These are your "Scientists"

skeptoid's picture

COVID lab leak Wikipedia page censored by "fact checkers" (from Livestream #68)

Water Army: Groups of people hired by the Chinese Communist Party to aggressively and falsely campaign to remove information from the Internet that is embarrassing or threatening to the Chinese Communist Party.

 

I believe that Danman was one of these, and I *think* sal9000 would likely agree based on a preponderance of evidence.

3.4
Average: 3.4 (5 votes)

Comments

sal9000's picture

i'm the kind of guy that would look at the conversation about removing it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:CO.... than look at a few of the pages they have that deals with the stuff people submit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

than i would compare what these two nut jobs were talking about to what really happened then ask you for 20 minutes of my life back

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

The COVID lap leak hypothesis is not a theory. The video is precisely these two "nut jobs" breaking down the explicitly stated motivations of the CCP hires discussing how to get it removed in the wikepedia background comments. They fit the profile exactly, which is a profile you noticed with danman, which is something I notice you didn't address at all with your comment. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

lol Weinstein.

 

A real study has been published by a "real" scientist at the Hamburg university (who has been criticised by leftist journalists and politicians for this, btw, still miraculously it remains active)  for peer review on this.

As there are currently only pointers but no hard evidence, i.e. it is mostly speculation at this point, I don't think it is surprising that this has been censored on wikipedia. Although I don't think "censored" is the right term in this case, "removed for lack of evidence" would be.

 

It wouldn't be added to any other encyclopedia neither.

 

Nice video for the fanboys to get upset about, though.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

"removed for lack of evidence" isn't a wikipedia or scholarly thing. if information is unsourced, it's noted as such, the end. if information is disputed, the reasons for the dispute are added, the end. any removal of information is censorship.

+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

wiki is supposed to be an educational platform, not a political one. Hence unproven hypothesis are not published.

 

The correct way of doing it would have been to edit the existing article on the topic with a chapter about "suspicions on lab accidents".

 

Just beacause it fits someone's bias or agenda doesn't mean it deserves an entry.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

Education and politics have always gone hand in hand. You just refuse to see it.

 

An Idea of what education looks like without meddling polititians.

 

https://www.history.com/news/in-early-1800s-american-classrooms-students...

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

"wiki is supposed to be an educational platform, not a political one. Hence unproven hypothesis are not published."

 

"Wiki is supposed to be an educational platform" is precisely what the people who are criticizing wikipedia for allowing CCP hires to curate its content are saying. When you construct a faulty argument with a word like "hence" or "therefore" in it, how often are you actually aware that you are spouting absolute bullshit? Wikipedia is replete with hypothesis pages - here's one:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Here's your difference, and I quote the FIRST LINE from your link:

 

"The zoo hypothesis speculates on..."

I assume, as I haven't seen the wiki entry, the article on the removed "hypothesis" didn't.

 

FYI:

Speculative reason, sometimes called theoretical reason or pure reason, is theoretical (or logicaldeductive) thought, as opposed to practical (active, willing) thought. The distinction between the two goes at least as far back as the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, who distinguished between theory (theoria, or a wide, bird's eye view of a topic, or clear vision of its structure) and practice (praxis), as well as techne.

Speculative reason is contemplative, detached, and certain, whereas practical reason is engaged, involved, active, and dependent upon the specifics of the situation. Speculative reason provides the universal, necessary principles of logic, such as the principle of non-contradiction, which must apply everywhere, regardless of the specifics of the situation.

On the other hand, practical reason is the power of the mind engaged in deciding what to do. It is also referred to as moral reason, because it involves action, decision, and particulars. Though many other thinkers have erected systems based on the distinction, two important later thinkers who have done so are Aquinas (who follows Aristotle in many respects) and Immanuel Kant.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Why would you assume that? Dude, the claim being made here is that the sole reason the post was removed was because it puts forth a hypothesis that could embarrass China and the international team that facilitated the project. That's the motivation - it's clear when you read the background comments. That's the gripe - why would you assume otherwise? Because you don't like these two?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

So you believe/support the claim because it fits your prejudice? 

 

If it could be proven it couldn't be classed an "insult", as it (at the moment) can't it could be classed as one. Wiki was not created for posting "opinions" or "news". This is has nothing to do with free speech! This is pretty similar to 99% of the trump lawsuits being thrown out in court due to lack of evidence.

 

Currently there is not enough evidence for it to be worthy of a wiki entry, I still think a sub-section on a covid pandemic article would be adequate. If it can be proven one day it of course should be. 

Like I said, before there is even a study out from real scientist on the topic, probably one can make an entry on that and it wouldn't be removed.......

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down