Wikiscamia

It looks like one campaign has someone or people helping them in or by Wikipedia, and by “helping,” I don’t mean “working for,” necessarily, but either “supporting,” more or less, or “working for,” or both. Some money may be in play, in this case, for somebody. I just saw Wikipedia’s write-up on the 9th District of Washington, which was clueless, pathetic, and obviously skewed to bolster one or two of the challengers to Adam Smith; not to mention that Wikipedia is just another tool for leftists, insiders or not, to influence elections through biased platforms, along with just about every other major social media entity/company.

One rich campaign may be trying to help an opposition campaign, discreetly, in order to cause diffusion in the Republican ranks. One or the other of those campaigns may be influencing what’s going into Wikipedia. That company (Wikipedia), besides other mischief of theirs,’ all but named the “Top 2” for the 9th District six months before the Primary, and mischaracterized my candidacy. I’ve always taken Wikipedia with a grain of salt, which has a “kind of,” at least, connection to Globalist, leftist Google, and neither of them mean Republicans or conservatives any good.

Wikipedia has a slew of misinformation in its overall files, and only an unwise person would take anything in it as fact, without corroboration, being a supposed open forum in which any scoundrel can write on or edit (I have to admit that I refer to it sometimes, just because it’s so ubiquitous [thanks to Google]). You’re better off with the old-fashioned encyclopedias that have professional fact checkers, and some, if not all, of those have on-line editions, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica; although it may not follow contemporary politics as much.

Related post (succeeding): Their Own “P” Word: Propagandists