The mainstream internet is incredibly dominated by left wing, woke, politically charged, and often Jewish people. Much of the content is censored to fit the image of the corporate elite, i.e. anti-racist, anti-fascist, anti-white, and anti-truth. I propose we as a community become more active on sites like Wikipedia, to try and counteract this bias, and actually have some sort of impact on public perception and opinions. Shitposting here all day and dropping redpills is great, but we don't reach 99% of the population. We need to get some much less potent redpills out to a much larger segment of the population. After all, a few million normies with a bit more nigger fatigue and active social lives are a much more powerful force than a few thousand antisemitic racist neckbeards on a subsaharan animal husbandry forum. Here's my idea: >Find Wikipedia articles that have the potential for some subtle redpills >Find an "acceptable" reference that backs up your claims, and make an edit Some potential ideas to get you started: >Arcitles with a "Controversy" section where you can add more info to the negative side >Adding or expanding "early life" sections >Adding info about Jewish influence on politicians or businesses >Names of CEOs, boards of directors, those with influence over politicians, lobbyists, etc. >Adding info about "conspiracy theories" to existing pages, but putting it under a heading titled "controversy"
Don't make your edits too blatant or obvious, you don't want to attract attention from other editors who can just undo your shit and get you banned.
Here's a link with the basics on how to edit a page. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing They have a markdown language used to configure formatting, references, and stuff like that. It's a similar concept to LaTeX of HTML if you've ever used either of those. It's really not that hard once you wrap your head around it. Most of what you'll need to do will just be editing text and adding references. Here's the basics: >Linking to another article is done by enclosing the [[Name of the Article]] in double square brackets >Adding references is done using syntax like this {insert reference here}, see link for more details >==Heading titles have double equals signs surrounding them== >===Subheadings have triple equals signs=== >Only the first word of a heading is capitalized, unless it's a proper noun
Also, don't make your username KikeKiller1488, or NiggersTongueMyAnus69. The goal here is to try and blend in, not troll people by shoving edgy shit down their throats. The Jews know this and have been using this technique consistently since before WWII. If we want to have any hope of success we'll need to adapt the same strategy.
Anyone have any ideas or plans to edit an article? I thought about adding to the 9/11 page, but I'm sure I'm far from the most qualified one here to talk about it in a formal way.
Apparently there are some browser compatibility issues, so check that website to find out which ones work best.
Connor Martinez
bump
Aaron Barnes
Don't forget to make your Wikipedia account look legit. Don't edit without an account, it'll just show your IP address in the edit history. Make an account, and look at other account pages to see what a typical user looks like. You can find other user accounts by clicking on the "view history" tab at the top right of an article, and clicking on the usernames.
Cooper Powell
bump
Carter White
I'd like to set up something long term on this. You also need contact with a quasi mainstream news source that can sortve cover you. Eg, they do an article on how the capital was not an attack but vandalization. Then you change the Jan 6 name to the capital vandalization. But you obviously have to do it for very not well known articles
Easton Perry
the admins of the pages will just ban your IP from editing idiot.
there is right-wing alternatives to wikipedia, just use those.
Kayden Barnes
Good idea, but several years too late. It's already locked down. Feel free to try editing though.
Jack Peterson
And they are?
Ryder Clark
> editing a leftist shithole and fighting with leftist in discussions with 0 fruits. I have been there. there is no point. just make your own site and edit that.
I'll be sure to let the wikipedia moderators and admins that you guys are trying to do something like this. Thanks for talking about it publicly.
Chase Parker
bro. you get the most militant leftist that you can imagine. and they outnumber you. there is no reason to get any information on anything that is not math or physics from wiki. no politics. no history.
Bentley Taylor
It's much more fun if wikipedia gets edited you fucking nerd.
Joseph Hall
bump
Cooper Anderson
Wikipedia is shit. One of my old college professors was the first man to club a certain mountain thanks to me and a Bs website I made that appears to sell fake books including the one about his climb.
It has been up between 10-20 years now.
Inb4 source. They will never find it or fix it.
Brayden Ward
>why not just let the single biggest collection of information propagandize the public? you can use a niche version that only people who already agree with you use!
the absolute state of Any Forums's average iq
Isaiah Jenkins
they can't reasonably do shit about irregular subtle edits from shifting ips. it only takes 10 mins of effort every now and then to alter several articles
that's the point of subtlety, just fleeing to echo chambers of your own is sad defeatism
