Top 6 Things Wikipedia Health Editors Have Told Me Since Announcing the Book that Challenges Wiki Bias

By Mike Bundrant

(NaturalNews) Since launching a Kickstarter campaign that challenges the bias on Wikipedia toward alternative health, I’ve received some shocking emails from Wikipedia health editors.

Of course, the emails are off the record. None of these editors want to run the risk of being banned or further stonewalled in Wikipedia editing circles. However, their comments and confessions paint a picture of what life is like inside the “encyclopedia of the people.”

1. One editor openly accepts payments for his editorial efforts on Wikipedia. He works for notorious folks who have problems with what Wikipedia says about them. He’s a hired gun who fights to modify entries in his clients’ favor.

2. A pro-alternative health editor confessed to being stonewalled right and left, regardless of the validity of her edits. Whenever she posts something that reflects well on alternative health, her edits are typically deleted the same day.

3. One editor described life on the inside as an all-out turf war. Wikipedia is anything but an open collaboration. It’s a dog-eat-dog battle for precious internet real estate. And it’s the fat cats who sit back and win, time and time again.

4. A former editor shared this incredulous dose of reality — it’s a TED talk by acclaimed investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson that details the specifics of how large corporations, government entities and special interest groups fabricate new and irresistibly “true” realities with the sole intention of promoting products.

Regardless of how much mainstream research you do, you’ll end up believing what the power brokers want you to believe. This TED talk reveals that so much of our life is an altered-reality Truman Show. This one will make you question everything, as you should.

5. Yet another editor mentioned that, if you somehow do succeed in making changes to Wikipedia, you still must spend an extraordinary amount of time guarding those changes — every day — against sabotage. Who has time for that?

6. A conglomeration of emails from frustrated alternative health practitioners all tell the same story. Anti-alternative health editors on Wikipedia cite negative hearsay and any negative outcomes in alternative health research, skip over positive citations, call it pseudoscience, then systematically reject any attempts by honest editors to correct the misrepresentation.

This is what we’re up against across most alternative health fields. And this is why I decided to launch a campaign to spread awareness of the issue, dispel the myths about Wikipedia and set the record straight when it comes to alternative health. I hope you’ll join us to offer your support, ideas and encouragement.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes