However, a case of censorship we seem to have missed is likely more relevant than all of the above: Wikipedia.
Keeping up with the rising tide of censorship in the name of equality is a never ending, and often ardorous task; but c’est la vie – moderne, anyway. There are the classic cases: National Review, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Canadian Human Rights Commision, etc. Then there are the breaking-news cases, such as the current Hungarian brouhaha over NPI.
However, a case of censorship we seem to have missed is likely more relevant than all of the above: Wikipedia. As the sixth most visited website both on the planet and in the United States, it needs no summary, nor is it necessary to explain why the sources of their citations matters. Which brings us to the image below:
I earned this message by trying to edit the page of a pop science book so as to include a review by someone apparently deemed persona non grata. When this policy of censorship regarding psychometrics came about, I cannot say, but the link to “The Committee’s decision” sends you to the history of quite a lengthy debate.
For the whole debate, see the page itself here. How deep this censorship runs I obviously do not know, and I do not care to cite examples of Wikipedia pages that are surprisingly dissident, lest an employee of Jimmy Wales sees this and “fixes” it. Rest assured, the site has its moments, but as we all know, when the Cultural Marxists are given an inch today, they expect to be given a nation tomorrow, so I have my doubts as to how much longer it will serve as a fact-checking site for those of us who read Radix.
So, what to do about it? Two things come to mind. One, we could start flocking to Metapedia, which is a predominantly European, alternative right version of Wikipedia. It is certainly in Beta at present, but that’s nothing we couldn’t fix, and even now it occasionally impresses. Interestingly, given this week’s news, there are more pages in Hungarian than in any other language. After all, it does follow that if we get our news from our own sites, our critical theory from our own sites, and our religion from our own sites, that we should have our own “wiki” as well.
Otherwise, we could make like good keyboard warriors and see if we can’t make a dent in the web. Some of you may remember in 2006 when Stephen Colbert mocked Wikipedia by urging his viewers to edit the “Elephant” page so that it would says the global population of elephants had tripled in the last six months. The website was not amused and ended up “locking” twenty different elephant-related pages, plus they banned Stephen Colbert from ever being able to edit anything on the site.
Obviously, Mr. Colbert’s prank was put down fairly quickly. But, and at the risk of sounding naive, our edits would have truth on our side, and as such may prove successful – if done en masse. Should the readers of this fine publication be interested, I suggest we start with: