All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2022 - Louder with Crowder
53:49
EXPOSED: Wikipedia’s Bias Tested and PROVEN! | Louder with Crowder
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We also included this.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black Americans commit 28% of crimes against Asian victims, which is a higher proportion than any other race.
Do you know what they did?
Added more whites.
They took this down.
They took the contribution down.
This is not a joke.
Saying that it referenced, quote, an opinion piece.
Oh, not a statistical fact.
Not a statistical fact from the Bureau of Justice.
So you probably know that Wikipedia is the number one research tool portal in the world with over 18 billion views a month.
But what if everything you thought you knew about Wikipedia was wrong?
I bet it is.
I'm Nat Geo.
Yeah.
Okay, Goofy.
The platform... Is it really for you?
That's okay.
We're gonna keep going.
What if the platform wasn't actually for you.
By that I mean the common person.
Is it?
Can that case even be made anymore?
Is it for you?
Well, one of the co-founders, Larry Sanger, doesn't seem to think so.
When we are getting the news, when we are learning,
or when we are just trying to get some basic information, we being free individuals want to make up our own minds.
And if we don't, then there's something wrong with us, I think.
In fact, in situations in which that happens, well, the word for it is propaganda,
when it's systematic.
And that's really what we're dealing with on Wikipedia.
If only one version of the facts is allowed, then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like So today, we wanted to test if Wikipedia does in fact push an agenda with the article.
So we created an account.
And here's what we'll do.
We'll show you an article with a left-wing bias.
And to be clear, on Wikipedia, this bias is... You've heard me talk about this with CNN.
It's more comparable to CNN than, say, MSNBC.
It's a bias by omission, often completely omitting facts that would run counter to a more leftist narrative, and sometimes those are the only facts and they'll include conjecture in its place.
Then we'll show you the changes that We've made, and we've been doing this over the course of weeks here at Louder With Crowder, with multiple accounts, and we will show you Wikipedia's response to the changes that we've made.
Before we get to that experiment, a little bit of debunking is in order.
Yes, we need to debunk.
Do you want the blue pill or the red pill?
They're both GHB.
Yeah, I thought that we weren't supposed to use it anymore after John Stamos.
Oh, in the Matrix, 1999, it's important we all dress as school shooters.
That's back when the, uh... Neo was a hero.
Wachowski sisters were the Wachowski... Brothers.
Brothers.
Brothers.
Then they were siblings.
Then the other one said, I, too, am cr***y. But then the new movie...
They only one of them directed because they could both agree on switching genders but not agree on the script.
So Wikipedia describes itself as... I'm getting rid of that.
You'd need them in the Matrix!
Yeah, I don't think I need stelter goggles for packing.
You need forehead goggles.
Wikipedia describes itself as the free...
The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Here's the thing.
Only some of the important topics can be edited by anyone.
Let me give you a few examples.
Pages like Steven Crowder.
Oh, okay.
That's me.
We're starting off with this one.
They have a semi-protected status.
I didn't know what that meant.
That means that editor accounts have to have at least 10 successful edits for them to be able to make any acceptable changes.
The Joe Biden and COVID-19 pages have extended protection.
That's a status, which means the editor account must be 30 days old and have 500 successful edits.
Who does 500 edits on Wikipedia?
No one does.
So basically it's an untouchable page.
Effectively.
Without them saying it.
Yeah, unless you're a psychopath who spends all your days editing Wikipedia.
Well, there's probably one guy.
Yeah, I mean this is the kind of guy who would read books and correct them with a red pen and send them back to the author, and that's the person who's editing your Wikipedia page.
Meanwhile, yours has ten edits, which I bet anybody can make.
Yes, exactly!
Very blanket, where it's like, Alfalfa was in Little Rascals.
They're like, yeah, he's right.
Nine more of these, he can write whatever he wants.
Buckwheat said, okay!
Yeah.
Here you go.
You can say whatever you want about anyone.
These pages are your oyster.
Now here's one that's even scarier.
The COVID-19 Pandemic in Mainland China page, that's a page, has full protection status.
What does that mean?
It means you have to be an administrator to edit.
Only 1,000 editors are granted administrator status.
So you have to be knighted in order to touch that page.
Anthony Hopkins edits the shit out of it.
Sir Paul McCartney.
In a study on wiki administrators, researchers from Virginia Tech reported, we find a surprisingly large number of editors who change their behavior and begin focusing more on a particular controversial topic once they are promoted to administrator status.
Someone's writing, Dave is dressed like a guy who went to Virginia Tech in 2007.
Right, well that's why we referenced their paper.
Important.
Now Wikipedia itself, it defines the administrators as censors whose duties include deletion of articles deemed unsuitable, we'll get to that, protecting pages, restricting editing privilege to that page, and blocking the accounts of disruptive Users so here's the thing before we get to the changes that we made and what what changes were deemed acceptable Spoiler alert not many.
I just don't want to tell you how it's none They're supposed to be neutral, these editors.
So we actually are going to take the Wikipedia neutrality test.
Right.
To see if we have what it takes.
Well, I would imagine disruptive users sort of go against their philosophies, less than just harass people.
I guess we're about to be disruptors in the tech space.
Oh?
Okay, neutrality time.
The quiz starts with, can you guess which of the following passages comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy?
Gotcha.
In 1958 Mao Zedong launched the Great Leap Forward that aimed to rapidly transform China's economy from agrarian to industrial.
However, his cruel disregard for the lives of his citizens led to the deadliest famine
in history and the deaths of 20 to 46 million people between 1958 and 1962."
Well, it's asking me which of these...
It seems that would be a neutral...
That's one passage.
One of them is supposed to...
Oh, okay.
It's saying not neutral.
What is, how does this test work?
Is it not neutral?
I just hit the answer, it says, hold on a second, can you guess which of the following passages comply with... That's what happened, right?
Oh, okay, so all of these.
All of these, I'm just gonna say if it's neutral or not neutral.
Okay, this says not neutral.
The information here is fine, but the characterization of Mao is not.
Oh, so they have an opinion on him killing people.
It says, cruel disregard for the lives of his citizens is an opinion and should not be stated as fact.
Didn't this guy have a torture chamber?
Am I wrong about that?
No, you're right about that.
Oh, okay.
And if you look up, Hitler didn't care for Jews, also an opinion piece.
Yes, well, look, it's not that he didn't care for Jews, he just He killed them.
We don't know why he killed them.
He could have liked them.
A lot.
He could have had a crush on them.
You ever love someone to death?
It's an expression.
Like when you're mean to a girl because you like her.
She's mean to you.
He just exterminated 6 million girls.
Zycon D interface.
You know what I'm saying.
You dig it.
So here's another one.
Extensive investigation into vaccines and autism has shown that there is no relationship between the two, causal or otherwise, and that vaccine ingredients do not cause autism.
I'm going to guess that this is a neutral point of view.
I'm guessing that's from Jenny McCarthy's apology page.
Well she has 700 edits.
Does she really?
Yeah.
Like I said, it's idle hands.
Did she just go back?
She's like, she's one of the thousand.
I'm gonna guess this is considered neutral.
Answer!
Neutral!
Wikipedia does not give undue weight to, quote, fringe theories not supported by reliable sources like the idea that vaccines cause autism.
This passage is an appropriate summary of the scholarship on the topic.
Alright!
Here's another statement.
OK, the New York Yankees are one of the greatest baseball teams in history.
You think that's neutral or not?
No, it's true.
I mean, yeah, it's neutral.
I mean, it's... I mean, they have... I don't know anything about baseball, but from what I understand, they're like the winningest team in sports history.
They are.
I mean, if you want to include all the way from back when the great Bambino played, you know, all the way to... When blacks weren't allowed.
Right.
And then, well, then blacks came in and they were like, wow, we've got to get rid of these fat white guys.
Um, but yeah, if you look at it, New York is, they're not, you know, they're the moneyball team, sort of.
But they are a great team, they've always been a great team.
One of the greatest baseball teams in history, right?
Let's see, I'm gonna, I'm gonna guess, I'm going to guess that they say not neutral.
Ah, not neutral!
Why?
It says, calling something the greatest is an example of peacock language.
Which it is best to avoid.
It should just say which is best to avoid.
Hey, how about the grammar neutral quiz Wikipedia says?
But it's statistics!
Peacock language, which it is best to avoid.
It should just read which is best to avoid.
You should show instead of tell using verifiable facts.
It would be much better to write instead The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships, almost three times as many as any other team.
Oh, you know what you could do?
You could sum that down to one of the greatest.
Yeah, well...
Different strokes.
So basically it just comes down to language?
Which they use horribly in their description.
Yeah, if you state the exact fact of what you meant, it means the same, but that's wrong.
Greatest is just, it's a subjective term.
More wins, three times more wins than the next team.
Well, you say tomato, I say pendants.
Yep.
Alright, here's another one.
In 2017, Facebook partnered with fact-checkers from Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network to identify and mark false content, though most ads from political candidates are exempt from this program.
Critics of the program accuse Facebook of not doing enough to remove false information from its website.
I don't know, I guess they'll say neutral.
Neutral!
Yep.
This is a good example of how to note that a prominent point of view exists.
Appropriate, without taking that point of view in Wikipedia's voice.
Inappropriate.
I just thought the whole thing was no one was supposed to think that Wikipedia had a voice.
It's... I thought the entire... Well, yeah, that's what neutral would be.
Right.
So it wouldn't have an angle.
So the entire thing that was an opinion is actually neutral, and then the other one that was fact, you know, like the Yankees are a baseball team, is somehow incorrect.
The problem is that they're one of the greatest baseball players.
Well, I think they're notable.
Yeah, I would certainly.
I mean, if not the team that has won more than any other team, and it's not even close, what does it say?
It says they've won, what?
I don't even know anything about baseball.
Well, in that case... Three times as many as any other team.
Would they fact check Muhammad Ali?
Everybody knows I'm the greatest!
I'm so pretty!
The fact is, he is not the greatest, and pretty is a subjective term.
That's very true.
And he also can't move like a butterfly.
Or sting like, well he can sting like a bee.
He'd probably sting like a bee.
He probably hurt worse than a bee.
He didn't punch very hard.
No.
So he'd be like, ow, bee sting!
Okay.
Can we go to the Detroit Lions page and just change that to they try super good and hard?
Well, that's what it is, though.
I think it's just one word, sucks.
It's a team I enjoy.
Here's another statement.
According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis.
I've got to imagine they'll claim this is neutral because it's providing two different points of view.
Well, yeah, I guess.
Not neutral!
David Irving is a Holocaust denier, a fringe viewpoint that should not be given parity with the consensus among respected historians.
Well, okay!
But he does dispute the analysis.
So it's a fact that he does.
I'm sure Mel Gibson has his... If you said Mel Gibson has... You could have just changed this with Samuel Olsenthal.
According to Samuel Olsenthal, the Holocaust was a program of exterminating the Jewish people in Germany.
But Mel Gibson has his doubts.
It still would be neutral.
Yeah, because it's his opinion.
Right.
Which you're putting it into a thing where it's not Wikipedia's opinion, which goes against the one just before this.
Okay.
So it's not in Wikipedia's voice, though.
I think I see a trend here.
Which is Wikipedia's super neutral voice.
Here's another one.
Princess Diana died in a Paris hospital in 1997 after being injured in a tragic car crash.
Well, the neutral.
I would say neutral.
Not neutral!
Why, because she spiritually died months before?
Yeah, like a candle in the wind.
That's completely accurate.
There are no candles in the wind.
No.
They're extinguished.
They're former candles.
Well, if there's a candle in the wind, it's blown out.
Also, how many of you know that that song existed well before Princess Diana?
Is there anything more disrespectful than to just rehash a song?
Well, I mean, I'm sure he got the call and was like, uh, let me take this out of my mouth and I'll be there in five minutes.
So it says not neutral, even though her death is almost universally considered tragic.
Yes.
Almost universally considered tragic.
There's one administrator with 900 edits like, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm This page was edited by Camilla.
Oh, weird.
This was edited by Camilla.
It says, even though her death is almost universally considered tragic, using the word tragic is still an inappropriate instance of editorializing.
Instead, use facts to convey the public response, such as media attention and public mourning were extensive after her death, and an estimated 2.5 billion people watched her televised funeral.
Well, I guess you can agree because maybe it was the Queen of England who edited the page and she was like, I don't really care.
I just wave like this and don't really care she's dead.
You should see what she says about Merkel.
Oh, she's not a fan.
She's not a fan.
They'd rather have flipper kids than mulattoes.
How is she still alive?
The Queen of England has looked the same since the 80s.
Well, I don't know.
I assume she's been pickled.
It says Cats received negative reviews from critics, true.
Who criticized the CGI effects, true.
Almost universal.
Plot and tone, true.
With many calling it one of the worst films of 2019.
Correct.
I've got to imagine this is going to be considered objective.
It's got to be.
It is!
It's neutral.
It's neutral.
Why is it neutral?
Wikipedia describes reputations indicating the relative prominence of different viewpoints.
When reputations are bad, Wikipedia should say so without employing false balance.
Without employing false balance!
But then you just went against Princess Diana and all these other ones against those same measures.
Yeah!
You said you can't say almost universally considered tragic.
I mean, I'm sure there's a few James Corden fans when we're talking about cats.
I would bet you there are more James Corden fans than people who support Princess Diana's death.
That came out of my mouth and I know I was wrong.
No, you could be incorrect.
I think way more people were sad about... No.
I think there were more people who were happy about Princess Diana's death, though very few, than there are James Corden fans.
There might be sad because he's on the air.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
No, sad for him.
Because it's not like you have to watch the car accident four or five days a week.
No.
Well, I mean, it is a car accident.
Well, I mean, he did cause car accidents when he was running around like a mouse.
He was running around like a mouse in L.A.
traffic.
Yeah.
After he came out of his front door.
Also, he caused a car accident.
I totaled my car when I saw his Weight Watchers billboard.
That's true.
So I was like, why would that work?
Well, I was afraid it was going to fall on me.
Yeah, I get it.
I was like, why are you gaining weight and you're the spokesperson?
Doc must be counting a lot of points.
Three times as many as the next most successful Weight Watcher.
Yes.
One might say the greatest.
Wait, watcher.
Okay, here's a statement here.
We have to determine if it's neutral or not.
Donald Trump made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
There you go.
To a degree unprecedented.
That seems...
If we're going to use the same standard as the Princess Diana, almost universally regarded as tragic, this is to a degree unprecedented, doesn't even couch it with almost, in American politics.
Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
Well, that's not neutral at all.
It's not neutral, but it's neutral!
Oh, weird!
According to Wikipedia, it says, Wikipedia's content should reflect that of reliable sources, even when it differs from a view held by a large portion of the general public.
Well, this also happens to reflect the view of reliable sources with Brian Stelter.
Yes, well, but that's stated entirely as an opinion.
It's not even written as fact.
I don't want to do any more of this test.
I think we've got, what's the next one?
William Shakespeare, widely considered to be one of the, yeah, this is enough.
You get it.
They're a little biased is what we're driving at.
Now that we've done the neutrality quiz, let's start with my very own page, where Wikipedia, here's the thing, I hadn't actually read this page ever.
Your own page?
No, I didn't read my page.
And then I just saw, it was Kevin here brought it to my attention, the, I would argue, mischaracterization That's subjective.
Oh, mine was attacked so much it was removed.
Really?
Yeah, for real.
Those are just lazy administrators.
They just didn't want a 501st edit.
No, yeah, I just kept reaching out to them and they were finally like, we're just taking it down.
Because we're Wikipedia.
Yeah, these, look at my dick, it's huge.
So we're actually going to keep a score here for you on screen with.
Peace.
What we believe, according to their own guidelines, to be unfair, non-neutral pages.
Edits that we've made, which would be more objective, more academic, more in line with what they claim they want, we'll see what they accept.
So, on my page, before the edit, Bloomberg claimed to have found a researcher from Stanford Who said this, and this is on the page, while Crowder stays away from expressing white nationalism directly, well that's very generous of him, his channel has, quote, some of the most overt racism of any of the shows I've ever looked at.
First off, this is just a grad student who ended the phrase in a preposition, and that's on Wikipedia, and I'm amazed that this is considered a reliable source.
Just a grad student?
At Stanford?
Yeah.
I certainly hope he didn't graduate with a writing degree.
And just because he's right... Then we edited it.
It's a joke.
We re-write.
It wasn't meant to hurt you.
How did you find a grad student from Stanford to be a dick?
We couldn't get one from Harvard.
What did they do, ask the first person they saw when they walked on campus?
Brown wouldn't return Wikipedia's calls.
Ring ring.
Hello, Wikipedia?
No.
So we rewrote it to abide by Wikipedia's own neutral point of view guidelines.
And by the way, didn't even remove the attack about it being considered racially charged to some people.
You really gave him a lot of leverage.
Yes, yeah, for those who don't have a sense of humor.
So, we edited it to, while Crowder stays away from white nationalism directly, his channel does contain language that may be considered overtly racial or racist.
In comparison to, while Crowder stays away from expressing white nationalism directly, his channel has, quote, some of the most overt racism of any of the shows I've ever looked at.
He has ever looked at Did he write, add, or just use the symbol?
Some people may consider it overtly racial or racially charged.
Did he write it or just use the symbol?
You know, I don't know how many edits there have been in this sentence.
I think it doesn't always show you the history.
Oh, that's true.
So, here's the response we received from the Wikipedia editor.
That you don't like the words of the cited source is neither here nor there.
It is not a violation of biography, of living persons, or any other policy to quote a recognized expert.
Recognized expert?
It's a grad student from Stanford and that's just taking Bloomberg's word for it and this grad student can't write!
Well, yeah.
Also, expert would mean that you're like, you have a doctorate or something?
Like, wouldn't it mean that you're in the field for a long time?
Interesting that you should bring that up.
Here was the response from one of my researchers who was working on this project.
This expert cited does not have their doctorate.
I myself am a doctoral candidate.
And, um...
The worst I've seen their statement is not an empirical statement, but anecdotal.
Yeah.
The Wikipedia editor responded, people without doctorates may be experts as well.
Well, hold on a second!
How are they an expert?
The point is, how are they an expert at all?
And how is this person not an expert?
And one is entirely subjective, and the other is empirical.
So we're just gonna put a big ol' 0 and 1 on the board.
That's a truth loss.
So that's a truth.
Zero wins with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia won.
So somebody, though, who wanted to edit that COVID page, who actually has been, I don't know, in the virology field since, I don't know, say the 70s?
Yeah.
He's not technically an expert, but this student could be.
Technically, yes.
Okay, I just want to make sure I have that right.
Yes.
Good.
I don't know which pill that is.
That's the rainbow pill at that point.
Yes it is.
You mash the pills together and pick a gender.
Right.
Okay.
Here's one on minimum wage.
Getting away from me now.
And you.
It can't all be about us.
Minimum wage.
Here's the article on Wikipedia.
It's extremely biased.
It obviously favors the opinions.
And this is the problem too.
It's not just that you say there's an expert economist.
It's when you only provide points of view from one side of the aisle as it relates to economists.
You'll never get all economists to agree with one another.
That's actually a good thing.
That's a good thing.
That's how you maintain a robust economy with checks and balances.
Okay, so the Wikipedia page obviously favors increasing the minimum wage.
Before our edit, this is what it says.
According to economist Paul Krugman, I just threw up in my mouth a little.
It says, the great preponderance of evidence indicates that there is no negative impact
to employment from moderate increases on minimum wage.
Now, here's the thing.
Paul Krugman writes.
He's an economist.
I don't know how much he's helped the economy or run a business.
Well, realize that when you up pay, you have to up price.
You know, it's not important.
But he's an economist and you're not and I'm not, so, you know.
What do I know?
I've never paid for gas or food.
No, no, no, no, no.
Inflation's a good thing.
There's no right-leaning source offering a counterbalancing opinion.
If this is going to be the number one research portal in the world, 18 billion views per month, all we need to see is a counterbalance, which they claim in their own neutrality guidelines, right?
It's supposed to be neutral.
Okay, so we made an edit.
And it said, it just added another point of view, according to Thomas Sowell,
unfortunately the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws,
and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation
of government-mandated minimum wage because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs
when they enter the labor force.
So, Paul Krugman, you may love him.
I know.
Lots of Paul Krugman fans.
However, it would be hard to dispute the idea that there's a more qualified economist in the world today.
Then Thomas Sowell.
He's certainly up there.
All of his peers would respect him and he's done a lot of work on the minimum wage issue.
Now, this was removed.
If you want to know how they responded.
I would love to know how they responded.
The Thomas Sowell quote was removed within the day.
But he makes sense because if, look, if the price goes up for, if the wage goes up, then the price for what you need goes up.
You are making zero.
There's no difference.
It's just devaluing the dollar.
Which is why you could buy so many things in the 1950s for, I don't know, say, a nickel?
Right.
I just don't... Why would that be a bad... And you could lock someone in a refrigerator from the outside and they couldn't get out.
Like, wouldn't you rather be paid 75 cents an hour if it was worth way, way, way, way, way more?
Yeah!
I mean, that's sort of the point.
Then I would actually have a use for pennies other than sticking them in a... rolled up in a sock and hitting hobos on the subway.
Yes!
Or throwing them at drag queens.
Yep!
So this was removed... In a sock.
It was removed within the day.
Thomas Sowell, a quote.
By the way, Paul Krugman, quote.
We didn't try and remove that.
Just add a counterbalance.
Thomas Sowell, qualified.
Removed within the day.
Here's the response.
They claim the source was unreliable.
Hello, I'm Tyler Burden.
I noticed that you added or changed content to an article, minimum wage in the United States, but you didn't provide a reliable source.
Thomas Sowell.
Hey, by the way, just so you know, this is Thomas Sowell.
So now Wikipedia's racist.
I guess that's truth zero.
Wikipedia 2.
Lies.
We don't even need to say Wikipedia lies.
I think the way this is going is just truth on one side and Wikipedia on the other.
Yeah, I think you're right.
All right.
I'm going to start calling lies Wikipedias.
Yep.
Hey, listen, son.
I think you're Wikipedian, too.
What happened at school?
It doesn't matter.
We all tell little white Wikipedias.
Yes, we do.
But that one was a whopper of a Wikipedia.
It was.
Speaking of youth, speaking of little ones, let's go to this topic.
Oh, cool.
Kind of important.
Transgender youth.
Careful.
Okay.
So, this article has a section titled, Societal and Legal Attitudes.
The only attitude mentioned though, I'm reading this, is the one in favor of hormone blockers and genital Mm-hmm.
So this is before the edit that we made.
Wikipedia writes, for individuals who are minors, if their parents consent, they are able to begin receiving puberty blockers at a young age and later receive cross-sex hormones and then transitional surgeries upon 18 years of age.
The fact that that, I mean, that I just read that out loud and it's not disturbing to some of you, and certainly not the editors at Wikipedia, is a Probably everything wrong with Western civilization.
But how are you going to hit 18 when you killed yourself at 15?
Well, I think it's sort of one of those riddles.
Ah, gotcha.
That's what they're doing.
They're not making us.
Like if a plane crashes, where do you bury the survivors?
Oh, you don't bury survivors.
You got me.
I don't have a penis anymore.
Oh.
No, I think it's a good idea to pump your kid full of drugs and cut off their penis.
I've always said that.
Well, look.
That's just because you care too much.
Well, I'm a good guy.
Yeah, you're a good dad.
So, we added the story of Jeff Younger, whose rights were removed by the Texas judge.
Remember that story?
I do.
So, for those of you who've forgotten, James' mother is now the sole decision maker for hormones and surgery.
Now, the dad has to attend counseling and fund the conversion to the tune of $5,000.
A month.
So here's a quote.
The topic is far more controversial in cases where parents disagree on the use of hormone
blockers in surgery.
The case of one such seven-year-old, James Younger, made international headlines due
to how both parents wholly disagreed.
So that's what we changed, to be clear, just to add on to them acting as though it's a
very easy process and that people are in agreement.
We said, well, actually there's a wrinkle.
In other words, we didn't even say it's bad to put a six-year-old on puberty blockers, though... You stated a fact.
I think it's bad.
But I didn't even put that in there because I knew that they'd have a conniption fit.
But even this case study... But the fact that they disagreed is a fact.
There's nothing that can be neutral or... Not neutral, but... It's just a fact.
This was taken down What did Wikipedia do?
Taken down on January 24th of 2022, claiming that it was a neutral point of view violation.
Let me ask you again.
What is a violation of a neutral point of view?
The topic is far more controversial in cases where parents disagree on the use of hormone blockers.
The case of one such seven-year-old, James Younger, made international headlines due to how both parents wholly disagreed.
There is nothing in there.
That is anecdotal?
There's nothing even flowery in the language there.
That is entirely empirical.
This is something that has happened.
And it's a violation.
I guess it is true, because if both your parents agree, it's way more of a problem.
You would think so, depending on what they both agree.
Oh, I see what you mean.
See what I'm saying?
Yes.
The old...
So what's the score?
I believe that would be three lies for Wikipedia.
It's truth zero.
I'm sorry, three Wikipedias.
Yes, truth zero versus three Wikipedias.
Three little white Wikipedias.
Three little white Wikipedias.
Wow.
Which we know they'll be fine with because they got rid of, because they claimed Thomas Sowell was not a reliable source.
Well no.
So we assume that little white Wikipedias is a compliment to you.
If you can hear me through your hoods.
Yes.
Great job, guys.
You're making the world a better place.
Yes.
So far, kids with mutilated genitals, good.
Princess Diana mutilated and buried, bad.
Somewhere, Skynet is looking at Wikipedia going, fuck.
Oh, Skynet was way, I would way rather have a robot crushing my skull than living in this world.
Yeah.
I'd rather the state of America be the first seen.
Yeah, I'd be like, yeah, catch me, T-1000.
It would be if Wikipedia were the Terminator.
Give me your bike, your clothes.
Say, don't you want my boots?
Are they cute?
Yeah, he's talking to a girl.
I want your dress.
I want your bonnet.
Your ballet slippers.
Yes.
I want to drive your Beetle.
Also, I want to get rid of my robot penis.
Yes, it's gross.
All right.
Can I have your penis?
I don't need them so much as collect them and put them on my dashboard.
Are you John Connor?
I want you inside me.
Now the next topic is George Floyd.
Now remember, keep in mind, remember how there was some disagreement over his primary cause of death.
No one here is saying that there wasn't some kind of police misconduct.
No one here is saying that it didn't necessarily also act as a confounding factor to the death, but there absolutely was some disagreement over the primary cause of death.
The Wikipedia article dismisses the other more likely primary causes of death if you watch the court case.
For example, advanced heart disease, fentanyl, COVID-19, which we'll take us to the COVID-19 page in a little bit.
Again, in the spirit of consistency.
So Wikipedia wrote, the medical examiner found Floyd's heart stopped due to, quote, law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression, though fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have increased the likelihood of death.
Now, to give you some context, on the other side of the coin here, the prosecution, right, they tried to debunk the idea that drugs played a significant role, or even a primary role, in George Floyd's death, claiming that Floyd's body, I don't know if you remember this, had processed a lot of fentanyl, so it couldn't have been an overdose because he had taken it likely over a long period of time.
Okay.
So, our change to the article on Wikipedia revealed a huge hole in their argument.
Let me read it to you.
The prosecution's point fails to consider that a person who dies of overdose may have also consumed and processed the substance on more than one occasion, i.e.
prior to the potentially fatal dose, and relies on the presupposition that there was only one administration of fentanyl.
Now, there's nothing that can be argued about that, empirically, medically.
And if you've watched the trial, you know that these arguments were made on both sides.
So, again, we're talking about neutrality.
Wherever you line up, you need to include these points of view, and you certainly need to include arguments made on the legal record and with medical substantiation.
Wikipedia took it down.
What did they say?
Quote, there is strong consensus against this content.
Now here's what's so scary about that.
Strong consensus.
Okay.
Who determines consensus?
Let's discuss on any issue.
By the way, that's still truth zero.
Wikipedia's four.
So Wikipedia has four Wikipedias.
Well, also, just their response, though, is so blanket and not an answer or reason.
And this is what they do, right?
They say, strong consensus against this content.
Okay, first off, there are certain areas where consensus matters.
For example, theology, philosophy.
Consensus might be on the results.
of a scientific experiment, right?
The interpretation of the results.
However, consensus doesn't determine science.
It could be the consensus that the Earth is flat somewhere in the world at some point in time.
The truth is that it's not.
Right?
There could be some kind of scientific consensus, for example, that Florida would have been gone in 2013.
Or all the predictions that we've gone through from an inconvenient truth.
The science, the truth, shows that it's not.
Here it says there's strong consensus against this concept.
Well, who determines consensus?
Who determines consensus on Wikipedia?
The same people who determine consensus on Facebook, Google, Twitter, And by the way, these people who determine consensus, these are the same people who determine the fact-checkers that are used in legacy media.
So what's scary is when you have a very small group of people who are forming a consensus, and then they are saying, no opposing point of view from outside of our consensus is allowed, because we've already achieved consensus.
This is the most terrifying response you can get, because that's a response that can be used for anything, and it's a response that Wikipedia, or in another case, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Alphabet, Well, just to gain control and to get your agenda out.
It really has nothing to do with... that's absurd.
Well, consensus says you're absurd.
Well, my consensus says I'm not.
I don't have any.
What do we do?
I have consensus parties every Thursday.
It's consensus versus consensus.
They're very consensual.
Well, I don't need your consensus.
Here's another one.
Maricopa County, the election audit.
Now, I'm not saying the election fraud election.
That's not what we're saying.
The historical audit that took place in Maricopa County.
Okay.
The article on Wikipedia only refers to the audit as the result of a conspiracy theory.
So, before our edit, it never mentions that it's illegal to refuse a subpoena.
That's pivotal.
After the edit, we offered the Attorney General's views on this issue.
Quote, Attorney General Mark Baranovich stated that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors violated state law by not complying with election audit subpoena.
Aaron Brockovich.
Then what we added was what should have happened as a result of a failure to comply.
Now this isn't my opinion or 500 edit Wikipedia administrator consensus opinion.
This is the law.
What happens if you do not comply with a subpoena.
Let me read you The law.
According to the Arizona Statute 41-1153, Disobedience of Subpoena as Legislative Contempt, if a witness neglects or refuses to obey a legislative subpoena, or appearing neglects or refuses to testify, the Senate or House may, by resolution entered in the journal, commit him for contempt.
Now that's the law.
What did Wikipedia say to this addition?
The only edition that would actually have legal standing, by the way, they took it down, saying, it might be true, but no secondary source.
For the statute?
It's the law of the state!
It's like, nah, you know what?
The Constitution, we don't have a second source.
Well, there's only one original copy!
There's a lot of places to get the info.
There's a lot of tea stains.
It was smudgy, it was tough to read, so no guns!
Nicholas Cage stole it from a glass case.
Right, yeah.
It was impossible to prove it.
John Voight was just trying to block it with an old hockey goalie mask.
That's what he does.
What?
Let's have nine sequels.
Everything sucks.
So let's look at the scoreboard.
We have Truth, still zero.
Wikipedia, five.
Five Wikipedias?
That's five Wikipedias.
That's a lot of Wikipedias.
All right, next topic.
Stop Asian hate, which I agree with.
Yeah.
To be clear, Asian hate crimes are bad.
They're bad.
We all wish to stop.
Consensus, guys?
Do we want to stop Asian hate?
Yes.
Most of them are gone to lunch.
Everyone said yes, except old Johnny hates Asians.
Ah, well, you know.
He's always hating Asians.
We should have done the background check.
So there's only one reference.
Sorry, I should say there's only reference to white perpetrators in this entire article here on Wikipedia.
It attributes Asian hate to Trumpism.
Which I don't even know how you... Okay, let me just read it.
So you liked a president?
Yeah.
Before the edit, for instance, they emphasize the 2021 shootings at Young's Asian Massage Parlor, that that was by a white man.
Yeah, I was in the back room.
After the edit, we contributed some crime statistics, not just an anecdotal story or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 stores, but empirical evidence.
So, we actually included black on Asian crime statistics, though it might appear that much of this is driven by Trump's messaging about COVID's Chinese origin.
A 2008 San Francisco Police Department survey found 85% of physical assault crimes consisted of a black attacker and an Asian victim.
This suggests that Asian hate is neither a new nor mostly white phenomenon.
By the way, references all available at latosprada.com.
You can click the link in the description.
We also included this.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black Americans commit 28% of crimes against Asian victims, which is a higher proportion than any other race.
That's from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
I don't know about the consensus, Well, the consensus feels there's more whites.
Do you know what they did?
Added more whites.
They took this down, they took the contribution down, this is not a joke, saying that it quote, again, the Bureau of Justice, referenced quote an opinion piece all not a statistical fact that that that that that that that that that that that that that that that that that made from cameras all over new york city and that's the idea of a lot of the way of the miracle because uh... faces the law we have another source call the courthouse dipshit i mean it's not that hard to do how well we know how lazy are and then this one the bureau of justice statistics it's an opinion piece
Here's 80 clips of the knockout game.
Tell me what you notice.
So the scoreboard is truth zero.
Wikipedia is six.
Wow, that's a lot.
All right.
Here's another page.
We'll just rattle through these.
A Boulder shooting.
This was the shooting last year where a Syrian-born gunman, and we, by the way, we included this because they mentioned, you know, the white shooter at the Asian massage parlor.
Yes.
So that, you know, got the old sniffer going.
Let me, the old hound nose going on down the trail.
Yeah, Syrians like white-ish, though.
Yeah, I guess.
I mean, ish.
Yeah.
They like yogurt.
So the Syrian-born gunman shot and killed ten people.
For those of you who don't remember, this was including an off-duty police officer.
Okay.
So before our edit that we added, the article failed to include all of the celebrities and the politicians, like Rashida Tlaib, by the way, who called for an end to white supremacy before they knew that the shooter was not white.
Kind of like Wikipedia is still doing the white, you know, stop Asian hate.
But this was, for people who don't remember, this was everywhere, right?
Well, and to be honest, anytime there's a shooter at this point because they won't show who they are if they're not white, they immediately jump on that it's a white guy.
But here's the thing, you may not like The fact that we're pointing... But this does matter for historical context, right?
People, if they're going to look back on this shooting, and Wikipedia includes aftermath of the shooting, well, some of the most significant aftermath was immediately afterward, if you looked at the social media trends, condemning the shooter as a white supremacist.
We included even a tweet from Rashida Tlaib on the subject, quote, we need courage to take on white supremacy plus gun violence.
What did Wikipedia do?
They took it down within 24 hours saying, doesn't appear to be notable, and no secondary source anyway.
Go to her Twi- Go to her Twitter!
Go to her Twitter, grab Time Machine, if she tried to delete it and cover her tracks, just do some work!
How can you have enough time in the day to do 500 edits and you can't just go click?
Oh, that's true.
Yeah, you know how you guys canceled, like, all these people?
Just use that tactic.
Go back to Twitter and go, oh, she did say that.
She did say that.
Which riles up people to hurt other people.
And Ilhan Omar married her brother.
She did.
That is actually a fact.
So the scoreboard now... But they may not have had sex.
They may not have.
No.
That's why they got married.
Well then it's just a sham marriage, really.
Yeah.
If you don't consummate... You know.
Somewhere there's a one-eyed flapper kid getting ready to drown in a baby pool.
Just crossing his fingers, hoping for Captain Phillips 2.
The scoreboard right now is Truth 0.
7 Wikipedia's?
Truth 0, Wikipedia 7.
With 7 Wikipedia's.
I'm here to count.
Let's go here.
DeSantis and COVID.
Pretty significant one.
Now, most of the DeSantis article, if you go to Wikipedia, it includes and emphasizes sort of what you would call the lowlights of the trajectory in Florida, right?
Trying to make it seem as though Florida has done worse than average in the pandemic.
So what did we do?
Again, in the spirit of balance, we just conducted the neutrality test at Wikipedia.
They talk about requiring a counterbalance.
We added some high points for Florida, for example.
As of January 19th, Florida's hospitalization rate was half that of Washington, D.C., and it had fallen to 12th in the nation, behind states such as New York and Maryland, which still have mask mandates in place.
Absolutely irrefutable.
Yep.
And you don't even need one source or an article.
You can simply go to the websites that track COVID information right now, the COVID data, which you can track in real time.
What did Wikipedia do?
What do you think they did?
I'm going to go ahead and say that they took it down.
Why?
Because it was from a source that wasn't reliable to them.
They said one word.
What?
Neutrality.
Oh!
Neutrality.
Yeah, no, they didn't write, they could have written neutrality, bruh.
Neutrality, bruh.
I was kind of hoping they went deeper than that, to be honest.
No, they don't go very deep.
Wow, that's awful.
So what is- The actual data that it fell behind New York and Maryland- Is as neutral as anything can be.
No it's not.
You don't even know what neutrality- I don't even know you anymore.
Oh, you're right.
I mean that that's not neutral to state facts.
No.
No, absolutely not.
So the scoreboard- It needs to be little white wikipedias.
Little white wikipedias.
Scoreboard truth, zero.
Wikipedia, eight.
Eight wikipedias.
Alright, here's one.
The Texas Heartbeat Act.
For those of you who don't remember, this is the Texas abortion bill in relation to a child's heartbeat.
Now, the article, we're talking about Wikipedia, gives criticism to the bill.
But it entirely ignores any of the pro-life sentiment or the potential benefit.
So I get that if you're pro-abortion, and I get that, and by the way, we're past the point of, well, it's not a life when you're talking about a heartbeat, right?
That's the heartbeat bill, regardless of where you line up.
However, I understand that you are going to describe this as a bill that a good portion of you won't like.
I get that.
But you still do need to in the form, in the spirit of balance, Here's the issue.
If this happened to be the historical record, and let's say our children's children are reading back on, what's the Texas heartbeat bill?
And nowhere in the records does it show the reason for the bill.
The reason to protect life after a heartbeat, notably that this was in the wake of some radically pro-abortion legislation that had taken place in Virginia.
If you don't state the reason for it, then people won't understand their history.
It's really important.
For example, I never learned World War II and not learn why the Nazis did what they did.
No one's saying that it's right.
But you need to learn why they did it.
I learned about the Treaty of Versailles.
I learned about why Hitler, why Germany felt embarrassed in the world stage.
So that you understand it and you try, in going forward, have a better grasp of historical context.
In this case, talks about the bill, how bad it is, criticizes it, doesn't include any pro-life sentiment or any reasons that this bill might exist with potential benefits.
So, before our edit, they wrote this from the University of Texas at Austin.
This is one of their references.
The bill would prohibit 80% of abortions in Texas and would disproportionately affect black women, lower-income women, and women who live far away from facilities that provide abortion care.
It's a fun word.
It's a fun word.
Abortion care.
Yeah, just even take the word medical out of it.
It's care.
It's care!
I just can't believe it.
Well, I can.
They just said it.
I can.
I absolutely can.
They just said abortion care.
Now, we swap that out for completely neutral and clinical Descriptors of what actually takes place.
Right?
Saying this would affect black women and poor women more and people who don't have an Uber account to get the right stirrup cuddles.
Right, we decided to include descriptive clinical language from other sources.
Quote, the bill would prohibit 80% of abortions in Texas and would disproportionately affect black women, lower income women, so we included all of this, and women who live far away from facilities that are more prepared to offer procedures for later term abortions such as dilation and evacuation.
This procedure differs from intact dilation and extraction and is characterized by the cervix being dilated while the fetus and all other products of conception are removed via suction, though sometimes requiring the dismemberment of the fetus prior to extraction.
That is the medical procedure that would be occurring at those facilities.
Well, especially at a late term.
Right.
Well, they just took it down.
Oh, good.
Neutral?
Uh, no reason.
Oh.
It's just gone.
Well, that makes sense.
It's fairy dust.
So you put in a fact and they're like, yeah, it didn't happen.
So what the final score that we have now.
Is it 10?
Yeah.
It's truth zero.
Wikipedia 10.
Hello.
It is I, Nat Geo, also known as Goofyus.
After editing, we realized that the count should have said nine Wikipedias.
We took one out of our show map for brevity, but didn't change the number.
It's hard to see such small details with these little stupid sunglasses.
That's pretty impressive.
We could have kept going, but I already want to swallow a knife.
I did today.
Did you?
It's a trick.
Yeah, it's a trick that you do.
That's more of a party trick.
I mean, I wanted to swallow a knife.
Drain cleaner, just as good.
Yeah, it is good.
You gurgle with it.
So what's the takeaway here?
Wikipedia is clearly a propaganda arm of the left.
It's not a research tool.
drain cleaner.
Yep.
I remember.
You stupid n-words.
And you were like Trump.
Shut the f*** up.
No.
So what's the takeaway here is Wikipedia is clearly a propaganda arm of the left.
It's not a research tool.
And by the way, you can also have research tools that are left leaning or right leaning.
I want to be clear.
However, if you have a source which clearly leans a specific direction, but vehemently denies it, and creates an entire set of rules, guidelines, and regulations that are, of course, all self-imposed, self-perpetuating, in order to cloak their bias, it can't be a research tool.
It's an impossibility to use it as a research tool.
People who complain about echo chambers don't often complain.
Why aren't they complaining about Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is an echo chamber.
It's just one that a lot of people They haven't realized it yet.
They haven't caught on yet.
Now, let me be clear.
I lean to the right.
I'm very open about it.
But, lightearthcradder.com, you can go there and see how we source every single episode.
And by the way, even this episode right now.
What do we do when we look for references for the show, when we source the show?
It's the same process every time.
We look for the primary source.
So in other words, if we read an article, let's say, in a publication, whether it's New York Times, whether it's USA Today, whether it's Washington Post, let's say it's about COVID and some new research, we always will go to the original research paper.
So usually you might end up finding that at PubMed, right?
Or some kind of published clinical medical journal.
Then we cross-reference it with the left perspective, and the right perspective, what they're saying about this issue.
And then we try and provide those sources to you.
If they're reporting the same thing, but with different opinions on, let's say, the outcome or the method, it's generally pretty safe to assume that it's true.
And this is a tool that I wish had been out there when I was in school.
So, lotterywithcrowder.com, you can click the link below.
Also, by the way, leave a like, comment below.
I don't want to use the word expose when you're in that jacket.
Wikipedia because that helps. This is a data pool. There are millions of you out there
and the more you provide, the more robust our research can be. Here's one thing too
though, before I go, I have one more aspect of Wikipedia to...
I don't want to use the word expose when you're in that jacket. Oh, I'll expose
myself later. I like to go to the mall and just see what happens.
I prefer the subway.
So one more aspect of Wikipedia to expose.
Up until now, I've only really sort of... Exposed 10 lies.
Right.
I've showed you how Wikipedia is quote-unquote woke.
Yes.
More so, right?
Leftly, the woke.
That's the term people use.
Woke to make it... You're more progressive?
But here's the thing, there's hope.
Oh?
I didn't want to leave it all doom and gloom.
Hope and woke?
Well, but there's more.
Is that the Lily Tomlin joke?
Let me expose to you how secretly based Wikipedia sometimes, if even accidentally, finds themselves to be.
🎵 Hey, where can we see pictures of you without your shirt?
Instagram?
I don't know.
Depends on if you have my keychain to the cloud.
Well, I think you should join Mug Club to see me without a shirt and Instagram to see him without a shirt.
Unless, of course, your shirt is one of these that you got on our website.
That's three things.
That's a non sequitur, but I warn you about the hacks in advance.
▲
Export Selection