#OpIlluminatusPiedPiper – Learn how Wikipedia plays down Bill Clintons sexual deviance


### This snap shot was taken 5th February 2015 ###


The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, but it is inhibited by systemic bias that perpetuates a bias against underrepresented cultures and topics. The systemic bias is created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects on Wikipedia. This essay addresses issues of systemic bias for the most part specific to English Wikipedia and does not provide extensive commentary regarding systemic bias as seen in Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia). The topic of systemic bias as regarding Wikipedia in other languages (non-English Wikipedia) is briefly mentioned in the closing sections of this essay.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias


Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bill Clinton served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. Before that, he was Governor of the state of Arkansas, and afterwards he has continued life in the public eye.[1] Clinton has only admitted extramarital relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers though charges were also made by Kathleen Willey.[2]

Paula Jones

Paula Jones brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton while he was president. Clinton argued that as a sitting president, he should not be vulnerable to a civil suit of this nature. The case landed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that “Deferral of this litigation until petitioner’s Presidency ends is not constitutionally required.”[3]

However, a U.S. judge in Arkansas, Susan Webber Wright, ruled that since Jones had not suffered any damages, the case should be dismissed.[4] On April 2, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed Jones’ lawsuit.[5] On July 31, 1998, Jones appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[6]

During the deposition for the Jones lawsuit, which was held at the White House,[7] Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky – a denial that became the basis for the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s subsequent impeachment charge of perjury.[8] On November 18, 1998, Clinton agreed to an out-of-court settlement, and agreed to pay Jones and her attorneys a sum of $850,000.[9] Clinton denies ever engaging in a sexual affair with her.[9]

Monica Lewinsky

Main article: Lewinsky scandal

In 1995, Monica Lewinsky, a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, was hired to work as an intern at the White House during Clinton’s first term, and began a personal relationship with him, the details of which she later confided to her friend and Defense department co-worker Linda Tripp, who secretly recorded their telephone conversations.[10] When Tripp discovered in January 1998 that Lewinsky had signed an affidavit in the Paula Jones case denying a relationship with Clinton, she delivered the tapes to Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel who was investigating Clinton on other matters, including the Whitewater scandal, the White House FBI files controversy, and the White House travel office controversy. The news of this extra-marital affair and the resulting investigation eventually led to the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998 by the U.S. House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal on all impeachment charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in a 21-day Senate trial.[8]

Other allegations

In 1992 porn actress Gennifer Flowers stated that she had a relationship with Clinton that began in 1980.[11] Flowers at first denied that she had an affair with Clinton, but later changed her story.[12][13] After initially denying it, Clinton later admitted that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers when put under oath during the Lewinsky investigation. [14]

In 1998, Kathleen Willey alleged Clinton groped her in a hallway in 1993. An independent counsel determined Willey gave “false information” to the FBI, inconsistent with sworn testimony related to the Jones allegation.[15] Willey dodged perjury charges after Kenneth Starr granted her immunity for her testimony.[15]

In 1998, Juanita Broaddrick alleged Clinton had raped her though she did not remember the exact date, which may have been 1978.[16] However,she did supply the name of the hotel (Camelot), and the reason she was visiting Little Rock (a nursing home seminar) when the incident had allegedly occurred. NBC News found that a nursing conference was held in the Camelot Hotel on April 25, 1978 (see main entry for Juanita Broaddrick). Broaddrick’s only sworn testimony about Clinton was a previous denial of any harassment by Clinton.[17]

In 1998, in response to what she called false media claims that Clinton had raped her, Elizabeth Ward Gracen recanted a six-year-old denial and stated she had a one night stand with Clinton in 1982.[18] Gracen later apologized to Hillary Clinton.[18]

Dolly Kyle Browning began writing a “semi-autobiographical novel” about her alleged affair with Bill Clinton. In the publication process, Browning asserted that Clinton did everything in his power to prohibit and undermine publication. Browning sued Clinton for damages, but the US Court of Appeals denied her appeal.[19]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton


Now get a more advanced list of Bill Clintons sexual assaults https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/paedophile-bill-clinton-22-sexual-assaults-on-women/



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiScanner screenshot.png

Screenshot of the website on August 22, 2007.
Web address wikiscanner.virgil.gr
Commercial? No
Type of site
Database tool
Registration No
Available in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Chinese
Owner Virgil Griffith
Created by Virgil Griffith
Launched August 14, 2007
Current status Offline

WikiScanner (also known as Wikipedia Scanner) was a publicly searchable database that linked millions of anonymous edits on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia to the organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on the owners of the associated block of IP addresses (WikiScanner did not investigate edits made under a username.) It was created by Virgil Griffith and released on August 14, 2007.[1][2] In his “WikiScanner FAQ” Griffith states his belief that WikiScanner could help make Wikipedia more reliable for controversial topics.[3] He also indicates that he has never been employed by the Wikimedia Foundation and claims his work on WikiScanner was “100% noncommercial.”[3]

As of April 8, 2013, attempts to run “WikiScanner Classic” from wikiscanner.virgil.gr returned to the WikiScanner home page, which identified itself as “WIKIWATCHER.COM”; and invoking “WikiScanner2 PreviewNew!” led to a “failure to load the page due to timeout” error.[4][dead link]

On December 21, 2012, a research group from Fondazione Bruno Kessler (it) released an open-source clone of WikiScanner called WikiWatchdog.[5]


The tool’s database contained 34,417,493 entries on anonymous edits (those by users who were not logged into Wikipedia) between February 7, 2002 and August 4, 2007.[3] Griffith stated that the database was constructed by compiling the anonymous edits included amongst the monthly public database dumps of Wikipedia. He claimed to have connected the organizations to their IP address with the assistance of the IP2Location, and through comparison had found “187,529 different organizations with at least one anonymous Wikipedia edit.”[3]

WikiScanner only worked on anonymous edits that provided an IP address, not edits by anyone logged-in under a username. It could also not distinguish between edits made by authorized users of an organization, unauthorized intruders, or users of public-access computers that may have been using an organization’s network. In discussing edits made from computers in the Vatican, computer expert Kevin Curran was quoted by the BBC as saying that it was “difficult to determine if the person was an employee or if they had maliciously hacked into the Vatican system and were ‘spoofing’ the IP address.”[6]

The WikiScanner FAQ notes that edits cannot be positively attributed to representatives of a company, only to a computer logged in to a company’s network. The FAQ goes on to say there is no guarantee that an edit was made by an authorized user rather than an intruder.[3] The likelihood of such intrusions depend upon an organizations’ network security, organizations such as the Vatican Library have public access terminals or networks.[7]

Media coverage and reaction

According to Wired, which first broke the story, most edits were “fairly innocuous”.[2] Wired asked users to submit “The most shameful Wikipedia spin jobs”,[8] which generated many news stories about organizations, such as the Al-Jazeera network, Fox News Channel, staffers of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd and the CIA, that had edited Wikipedia articles.

Satirist Stephen Colbert (who has long featured stories about Wikipedia and its “truthiness” on his program) mocked WikiScanner creator Virgil Griffith‘s ambivalent stance on anonymity on Wikipedia, declaring it the “right” of corporations and governments to participate in the democratic process of deciding what is and is not true on Wikipedia.[9]

According to the BBC, WikiScanner found that some editorial contributions to Wikipedia had originated from computers operated by the Diebold company, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as well as the Vatican.[10] The Times reported that an IP address at the BBC had made edits to Wikipedia.[11] The BBC’s Head of Interactive News, Pete Clifton subsequently published a blog acknowledging the earlier omission. Clifton however, characterized the BBC’s edits of Wikipedia in this manner: “Some of the examples are pretty unedifying, but for every dodgy one there are many, many more uncontroversial edits where people at the BBC have added information or changed a detail in good faith”.[12]

The Associated Press reported that computers owned by the Church of Scientology had been used to remove criticism from articles about Scientology on Wikipedia, including edits to the article Cult Awareness Network. The Associated Press admitted that edits to Wikipedia had been made anonymously from its own computers, though the news organization did not describe the content of the edits.[13] In its story on WikiScanner, the New York Times too admitted that edits had been made from its own computers.[14] Wired.com reported the office of former Republican Senator Conrad Burns had also edited critical passages.[2]

According to Maltastar.com, WikiScanner has shown edits by other large organizations, including Amnesty International, Apple Inc., ChevronTexaco, Coca Cola, the British Conservative Party, Dell Computers, EA Games, Exxon Mobil, the FBI, The Guardian, Microsoft, MySpace, the National Rifle Association, Nestlé, News of the World, the New York Times, the Government of Portugal, the US Republican Party, Reuters, Sony, the United Nations, Walmart, and a dog breeding association.[15] The Canadian television network CTV reported edits by other organizations including Disney and the Canadian government.[16]

On August 24, 2007, headline reports in the Australian print and electronic media were made of anonymous edits to Wikipedia by staff in the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in order to remove potentially damaging details from articles related to the Government. Information found using WikiScanner showed 126 anonymous edits from the Department to articles on sometimes controversial issues and on government ministers.[17][18] The Department responded by saying that Prime Minister John Howard did not direct his staff to modify the articles,[19] and later that day the head of the Department said that the changes were not made by anyone in his department or the Prime Minister’s office, but by another user with the same Internet Service Provider (ISP).[20] Wikiscanner also identified Australian Department of Defence (DoD) employees as having made over 5,000 edits, prompting an unprecedented announcement from the DoD to block Defence staff from editing Wikipedia in case edits were interpreted as official comment.[21][22]

On August 26, 2007, The Boston Globe in “a Globe Editorial” published an article about Wikipedia, described as a “democratic fountain of facts” and related “WikiScanner” technology, reporting as among those companies found to have edited Wikipedia were Pepsi, Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, in which specific case “In 2005, someone using a computer inside Royal Dutch Shell, the oil company, rewrote a benign description of the company, claiming it is ‘run by a group of geriatrics who find it impossible to make timely decisions and have an aversion to highly-profitable ventures.’”[23] The WikiScanner story was also covered by The Independent, which stated that many “censorial interventions” by editors with vested interests on a variety of articles in Wikipedia had been discovered.[24]

On December 18, 2007, Fortune magazine mentioned the use of WikiScanner in the 96th of its list of the “101 Dumbest Moments in Business” in 2007 saying, “A Washington Post employee is found to have changed a reference to the owner of a rival paper from Philip Anschutz to Charles Manson, while someone at The New York Times added the word “jerk” 12 times to the entry on George W. Bush.”[25]

During the period of May 27 to June 4, 2008, edits originating from an IP address belonging to Industry Canada were made to the Jim Prentice (Federal Minister of Industry) article on Wikipedia. The edits included the removal of references to new copyright legislation and the addition of two passages about Prentice’s recent accomplishments as Minister of Industry.[26][27]

Wikipedia reaction

Wikipedia co-founder[28] Jimmy Wales spoke enthusiastically about WikiScanner, noting in one source that “It brings an additional level of transparency to what’s going on at Wikipedia” and stating in another that it was “fabulous and I strongly support it.”[13][29] The BBC quoted an unnamed Wikipedia spokesperson’s praise for the tool in taking transparency “to another level” and preventing “an organisation or individuals from editing articles that they’re really not supposed to.”[10] In responding to the edits from the Canadian Ministry of Industry, spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation Jay Walsh noted that neutrality of language and guarding against conflicts of interest are two of the central pillars of Wikipedia, adding that “The edits which should be trusted would come from people who don’t possess a conflict of interest, in this case, it would be worthwhile saying that if someone is making edits from a computer within the government of Canada … if it was someone within that ministry, that would theoretically constitute a conflict of interest.”[30][dead link] Wales has speculated on a possible warning to anonymous editors: “When someone clicks on ‘edit,’ it would be interesting if we could say, ‘Hi, thank you for editing. We see you’re logged in from The New York Times. Keep in mind that we know that, and it’s public information’ … That might make them stop and think.”[14]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiScanner



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s