Identity Verified Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.
 

Categories

This Blog has no active categories.
 
Close  
Posted in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology

Live Experiment with Corrupt Wikipedia Agenda Editor Bias

May 10, 2016 4:01 am

POSTSCRIPT 2nd December 2016: Two members of the public are at last (currently at least) able to force apparently scholarly-corrupt Darwin-Lobby Agenda Editor "Dave Souza" to stop deleting facts from the historical publication record on the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page - update HERE

Original Blog Post

Here on Best Thinking I have blogged several times on how corrupt Wikipedia is facilitating the deletion of significant facts in order to pursue a pseudo scientific propaganda-driven Darwin deification agenda at the expense of the independently verifiable disconfirming historical facts.

To date, these Wikipedia-Agenda-Editor-Clowns immediately delete any fully referenced - even scientific journal peer reviewed (Sutton 2104 and Sutton 2016) - mention of the 100 per cent proven, and independently verifiable fact that Charles Darwin lied about the prior-readership of the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book, containing the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection.

Academic corruption in an area such as the history of science is likely to be subtle. Were it any other way, perpetrators who deliberately hide significant facts from the public and their peers and students, would not be able to get away with it for very long. Subtlety is not evidence of any kind of conspiracy, it is simply the only effective way that so many criminal offences are committed by those who wish to avoid detection. And just as so many legitimate members of society facilitate crimes such as theft by selling highly specialist tools such as crow-bars, bolt cutters lock picks and slide hammers to the general public, so to do many of those involved in what we might name "academic agenda project fraud" work anonymously from the inside, slyly astroturfing, or else simply assisting salaried academics to hide facts from the public by brute censorship in publications where they have power to delete facts that undermine any extremely carefully crafted and orchestrated agenda-view. Such subtle academic fraud, is today, and has for some time been happening, on the Patrick Matthew page on the Wikipedia encyclopaedia. Let me explain and reveal the facts:

This morning, using a relative's laptop PC - revealing it's IP address to Wikipedia and the public - I personally corrected the misleading information on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page, which gave the typical Darwin deification agenda inaccurate impression that Matthew's heretical ideas on natural selection were not noticed pre-1860. The new - 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable facts, that I added this morning, set the record straight, and are highlighted in this blog post in bold and italics:

Reviews[edit]

The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11]. However, it did, in Part II, on page 457 stridently criticise Matthew's then heretical conception of macroevolution by natural selection, which in fact runs throughout his entire book intertwined with his then seditious chartist politics: "But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."

Let us now wait, observe, and see if the Wikipedia Darwin deification agenda editors allow this disconfirming fact to survive on their so-called publicly editable "encyclopedia".

I predict that this fact will be deleted as part of the 156 year old Darwin Industry's corrupt propaganda campaign to deny Patrick Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. If it is, it will not be the first time they have deleted this very same fact!

The deeply entrenched Darwinist myth, started as a deliberate proven lie by Darwin in 1860, that no naturalist read Matthew's ideas before 1858 was first blown to smithereens in my Thinker Media book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" (Sutton 2014). Moreover, this 100 per cent proven fact, proof of Darwin's lies, along with the new 100 per cent proof of the newly discovered existence of many routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of both Darwin and Wallace, passed scientific peer review in March 2016. See: 'On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis.'

Despite their bizarre pseudo scholarly attempts to bury Darwin's newly unearthed skeletons by fact deletion and fact denial fraud, Wikipedia and the personal pocket lining lying Darwin Deification Industry will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the disconfirming facts for their published pseudo scholarly fallacies, myths, lies and corrupt propagandising.

Experiment result 1


Postscript 10th May 2016 15.38

Within 90 minutes of the correct information being added to the Patrick Matthew page, about what is 100 per cent proven to have been written about Matthew's book in a published book review of 1831, we see The Wikipedia official editor Dave Souza - who is systematically deleting facts about Darwin and Matthew on this page - has deleted the fact just as predicted. And he did so inside 90 minutes of it being put onto the page.

Even though the source of this fact is cited to the very same source already referenced, Wikipedia editor Dave Souza brazenly, fallaciously claims that it is both un-sourced, contrary to the published source, and "dubious": CLICK HERE to see his edit of 8.58.

Proof Dave Souza is misleading the public and systematically deleting facts on Wikipedia in order to hide the fact Matthew's ideas on natural selection were read and understood by many others pre 1858.

Here is the proof from page 457 of the United Services Journal review of Matthew's (1831) book :CLICK HERE to access the actual book and the very text on the page he claims does not exist.

CLICK THE IMAGE AND IT WILL ENLARGE SO YOU CAN READ THE TEXT

image

Attribution

The text that Wikipedia editor Dave Souza claims does not exist is 100 per cent proven to exist. It is here.

Wikipedia editor/s hiding behind the name "Dave Souza" has/have done this same fact deletion thing before (CLICK TO SEE THE EVIDENCE AND DISCUSSION) regarding fully cited sources to Darwin's proven lies on the prior readership of Matthew's book. He claims the cited sources don't exist and when met with protest that he is lying he then is able to actually ban the complainer from editing anything ever again on Wikipedia! How corrupt is that?

Is there one or many people hiding behind this Wikipedia editor name Dave Souza?

image

Public Domain

#Wikigate

Here is an image of the entire page containing the text Souza wishes to hide from the general public as part of a systematic Darwin Industry uncomfortable fact deletion campaign Page 457 of the United Services Journal (1831) book review of Matthew's "On Naval Timber"

Here you have just witnessed an example of what we might call Wikipedia Agenda Editor Fraud. If ever the FBI investigate Wikipedia editors for engaging in corrupt astroturfing fact denial fraud I will make this information available to them.

Stay tuned for the second stage of this interesting and most revealing experiment.

Postscript 11th May 2016 10.36 am GMT

Click the image below to read the text more clearly

image

Attribution

The Bystander Effect

Postscript 12th May 2016 7.30am GMT

At the time of writing today, 631 people have witnessed this blatant case of "Public Encyclopedia Editor Fraud" . The fraud was predicted and happened, just like I said it would. This was effectively a criminological sting operation. But who will police Wikipedia? Their pages are always the top hit on Google and other search engines, because they have an army of experts optimising things that way. You are seeing George Orwell's 1984 predictions incarnate. Ask yourself, why have you not gone onto Wikipedia as a member of the public and challenged this internationally harmful behaviour? Don't you care?

 
Emilio Cervantes
May 10, 2016 at 11:49 am
Newspeak dictionary again revealed

Dear Dr Sutton,

Thank you for your continued efforts to reveal the real modus operandi in Wikipedia. This is the Newspeak dictionary predicted by Orwell in his novel 1984. The deification of Darwin that you mention is a fundamental issue to reduce the reasoning capacity of academics. In fact Orwell predicted that the Party will make all possible to reduce thought capacity in the proles. The reduction of vocabulary by means of Newspeak dictionary is fundamental to reduce thought capacity and make academics easier to manipulatioin.

Darwinism is in fact a reduction of vocabulary. They just call Natural selection to whatever they like: causes, mechanisms, processes, laws, theories,.... There is no way to understand any process in nature with this transformation (mental reduction, hypnosis)..

The point is that Darwinism seems to be a crucial part in the manipulative power of Newspeak. So please, to fight Newspeak, keep fighting Darwinism.

I explained this in:

http://thedailyjournalist.com/thethinker/is-wikipedia-orwell-s-1984-newspeak-dictionary-a-proof-in-the-spanish-entry-dedicated-to-antidarwinism-in-2009-and-the-evolution-of-this-concept/

With regards,

Emilio Cervantes



Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
May 11, 2016 at 5:20 am

Dear Emilo

Please note that all comments are "turned off" by default on my Daily Journalist articles.

From our past exchanges on Twitter we both know we disagree with one another about how useful is the theory of Macroevolution by Natural Selection. I think it is the greatest scientific theory of all time. You have arguments against it.

What we agree on is that Darwin is proven a serial liar about the prior readership of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis of the full thing- and that the World's leading Darwin scholars, alive and now many deceased, are guilty of credulously parroting Darwin's lies and for dreadfully poor scholarship in failing to follow the data. The "New Data" facts that Darwin scholars are currently seeking to put in a cupboard to "skeletonize" made it into a peer reviewed science journal and now they are brazenly burying and reburying Darwin's cupboard skeletons like zombie hound dog extras in the "Walking Dead".But the facts are out: Here

We are indeed witnessing Live the sort of behaviour Orwell was warning us about.

Now here is the thing. Have you noticed how everyone else is gawking at Wikipedia's behaviour like passive bystanders to a violent assault in a city centre?

The bystander effect is what allows tyrants to get away it. For just one telling example amongst so many we could use by way of explanatory analogy - consider the passive watching bystanders of the abuse of jewish men by the Nazis. Here

At the time of writing exactly 483 people have viewed this blog post. Over 300 have viewed it on the Patrick Matthew Blogspot.The telling question is: Why have none sought to intervene on the Patrick Matthew Wikipedia page to stop the "Dave Souza" fact deletions?

Emilio Cervantes
May 11, 2016 at 5:53 am

Dear Dr Sutton,


I agree completely with what you say about Wikipedia, the Newspeak Dictionary.

We are everytime less concerned with the bussiness of other people. The problem is that the bussiness of other people today is our own business tomorrow.

Wikipedia defends Darwin and Natural Selection, both. Please note that this attitude you are pointing at (i.e. don't mind others's bussiness) is an egotistic attitude result of the massive difussion of darwinism (survival of the fittest, importance of competition, in short Natural selection). You look very serious and competent, but not so much when you say:

...Macroevolution by Natural Selection. I think it is the greatest scientific theory of all time.

Please, think about it.



Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
May 11, 2016 at 11:54 am

Dear Emilo

Without getting into a lengthy debate - one at which I am unqualified to spend time on, being a social scientist criminologist, there are counter-intuitive reasons why it does not matter whether I think Natural Selection is a great theory or not. Although I do. Let me explain:

Consider, by imagining, the point of view of an intelligent "designer creator". Were such a thing true, would it - The "Creator" - not prefer - as the ultimate Dawkinite - an atheist apostle who "believed" in natural selection?

 
 
 
Latest Ebooks