Slashdot Mirror

Look at the Affiliations section. Wikimedia staff are all paid PR agents of the fringe left wing of the Democratic Party and this guy named Rothschild, they all work out of the same office at the Berkman Center at Harvard University, but "there is no cabal" and talking about it is a "baseless conspiracy theory."

Also, you are only allowed to cite media sources owned by the Rothschilds. Any media outlet that is not owned by the Rothschilds is "fringe" and "unreliable" and is not allowed to be cited on Wikipedia whether it has a good reputation for accuracy or not. Pointing out that the Rothschild media gets caught lying all of the time will be considered grounds for banning you as a "right-wing troll" because the independent media pointing this out are all "right-wing" "white-supremacist" "blogs" in their eyes.

So the worst crime family in the world just got onto the body that controls the WWW because they rode in on the reputation that Wikipedia used to have ten years ago before they utterly corrupted it.

Wikipedia is flush with cash, don't be fooled. Their donation drives may make it sound like they're a modern day PBS always struggling to stay alive; the truth is, they've got the funds to last them for decades already.

They are paid by the literal, actual Rothschilds and the Democratic Party and they tilt their administrative actions accordingly. They don't need your money.

Just what the world needs. An information source owned by a company known for misrepresenting reality.

As opposed to the Clinton Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Daily Kos, Jacob Rothschild, and Alwaleed bin Talal who currently run Wikipedia. It's really odd that nobody considers this newsworthy.

By saying "the mainstream media" it sounds like you think a broad spectrum of them are doing it on command or something. Is that what you are suggesting?

Uh, yeah. They have been caught doing it and have talked about doing it. Many media outlets are owned by the CIA NGO network which controls $150 billion in foundation funds and uses its own NGOs to manufacture news while denying that there is a Deep State.

It doesn't take a genius or an extremist to see that there is something with the corporate news media.

Wikipedia, the internet's encyclopedia, is run entirely by volunteers

This quote is fluffy PR and moreover not true. Some of Wikipedia's employees work directly for the Clinton Foundation. Several board members work for Purpose Action which is officially a branch of the British Foreign Service but is unofficially the group that Hillary Clinton used to run arms to al-Qaeda in Libya. There is a board member whose sister worked with Feminist Frequency. Wikipedia's COO has a co-worker for 30 years who works with Alwaleed bin Talal's Kingdom Holdings. Several of them work out of the Shorenstein and Berkman centers at Harvard University with Donna Brazile, Zack Exley, Wael Ghonim, Juliette Kayyem, and a grandson of Elijah Muhammad. They consider everything they believe to be the absolute truth because they work for Harvard. They also deny knowing one another. "There is no cabal."

They spend money on targeted recruiting of new administrators out of the modern "gender studies" that started around 2012 where they teach you a load of pure bullshit and then tell you that anyone who disagrees is a Nazi who should be shot. This has predictably resulted in instant bans all over the place for anyone having the wrong opinion and witch-hunting mobs attacking people who don't have the wrong opinion, but someone said they did. You will have your talk page accessed revoked for appealing a ban on the grounds that you did not do what you were accused of. Asking for evidence of an accusation is called "sealioning" and grounds for a ban because evidence is oppression and a form of white supremacy.

David Auerbach of Slate caught the Arbitration Committee in a contradiction and asked them to clarify a statement. WMF staff called his employers and demanded that he be fired. Then the WMF paid the harassers $50,000.

The same people run the New York Times and Sony. They all share a board member. All of the other news organizations are run by the same sort of people because none of them consider this to be newsworthy, and many of them have adopted the same political positions.

Baroness Helena Kennedy's SOAS is the notorious "School of Organized Anti-Semitism". Check JIDF blogs for more info. ... Kennedy sits on the board of the The Institute for Strategic Dialogue which is responsible for The Strong Cities Network

Sana Amanat, Marvel's Muslim VP of Content and Character Development and Ms. Marvel co-creator, is the cousin of Huma Abedin ... A non-profit Omar Amanat co-founded, Soliya, received a $1.25 million grant from the State Department

Soliya has merged with the UN-established Alliance of Civilizations Media Fund ... Suhail Rizvi is a major investor in Twitter. Some reports say he owned 15% of the company when it went public. ... In the best case scenario, "Strong Cities" is just an intelligence sharing network. In the worst case scenario, it is the surrender of territory to Farah Pandith's organization.

Wikimedia Foundation trustee Bishakha Datta is the chair of the Association for Progressive Communications,[1] a member of the Internet Governance Forum and a promoter of the notion that disagreeing with a woman on the Internet is "Cyber Violence" and should be judged as a crime under existing battery law.[2] ...
Wikimedia Foundation board member Esra'a Al Shafei is funded by the Omidyar Foundation and is a board member of AccessNow,[299] a project of Democratic Party activist group Avaaz / Purpose Action[300] that is best known for its public relations support for the delivery of arms to al-Qaeda in the Benghazi scandal and to ISIS in Syria.[301] ...
Longtime Esalen employee[12][13] John Marks and his wife Susan Collins Marks run Search for Common Ground which ran the The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project with the Consensus Building Institute and the Rockfeller Brothers Fund.[14][15][16] The project produced a report in 2008 that called for American support for the Muslim Brotherhood.[17] Susan Collins Marks is on the board of the Future Shapers Collaborative with Muna AbuSulayman,[18] manager of Kingdom Holdings of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal and daughter of Abdulhamid Abusulayman of the International Institute of Islamic Thought who called for the "Islamization of Knowledge" in 1989.[19] ...

As of 2013,[316] the Wikimedia Foundation's major donors include: ... Arcadia Fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin and Jacob Rothschild[20]

Remember Sad Puppies? The guys who took over the Hugo Awards used to do PR on BoingBoing for the Taliban and the Kashmiri jihad. People who disagreed were banned and had their posts removed. It was one of the first sites to do that.

Microsoft hired Suhail Khan, a guy under investigation for the past 20 years for his affiliations with terrorists, as its director of external affairs.

Remember that "safe space" campaign a few years back? It was run by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Their definition of a "safe space" is one where no one has ever criticized Islam.

Remember that "Women's March" that was supposed to be about abortion rights but had oppressive hijabs all over the place? Its organizer has family members in jail for helping Hamas. Guess who Chuck the Schmuck brought to the center of the United States government to protest against Brett Kavanaugh.

Remember that group that harassed Bern

Twitter is censoring content at the demands of their owners Alwaleed bin Talal and the state of Qatar. Those anonymous "angel investors" that Silicon Valley celebrated having were the state sponsors of al-Qaeda.

Twitter is censoring content for the state of Qatar. Wikipedia's advisory board is packed with partisan Democrats and Alwaleed bin Talal's people and people working for the UAE and HSBC. Those anonymous "angel investors" that Silicon Valley celebrated having were the state sponsors of al-Qaeda.

This wiki thing is written by thousands of all ages and widely varying credentials. (...) Yes, it's undoubtedly true that some will distort facts to meet their obsessions. I tend to believe that most are altruistic and bend over backward to uncover unbiased truth.

You are very, very wrong.

More examples.

Wikipedia is run by fanatical extremists who use it as a propaganda organ and who will take money to ban the opposing side of controversial issues. If they need a "reliable source" to back them up, one of them is a board member of the New York Times whose sister runs an "academic" network of openly Marxist "social science" researchers who use their students to control political arguments on Wikipedia, one of whom has the American head of Vivendi/Universal on call if they need more manpower. If they are still losing the argument, they will have the London police call the entire opposition a violent right-wing extremist group which they will cite as grounds to tap DHS CVE funds and deploy an Army psychological operations unit. We know they did that because TaraInDC used her real name.

They also pay Gavin Newsom $350,000 a year through his wife's foundation, the Representation Project. If you live in California, you may want to remember that in November if you have any concern about what kind of government will rule you.

And happening right now, look at all of the admins holding that it is acceptable to call a political opponent a Nazi by quoting a known fabricator citing a Democratic Party PR organ while also implying that anyone who disagrees is a troublemaker who should be banned. Do you see Mjolnirpants in that thread? He was recruited right out of the "academic" network into the Wikipedia admin corps because he would enforce user adherence to beliefs that did not exist before 2013.

To see how bad things are on Wikipedia, look into Gamergate.

Everipedia on Gamergate
InfoGalactic on Gamergate
KnowYourMeme on Gamergate
Wikipedia on Gamergate

It's not even discussing the same thing. For the rebuttal, see Gamergate on Wikipedia

Also, things like this keep happening:

IP editor outlines Darkfrog case, blocked for "trolling"
Editor Banned From Wikipedia and Labeled a "Nazi" for "Kek" Username
The Frank Gaffney Edit War

Wikipedia is clearly controlled by someone with an agenda.

It takes a special kind of idiot to (a) regard the 'media' as a monolithic entity (all the same people, sure!) and (b) heavily imply that Trump doesn't lie. Seriously.... LOL.

It takes a special kind of idiot to not see that there are organizations like Journolist around which exist to drive ideological narratives. That the media has been caught doing this numerous times. Including in other media like games media(see gamejournopros) Or media groups which will publish political propaganda directly from political parties as gospel truths. The DNC did that with multiple media organizations in the last election. The Obama administration did that multiple times, it became so common that the WH Press corps., openly wrote a letter about it. In most of the west, the 4th estate is broken and the people in it, are nothing but puppet mouthpieces trading favors for favors.

Now it's time for you to understand the difference when "Trump says something" and when an entire arm of a political party uses their weight in order to push an ideological view point, and the media accepts it as truth and repeats it. Or turns around and forwards it to the party in question to ensure it has ideological purity. Keep in mind, that in the beltway +90% of the reporters are democrat voters, donate directly to the DNC, and hold either democrat or progressive views. That drops to 80% outside of the beltway. Time for you to grow up a bit perhaps, and realize just how much institutional power the left has held for decades and why there is such a backlash brewing across the west.

Does anyone still read "journalist" articles about games? Half of them are paid ads anyway, the other half is worded in a way that reeks worse of copy/paste than the average answer from a tech supporter. If you care for other people's opinions on games, read reviews from other players on Steam.

That's why it happened in the first place. Because people had enough, and it exploded when the media decided to double down and pull out the "gamers are dead" articles. Then rounded that out with mass censorship on any discussion of it. The comment graveyards on reddit are still around, some are huge 25k+ deleted comments? 5k+ here or there on it? Yep. The gamejournopros leaks. The "writers" shilling for their friends/buddies shit and not disclosing it? Those same writers being in a gigantic circle jerk of undisclosed payments from various people in the indie industry as well. Keep in mind that this wasn't the start, this had been building since the days of Kane and Lynch and the Dorito Pope.

The icing on the cake was simply all the bullshit that sites like polygon, kotaku, rps, and so on have tried to push. Things like "GTAV is sexist" or why your vidya makes you a violent killer. Along with the big "vidya is sexist" so we need to create a safe space for the special snowflakes, and you need to give them special concessions because they're special. Which kinda goes against the entire "git gud" line(aka merit is all that matters) that gaming is built around. If anything it's simply exposed that the above mentioned sites are cancerous identity politics engines. And even media like the BBC or NPR have no problems pushing that same line of reasoning as long as it gets them what they want.

Oh do please tell us, all you Wikileaks supporters, just how wonderful an organization it is, as it begins the process of trying to fuck over hundreds of thousands of people whose only crime was verifying their account.

Sure. Let me just start this with something important.

The article is false. Wikileaks does not wish to dox anyone. They wish to create a database of influence. Politician X votes a certain way, you can check and see he was paid off by Corporation Y. Journalist A working for Publication B is owned by Corporation C, which has connections to X, Y, Z, W.

For example, here's a list of reporters who were outed as colluding with the Hillary Clinton campaign via the email leaks.

http://imgur.com/a/oO3FS

Here's a second, more exhaustive list: https://i.redd.it/ol970kkt2nyx...

And Breitbart has more details: http://www.breitbart.com/wikil...

(Remember kids, the Genetic Fallacy -- "Herp Derp BREITBART FAKE NEWS" -- means your argument is invalid and I win!)

So. How many of those reporters had disclaimers mentioning that they were actively working with HRC's campaign on their articles talking about HRC, Bernie, or Trump?

Basically, Wikileaks is talking about taking the GamerGate corruption and conflict of interest database, http://deepfreeze.it/ , and port the idea to the mainstream.

Now, having put the above information forward -- the example of the kind of collusion and influence that Wikileaks is wanting to create a map of, can you see why the people at CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News would be a liiiitle upset that someone might want to make a database following their biases, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and the like?

Here you go

Gamergate didn't actually expose some hidden truth that no one knew about.

Actually it did. See the gamejournopros leak . People thought there was a list, they believed there was collusion going on just like the game mags from the 90's, but had no proof. But the truth came out, and it was the same jackass who created Journolist doing the same thing to the games industry. Then people found out about the number of authors engaging in shady shit by shilling for their friends games, and other authors not disclosing that they were involved in a personal relationship with PR people see PCGamer and the author(Tyler Wilde) who had all of his stories removed about Ubisoft. And the attempted blacklisting/ostracizing of authors/publications who refused to engage in groupthink, and the massive amount of groupthink going on in said organizational group.

They were also the group that got the disclosure rules changed for native advertising/affiliate links/etc. Meaning that shitty, shady and clickbait sites had to be open, clear, with disclosure and no more obfuscated stuff. In the end it shone light on the rest of the garbage in the industry, and did a very good job at costing shitty companies money for being very shitty companies. And continues to do so while pushing back against people who instead of making their own games/characters/stories and let them sink or swim on merit like the rest of the industry. Ensuring that established characters/games/stories aren't rewritten to fit some special snowflakes head cannon. And bringing to light assholes like polygon/kotaku/RPS/etc who are now in the Jack Thompson camp screaming about how we should really censor games because it might hurt someones feelings, and how xyz thing is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

No you don't. You just want to scream at your monitor about SSJJJJJWWWWWSSSSS RUINING EVERYTHING GODDAMMIT. Every "controversy" you guys levy at Kotaku proves to be absurdly weak. Your current tactic is calling every article you don't like "clickbait," thereby ruining yet another legitimate term with your lame windmill tilting.

The University of Missouri found out the truth on that one didn't they? That SJW's do ruin everything. Besides, if "incredibly weak" looks like this then it's a very strong argument on itself. $20 says you'd be the first one running around saying that Sony really didn't turn around and threaten to sue Bill Murray. Or there weren't 15+ articles about the new Ghostbusters trailer and how AVGN is really a sexist-misogynist. Nope, not clickbait not at all.

Stop being so damned naive.

Considering the number of times you've repeated that lie, and people have told you that there was no review but you continue to repeat it kinda shows that you already believe the narrative presented to you. Useful tip: It was positive coverage, not forgetting the fact that it wasn't her boyfriend. Rather it was a game journo, who was also shacking up with her, paying for her hotels, and was also involved in part of the production of that work work. None of which was disclosed when he wrote the articles praising her as a indie darling and the not-quite VN, the best thing since sliced bread. I do find it funny how salty people get over deepfreeze though, who'd have though exposing gamejournos being corrupt would be so fulfilling.

What I find funny about all of it is, when this originally broke it was called burgers and fries. People dumped the name and it centered to gamergate, and of course aggro's like yourself continue to go on and on about "how changing the name would really mean they've distanced themselves from it" as well. Showing however, that even once the name was changed you didn't care. And when a conference with members of the SPJ decided to use a different name, the first thing aggro's did was start screaming about "how it's gamergate, and they rape women."

Or that after a year and a half, you still can't find actual threats linking them to gamergate but it's pretty easy to find outspoken aggro's who want to get people fired from their jobs, actively dox people, and in general are the usual asshats that social justice produces these days. Who of course believe that no matter what they do it's justified. ally got caught by pretending to be an actual terrorist.

By the way if you want to see how deep of a rabbit hole for favorable coverage it was, you can look here. Just remember the ethics beam burns hot.

The only GamerGate harassment is the harassment that the GamerGate community has to endure from malicious or delusional individuals such as yourself who seem to be hell-bent on slandering the name of a movement whose purpose is ethical journalism. Yes, it's about ethics in journalism.

For example, YouTube retards Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00r

Thunderf00t aka Phil Mason is a respected scientist that has previously been published in Nature and is currently occupied as a research scientist in the Czech Academy of Sciences. A random Internet keyboard warrior has no right to call this man a retard.

1) Deepfreeze.it: http://www.deepfreeze.it/ does a great job of digging into and revealing the ties, 'backscratching' and outright corruption behind most of the gaming journalists on the big sites.

2) http://www.gamespot.com/forums... or at least the general question: "Gaming 'journalist' - seriously? It's a multibillion-dollar industry, and yet most of the "journalists" are freaks sitting in mom's basement desperately trying to pretend they're the next Perez Hilton, and who are tickled if someone even mentions they exist. None of them have the credibility of even the shammiest movie review shill.

The ethics complaints were all valid, and all involved journalists, so I don't know what you're talking about. You can view the laundry list at http://deepfreeze.it/

Justice is holding a person responsible for their actions. Social Justice is holding a person responsible for the actions of their race, gender, or creed. Social Justice is just another form of racism.

That is a totally made up definition of "social justice." That is never what it meant. Actually, fighting against what you describe is what "social justice" is! D'oh!

And no, I'm not going to click some weird link. Just say what you have to say, no need to link weird stuff. You haven't even signed up for an account here, so you don't know this, but people here only click links to websites they already visit, like wikipedia or something. You can keep your goats to yourself.

So what was the ethical complaint that you claim is "valid?" Spoiler: I already looked into the details of the original accusations. But please, for the sake of other readers, what was this ethical lapse? You're not going to say, because it would be embarrassing for you to admit it is gossip that isn't about ethics or journalism. Honestly, none of the people whining about a journalist maybe having had sex with a person they're not reporting on... have any idea what work ethics means. Presumably, they think it is also unethical for a mechanic to date a person who owns a car, or for a medical doctor to date a human. Or for any two people in related industries to date. Of course, none of those have ethical implications at all. Just like, a programmer who writes free games isn't prohibited from dating people who write about games. There is no ethical lapse there at all. The accusation is that two people may or may not have had sex, and some other person may or may not have been offended. It isn't anybody's business, and doesn't invoke ethics.

The ethics complaints were all valid, and all involved journalists, so I don't know what you're talking about. You can view the laundry list at http://deepfreeze.it/

Justice is holding a person responsible for their actions. Social Justice is holding a person responsible for the actions of their race, gender, or creed. Social Justice is just another form of racism.

I guess that's why there was the DMCA pulldown of Mundane Matt's video, and why a thread with 20k replies in /r/gaming disappeared. Why according to the modleaks logs that several subs were actively banning people who were talking about it, and why GameJournoPros(a clique of writers), went out of their way to spin positive coverage for her, and even lavish her with gifts right?

The 'games media' didn't want to do anything with it, because it showed their own corruption. Nothing more, nothing less. There are numerous cases at game sites were authors were caught either shilling for people they know without disclosure, or actively screwing/shacked-up with someone in a PR company and spinning stuff in a positive light. It was bad enough at IGN that the guy who was writing about Ubisoft(he was shacked up with their PR person), had all of their articles pulled.

You can check through http://www.deepfreeze.it/ or the timeline. Fair warning, there is a lot of reading material.

Related question: Despite everything, can some good come from GamerGate?

Plenty of good has come from Gamergate. The literal salt mine from deepfreeze.it alone shows what good has come from it, not since the 1990's have I seen so much whining and complaining from the press when direct conflicts of interest, and shilling are exposed.

It has certainly drawn attention to the topic of harassment of women online, and campaigns like "Disrespectful Nod" actually seem to have backfired and pushed some of the companies targeted to very clearly state their opposition to the movement.

Citation required, because many companies including game sites have created ethical policies, some have also come out saying that Gamergate was right like Ian Miles Cheong(Gameranx). Some others have even openly come to GG to ask them to give their opinion on their existing, or re-write of their policies. So if you wonder where we would be without it, we'd be back in July of last year and people still getting pissed off at 'games journalism' for being unethical and still trotting down the road that it had been waiting for an even larger explosion.

I'm guessing you either don't play video games, or are pretty young. Otherwise you'd know that a backlash against the gaming press has been building for over twenty years, when you still got your information from magazines.

The main target seems to have been GameJournosPro and Leigh Alexander who wrote the basis of what was the "Gamers don't have to be your audience anymore" piece, which came as an answer to gamers asking why journalists were not covering TFYC incident, after it came out that the person responsible for that had had positive coverage by a journalist whom she was in a relationship with.

The banning and deletion of discussion on these issues really didn't help.

http://deepfreeze.it/ seems very journalist focused too.

Plenty. You can start here.

The wikipedia article on this subject is rooted in controversy, up to the point that some of its editors were both topic and site banned from Wikipedia. At this point, no, I won't start with it as it's obviously not a neutral source.

we read what you write...
because you fuckers SHITPOST...
you really are so stupid...

What's this YOU stuff ? Who are you talking to ? You're assuming things about me... for instance :

in your own words on 8chan, /r/KIA, and under the #gamergate hashtag.

I never visited the chan's, and have neither Twitter nor Reddit accounts. So those words can't be mine.

Now, let's review your list of allegations, all of which have no backing or evidence :

- Do everything possible to prevent discussions of women in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Where have you been prevented from discussing women in tech and how have you been prevented from doing so exactly ? I mean, if you try to inject "women in tech" in discussions unrelated to women, I could see how people would dismiss you and downvote you, but in actual discussions about women in tech ?

- Harass female game devs constantly, because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Do you have any evidence showing these female game devs were not harassed because of ethics in gaming journalism ? It seems the whole issue that launched this (outside of years of build up with things like Doritogate and other growing concerns) is the fact that Nathan Grayson wrote this favorable piece :

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/

It seems to me that the issue people have is not that the developer is a woman, it's that Nathan Grayson (a man) used a screenshot to feature prominently the game of a person he had a personal relationship with, without disclosing said relationship. On top of that, it seems Nathan participated in making the game as his name is part of the credits, so essentially pushing his work.

Rather shoddy for a journalist.

- Talk non stop about so-called "SJWs" and never mention journalists. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Looking at one of Gamergate's projects, http://deepfreeze.it/, all the listed journalists seem to in fact be journalists.

I mean, I could see where SJW (a pejorative term used for people who use Social Justice causes to label and attack other people, with little care to the actual cause itself) could be used to describe some more fringe "journalist" like Jessica Valenti of the Guardian, because some of her opinions are pretty extermist in nature (nothing to do with her gender before you draw the conclusion it's because she's a woman) though.

- Demand Slashdot ban discussions related to diversity in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Do you have a citation for Gamergate asking Slashdot (specifically) to not discuss diversity in tech ? Because Slashdot doesn't seem to have listened, we have diversity in Tech articles all the time.

- Call JACK THOMPSON "BASED DAD", a lawyer who has actually tried to ban games, while calling Anita Sarkeesian a "censor" or "authoritarian", because she produced a video identifying tropes she feels are sexist in various video games. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

I'll have to ask for a citation on this. In fact, looking at GamerGhazi's (which seem to be a group that opposes Gamergate) post about this situation,

Thank you for referencing ethics in gaming media. http://deepfreeze.it/journo.ph...

Educate yerself, lest ye continue to look like a fool.

http://deepfreeze.it/