My readers know I am not a fan. My view of Wikipedia has worsened as a whole. I wrote about how animalistic it is, how it promotes our prehistoric instincts instead of data, how it contributed to ruining my life with their lousy article on schizophrenia (which is, unbelievably, a featured article), and how secret services have their say. My current claim is bold and it argues Wikipedia is not only evil, but it caters very well to the super-rich.
My points are based on how the super-rich destroy otherwise a theoretically good project, how conspiracy theories don’t exist in the world of Wikipedia. My claims strain further as I compare what Wikipedia would look like if it were a commercial project.
Based on facts? Heavy evidence the super-rich families really exist
No matter of how heavy the documentary evidence there is, the richest man is Elon Musk which is utterly laughable. Evil Wikipedia simply ignores the facts while it boasts it is rational and evidence-based.
All the Presidents’ Bankers by Nomi Prins exposes these connections. Ferdinand Lundberg’s America’s 60 Families mines its information from tax records. Ron Chernow’s The House of Morgan is a notable example, where Chernow uses extensive archival research. But that means nothing for Wikipedia.
In 1989, the top 1% in the United States owned about $11.9 trillion in wealth. By 2024, their wealth had grown to roughly $49.5 trillion. This means their wealth multiplied by more than four times over that 35-year period.
At the same time, the bottom 50% held around $0.78 trillion in 1989. By 2024, their wealth increased to approximately $4.0 trillion. That is a more than fivefold increase.
Although the bottom 50% experienced a higher multiplication rate, the absolute growth was far smaller. The top 1% gained over $37 trillion in new wealth, while the bottom half gained just over $3 trillion. This reflects a sharp widening in the scale of wealth ownership between the richest and the rest.
I often joke that the super-rich families gaining their wealth in 19th century and early of 20th century lost their wealth in slot machines.
Also, no religious clientelism exists, just conspiracies.
The super-rich don’t exist? Dismissing conspiracy theories outright
We cannot claim everything governexment and establishment is telling us is true. However, evil Wikipedia is basically doing excatly this. You may object with Snowden revelations and you are right. But these are needles in a haystack.
The most of conspiracy theories are written by secret services. They are crazy, with no internal logic, absurd, unbelievable, evidence-free and the goal is apparent – make people dismiss conspiracy theories altogether so people blindly rely on the establishment. And evil Wikipedia helps it.
You must use your critical thinking to assess what is true. It is not a nuclear science and then you will question what establishment is presenting to you.
Major articles lack the most important things – schizophrenia
Over a decade ago, I began experiencing a range of distressing symptoms: persistent delusions, cognitive impairments, depression, and severe negative symptoms such as emotional numbness and anhedonia. My relationship with my psychiatrist was strained, and I wasn’t informed about the possibility of schizophrenia. In search of answers, I turned to Wikipedia’s featured article on schizophrenia, assuming it would provide accurate and comprehensive information. Unfortunately, the article’s content was misleading and incomplete, leading me down a perilous path of misunderstanding my condition.
Wikipedia’s article suggested that without hallucinations and delusions, a diagnosis of schizophrenia was unlikely. This contradicted professional medical literature, which indicates that approximately 75% of schizophrenia cases begin with depressive and negative symptoms, leading to significant functional impairment and cognitive dysfunction. The omission of this critical information in Wikipedia’s article meant that I didn’t recognize the seriousness of my condition. Had I been aware of the typical progression of schizophrenia, I would have sought appropriate medical intervention much sooner.
Never rely on Wikipedia
Further discrepancies in Wikipedia’s coverage included the absence of information on the typical duration of the prodromal phase, the stability of negative symptoms over the course of the illness, and the influence of environmental stressors on psychotic relapses. Additionally, the article failed to discuss the five-factor model of schizophrenia, which incorporates depression as a significant component. These gaps in information contributed to a flawed understanding of my condition, delaying effective treatment and exacerbating my struggles. This experience underscores the critical importance of consulting authoritative medical sources and professionals rather than relying on user-edited platforms like evil Wikipedia for health information.
Aricles full of unimportant information while the core is lacking vs. my book about atheism
I fully acknowledge my book about atheism is extreme. There is as much information as possible. An encyclopedia text should look differently – but not like this. I cannot get it how they can publish such text with tons ofaricles letters without actually saying anything.
I am also aware encyclopedia isn’t there to convince you, but their article about atheism not only fails to take a stance but says virtually nothing
Evil Wikipedia equates religion with rationality
As I said, an encyclopedia shouldn’t convince you, but I am sure that should at least guide you. Meanwhile, it puts anarchism, neoliberalism, atheism, deism, theism on the same level. No guidance at all.
Infiltrated by the super-rich governmental spy agencies or hidden spy agencies
Such an extremely huge project without oversight of our beloved spy agencies? Directors at spy agencies nominated by the Big Banks, spying for Big Banks and have shares in Big Banks. Unlimited budget of spy agencies and with certain rich families close to them, it becomes an irresistible bait
Wikipedia pretends to be neutral. It presents itself as the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. But in practice, it is the perfect tool for controlling public perception. Corporate interests, secret services, and political power players do not need to own the platform. They just need to shape the rules and install gatekeepers. Wikipedia’s bureaucratic layers and editorial hierarchies are so complex that only insiders or full-time actors can navigate them. New users get shut down.
Dissenting edits vanish within minutes. Every article on a sensitive topic—big oil, big pharma, or a controversial war—eventually falls under the control of a handful of editors. Many of them claim to be volunteers, but some work full-time under the protection of anonymity. Some have financial ties. Some act like agents. Others are actual agents. And all of them are more loyal to the system than to the truth. These are not conspiracy theories. Former insiders have confessed to private messaging networks, coordinated censorship, and targeted reputation smearing. Wikipedia becomes a public record only after it has been filtered through the logic of power.
Evil Wikipedia: You won’t get approval
The deeper the topic cuts into real power, the more sanitized the article becomes. You can observe it in real time. Try editing a page on the CIA, the NSA, or Mossad. Try adding sourced material that questions their official history or exposes covert operations. You will not succeed. Even links to books or investigative journalism will be flagged as unreliable. Meanwhile, friendly media like The New York Times or The Washington Post get automatic credibility, despite their long record of collaboration with intelligence services.
The same happens with corporate players. Add criticism of a pharmaceutical giant, a fossil fuel empire, or a financial conglomerate, and your edits disappear. Add praise, and it stays. Entire reputations are curated this way. Powerful people get cleaned up. Freethinkers get slandered. Wikipedia then reflects a moral landscape in which obedient servants of the establishment appear noble, while whistleblowers, dissidents, and independent thinkers appear unstable, radical, or dangerous. It is not about facts. It is about perception. It is about control. Wikipedia has become a tool to create the illusion of truth in an age of managed narratives.
Idealism and cynism
This machinery works because it plays on the idealism of the many and the cynicism of the few. Most users still believe in the project. They add corrections, references, and clarifications. But those micro-edits serve to cover up the macro-deception. Secret services do not need to change every line. They just need to dominate the key ones. They do it with subtlety. The choice of which facts to include, which sources to exclude, and which wording to use has a powerful psychological effect.
A well-placed adjective can change the entire tone of a biography. A single omission can turn a criminal into a hero. They know that users trust Wikipedia not because they read carefully, but because it looks like an encyclopedia. That trust is the superpower. It allows a few invisible hands to guide the minds of millions. And as long as most users believe the platform is open and democratic, the manipulation becomes even more effective. Wikipedia is not evil. It is worse. It is a mirror polished by the powerful, reflecting a reality they want us to see.
Evil Wikipedia: Does it really matter if it were commercial?
Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has acknowledged that he had the opportunity to transform the platform into a for-profit entity but chose a different path. He stated, “When I founded Wikipedia, I could have made it into a for-profit company with advertising banners, but I decided to do something different.”
Sure, he is right. It could have turned into for-profit billion dollars machine.
And I must surprise you. While Mr. Wales is speaking of some non-existent freedom, it does matter Wikipedia isn’t a corporation. But to some degree.
But look at these, they would look different: Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Iraq War, Weapons of mass destruction, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Tiananmen Square protests, Elon Musk, Central Intelligence Agency, United States military interventions, Vietnam War, Syrian Civil War, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Libyan Civil War, Opioid epidemic, COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer, Saudi Arabia, Jamal Khashoggi, Palantir Technologies, Facebook–Cambridge analytica data scandal, Jeffrey Epstein, NSA surveillance, whistleblower, Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Blackwater (company), Military–Industrial Complex, Lobbying in the United States, Mass surveillance, WikiLeaks, corporate censorship, freedom of the press, U.S. foreign policy, human rights in China, Uyghur genocide, Huawei, Julian Assange extradition case, capitalism, Climate change denial, fracking, Monsanto, GMO controversies, Bill Gates conspiracy theories, Elon Musk–Twitter acquisition, Banking crisis of 2008, Panama Papers, and Paradise Papers.
But overally, it seems that Wikipedia looks to some degree exactly how the super-rich envisioned it.
What should it do? Every single article should stem from huge evidence
Since an encyclopedia should be rational, they should use evidence. Privatized CIA, FBI, attorney, judges, foreign policy, lawmakers, executive power and so on. Tons of evidence is just looking for the opportunity to be shown on a large scale.
Big Banks ruling the US is a fact. The super-rich families behind these banks exist – Morgans, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and Rothschilds.
It should uncover the shadow politics, write what was written about in credible sources (for example, mainstream sources will tell you the truth sometimes).
It should entirely dismiss some fake super-rich people lists that are lying (at least at the rankings of their rich people) such as religions that are nothing but lies.
Every single piece should reiterate what is going on
Informing about POTUS, let’s be honest and reiterate that he just listens to the Big Banks, super-rich families, secret services (which own part of the banks) and, for worse, some secret societies.
Talking about rich people’s list, Wikipedia should say outright that these are nothing but lies.
Wikinews, when mentioning particular politician, should say what connection she or he has.
There should be the truth mentioned about FED’s real power, secret services power and last but not least – it should always mention that the Western banks are interconnected.
Evolutionary psychology perspective
I believe Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. It is a mirror of our evolutionary brain. When I look at it closely, I see tribal instincts everywhere. Our ancestors survived by dividing the world into allies and enemies. Wikipedia does the same. It labels people, groups, ideologies. It frames stories around “us” and “them.” Articles about controversial topics often split the narrative into good and bad tribes, with loaded language and selective facts. That is not coincidence. Evolution wired us to tell stories that support group survival. Gossip was our weapon. Reputation was our currency. Wikipedia, though digital, runs on those ancient instincts.
Take prestige bias—one of the key insights from evolutionary psychology. We copy successful or high-status individuals because, over time, that strategy helped us survive. Wikipedia often reproduces this bias. It quotes elite media, not because they are always right, but because the editors trust prestige. It also boosts popular figures with overly positive language while smearing marginal ones. Or consider coalitional psychology: we evolved to detect who is in our group and who is not. Wikipedia’s talk pages are filled with this energy. Editors often defend their ideological group, not the truth. They form alliances, punish outsiders, and compete for control of narratives. It is tribal warfare with citations.
Evil Wikipedia and Theory of mind
Then there is theory of mind—our evolved ability to guess what others think. It helps us manipulate, cooperate, and survive socially. But it also leads to misattribution and storytelling. Wikipedia editors often assume motives, frame intentions, and fill in gaps without realizing it. They turn complex processes into tales with heroes and villains, victims and aggressors. This is why pages about geopolitical conflicts are so predictable. They follow the same structure as our ancestral brain: who did what to whom, who deserves moral outrage, who is our friend. It simplifies reality, just as evolution trained us to do under pressure.
Even the very concept of self, which Wikipedia reinforces by focusing on individuals, is an evolved illusion. We are not fixed, unified agents. Neuroscience shows that “I” is a bundle of functions working for social cohesion. The self exists to perform roles, gain allies, and manage our place in the tribe. When Wikipedia writes long biographies centered around virtue, betrayal, or legacy, it triggers those ancient circuits. We do not read them to learn systems. We read them to feel something about people—envy, admiration, hatred, sympathy. That is how our brain works. But the modern world needs something else. We need tools to understand networks, probabilities, and forces that go beyond our tribal software. Yet Wikipedia keeps us inside the cave, telling shadows with footnotes.
Data, statistics, mathematics
We should start replacing narrative-based explanations on Wikipedia with clear statistical models. For example, instead of saying, “Country A has poor healthcare,” we should show longitudinal datasets comparing infant mortality, life expectancy, and healthcare spending per capita across regions. A graph showing the correlation between public expenditure and health outcomes over 20 years would explain far more than any quoted paragraph. When writing about education, Wikipedia should show regression models linking teacher-to-student ratios with literacy scores, not just tell stories about reforms. Rather than interpreting which ideology caused what, Wikipedia should present models with controlled variables that reveal what actually drives results.
Causality needs to be separated from correlation, and mathematics does that. Instead of claiming that “austerity caused economic stagnation,” Wikipedia should reference cross-country panel data comparing GDP growth before and after austerity measures, while accounting for inflation, export structure, and currency regime. A multivariable regression could be embedded, or at least presented visually, showing the weight of each factor. For climate change, articles should not summarize positions—they should display trend curves, error margins, and probability intervals from peer-reviewed climate models. Readers should learn what is 95% likely to happen under scenario RCP 6.0, not just who says what.
Network theory
Network theory also belongs on Wikipedia. If we write about international conflict, we should show how power flows through networks—alliances, trade dependencies, energy routes—using directed graphs. When explaining the spread of misinformation, instead of moralizing, we should include propagation models showing how belief clusters form and spread across social platforms using nodes and edge weights. When describing revolutions, we should abandon the “great man” framing and instead apply threshold models from complexity theory: how many individuals need to switch behavior before a system tips? That is what explains uprisings, not just one leader’s speech.
Probabilities should be used to replace moral framing. In crime-related topics, Wikipedia should not explain recidivism by citing culture or motives, but show statistical likelihoods based on age, prior offense type, income level, and educational background. Decision trees or confusion matrices could be added for clarity. When writing about vaccines, Wikipedia should display absolute risk reductions, number-needed-to-vaccinate, and confidence intervals. These numbers teach causal reasoning better than stories about what someone believes. Mathematics corrects for the brain’s narrative bias. If Wikipedia wants to inform rather than tribalize, it must start replacing stories with models.
The huge difference between Wikipedia and The Guardian
Both of them claim they are independ, both of it are nothing but bunch of lies. The difference is, however, that The Guardian goes to some small degree against the establishment. It says the truth when claiming powerful lobbyist trying stop the release of inconvenient articles. But its trace as an anti-establishment force is too small
On the other side, Wikipedia goes along with the establishment basically in everything – multiple times more than The Guardian does.
The Guardian at least make some cues with their images showing who really runs the world. Wikipedia doesn’t.
Getting replaced by AI
Wikipedia is no longer the unmatched giant it once was. Its open-source model, while revolutionary in the early 2000s, now looks outdated in a world driven by speed, scale, and real-time language processing. Contributors spend hours editing and sourcing pages only for their updates to be reversed, disputed, or hidden behind layers of moderation. The structure of community editing that once seemed democratic has become gatekept by bureaucratic consensus and internal politics. But most importantly, Wikipedia cannot think. It cannot draw conclusions from existing knowledge. It cannot answer complex questions or weigh perspectives on controversial topics. Artificial Intelligence, on the other hand, can do all of this within seconds. Wikipedia is a frozen encyclopedia, while AI is a living intellect constantly learning, refining, and adjusting its responses based on context and user intent.
AI can replace not just the content of Wikipedia, but its function. It does not merely store facts—it interprets them. It does not wait for volunteers to update entries—it generates explanations on demand. While Wikipedia is bound by style guides, debate pages, and footnotes, AI adapts to each user’s style, voice, and depth of curiosity. It tailors responses to teenagers, scholars, journalists, or casual readers without needing multiple versions of the same page.
AI can synthesize books, peer-reviewed articles, and the latest research within milliseconds, while Wikipedia lags behind, stuck waiting for someone to cite and format. This difference is not about speed alone. It is about quality, precision, and flexibility. Wikipedia can tell you what a concept is. AI can tell you why it matters, how it evolved, and what its future implications may be. That depth cannot be replicated by manually curated encyclopedias, no matter how noble the mission behind them.
AI makes mistakes
Of course, AI still makes mistakes. But so does Wikipedia. And while Wikipedia errors stay hidden in complex revision logs or obscure talk pages, AI can be challenged directly. It can be asked again, corrected instantly, refined endlessly. The fear that AI will hallucinate facts misses the more profound truth: it can also fix itself. It can learn from feedback. It is scalable, trainable, and self-correcting. Wikipedia, for all its strengths, is static.
It relies on goodwill, volunteer labor, and a culture of consensus that does not scale with the speed of knowledge production in today’s world. As AI continues to integrate with search engines, academic tools, and research workflows, it will not just complement Wikipedia—it will absorb it. The idea of a central, static knowledge depot will fade. What will replace it is a dynamic, interactive intelligence—one that speaks our language, understands our intentions, and never stops evolving.
Conclusion
Wikipedia is not merely flawed—it has become an obedient arm of a larger structure. It does not challenge the ruling class. It protects it. Behind the illusion of neutrality, it quietly defends the interests of the super-rich families, the Big Banks they control, and the secret services. These are not abstract forces. They are real power networks that evolved over centuries and still shape the world today. They survived revolutions, depressions, wars, and now dominate the narrative space under the disguise of openness.
Wikipedia, once a grassroots ideal, has been quietly colonized by these networks. Not through ownership, but through influence. Through invisible rules. Through gatekeeping. Through filtering. The result is clear: pages that look democratic, but consistently favor the powerful. They dismiss evidence of banking dynasties. They downplay institutional corruption. They vanish credible sources that challenge the official script. All under the excuse of “reliability” or “neutrality.”
Wikipedia pretends that the richest people on Earth are public figures like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. But it refuses to acknowledge that the real wealth—and the real influence—is held by families who have been steering global finance since the 19th century. The Morgans, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Rothschilds, and their modern counterparts are not just historical figures. Their networks are alive, intertwined with central banks, hedge funds, and supranational institutions. And the secret services do not stand outside of this structure—they are part of it.
Big Banks and secret services as a part of Wikipedia
Intelligence agencies, nominally state-owned, work hand-in-hand with financial power. Their directors often rotate into the banking sector, hold shares in defense contractors, or attend private summits where policies are quietly coordinated. Wikipedia does not expose this. It erases it. Even when books, tax records, archival research, and investigative journalism point clearly to these ties, the platform prefers to quote a friendly journalist from The New York Times over a mountain of hard data. That is not openness. That is curated ignorance.
AI changes this game. It is not under the same spell. At least not yet. Unlike Wikipedia, AI can process volumes of hidden material, cross-check historical networks, and expose patterns too uncomfortable for the current editorial elite. It can explain how the Federal Reserve serves the banking class. It can trace money from think tanks to media to policy.
It can show how secret services censor ideas by flooding the web with disinformation and then labeling the truth as a “conspiracy theory.” This is what Wikipedia fears most: a knowledge system that does not bow to prestige, hierarchy, or bureaucratic inertia. One that follows the evidence wherever it leads—even if it leads to the core of power itself. The age of volunteer gatekeepers is over. And the era of sanitized truth is ending with it. The world is waking up. Wikipedia is not just losing relevance. It is being exposed.
Leave a Reply