Wikipedia bans me for questioning pro-Clinton bias in articles
For having questioned the pro-Clinton gatekeeping of Wikipedia articles, I was banned for 31 hours from Wikipedia, and I have been permabanned from editing any articles about politics that cover the time period from 1932 to the present.
Anybody can visit my talk page on Wikipedia. Scroll down to the section that has to do with the bans and read the tone with which some of the pro-Clinton Wikipedia editors use to talk to me. Editors are trying to justify the bans in the face of an open and acknowledged problem with Wikipedia. It is important to note that it is not just me, who has observed problems with Clinton-related articles on Wikipedia. The talk page of the Clinton Foundation article thoroughly notes how the Clinton Foundation article lacks any information that reflects criticism, and complaints have been made by many other contributors to Wikipedia about a clean-up being needed and of systemic bias. Mind you, the edits I have made in the last few days to the Clinton-related articles have included qualifying that the nonprofit agency that has given a high rating to the Clinton Foundation has a previous link with the Clinton Global Initiative ; noting the ethically-challenged donation from the government of Qatar to the Clinton Foundation ; documenting that State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D-New York) was in a position to regulate the Clinton Foundation (information which was later removed) ; confirming the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation ; and adding Methodism as the religion practised by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. These edits triggered the unfounded "warning" of "edit warring" and the subsequent bans by Wikipedia. The length of the 31-hour ban was deliberate, because it basically prevents me from making edits through Election Day. The permaban on politics reveals how, despite my good faith efforts to update Clinton-related articles to bring balance to the information in the articles, there are obviously Wikipedia editors, who defend the pro-Clinton bias in the Clinton-related articles.
After I was banned, Wikipedia editors began a purge of information considered unflattering to the Clintons. From the Wikipedia article about the Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy, information about the donation from the government of Qatar, which raised ethical questions, because, in the past, Qatar had supported Hamas, was removed. From the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article, information about the Ready for Hillary Super PAC having received donations from for-profit prison corporations was removed. In the face of this purge and virtual massacre, Wikipedia editors have continued to shame me on my Wikipedia talk page about questioning the gatekeeping of Clinton-related Wikipedia articles.
I have many public officials on my e-mail list. One of them, a Congressional aide, wrote back yesterday in response to my initial Wikipedia newsletter sent yesterday morning, to tell me that she had reported me to House security for having contacted her. I've become accustomed to indifference from the public due to the dissonance that gets triggered from having to deal with the truth about modern American politics. I've also dealt with my anti-Bloomberg and anti-Quinn blogs being removed by Google, and I've been the subject of scurrilous attacks by other activists. But I wasn't prepared for being banned by Wikipedia, or to be threatened with arrest for having contacted public officials by e-mail.
What I have learned the hard way in these last few years is that the system will go to any lengths to protect corruption. Imagine what it is going to be like once Hillary is elected ? And all along, people have fanned the flames of fear by claiming that Donald Trump would introduce fascism to America ?
I no longer recommend anybody use Wikipedia, given its compromised state, particularly given to what lengths Wikipedia editors will defend that compromised state. That brings us back to the eternal dilemma that the people face : What platform do we have to hold public officials accountable ? That's the role that Progress Queens has been trying to provide, if not directly, then at least by transferring the research done by Progress Queens into the public domain. There has to be a platform that serves this purpose. A platform such as this can be no more important than now.
