. A great many have now had my own experience of being abused by pseudonymous hypocrites when trying to correct errors.

  5. Lots of people believe what Wikipedia says about the Federal Reserve and The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. But, it’s far from the truth. If you learn the truth about anything, Wikipedia will tell you something entirely different.

  6. “Lots of people believe what Wikipedia says about the Federal Reserve and The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.”

    1) Any actual evidence for this notion? Thought not.
    2) And anyway those are examples of highly political pages. There are tons of very valuable pages, on for instance history, arts, basic sciences and maths. It is an immensely valuable resource, like everyone having a free Encyclopedia Britannica (which only the rich people could afford to own so our family didn’t) with the added advantage of instant searchability and links and updating.

    The offending abused pages (mainly “controversial” health and politics and personal) are indeed very bad, but they are a tiny part of the whole. Baby and bathwater.

    Just three examples of pages that aren’t particularly evil:
    Just imagine searching out that info without wickedpedoia.
    PS. John may think he’s The Best but….

  7. I still think the whole thing needs to go… They’ve had plenty of chances to clean up their act.

  8. Robin, They can tell the truth about things that don’t hide the crimes of our government. You sound like a brainless sheeple.

  9. John, there is no logical reason why correcting the abused pages (which are a tiny minority of the whole) cannot be done without leaving in place the huge amount of valuable contribution on other pages.

  10. When you try to correct anything, they ban you, just like Facebook does. The editors are all corrupt. There are better sources.

  11. “When you try to correct anything,….”

    True for health pages and so on. But not for most of the rest. There aren’t hugely better sources for the links I put above. Sure there are for some things, but not for a lot of others. Anyway I must get back to editing the “Bolen Report” wikiped page….

  12. It’s not just political and health pages that Wikipedia is bad with; it’s also anything contentious — religion, anything involving Israel, Zionism, the history of Jewish-Gentile relations, etc. is allowed to have literally thousands of external links on totally irrelevant pages while the same isn’t true for any Christian, at least Catholic, groups.

  13. Tracy, you are correct to add religious to the list. Also personal bios tend to be mindered.
    But there remains a huge resource that is very valuable, in arts and basic sciences and general knowledge. Such as those links I put above here:

    It would be silly to lose all that in the process of getting rid of the abused pages.
    Re the religious aspect, a whole independent site was set up called wikiislam which spills some rather big beans of reality.
    For obvious reasons that wouldn’t last long as an ordinary wikipedia section.

  14. Much, if not most, of Wikipedia is controlled and funded by the certain divisions of the Intelligence Agencies, with CIA leading the group. Be wary of about anything on Wiki. Bios of famous people that are covert assets are embellished, faked, changed and info scrubbed. That’s just for starters.

    I don’t have the exact info handy, but some underground tech experts ran some electronic tracing on Wikipedia some years back and found an inordinate amount of hits and pings coming out of Langley, Virginia. That’s the headquarters of the CIA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.