Not wikileaks, wikipedia. Yeah, wikipedia is a scam, always has been, but wikileaks is not the same group, different people completely.
Never trust anything from wikipedia, nothing. Wikileaks, on the other hand, has never been caught lying/cheating. Wikileaks merely reprints data collected from others, so it is possible they have posted false things but not of their own creation, they are just messengers carrying data.
Julian Assange was once asked why he posted incriminating evidences against clinton and obama and the FBI and CIA, but had not posted incriminating evidences against Trump. He replied, 'there is none'. If wikileaks gets data they post it, no additions or corrections, they just post what they get.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, does create their own data, does edit heavily and re-edit heavily, they allow many editors to play there, and have zero credibility. Wikipedia may serve ONLY to guide you to other sources, everything you see on wikipedia is 'someone''s' idea of a LARP. Check and verify anything from there, always.
Barely. But no, Wiki-Leaks is a completely different think.The edits in Wikipedia are not objective and reflect the subject's politics, views, etc, so Nancy Pelosi's, for example, would be nothing but praise for her. Usually the person it's about has to object to content.
Not wikileaks, wikipedia. Yeah, wikipedia is a scam, always has been, but wikileaks is not the same group, different people completely.
Never trust anything from wikipedia, nothing. Wikileaks, on the other hand, has never been caught lying/cheating. Wikileaks merely reprints data collected from others, so it is possible they have posted false things but not of their own creation, they are just messengers carrying data.
Julian Assange was once asked why he posted incriminating evidences against clinton and obama and the FBI and CIA, but had not posted incriminating evidences against Trump. He replied, 'there is none'. If wikileaks gets data they post it, no additions or corrections, they just post what they get.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, does create their own data, does edit heavily and re-edit heavily, they allow many editors to play there, and have zero credibility. Wikipedia may serve ONLY to guide you to other sources, everything you see on wikipedia is 'someone''s' idea of a LARP. Check and verify anything from there, always.
All that to say, your title is a lie.
https://kekpe.pe/i/5f0496c316340.jpg
"WIKI-LEAKS"?
No, it's Wikipedia, LOL
You need to change this title It's Wikipedia, not WikiLeaks! ANYONE can do an edit on Wikipedia!
But the edits are moderated.
Barely. But no, Wiki-Leaks is a completely different think.The edits in Wikipedia are not objective and reflect the subject's politics, views, etc, so Nancy Pelosi's, for example, would be nothing but praise for her. Usually the person it's about has to object to content.
Trump used them to his advantage and millions of people aggregated their information...
they were essential to Trump's victory
Just like he said he didn't need social media to win