2 ms·
In the conspiracy community, wikipedia articles relevant to conspiracy theories often have extremely revealing edits and have been known as a source of checking
by arminiusreturns 4y ago
In the conspiracy community, wikipedia articles relevant to conspiracy theories often have extremely revealing edits and have been known as a source of checking for coverup for a while. The truth, I've found, is often so shocking that many if not most people, would rather reject it (attack the messenger, bury head in sand, etc) than admit their worldview has been so wrong for so long.
I've even seen sections in the edits go poof for very big stuff.
- throwaway290 4y agoWhat do you mean by 'revealing edit'? Is that an edit that goes against a conspiracy theory? Do you have grounds for suspecting those edits originate on behalf of affiliated persons instead of someone trying to present a balanced viewpoint but whom you happen to disagree with? I used to look only occasionally at edit sections for sensitive articles involving crimes by powerful players but stopped because I never spotted any suspicious changes. (Also, if removing edits from page history on Wikipedia was actually common I don't believe no one in the editor community blew the whistle yet. Of course some people would claim such whistleblowers are tracked and eliminated by omnipresent evil illuminati before they go public... and at that point I can't take this line of argument seriously)