“Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia created and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians. It operates as a collaborative platform where users can write, edit, and update articles on a wide range of topics. It follows an open-content model, allowing almost anyone to contribute, with content overseen by editors and administrators to ensure accuracy and neutrality.” Now stop it! It is nothing but an animalistic product – let’s take a look at Wikipedia through an evolutionary psychology perspective. Because it offers information only through evolutionary perspective (sic!).
Tribalism, xenophobia, territoriality, current moral perspective, one chosen economic system, and, of course, a primitive story-telling attitude: who (no matter that normal philosophy considers personal identity as obsolete), with whom, what socioeconomic reputation, what religion, what through “us/them dichotomy” group (nation) waged war, and – finally – tons of articles with little information, exactly in the style the whole Wikipedia is written.
A brief history of encyclopedias
The first encyclopedia began in ancient Greece. Scholars collected knowledge in written form. Early examples include works like Pliny the Elder’s “Natural History” in Rome. During the Enlightenment, more organized encyclopedias appeared. Diderot’s “Encyclopédie” in the 18th century was a major milestone. It aimed to gather all human knowledge in one place. Over time, printed encyclopedias like Britannica became standard. In 2001, Wikipedia launched as a digital, open-access encyclopedia. It broke from traditional models by allowing anyone to contribute. Today, Wikipedia is a global platform. Millions use it daily for free information. But I will show you how Wikipedia looks through evolutionary psychology perspective.
The great evolutionary story-telling
Storytelling is a key survival tool from an evolutionary psychology perspective. Early humans used stories to share important knowledge about hunting, danger, and social rules. Stories allowed people to learn from others’ experiences without facing direct threats. They helped build social bonds, creating trust and cooperation within groups. This cooperation was essential for survival. Stories also reinforced cultural values and norms, guiding behavior in ways that benefited the group. Over time, storytelling became a way to pass down knowledge and traditions across generations, ensuring that essential survival skills persisted.
And Wikipedia is prehistoric product. It goes without saying.
Know the world by the exact means. Mathematics, statistics and information derived from it
The knowledge of our world shouldn’t be transmitted by hunter-gatherer storytelling. A mathematical-statistical approach should tell you why inflation caused lower natality because of household incomes. What event is statistically related to other events that possess subevents we have to find. Do you think I am joking?
The interconnected world is extremely complicated, with 1000 of connections with extremely complicated relations. Do you think think Wikipedia provide this? It immerses everything into prehistory.
There is “me”! Sorry, you are just a robot
… Neuroscience adds to this by examining how the brain creates what we perceive as the self. Brain processes, like the neural networks responsible for social cognition and sensorimotor systems, allow us to interact and function within society. The “self” can be seen as an organizational tool the brain uses to interact with the environment. This is not the same as consciousness or personality. It’s more about how neural structures support cooperation and social existence. The “self” in this sense is more of a construct, useful for functioning within a community, but not a fixed, inherent entity. (source) (source)
Human agents, events, tribes
Yahya Sinwar (human agent), the leader of Hamas (us/them dichotomy), is killed in a firefight (social event) with Israeli forces (social alliance) in Gaza (place).
The sitting US (tribe) president Joe Biden (head of the pack) visited Kyiv during the Russo-Ukraine war (us/them dichotomy and animalistic war) that started in 2014. They agreed that no attacks would hit Kyiv by Russians. So WW3 wouldn’t start (killing our leader would mean war between the tribes).
At the height of the Japanese (tribe) university (tribal affiliation) protests, protesters (social alliance) occupied Shinjuku Station in Tokyo and clashed violently with police (social and highly hierachial alliance).
Landslides, accidents, fires, airplane crashes, floods, earthquakes, storms, tsunamis, avalanches, volcanic eruptions, explosions, droughts, power outages, chemical spills, building collapses, riots, and train derailments.
A group of scientists (social alliance) in Antarctica (isolated environment) collaborates across nations to research climate change (global survival event), putting aside typical us/them divides in favor of a shared existential threat.
North Korea
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (alpha figure) oversees military parades (tribal ritual) to show dominance and allegiance to his pack. This reinforces internal hierarchy and collective power displays against perceived external threats.
During the Black Lives Matter protests in the US (tribal territory), demonstrators (social alliance) clashed with law enforcement (hierarchical enforcers) in cities like Portland (place of conflict), creating a temporary us/them division between protesters and authorities.
A team of tech executives (social elites) meets at Davos (neutral ground) for the World Economic Forum to discuss AI advancements (societal evolution) and resource allocation (survival), agreeing on parameters to avoid a potential AI-induced societal breakdown (existential threat).
China
The president of China (tribal leader) enforces strict digital monitoring (control over territory) to curb online dissent and maintain a singular, dominant narrative, minimizing the spread of opposing ideologies that could destabilize the collective (tribal cohesion).
In response to a rapidly spreading disease (biological threat), the World Health Organization (global alliance) holds emergency meetings, implementing health protocols across borders to reduce infection rates and maintain societal function.
In the tense atmosphere of the Cuban Missile Crisis (high-stakes conflict), President John F. Kennedy (tribal leader) and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev (rival tribe’s leader) engaged in a negotiation standoff (nonviolent combat). Both leaders weighed the survival of their populations against territorial dominance, reaching a fragile peace to avoid mutually assured destruction (shared existential threat).
Indigenous tribes
A group of indigenous tribes (kin alliances) in the Amazon rainforest form a coalition to resist deforestation by large corporations (resource rivals). The tribes employ traditional knowledge of the land (tribal wisdom) to protect territory and resources, defending against an external threat that could disrupt their way of life (environmental survival).
During the rise of the French Revolution, the French monarchy (established hierarchy) was challenged by the common people (social uprising), leading to intense power shifts and the downfall of King Louis XVI (overthrown alpha). The revolution represents a clash between hierarchical control and emerging egalitarian values, where new alliances formed to restructure society’s order (tribal reorganization).
On Wall Street (financial territory), a group of hedge fund traders (elite alliance) attempt to short-sell GameStop stock. But a social media-fueled community of retail investors (outsider tribe) disrupts the scheme. This digital uprising symbolizes an us/them dynamic, where collective action temporarily challenges the dominance of financial elites.
Internet
When the internet experienced widespread outages across Europe (territorial disruption), tech experts (problem-solving alliance) and cybersecurity agencies (defensive hierarchy) worked together to secure network infrastructure. This means sharing information across borders to restore digital connectivity (modern survival need).
During the Arab Spring (wave of rebellions), populations across the Middle East (shared geographic and cultural space) mobilized to overthrow authoritarian regimes (hierarchical structures). This movement formed a social alliance of youth and disenfranchised citizens. They demand change and new leadership in pursuit of tribal autonomy.
In the aftermath of a major earthquake in Turkey (natural disaster), international rescue teams (coalition for survival) from countries like Japan, Israel, and Greece arrived to assist. Despite historical tensions, these alliances transcended the usual divides. With each group focusing on shared human survival in the face of nature’s overwhelming force.
When European countries experienced a wave of mass immigration (resource and space competition), political leaders (tribal heads) debated resource distribution and societal cohesion, while some citizens (territorial defenders) expressed fear over cultural shifts (tribal identity preservation). This tension underscores the balance between compassion and perceived survival threats within fixed boundaries.
Only socioeconomic achievements matter: History
In prehistory, socioeconomic outcomes shaped survival. Those with better access to resources thrived. They found more food, built safer shelters, and avoided dangers. The ability to gather or produce food created status differences. Some individuals accumulated wealth in the form of food, tools, or land. This gave them power. Others, with less, depended on them. These early forms of inequality influenced who survived.
Leaders emerged, offering protection or guidance. They often had the best resources, which helped them and their families. The stronger or more resourceful individuals had more offspring. These offspring benefited from their parents’ status. As a result, certain traits became more common. These included intelligence, social skills, or physical strength.
Human groups also valued cooperation. Those who shared resources had stronger social bonds. Cooperation helped individuals survive harsh conditions. It also led to trust within groups. Trusted individuals gained status, improving their chances of survival. Those who contributed more to the group often received more support in return. Sharing became a tool for survival and status.
In prehistoric times, cultural practices started to develop. These practices favored those who could adapt to social rules. Leaders set rules for resource use and cooperation. Those who followed these rules gained protection or favor. This gave them better chances for survival. The most successful strategies spread within and between groups.
Wealth and social status didn’t just impact individuals. They also affected groups. Some groups, with more resources or better cooperation, grew and thrived. These groups often expanded and dominated others. The struggle for resources between groups led to conflict. Winning groups imposed their systems on others. The winners spread their ways of living.
In prehistoric societies, the interaction between status, resources, and cooperation determined who lived and who didn’t.
Only socioeconomic achievements matter: Wikipedia brings prehistory back
Actors, singers, politicians, athletes, influencers, business magnates, writers, activists, scientists, chefs, religious leaders, and artists. You know it all.
For another example, Wikipedia highlights people who dominate social hierarchies, form alliances, and expand territories. It centers on those who shaped resource allocation, survival, and cultural evolution. You will find an array of powerful figures – political, military, and religious leaders who led tribes and kingdoms. These alpha figures reflect our need for leaders who offer protection, direct collective action, and symbolize authority. Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and Cleopatra all show humanity’s ancient preference for strong, central figures.
Innovators and resource shifters fill many pages. They include inventors and industrialists whose ideas changed how society uses resources. Their contributions underscore humanity’s drive to secure, adapt, and optimize resources to survive and thrive. Names like Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs represent this constant search to innovate and expand resource use. These figures drove technological advancements that reshaped economies and elevated entire societies.
Honoring alliance builders
Wikipedia also honors those who built social alliances. These individuals formed coalitions to challenge existing hierarchies or to push for social change. They embody humanity’s tendency to unite in groups for mutual survival, social reform, or protection against threats. Figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Susan B. Anthony led movements that redefined social norms and reshaped power structures. These alliance-builders rallied people around common causes, fostering change through solidarity.
Then there are the cultural and ideological guardians. These are the thinkers, writers, and artists who redefined collective values. They reinforced in-group identities and often questioned dominant cultural narratives. Humanity has always turned to these figures for guidance in shaping or challenging cultural boundaries. People like Plato, Karl Marx, and Shakespeare all left legacies that impact how societies think, behave, and relate to others.
Homo sapiens explorers
Explorers and pioneers have their place here too. They pushed beyond known boundaries, whether geographic or cultural, embodying humanity’s drive to seek new territory. This search for opportunities, whether for survival, wealth, or influence, led figures like Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus, and Neil Armstrong to brave the unknown. Their journeys expanded human knowledge and inspired others to explore.
Scientists and knowledge seekers fill a significant portion of Wikipedia. They drive humanity’s understanding of nature and our environment. Charles Darwin revolutionized biology with his theory of evolution, explaining life’s diversity through natural selection. Albert Einstein unlocked mysteries of physics, redefining space, time, and energy. Marie Curie, through her groundbreaking work on radioactivity, opened doors for medical advancements and revealed hidden forces in the universe. Scientists embody the quest for knowledge that aids in survival, helping humanity adapt to environments and solve existential challenges. Figures like Isaac Newton, who laid the foundations of modern physics, and Jane Goodall, who redefined our understanding of primate behavior, show how scientific curiosity evolves our perspective on the world. From biologists to physicists, scientists represent the survival benefit of knowledge, guiding our adaptability and resilience.
Economic strategists and wealth accumulators also have a strong presence. Business moguls, economists, and financiers like John D. Rockefeller and Warren Buffett controlled vast resources, shaping economies and industries. They represent competitive strategies for resource acquisition, reinforcing hierarchies and building wealth empires. Their influence highlights humanity’s drive to secure assets, maintain control over resources, and direct societal growth.
History in stories
Wikipedia also records the stories of warriors and conflict figures. These include generals, revolutionaries, and fighters who defended territory or pursued expansion. Alexander the Great, Che Guevara, and Joan of Arc exemplify humanity’s drive to protect, conquer, and dominate. They led battles, rallying others around common goals of loyalty, survival, and dominance over rivals. These figures reveal the primal instincts that emerge in conflicts over land, power, or ideology.
Finally, Wikipedia includes tribal healers and philosophical guides. These are the religious figures, mystics, and scientists who focus on health, well-being, and existential purpose. Buddha, Hippocrates, and Sigmund Freud represent humanity’s ancient roles of healers and wisdom-bearers, guiding people toward resilience. They help tribes, nations, or individuals cope with physical and psychological threats. Whether through spirituality or science, these figures reinforce the tribal need for guidance in facing life’s unknowns and enhancing collective survival.
In sum, Wikipedia catalogues individuals who embody the core patterns of human behavior: dominance, alliance-building, knowledge-seeking, and resource control. Together, they mirror humanity’s pursuit of power, cohesion, and adaptability across social ecosystems. They capture our ancient efforts to expand territories.
Morality: tribalism, us/them
While this brought nothing but gas chambers, Wikipedia is full of it – nations, ethnics, races, nations, ethnicities, religions, cultures, languages. Also political ideologies, social classes, regional affiliations, genders, sexual orientations, age groups, professions, academic disciplines, fandoms, sports teams, and even dietary preferences.
All of these labels, like nations and races, often reinforce the tribal “us vs. them” mentality. While they may help people organize their identities or find communities, they also create boundaries that separate “in-groups” from “out-groups.” These distinctions, even when seemingly benign – like supporting a sports team or identifying with a profession – can deepen divisions, fostering exclusion, competition, or even hostility toward those outside the group.
Modern society, with its endless ways to categorize, only amplifies these tribal instincts. Social media, news outlets, and collaborative platforms like Wikipedia inadvertently contribute by creating echo chambers. Group identities are constantly reaffirmed, and differences between groups are highlighted. In an interconnected world, where collaboration should ideally transcend such divisions, we still find ourselves locked into tribal structures that date back to humanity’s earliest days.
Wikipedia through evolutionary psychology perspective: Great mating places? No, just cities
Evolutionary psychology sees cities as hubs for more than just trade and culture. They’re built-in mating grounds – dense social networks where people compete for attention, alliances, and mates. Cities provide sanctuaries from the primal threats our ancestors faced. Fewer wild predators, controlled environments, and structures meant to shield us. And naturally, the closer to the center you are, the safer you feel – surrounded by layers of walls, people, and resources. It’s the same instinct that drives animals to seek safety in numbers and protected areas.
Now, Wikipedia. Imagine this instinctive view twisted into an overly sanitized description, stripped of raw, evolutionary realism. Instead of noting the primal urges driving city life, Wikipedia will focus on zoning, infrastructure, economic opportunities, and the “innovative benefits of urbanization.” Any mention of “mating grounds” or “sanctuary instincts”? Forget it. Wikipedia’s version makes cities sound like a spreadsheet come to life, emphasizing policies, regulations, and abstract “social functions” as if they aren’t the ultimate stage for humanity’s deepest drives.
No instincts, no competition for mates, no talk of safety and territory. Evolutionary psychology stripped down to neutral jargon, as if cities evolved for administrative purposes alone. All this, while actual city life throbs with age-old instincts tucked behind the urban facade.
Morality, yes, our morality
Morality evolves over time, from culture to culture, but Wikipedia knows what is best. The childish division between good and bad people is present. Their morality deeply stems from our evolutionary personality.
There are plenty of moral systems, Wikipedia just mimics society. For example, total utilitarianism would bring our society upside-down.
The way politics is immoral with the unimaginable number of patron-client networks, from the super-rich, Big Banks, lobbyists, and so on is just let go by the “encyclopedia”. They cherish democracy in its present form and every moral judgment is a consequence of it. Even though democracy should look completely different.
They immerse their reader into circus politics with politicians smiling, and tens of PR teams behind them. And articles about important politicians remain locked.
No doubt, concerning America, ideologies (something stupid and animalistic) are promoted – either you are Republican or Democrat. And animalistic perceptions of people make it their own.
Wikipedia is not for no background influences, newspapers based on statistics and mathematics exposing potential hidden patron-client relationships, people making the parties which would consist of professionals to collaborate.
Wikipedia through evolutionary psychology perspective: animalistic Wikipedia and its morality
Current law system is ridden through Wikipedia with its silly animalistic morality.
Wikipedia showcases countless examples of evolutionary instincts clashing with today’s ethical expectations. For instance, its pages on dynasties like the Medici family reveal how kin loyalty and nepotism once secured power across generations. But in modern corporations, nepotism – exemplified by the Walton family at Walmart – faces criticism. This clashes with business ethics that push for merit over family ties.
National defense and strict border policies are also explored. Pages on the U.S.-Mexico border, the Berlin Wall, and recent refugee crises show how nations still act like tribes, guarding territory against perceived threats. Yet, these actions raise ethical debates today, balancing the ancient instinct to protect resources with calls for human rights and freedom of movement.
Political campaigns
Political campaigns and identity politics come up as well. Entries on Brexit, U.S. presidential campaigns, and figures like Donald Trump explain how leaders rally supporters by creating “us vs. them” divides. This taps into in-group loyalty. But it faces criticism for fueling division instead of unity in democratic societies that ideally value constructive dialogue and inclusivity.
Wikipedia’s entries on extreme sports – like BASE jumping, free climbing, and big-wave surfing – show our drive for status through risk-taking. Athletes earn admiration through these displays of bravery. But the pages also bring up the ethical debates on promoting dangerous behavior, especially among younger, impressionable audiences.
Inheritance disputes in wealthy families, like the Rockefellers or Kennedys, provide another example. Wikipedia covers these conflicts, which often stem from favoritism or unequal resource distribution, reflecting ancient kin loyalty instincts. But modern norms push for fair, equal treatment, creating friction when family dynamics collide with societal ideals around equity.
Alfa figures
Celebrity culture, explored through pages on figures like Kim Kardashian, Elon Musk, and Kanye West, taps into our fixation with high-status individuals. These personalities command loyalty and inspire emulation, acting as modern-day “alpha” figures. But this status obsession often draws criticism, with society questioning the ethics of fame culture and its impact on self-image, especially among younger generations.
Corporate cases like those of ExxonMobil, Nestlé, and Amazon illustrate the profit vs. responsibility conflict. Wikipedia dives into these companies’ strategies to maximize shareholder wealth, often at the expense of community welfare. These pages show the tension between the instinct to secure resources for one’s group. And the ethical push for corporate responsibility, particularly when it affects local communities or the environment.
Educational competition comes up through coverage of the 2019 U.S. college admissions scandal, where wealthy parents used unethical tactics to secure prestigious university spots for their children. This taps into a basic drive to ensure offspring success. Yet it sharply conflicts with ethical standards around fairness and equal access to education.
The COVID-19 pandemic’s panic-buying phenomenon also appears, with Wikipedia covering how individuals hoarded essentials, disrupting global supply chains. These pages show how instinctual self-preservation behaviors, logical in survival terms, can disrupt collective welfare, raising moral debates on hoarding during crises.
Zoning laws in cities like San Francisco and New York illustrate neighborhood exclusivity as a modern defense of territory. Wikipedia explains how zoning laws preserve resources like school quality and property values but create barriers to affordable housing. This reflects an instinct to guard local resources, clashing with today’s values of inclusivity and socioeconomic diversity.
How many people died versus no natality
A huge social event in a hunter-gatherer group was the death of somebody. But as you suspect, this trait is maladaptive in a globalized world with media giving infinite number of information about immense tragedies.
But what about low natality? We are not evolutionary programmed to solve this so, of course, Wikipedia never mentions this.
When you kill a child in Christian culture they regard you as the worst scum. Prisoners will torture you because a child is a God’s gift and because they were abused in their childhood as well.
However, if the child isn’t born at all everything goes. And this is, in my humble opinion, one of the biggest flaws of the current Western moral system. But we unfortunately live in a primitive, animal-like moral system. Evolution programmed us to have children all the time. Contraception means didn’t exist in the vast majority of human existence so there consequentially wasn’t any pressure when people didn’t have kids.
Imagine Wikipedia putting news every time some government wouldn’t enact a bill for natality raising. Kind of crazy? But millions of babies could have been born.
If the US super-rich gave “only” 2 trillion, 6 million children would see daylight without parents having to pay for the care.
The statistics are derived that an average cost of a child per year is $17,375. And parents paying the checks for 20 years.
The biggest killers: contraception inventors
Something even Stalin, Hitler or Mao hadn’t in mind. They considered their victims as necessities or collateral damage. However, contraception inventors, in a way, have had a profound impact on population dynamics. This created a tool that has prevented billions of potential lives. Seen through a stark numerical lens, contraception could be considered one of the biggest killers ever, simply by the sheer volume of births that have not occurred. But focusing only on this view misses the true significance of contraception: the transformation of women’s lives and autonomy.
Before contraception
Before contraception, most women had little control over their fertility. Pregnancy was a near-constant reality, with women spending most of their lives either pregnant, nursing, or recovering. This cycle kept women physically, emotionally, and economically dependent on family structures and limited their opportunities in nearly every area, from education to careers. The arrival of contraception gave women a new choice. The power to decide when and if they wanted to become mothers. This wasn’t just a biological freedom; it was a fundamental shift in social and personal autonomy.
Contraception has led to unimaginably fewer birth, but it has also created a world where women have the freedom to pursue ambitions outside traditional roles, to contribute economically and socially, and to control their own health. With reliable birth control, women can now plan careers, delay marriage, and focus on personal goals, breaking cycles that used to bind them strictly to reproductive roles. It is also neccessary to say that this autonomy has fueled advancements in gender equality, as women have gained access to education, political participation, and professional fields previously closed to them.
In summary, without contraceptive pills, the global population might be around 10-10.5 billion today, though it’s impossible to know exactly, given the complex interplay of factors that influence birth rates.
Second biggest killers: doctors
An earlier study conducted in 2009 found that an estimated 200,000 people die from medical malpractice (in the US) annually. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine conducted a study of medical negligence, finding that an estimated 98,000 people died each year.
The Journal of Patient Safety in 2013 suggested that between 210,000 and 440,000 deaths per year in the United States may be attributable to preventable harm in hospitals.
According to the OECD, 36,000 Czechs die unnecessarily every year. The Prague mass shooting in 2023 was something that usually does not happen. However, the citizens ignited plenty of candles. Please, ignite the 36,000 candles for our healthcare system deaths.
Different economic systems, yet one type of capitalism
They present you with obsolete economic systems, such as communism, socialism and so on. They never ever mention that capitalism is so complex (the Big Banks., stock market, multinational companies) that every single capital flow bears its moral obligation. For example banks? Deposits and liabilities management (core capital from deposits and short-term borrowing), lending and credit flow (retail and corporate loans for interest income), trading and investment portfolios (proprietary trading, securities, derivatives for profit and risk management), global transactions and forex (cross-border currency flows and hedging), investment banking and advisory services (M&A, IPOs, wealth management fees), liquidity and risk management (liquidity buffers and reserves for stability), internal fund transfers (cost allocation through Funds Transfer Pricing).
Stock market
Stock market? Initial public offerings (IPOs) (new capital raised by companies through share sales), secondary offerings (additional shares issued to raise further capital), institutional trading (large trades by banks, hedge funds, and mutual funds), retail trading (individual investors buying and selling shares), market-making (liquidity provided by firms ensuring smooth buying and selling), short selling (borrowing shares to sell and buy back at a lower price), dividends (capital returned to shareholders), share buybacks (companies repurchasing shares to reduce supply and increase value).
Multinational corporations
What about multinational corporations? Revenue generation (sales across multiple regions and markets), cross-border transfers (capital moved between countries for operations and tax efficiency), foreign direct investment (capital invested in international subsidiaries or projects), reinvested earnings (profits reinvested into subsidiaries for growth), intercompany loans (internal financing between parent and subsidiary), external financing (raising capital through bonds, loans, or equity), supply chain payments (funds allocated to global suppliers and logistics), dividends (profits returned to shareholders), currency hedging (managing exchange rate risk on international transactions).
Imagine mixing it and redoing it by some smart economist. No way!
They don’t tell you a huge portion of GDP may be invested in natality rise, scientific research, to develop developing countries. No, just consumption. And Wikipedia is objective, a mirror of society, and of course, an unregulated capitalism supporter.
Meaningless articles with little information
Wikipedia is ridiculous. If you want to find something full of information, try peer-review articles, books, textbooks or AI.
You have tons of articles with little meaning, telling everything, but basically nothing. This goes with a Wikipedia-like narrative.
I am sorry, but information is sometimes really scarce there.
Wikipedia through evolutionary psychology perspective: religion
You will object it is an encyclopedia, so they must neutrally give an emphasis on religion.
But they put it on par with agnosticism or atheism which is highly despicable.
Gladly serving the super-rich
Wait a minute! Didn’t Jimmy Wales say he created it to minimize the influence of those aforementioned? He just tried to achieve that.
Unfortunately, there are no real numbers on how much the super-rich own the entire American economy (this is just an example). No mention of the dominant Western interconnected banking system that exploits the Global South. No real mention of it, despite the fact that the highly ranked “Wikipedians” must have some dealings with them.
You know? JPMorgan, the Vanderbilts, multinational lobbyists, crooks, movers and shakers, multinational patron-client networks?
Conspiracy theories: Rothschilds don’t exist
Since Wikipedia claims to have a major impact as a source of objective, scientific inquiry, and rational thought, and it allegedly deeply influences how people understand and interpret complex issues. It says it gives an emphasis on evidence-based information and verifiable facts, but it denies something that is strongly evidence-based. Please note (and I will discuss it below), that the majority of non-political conspiracy theories are really just conspiracy theories.
If Wikipedia doesn’t care about evidence, we do
Nomi Prins and Ferdinand Lundberg are highly respected authors known for their detailed investigations into the influence of financial elites on American and global politics. Their works are grounded in rigorous research (evidence-based), drawing from a vast array of credible sources to provide a nuanced understanding of how banking and wealth have shaped key historical event.
Prins uses historical books and biographies that document the lives and careers of significant figures in the banking world, such as J.P. Morgan and members of the Rockefeller family. She also relies on contemporary newspaper archives and periodicals, which offer real-time insights into the bankers’ influence on policy during key events like the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the financial maneuvers during both World Wars. Additionally, Prins includes interviews and oral histories to provide firsthand accounts and deeper context to the historical records she examines.
Iron law of oligarchy Wikipedia doesn’t care about
Sadly, Wikipedia claims there is something as the Iron law of oligarchy which means that every perfect democracy is subsequently rotten by private interests. I guess that only the American one isn’t.
Ferdinand Lundberg’s America’s 60 Families focuses on the concentration of wealth and power among America’s richest families up to the 1930s. Lundberg’s built his work on a foundation of public financial records, including tax filings, corporate reports, and stockholder information, which he used to trace the financial networks and investments of these influential families. He also drew heavily on government investigations, particularly those conducted by the Federal Trade Commission and various Congressional committees. These were tasked with scrutinizing monopolies, trusts, and the concentration of economic power. Lundberg supplemented these official records with journalistic accounts from investigative reporters of the time, which provided critical insights into the behind-the-scenes operations of these powerful families. Historical works that documented the rise of financial empires in the U.S. further contextualized his analysis, allowing Lundberg to paint a comprehensive picture of how these families exerted control over American economic and political life.
These authors collectively draw from a rich tapestry of primary documents, government records, journalistic investigations, and secondary historical analyses. Their work highlights the deep and often opaque connections between wealth, power, and governance, and how these relationships have profoundly shaped both American and global history. The sources they use reflect a commitment to uncovering the intricate interplay between financial power and political influence, providing valuable insights into the dynamics that have defined the 20th century and beyond.
No, just conspiracies about the super-rich, Wikipedia ignores objective data
If you still don’t believe that a few rich people run the world and are much more powerful than POTUS, you may find something that convinces you in my personal story of not believing in conspiracy theories (about the super-rich). The thing that I considered “the super-rich ruling the world” was a laughing stock. So I don’t blame you, I blame Wikipedia.
What about other conspiracy theories?
As I said above, the vast majority of non-political conspiracy theories are really false with all the respective people’s biases. By the way, the extent of conspiracy theories is so huge and overlapping that you that someone must have to do it purposely (secret services, for example even though there is no evidence, but it is rationally very plausible). So everyone thinks that if 99 % of conspiracy theories are not true, also the 1 % is false. However, this assumption is wrong.
In general, conspiracy theories undermine rationality by promoting beliefs without solid evidence, often leaning on sensationalism and distrust rather than facts. They erode objectivity, pushing people to interpret events through a biased lens, and reinforcing preexisting fears and prejudices. This mindset skews evidence, making people disregard contradictory information or reputable sources, choosing instead to believe unverified or discredited claims. Conspiracy theories can create an “us versus them” mentality, framing complex issues in simplistic, often divisive narratives. They exploit uncertainty and mistrust, encouraging people to substitute curiosity with paranoia, harming critical thinking, sowing division, and ultimately weakening a society’s commitment to facts and informed understanding.
Now my personal look at which conspiracy theories are real and which are not.
Sandy Hook shooting – no
Clintons assassinations – no
Chemtrails – no
J. F. Kennedy assassination – no
Vaccines – no
UFO – no
FEMA – no
Climate change – no
Deep state – no
HIV/AIDS denialism – no
COVID-19 – no
Obama birth certificate – no
Reptilians – no
Moon landing – no
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – no
9/11 – the secret service may have known about it (I have really no clue)
Super-rich families – yes (I can prove it)
Illuminati (have influence that doesn’t mean control) – yes, overlapping with the super-rich families
Bankers – yes, overlapping with the super-rich families (I can prove it as well)
Gladly serving the secret services
Secret services and intelligence agencies may attempt to influence Wikipedia in subtle and strategic ways to shape public perception or control information relevant to national interests. They often target political and historical narratives, adjusting articles about specific events, wars, or political figures to align with their national storyline. This might involve framing events more favorably or downplaying controversial involvement. Similarly, agencies work on reputation management by influencing articles about government agencies, political leaders, or officials, ensuring they appear in a positive light, especially on sensitive topics. They often update entries related to current conflicts, intelligence operations, or foreign policy initiatives to reflect strategic interests. This allows them to insert favorable perspectives on military actions, question allegations, or highlight perceived threats from rival states.
Surveillance and cybersecurity
Secret services also influence Wikipedia on topics like surveillance and cybersecurity. They edit articles on surveillance programs or cybersecurity practices to minimize public awareness or frame surveillance as protective. Agencies counter foreign narratives by editing Wikipedia entries to refute rival claims or promote credible sources that support their positions. Topics around espionage and intelligence operations also come under scrutiny. Agencies sanitize information about known or suspected operations, especially in cases involving scandals or failures. They often omit operational details, downplay controversies, or emphasize successful missions to maintain credibility. Agencies may also shape public opinion about allies and rivals, subtly editing articles about foreign leaders, governments, or international alliances to foster impressions that suit their goals.
Agencies often target articles on domestic political movements or protests, editing coverage to reflect stability or undermine movements’ legitimacy. This can involve questioning the organization, funding, or motives behind certain groups. Influencing biographies of journalists, whistleblowers, activists, or ex-officials is another tactic, particularly when individuals criticize government policies. Agencies may subtly highlight controversies, minimize achievements, or add bias to alter public perception. Agencies also shape the definitions of controversial terms like “terrorism,” “insurgency,” or “cyberwarfare” to fit national or institutional definitions, making it easier to control how these issues are discussed.
Injecting animalistic ideologies
Beyond these direct methods, secret services sometimes aim to influence cultural narratives and national identity. They promote certain cultural or ideological narratives that reinforce national identity or soften criticism, such as emphasizing national achievements or moral high ground in global conflicts. Similarly, they influence articles on large domestic corporations, particularly in tech, defense, or energy sectors, to protect business interests and portray corporations as critical to the national economy. On social issues, agencies work to project an image of inclusivity, progressivism, or environmental stewardship, enhancing soft power by crafting an appealing national identity.
Agencies may adjust articles about global organizations and treaties to influence perceptions of bodies like the UN, World Bank, or NATO, as well as treaties on climate change, trade, or nuclear disarmament. This effort frames their country’s involvement positively while undermining rival nations’ roles. They discourage opposition by shaping Wikipedia articles on opposition groups or dissidents, framing them as radical, foreign-funded, or destabilizing. They may insert claims suggesting fringe or illegal activities to diminish opposition legitimacy.
Scandals no longer scandals
In cases of sensitive incidents or scandals, agencies often reduce visibility, minimizing details, omitting information, or emphasizing unrelated events to divert attention. They may also influence public understanding of psychological or social science research on crowd psychology or “fake news,” subtly steering awareness and skepticism toward desired topics. On scientific topics where national policy intersects with public debate, like climate change or health measures, agencies work to shape perceptions of scientific consensus, aligning it with policy positions or discouraging dissenting views on sensitive technology.
For topics in the geo-economic realm, agencies influence articles on critical resources (oil, rare earth metals) or regions (like the Arctic or South China Sea), shaping perceptions of ownership, scarcity, or control to reflect strategic priorities. They amplify national security concerns, emphasizing certain threats, such as cyber warfare from specific countries, to justify security measures or spending. In parallel, they may downplay their own security initiatives to avoid public scrutiny. Legal and judicial issues are also targeted, with agencies editing entries on legal systems, judicial rulings, or extradition cases to emphasize the legitimacy and autonomy of domestic decisions, especially when controversies arise over justice or human rights issues.
These methods give agencies a way to subtly influence public perception. They shape narratives, control information, and frame sensitive topics on Wikipedia to align with strategic goals.
Wikipedia administrators exposed by evolutionary psychology
They are obsessed with power, forming social alliances, and trying to achieve the highest socioeconomic status.
The evolutionary psychology perspective goes beyond mere written articles. I don’t know the English Wikipedia background, but I know the Czech one was full of feuds, struggle for power, fame, only the monies lack.
How it should look like?
Wikipedia claims to be the ultimate knowledge repository, structured around accuracy, neutrality, and open access. But, seen through an evolutionary psychology lens, it’s just a digital extension of humanity’s oldest drives: tribalism, survival, social ranking, and storytelling for group cohesion. The platform doesn’t escape our biological roots – it amplifies them. It maintains in-group versus out-group boundaries, supports modern hierarchies through selective visibility, and reinforces societal norms by casting historical and political narratives in neat, familiar frameworks.
What Wikipedia presents as “objective information” is just a modern manifestation of primal instincts. It builds communities around shared information, reflecting group biases and supporting current social and moral systems, all while projecting the illusion of objectivity. In doing so, Wikipedia becomes a mirror of humanity’s evolutionary past, preserved under the guise of enlightenment, ignoring the complexity of our drives. This encyclopedia of everything? It’s a history of the same drives that have shaped our species all along.
Data, studies, abstracts, mathematics, complex equations
Imagine an encyclopedia where knowledge is stripped of narrative, names, and social constructs, presenting pure information – a mathematical, data-driven cosmos of facts and frameworks, without the lens of evolutionary psychology or human-centric interpretation. This encyclopedia is a living matrix of information that doesn’t “tell” history; it shows correlations, trends, and connections, each entry a node in a larger network of cumulative understanding. No biographies or national histories appear here, only models, formulas, and datasets representing collective shifts and developments. Instead of “discoveries” by individual minds, it focuses on the principles themselves, as if knowledge were naturally unfolding, building block by block, emerging through trends, independent of personal achievement or cultural markers.
This encyclopedia presents science and society as a web of abstract principles and statistical models. For example, a concept like “governance” isn’t defined by systems like monarchy or democracy but by statistical models showing patterns of resource distribution, risk mitigation, social cohesion, and economic outcomes. Rather than focusing on rulers or empires, governance is simply described as a collection of strategies shaped by population density, climate, and trade routes – variables that impact stability, conflict, and growth rates. Similarly, economics becomes a study of energy flows and resource allocation, presented in equations, with visual representations that map how capital, labor, and resources interact across complex supply chains.
The economic system a in different light
Instead of national economies, this encyclopedia would display economic systems as a network of interdependent flows, each country represented as a node that exchanges resources, capital, and information, all reducible to mathematical interactions, showing how one economic event cascades through other parts of the network. The stock market, for instance, is shown as a dynamic model of asset exchanges, portfolio allocations, and risk probabilities, without the influence of individual actors or cultural interpretations.
History, as we know it, fades into patterns of migration, trade, technology diffusion, and societal adaptation. Maps are abstracted, displaying statistical clusters of migration paths, language shifts, and technological dissemination, showing how certain patterns replicate themselves across centuries. There are no “Greek,” “Roman,” or “Mayan” civilizations here – just geographic points where agricultural methods or engineering innovations arose, spreading outward like ripples, recorded as trend lines rather than unique achievements.
The encyclopedia would use geospatial data to display population densities, urbanization rates, and technological advancements, showing how geographic factors influence culture, lifestyle, and social organization over time. It tracks social evolution not as a narrative of conquest or heroism but as patterns in resource use, climate adaptation, and demographic shifts.
Historical events in data
Historical events appear as clusters of related data points, reflecting causes and effects without reducing them to tales of rulers or revolutions. The collapse of a civilization might simply be represented by a steep drop in resources, agricultural yields, or trade volumes, with the accompanying spike in migration rates, warfare frequencies, or disease incidents – a non-linear pattern that repeats across ages and continents.
The encyclopedia’s approach to knowledge itself is devoid of philosophical categories like “ethics” or “ideology.” Instead, it’s a functional guide to how values and behaviors emerge based on environmental factors, social pressures, and resource availability. It would display morality as an evolving response to the complex variables that societies face, mapped through behavioral studies, showing trends in cooperation, altruism, and competition. The changes in moral norms, rather than seen as advancements or declines, are shown as adaptations to changing contexts – war, famine, wealth concentration, and technological progress.
Assessing political systems
For instance, rather than discussing political systems as “good” or “bad,” the encyclopedia would analyze each through the lens of social stability, resource distribution, and group cohesion, with algorithms that simulate the potential outcomes of different governance structures on societal health. Instead of judging democracy or autocracy, it might show probabilities of societal satisfaction or resource sustainability based on how power and resources circulate within a population. Thus, the “effectiveness” of a political system is not a matter of ideology but one of measurable outcomes and stability.
In this encyclopedia, there’s no need for traditional academic disciplines. Biology, chemistry, and physics overlap seamlessly with statistics, data science, and network theory, creating a meta-framework where the laws of energy transfer and chemical interactions are part of a larger system of natural and artificial processes. The encyclopedia would approach scientific discovery as interconnected principles rather than isolated breakthroughs. Instead of “Darwin” or “Mendel,” it explores genetic drift, mutation rates, and environmental adaptation through ecological models, gene frequency tables, and visual simulations of evolutionary pathways, connecting genetics seamlessly with population dynamics and ecosystem interactions. Medical research, similarly, is presented without the personalities who discovered each organ or disease, focusing solely on the body as a dynamic network of interacting systems and chemical reactions. Diseases are seen as fluctuations within biological systems, with epidemiological models showing the interplay between viral spread, population density, and immune responses, free from any heroic “discoverers.”
Psychology is no longer fairy tales
Human relationships and psychology are described through behavioral patterns, probabilistic outcomes, and cognitive biases, with neural networks and brain imaging studies charting the structure and function of human cognition. There’s no discussion of “love” or “ambition” in personal terms; instead, the encyclopedia lays out the neurochemistry of attachment, the social functions of alliances, and the evolutionary pressures behind risk-taking behavior.
It explains psychological tendencies through studies on decision-making, heuristics, and social signaling, representing how people respond to reward and threat within social networks. For example, attraction is explained as a set of chemical interactions and neural responses to genetic fitness indicators, shown through statistics on mate choice, rather than romanticized notions of love or beauty. The study of cognition is abstracted into neural pathways and behavioral adaptations, showing how memory, perception, and decision-making evolve in response to environmental complexity, uncertainty, and social demands. Concepts like “trust” or “fear” are stripped of emotional weight, represented purely by the biological mechanisms and survival advantages that produce these states.
Ethics and social values
Ethics and social values are presented as statistical trends in group behavior rather than normative philosophies. Moral shifts are analyzed as responses to environmental and technological changes rather than ideological shifts. In the context of global warming, for instance, the encyclopedia would track societal responses, risk assessments, and adaptation strategies, showing the interplay of environmental stressors and human adaptation models without labeling certain actions as “right” or “wrong.” Environmental ethics, then, would focus on the carbon output, resource sustainability, and ecosystem impact rather than philosophical debates. This encyclopedia shows global warming data as temperature charts, atmospheric CO2 levels, and statistical models projecting resource scarcity, without invoking moral imperatives or cultural narratives. The impact of rising sea levels or food shortages is displayed as probability curves, with data on agriculture, migration, and economic resilience, devoid of blame or call-to-action rhetoric.
Overall, this encyclopedia is a constantly updating model of an interconnected world – a neural network of knowledge, adapting to new information without attaching significance to individuals, places, or periods. It doesn’t “teach” history; it reveals the interconnectedness of natural and social phenomena, emphasizing the fluid, adaptable nature of knowledge. This encyclopedia is no moral guide, nor a chronicle of human achievement. It’s an impartial, evolving record of facts, trends, and mechanisms, free from narratives, presenting the world as a complex system of interacting forces rather than a series of discrete, human-driven events. Here, knowledge is a limitless, unstructured expanse of interwoven principles—a universe of data that never ends and never fully explains, offering only the tools to comprehend an ever-shifting, infinitely complex world.
Politics? No story-telling, just raw data
In an encyclopedia free from evolutionary psychology or human-centric narratives, politics is not about leaders, ideologies, or national pride. Instead, it’s a realm of data: raw figures on resource allocation, decision-making probabilities, and patterns of influence. Politics becomes a study of systems in flux, analyzed through closed-door dealings, power exchanges, and the often-hidden flow of capital and influence that shapes public policies.
This encyclopedia would model politics as a complex network, each country represented as a node with variables like GDP, population density, trade volume, and military capability. Diplomatic relationships aren’t described in terms of “allies” or “enemies” but in probabilities and coefficients reflecting resource dependencies, strategic advantages, and historical trade flows. For instance, rather than detailing alliances or tensions, the encyclopedia would show the likelihood of trade partnerships, migration agreements, and military cooperation as outputs of mutual interests, using variables like geographical proximity, shared resources, and economic complementarities. Instead of tracking election results or party leaders, it would analyze demographic shifts, economic data, and policy trends, showing how certain regions or population groups statistically favor particular policy changes based on their economic needs and social positioning.
Getting rid of clientelism with Wikipedia and newspapers? No!
Newspapers would be financed by people committed to exposing hidden political connections. The media would also expose whether other media are being manipulated by the super-rich.
Instead of evolutionary fairy tales, they would be based on mathematics, statistics, and rationality, with a lifelong learning process of how to kick the super-rich out of politics.
Such conditions would prevent clientelism from happening and educate people not in storytelling but in rational disciplines.
Lobbying data
Data on political influence isn’t expressed through narratives of individuals or their ideologies. The encyclopedia would include lobbying data, with metrics like lobbying budgets, sector interests, and outcomes on legislation. Political contributions are tracked as monetary flows, showing how industries allocate resources toward influencing legislation in ways that maximize their own financial or strategic goals. There would be names of politicians or parties and numerical correlations between financial contributions and policy outcomes, with visualizations showing networks of influence and the return on investment for various lobbying efforts. Political parties appear as clusters of influence rather than ideologically driven movements, with metrics like voting patterns and policy outcomes illustrating how these groups shift in response to economic pressures and demographic changes. Of course, those who would succumb to lobbying would become undesirable for voters.
Rather than featuring public speeches, electoral promises, or policy manifestos, the encyclopedia presents data on voting records, bill sponsorships, and legislative impacts. Voting trends are shown as probabilities driven by party alliances and economic backgrounds, displayed as matrices or heat maps that illustrate how certain bills gain support based on party alignment and constituency demographics. There are no speeches or campaign slogans here -only statistical analyses of voting patterns, revealing how representatives make decisions based on predictive models of their constituents’ economic status, education level, and geographic location.
Background dealings in mathematics
The backroom dealings and closed-door negotiations that are often speculated upon in traditional political commentary are represented here through economic models and influence graphs. Each major legislative outcome is traced back to statistical models that reflect political bargaining, interest alignment, and pressure from influential groups. For instance, trade agreements would be analyzed through export-import dependencies, geopolitical stability indexes, and foreign investment flows, showing how each participant in the negotiation gains or loses based on shifting power dynamics. The mechanics of international relations appear not as stories of diplomacy or conflict but as matrices of mutual benefit probabilities and resource-sharing models, with visualizations that calculate potential risks and benefits.
Elections and power transfers aren’t depicted as dramatic contests or ideological shifts. Instead, the encyclopedia treats them as predictable outcomes based on demographic data, economic indicators, and historical voting patterns. Election outcomes would appear as regression models, with variables like income distribution, education levels, and economic growth rates informing the likelihood of particular policy adoptions. Predictive modeling tools could track policy shifts as a function of economic cycles, showing how shifts in unemployment rates, wage growth, and cost-of-living indexes impact the probability of policy changes. Political “scandals” don’t appear as scandals at all but as outliers or anomalies in datasets, perhaps reflecting temporary fluctuations in public opinion rather than shifts in the structural composition of power.
Military expenditures
Military expenditures, arms trade, and defense policies would be quantified as resource flows, cross-referenced with factors like regional tensions, historical conflict data, and national budgets. War and peace are modeled through resource allocations, with variables representing defensive and offensive capabilities, budget adjustments, and trade interdependencies. Maps display military positioning, not to show potential threats, but as vectors in probability models that measure the cost-benefit of territorial control, the logistical reach of supply chains, and the financial burden of defense spending on domestic growth. Any actual military confrontation would appear as a function of resource scarcity, regional instability, or trade disruptions, with charts that show rising probabilities rather than descriptions of battle plans or strategic objectives.
Public opinion, often wielded in traditional political discourse as a powerful tool, is abstracted into data points on polling trends, media consumption, and economic indicators that influence voter satisfaction. There are no “issues” or “causes” here – only predictive analyses of public sentiment based on economic performance and social stability metrics. Media influence is represented as the flow of information. This shows how the spread of certain narratives can shift public opinion probabilities, with models that track information distribution through media networks, geographic zones, and population segments. Instead of editorials or op-eds, the encyclopedia presents sentiment analyses, aggregating the effect of media coverage on public opinion and showing how sentiment shifts align with economic trends or legislative cycles.
Banking and corporate influence
The unseen influence of corporate and banking power structures, which typically operate behind the scenes, is modeled through data on market impacts, financial sector contributions, and monetary policy effects. Banks and corporations don’t appear as entities or actors but as nodes in an economic influence network that shows their connection to legislative outcomes, with data-driven analyses of how industry-specific regulations correlate with economic cycles, employment statistics, and trade balances. Corporate influence on foreign policy would be shown through investments in specific regions, risk mitigation efforts, and capital flows, with no mention of “corporate lobbying” – only probabilistic impacts on legislation due to economic dependencies.
Rather than cataloging treaties or peace agreements, international cooperation is visualized as interconnected risk and reward graphs that reflect geopolitical stability, shared economic interests, and resource distribution. Peace treaties, sanctions, or trade partnerships are expressed as conditional dependencies between countries, reflecting each country’s vulnerability to disruptions in trade or regional security. The risk of sanctions, for instance, might be represented by metrics on import-export dependencies and currency reserve stability, showing the economic resilience or vulnerability of each country to potential trade restrictions.
In this version, politics is an impersonal system of resource management, influence distribution, and adaptive strategies. There are no ideological “heroes” or “villains,” only abstract trends and probabilities. Everything becomes a matter of input and output, each action a response to statistical pressures and demographic shifts. By treating politics as a network of interdependent systems, this encyclopedia represents governance as a collective response to survival challenges rather than a clash of ideas or ambitions. It’s a neutral, evolving matrix of variables that flow from one probability to the next, with patterns that reveal a world governed less by individual ambition than by data-driven adaptations to an ever-changing landscape.
Wikipedia through evolutionary psychology perspective: Conclusion
Wikipedia might appear as an encyclopedia, a simple source of open knowledge, but when viewed through the lens of evolutionary psychology, it reveals itself as more than just facts on the screen. Beneath its neutral facade, Wikipedia is like a digital extension of humanity’s oldest drives: tribalism, survival instincts, the relentless pursuit of status, and the biases we inherited from a long evolutionary path. It’s less about pure knowledge and more about reinforcing group identities, reflecting today’s hierarchies, and upholding societal narratives. All while cloaked in the pretense of “neutrality.” Articles subtly support dominant ideologies, favor established systems, and filter history through a bias that ignores the complex undercurrents of power. The encyclopedia of everything? It’s actually a record of how humanity clings to those primal instincts, under the polished, sterile guise of objectivity.
Leave a Reply