PS- thanks all for the thoughtful comments, much appreciated and enjoyed by me! Speaking of the wisdom of crowds, many of you made points of interest and worth considering.
Several commentors pointed out that Wikipedia is itself biased. While I agree, I believe (as one commentor pointed out) that it's possible to separate the factual information from the analytical type info, which may be biased politically. Given how many millions of people edit the info on Wikipedia, in the main it is surprisingly (IMO) accurate. That is the reason I used it as an analogy. I do take the point though that it is not entirely free of bias either--though people do come in and edit over biased entries.
Your analysis is as brilliant as your controlling metaphor is problematic. Wikipedia is a resource we had to learn to sift through with caution nearly as much as any public health entity. And the putative wisdom of crowds? Oh dear. Institutions may have started the fire but it took those crowds to collectively distrbute the torches and come after the infidels who were curious enough to venture reasonable, good faith questions. Like the ones you and a few brave colleagues did. I thank you for your work here but I humbly suggest refinements to your framing.
There is NOTHING that CDC/FDA can write that I'll believe. I used to be an avid supporter of these institutions and felt a bit of pride when other countries followed suit. HAH! The pandemic opened the pandora's box for me. Literal Pandora's Box in Wuhan, as it were. These idiots lost the trust because they kept asking the public to not trust their lying eyes. And felt the need to power grab using scare tactics. NEVER AGAIN will I trust journals, Medical prof orgs, or government agencies.
Please, people, for future reference, neither the New York Times nor Slate are "extremely progressive". The Times is, at best, right of center, and Slate is essentially right in liberal heaven. If you want truly progressive news media, you're looking at periodicals like Jacobin and In These Times, The Lever, and Matt Taibbi's Racket. And even most of them swallowed the COVID narrative whole. In fact, the only way to have a clue what was really going on was to have been reading the South China Morning Press in July 2019.
The problem is there was a plan prepandemic. Like the previous flu pandemics we were to let it run its course and build herd immunity. The vast majority of deaths were iatrogenic. Gates and friends pushed the Vax plan.
For sure, I think this is something we really have to talk about in more depth and I hope to contribute my little piece if anything. I think that there will be a reckoning over time in the same way the Afghanistan and Iraq wars gradually became problems for people. They didn't realize it at the time but over the next 10 years opinion changed.
The article brings up problems worthy of discussion. So may I add to the challenge pool the repeated observation that Pinker and this article ‘celebrating’ Wikipedia fails to recognize the difference between the specific Wiki web site and the technology (form of media) it CAN in theory offer to authors and editors.
Pinker and the specific web site promote narratives so mainstream that they feature government-approved Malinformation. The site allows certain commercial interests to publish discriminatory and defamatory statements as if fact. The site shuns the truth military industrial capitalists don’t want you to hear. It skews data and biographies to avoid the most compelling, clear and honest thoughts and minds offering substantial evidence on health and life-oriented topics. Wikipedia is a disaster on questions of COVID-19, and vaccine safety.
I am surprised there have been few demands for the Wiki files like the Twitter files. Or maybe there has been, but such requests for info aren’t shown on the site as a reality.
Other than basic and very common thoughts, the web site is only worth reading to learn about rather mundane issues and get a feel for the narrow scope of mainstream American thought and expression.
On Wikipedia: Those who speak truth to power and ask evidence-based questions in public, are called conspiracy theorists and have profiles stripped of facts to ill-portray good people and kill their public credibility.
For example, a civil rights lawyer who is working to ensure the safety of vaccines, is incorrectly called an anti-Vaxxer rather than a pro-vaccine advocate working to ensure quality and safety. And the truth that Fauci or the head of the CIA doesn’t want anyone to see, is wiped off the Wiki site so the public is held in ignorance. Human potential and valuable discoveries are cleaned from the military industrial slate of public information on the Wiki site as people assume it is open to a wide range of perspectives and realities. It’s not.
The harmful effects of Wiki censorship or bias are seen in biographies of scientific and medical leaders including Nobel Laureates who have had their profiles removed (better than being slimed by others’ lies). Or, their biographies and pages describing innovative work are distorted to delegitimize their contributions to humanity.
Pinker is a bit like Wikipedia too, mostly always ‘positive’ and Patriotic but not always accurate from a local or global perspective. The very year he was publishing a book saying that conventional medicine was to be celebrated for always growing lifespan for Americans, the country’s own data was appearing in WHO statistics over the prior 5 years to show how avg lifespan was falling in America as more than a decade ago.
Nobody like Pinker wants to promote a book that chocks up deadly but manageable problems to the emerging and real causes: Iatrogenic harms, suicides and gun deaths. And Wikipedia does little to allow authors to tout people or groups willing to take responsibility for their actions or to consider new options, diverse experiences and expression to address unfortunate consequences of the American way.
It’s so much easier to deal in overly simple dichotomies and present only the mainstream narrative of the masses in the moment, and to blame the current victim of censorship.
I am disappointed but had to say... with respect and gratitude for your writing.
not to politicize this, but many republican run states, such as Florida and Texas, dropped their states' of emergency at exactly the time you suggest in March 2021 when vaccines were widely available. there was also plenty of data from Europe by summer 2020 showing that schools didn't contribute to spread or pose additional risks to teachers. so leaders who opened schools in fall of 2020, ie FL and TX among others, and then pulled their states of emergency in March 2021 ACTUALLY WERE FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE, rather than the PH narrative. that is something that should be discussed alongside the handwringing from public health officials.
Uh, you have got to be kidding me. Wikipedia has some value for basic information, but when it comes to critical matters where multiple perspectives should be acknowledged, it is a damning source of mis- and disinformation that largely serves to validate narratives of those with power.
Are you asleep at the wheel? Hello? Just look at the way Wikipedia handles the pandemic, or any other issue.
Also, Steven Pinker is an academic hack with few actual scientific accomplishments past his 'wug/wugs' generalization 40 years ago. Who are you gonna quote next, Oprah?
The word "vaccination" encouraged blind faith, by too many who should know better, from the start. Any medication has side effects and to blatantly lie to the general public by saying "safe and effective" to describe an intervention the scientists who created it are still sceptical of and will never be able to adequately prove either safety or efficacy given the egregious errors in allowing the politicisation of data collection. Anyone who continues to offer minimal support to the mass murdering intervention places their credibility in the jaws of a crocodile for safekeeping.
Mar 28, 2023·edited Mar 30, 2023Liked by Leslie Bienen
This makes a great deal of sense until you look at Wikipedia. There is a reason that Larry Sanger, who started Wikipedia, left in high dudgeon. Yes, there are "volunteer" editors, but they are all subject to litmus, left-wing testing. I can give you endless examples, but they are easy to find if one just checks the Wikipedia on various sources of covid information. Anyone straying from the government narrative is immediately deleted/squelched. It is as censored as Twitter and in many ways moreso.
So crowd sourcing, especially considering the deep pools of available people and knowledge in health and health care, has appeal. But until you deal with the endless government/human-nature driven propensity to censor "because we know better" or "for the greater good" or (perish the fact) "for the children" this idea is another non-starter, as appealing as the overarching concept is.
This piece is really important. I am a rock-ribbed conservative and find it so interesting that I agree explicitly with this author and many other progressives on the public health issues. That does not bother me in the least. I find criticism of government overreach a very conservative position. We absolutely deep reflection as a society. I suggest that we accumulate a number of proclamations from Biden, Fauci and others including conservatives and then publish them with critical commentary from the left and right to TEACH each other how important it is to use critical thinking to solve problems. The other arena where the same dynamic is at work is the transgender ideology related to children and early teens. Substack includes brilliant analysis of the warped thinking that continues to push establishment organizations and people towards an "affirmative approach" to 12 year olds who are confused. Our friends in Europe get it and we do not sadly. Lives are at stake.
Really? George Carlin is now quoted as an extraordinary intellectual and his lack of understanding of God and people who follow Him, evident in your quote, is something to embrace? People are believing anything they're told largely due to moral relativism, insecurity, hopelessness and a desire to follow ANYone in authority but the God of the universe, NOT because they're stupid sheep who don't have ability/desire to know truth. They're afraid because in their souls, they know they aren't God, yet have put themselves in that position and have no power to overcome any of this evil.
Wiki greatly contributed to the PharMafia side of view - by being captured, and closing editing for "mission critical articles".
Happened to ALL articles of relevance to the pandemic: Covid-19, Spike, Astra vaccine, ivermectin: in ONE hand. A Narrative. Fallen to all but ONE editor, which happens to be some BigPharMafia computer nerd, without medical education.
See this excellent dive into the manipulation of wikipedia:
"My advice is to stand with college professors everywhere, "Wikipedia is NOT reliable, and their information should be taken with a grain of salt and perhaps a pint of gin as well.""
Wikipedia has a bias against non-mainstreet medical info.
PS- thanks all for the thoughtful comments, much appreciated and enjoyed by me! Speaking of the wisdom of crowds, many of you made points of interest and worth considering.
Several commentors pointed out that Wikipedia is itself biased. While I agree, I believe (as one commentor pointed out) that it's possible to separate the factual information from the analytical type info, which may be biased politically. Given how many millions of people edit the info on Wikipedia, in the main it is surprisingly (IMO) accurate. That is the reason I used it as an analogy. I do take the point though that it is not entirely free of bias either--though people do come in and edit over biased entries.
Your analysis is as brilliant as your controlling metaphor is problematic. Wikipedia is a resource we had to learn to sift through with caution nearly as much as any public health entity. And the putative wisdom of crowds? Oh dear. Institutions may have started the fire but it took those crowds to collectively distrbute the torches and come after the infidels who were curious enough to venture reasonable, good faith questions. Like the ones you and a few brave colleagues did. I thank you for your work here but I humbly suggest refinements to your framing.
There is NOTHING that CDC/FDA can write that I'll believe. I used to be an avid supporter of these institutions and felt a bit of pride when other countries followed suit. HAH! The pandemic opened the pandora's box for me. Literal Pandora's Box in Wuhan, as it were. These idiots lost the trust because they kept asking the public to not trust their lying eyes. And felt the need to power grab using scare tactics. NEVER AGAIN will I trust journals, Medical prof orgs, or government agencies.
Please, people, for future reference, neither the New York Times nor Slate are "extremely progressive". The Times is, at best, right of center, and Slate is essentially right in liberal heaven. If you want truly progressive news media, you're looking at periodicals like Jacobin and In These Times, The Lever, and Matt Taibbi's Racket. And even most of them swallowed the COVID narrative whole. In fact, the only way to have a clue what was really going on was to have been reading the South China Morning Press in July 2019.
The problem is there was a plan prepandemic. Like the previous flu pandemics we were to let it run its course and build herd immunity. The vast majority of deaths were iatrogenic. Gates and friends pushed the Vax plan.
For sure, I think this is something we really have to talk about in more depth and I hope to contribute my little piece if anything. I think that there will be a reckoning over time in the same way the Afghanistan and Iraq wars gradually became problems for people. They didn't realize it at the time but over the next 10 years opinion changed.
The article brings up problems worthy of discussion. So may I add to the challenge pool the repeated observation that Pinker and this article ‘celebrating’ Wikipedia fails to recognize the difference between the specific Wiki web site and the technology (form of media) it CAN in theory offer to authors and editors.
Pinker and the specific web site promote narratives so mainstream that they feature government-approved Malinformation. The site allows certain commercial interests to publish discriminatory and defamatory statements as if fact. The site shuns the truth military industrial capitalists don’t want you to hear. It skews data and biographies to avoid the most compelling, clear and honest thoughts and minds offering substantial evidence on health and life-oriented topics. Wikipedia is a disaster on questions of COVID-19, and vaccine safety.
I am surprised there have been few demands for the Wiki files like the Twitter files. Or maybe there has been, but such requests for info aren’t shown on the site as a reality.
Other than basic and very common thoughts, the web site is only worth reading to learn about rather mundane issues and get a feel for the narrow scope of mainstream American thought and expression.
On Wikipedia: Those who speak truth to power and ask evidence-based questions in public, are called conspiracy theorists and have profiles stripped of facts to ill-portray good people and kill their public credibility.
For example, a civil rights lawyer who is working to ensure the safety of vaccines, is incorrectly called an anti-Vaxxer rather than a pro-vaccine advocate working to ensure quality and safety. And the truth that Fauci or the head of the CIA doesn’t want anyone to see, is wiped off the Wiki site so the public is held in ignorance. Human potential and valuable discoveries are cleaned from the military industrial slate of public information on the Wiki site as people assume it is open to a wide range of perspectives and realities. It’s not.
The harmful effects of Wiki censorship or bias are seen in biographies of scientific and medical leaders including Nobel Laureates who have had their profiles removed (better than being slimed by others’ lies). Or, their biographies and pages describing innovative work are distorted to delegitimize their contributions to humanity.
Pinker is a bit like Wikipedia too, mostly always ‘positive’ and Patriotic but not always accurate from a local or global perspective. The very year he was publishing a book saying that conventional medicine was to be celebrated for always growing lifespan for Americans, the country’s own data was appearing in WHO statistics over the prior 5 years to show how avg lifespan was falling in America as more than a decade ago.
Nobody like Pinker wants to promote a book that chocks up deadly but manageable problems to the emerging and real causes: Iatrogenic harms, suicides and gun deaths. And Wikipedia does little to allow authors to tout people or groups willing to take responsibility for their actions or to consider new options, diverse experiences and expression to address unfortunate consequences of the American way.
It’s so much easier to deal in overly simple dichotomies and present only the mainstream narrative of the masses in the moment, and to blame the current victim of censorship.
I am disappointed but had to say... with respect and gratitude for your writing.
not to politicize this, but many republican run states, such as Florida and Texas, dropped their states' of emergency at exactly the time you suggest in March 2021 when vaccines were widely available. there was also plenty of data from Europe by summer 2020 showing that schools didn't contribute to spread or pose additional risks to teachers. so leaders who opened schools in fall of 2020, ie FL and TX among others, and then pulled their states of emergency in March 2021 ACTUALLY WERE FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE, rather than the PH narrative. that is something that should be discussed alongside the handwringing from public health officials.
Uh, you have got to be kidding me. Wikipedia has some value for basic information, but when it comes to critical matters where multiple perspectives should be acknowledged, it is a damning source of mis- and disinformation that largely serves to validate narratives of those with power.
Are you asleep at the wheel? Hello? Just look at the way Wikipedia handles the pandemic, or any other issue.
Also, Steven Pinker is an academic hack with few actual scientific accomplishments past his 'wug/wugs' generalization 40 years ago. Who are you gonna quote next, Oprah?
The word "vaccination" encouraged blind faith, by too many who should know better, from the start. Any medication has side effects and to blatantly lie to the general public by saying "safe and effective" to describe an intervention the scientists who created it are still sceptical of and will never be able to adequately prove either safety or efficacy given the egregious errors in allowing the politicisation of data collection. Anyone who continues to offer minimal support to the mass murdering intervention places their credibility in the jaws of a crocodile for safekeeping.
This makes a great deal of sense until you look at Wikipedia. There is a reason that Larry Sanger, who started Wikipedia, left in high dudgeon. Yes, there are "volunteer" editors, but they are all subject to litmus, left-wing testing. I can give you endless examples, but they are easy to find if one just checks the Wikipedia on various sources of covid information. Anyone straying from the government narrative is immediately deleted/squelched. It is as censored as Twitter and in many ways moreso.
So crowd sourcing, especially considering the deep pools of available people and knowledge in health and health care, has appeal. But until you deal with the endless government/human-nature driven propensity to censor "because we know better" or "for the greater good" or (perish the fact) "for the children" this idea is another non-starter, as appealing as the overarching concept is.
This piece is really important. I am a rock-ribbed conservative and find it so interesting that I agree explicitly with this author and many other progressives on the public health issues. That does not bother me in the least. I find criticism of government overreach a very conservative position. We absolutely deep reflection as a society. I suggest that we accumulate a number of proclamations from Biden, Fauci and others including conservatives and then publish them with critical commentary from the left and right to TEACH each other how important it is to use critical thinking to solve problems. The other arena where the same dynamic is at work is the transgender ideology related to children and early teens. Substack includes brilliant analysis of the warped thinking that continues to push establishment organizations and people towards an "affirmative approach" to 12 year olds who are confused. Our friends in Europe get it and we do not sadly. Lives are at stake.
Really? George Carlin is now quoted as an extraordinary intellectual and his lack of understanding of God and people who follow Him, evident in your quote, is something to embrace? People are believing anything they're told largely due to moral relativism, insecurity, hopelessness and a desire to follow ANYone in authority but the God of the universe, NOT because they're stupid sheep who don't have ability/desire to know truth. They're afraid because in their souls, they know they aren't God, yet have put themselves in that position and have no power to overcome any of this evil.
Wiki greatly contributed to the PharMafia side of view - by being captured, and closing editing for "mission critical articles".
Happened to ALL articles of relevance to the pandemic: Covid-19, Spike, Astra vaccine, ivermectin: in ONE hand. A Narrative. Fallen to all but ONE editor, which happens to be some BigPharMafia computer nerd, without medical education.
See this excellent dive into the manipulation of wikipedia:
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/wikipedia-and-a-pint-of-gin/article_22ffa0d8-dde9-11eb-be75-d7b0b1f2ff67.html
"My advice is to stand with college professors everywhere, "Wikipedia is NOT reliable, and their information should be taken with a grain of salt and perhaps a pint of gin as well.""