Last updated on August 14, 2022
Listen To This Article:
Why Wikipedia should not be trusted? Today I want to bring to light yet another extraordinary and blatant example of Wikipedia’s biased left-leaning, agenda-driven fake news that they try to pass off as truth.
I’ll use Wikipedia’s current (changed) definition of “Recession” as an example of why Wikipedia should not be trusted. Further evidence Wikipedia is a biased left-wing deceptive propaganda machine
This is why Wikipedia should NEVER be trusted.
Wikipedia Changed The Definition Of “Recession” After Biden’s Claim
Wikipedia actually changed the wiki page on “Recession” right after Biden’s announcement that we are not in a recession. Wikipedia editors went out of their way to alter the previously stated definition of “Recession,” leaving little doubt to make Biden look correct in his lies. Just disgusting.
Chronology Of Events – Timeline
Why Wikipedia Should Not Be Trusted
“Let me just give you what the facts are in terms of the state of the economy,” Biden said in a speech that was billed as remarks on the latest budget bill in Congress. “Number one, we have a record job market, and record unemployment of 3.6%, and businesses are investing in America at record rates.” He then listed several companies planning to build factories in the U.S. before concluding, “that doesn’t sound like a recession to me.”
CHRISTINA WILKIE, © 2022 CNBC, WHITE HOUSE GOES ON OFFENSE TO ARGUE THAT THE U.S. IS NOT IN A RECESSION, JUL 29 2022
Before Biden Said We Are Not In A Recession
On July 11, 2022, before Biden’s two public addresses where he states we are not in a recession, Wikipedia’s page on Recession reads, “several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.”
Notice that on the older Wikipedia page for Recession (July 11, 2022) that there is a citation reference (6) after it mentions the 1974 New York Times article (See more below).
After Biden Said We Are Not In A Recession
Notice after the edits of July 28, 2022, that definition, “several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.” was removed from that paragraph and moved to another below.
The definition was replaced with, “Julius Shiskin suggested that a rough translation of the bureau’s qualitative definition of a recession into a quantitative one that almost anyone can use might run like this:” and then goes on to discuss three determining terms, duration, depth, and diffusion.
Wait, There’s More…
In the more recent version of the same Wikipedia page for Recession (July 28, 2022), as well as today’s version, that citation for the referenced 1974 New York Times article is missing. Not only is the citation reference (#6) missing in the body of the article, the citation, along with the hyperlink, in the footer, has been completely removed.
Why would Wikipedia remove this citation and link? The article mentioned is still there but the citation and link have been blatantly removed.
Care to guess why?
My guess would be that once one actually reads that mentioned 1974 New York Times article by Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin, you’d clearly see that the Commissioner not only defines a recession as, “declines in real G.N.P. for 2 consecutive quarters; a decline in industrial production over a six‐month period,” he’s doing so due to the frustration he clearly had on the debate over terminology and the definition of a recession at that time.
Sound familiar?
A rough translation of the bureau’s qualitative, definition of a recession into a quantitative one, that almost anyone can use, might run like this:
In terms of duration—declines in real G.N.P. for 2 consecutive quarters; a decline in industrial production over a six‐month period.
JULIUS SHISKIN, NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, Dec. 1, 1974
That definition of a recession, “A decline in G.N.P. for two consecutive quarters”, has been pretty much accepted until Brandon lied to the American people AGAIN. Honestly, a recession is truly more involved than the simple explanation used for us laymen.
Thank God we have The Wayback Machine to document such atrocities. If you have ever considered donating a dime to Wikipedia, may I suggest donating to The Wayback Machine instead? They are non-profit and your donations may be tax-deductible. Here’s the link to donate.
(I have no affiliation or even contact with The Wayback Machine, The Internet Archive, or any of the fine people over there working on or running it. I just think money is better spent on truth than being squandered on trash and deception. Just my opinion.)
Extra Credit
More Stuff On Why Wikipedia Should Not Be Trusted
Just in case you are still in doubt about why Wikipedia should not be trusted or want a deeper dive into the matter, I’ve included other information and resources.
That’s just what I does and how come I’m a professional opinion blogger.
The Drawback Of User-Generated Content For An Encyclopedia
But Brian [Said in a whiny voice], you don’t understand. Wikipedia is user-generated content so it’s impossible for Wikipedia to be a Left-Wing Deceptive Propaganda Machine.
Karen
Well, you see Karen, I don’t pretend to know the editorial process of that leftist woke A website and I couldn’t care less. If I build a website and name it, let’s see, say I name it Fox News. Now I take my website and fill it with right-wing whackos as content writers, I’ll attract a conservative readership. Right?
Now let’s say I decide not to ‘hire’ content writers but rather outsource them to the public – for free. How hard would it be for me to groom those initial content providers to the degree that my website attracts other left-wing writers?
Or maybe that entire process just happened organically. I can accept that. The result is the same. Wikipedia seems to be full of woke liberal socialist little crybabies and that is why Wikipedia should not be trusted.
Need more? I’ll let Sharyl Attkisson explain some of the details to you.
Even Wikipedia Says Wikipedia Is Not A Reliable Source
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect.
Wikipedia
Very Boring Research Stuff Just In Case You’re A Geek Like Me
One nice thing about Wikipedia is anyone can access the edit history and any comments and discussions on page edits. I do like that kind of transparency.
First, The Wikipedia Page On Recession Is Locked
The View source for Recession shows, “This page is currently semi-protected so that only established, registered users can edit it.”
The Protection Log says the reason for the protected status is, “Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Currently contentious and edits are not sticking to sources. Also vandalism” on July 27, 2022, and on August 3, 2022, for “Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content“.
The Recession: Revision history is EXTENSIVE! There were twenty-three different edits on that page on July 28, 2022, but I can’t gain much insight from those logs.
Wikipedia Responded To These Questions On Its Talk Page
On Wikipedia’s Talk Page On Recession, someone posted a response to the questions regarding changes in the definition of Recession, stating:
If you are about to hate-post “The definition of a recession is two-quarters of declining GDP!”: the article already says that, so this would be a waste of time unless you have further suggestions for improving the article.
If you are here to complain Wikipedia changed the definition to favor the Biden administration, please don’t, because 1.) the article has mentioned both the “two quarter” and NBER definitions for years, and that hasn’t changed recently, 2.) after discussion by editors from a diversity of political perspectives, the introduction has actually been changed so it emphasizes the “two quarter” definition a little more, which we expect you will find satisfactorily neutral. But feel free to leave a note if you read the article and still have concerns.
End quote from Wikipedia’s Talk Page On Recession.
This person didn’t see The Wayback Machine coming.
I’ll leave it there for now. Don’t want to bore ya.
Brian
Other Resources On Why Wikipedia Should Not Be Trusted
- Why You Should Not Trust Wikipedia, Heidelblog, by R. Scott Clark March 2, 2020
- The Weaponization of Wikipedia, Podcast by Sharyl Attkisson July 13, 2019
- Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’ New York Post By Lee Brown July 16, 2021
- The left-wing bias of Wikipedia The Critic, By Shuichi Tezuka and Linda A. Ashtear
References, Citations & Credits
- Shiskin, Julius. “Points Op View (Published 1974).” Points Op View, New York Times, 1 Dec. 1974, https://web.archive.org/web/20220627162740/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/01/archives/the-changing-business-cycle-points-op-view.html. A digitized version of the original print article from The New Youk Times – Archive online by The Internet Archive,
- projects, Contributors to Wikimedia. “Recession.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 11 July 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20220711032858/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession. The last snapshot on the Internet Archive before the page was altered to align more with President Biden’s announcement that we are not in a recession.
- Wilkie, Christina. “White House Goes on Offense to Argue That the U.S. Is Not in a Recession.” CNBC, CNBC, 29 July 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/29/white-house-goes-on-offense-to-argue-that-the-us-is-not-in-a-recession-.html.
- projects, Contributors to Wikimedia. “Recession.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 28 July 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20220728174608/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession. First Internet Archive of Wikipedia page on “Recession’ after changes that more align with President Biden’s comments.
Featured Image Credit: OpenClipart-Vectors & Natalie Kirk from Pixabay
Brian D. Hawkins is a late-blooming thought leader in his mind. So please don't disturb his happy thoughts. It's all he has.
Brian D. Hawkins has been a blogger for over twenty years, having written thousands of public articles on dozens of websites. He currently blogs for NextStepSurvival.com and his personal blog at TheOpinionBlog.com.
Be First to Comment