129
Comments (49)
sorted by:
101
Steampunk_Moustache 101 points ago +101 / -0

Videotaped confessions straight from the horses' mouth are 'disininformation', rofl.

34
APDSmith 34 points ago +35 / -1

I think they think they've covered that off with "entrapment"

... but who entraps people to gain false information? Doesn't really hold up if you think about it, but that is the last thing wiki wants you do to here...

37
Steampunk_Moustache 37 points ago +37 / -0

Even the 'entrapment' claim is BS.

'Entrapment' is when you arguably manipulate someone into doing something that they never would've done without your presence.

Unless they're arguing that the information people volunteer when they think they're talking off the record to impostors is all lies said to impress their new 'friends' there's no entrapment here.

...And really, even if they were lies to impress new friends, that in itself speaks volumes about these people.

30
covok48 30 points ago +30 / -0

Entrapment is authorities manipulating you to break the law and then arresting you for it. I guess I didn’t know that Twitter jail was taken literally.

2
when_we_win_remember 2 points ago +2 / -0

If this were a police-suspect situation, tricking the suspect into admitting their crimes, such as by, I dunno, putting on a disguise and asking questions, is a perfectly legitimate tactic. The police use informants all the time who lie about who they are.

1
FlauntandStraunt 1 point ago +1 / -0

These people are all to happy to tell who they know that can smuggle them in stuff, and people. Because they think they are with their own.

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh, agreed, it's total BS ... but I can't think why else entrapment is there, apart from a thorough misunderstanding of the relevant law.

0
Questionable 0 points ago +2 / -2

Well if you use the word 'entrapment' as a noun, and not by it's legal definition. Then yes, they have set a trap, where in the 'victim' has confessed to their crimes.

28
WhoIsThatMaskedMan 28 points ago +28 / -0

That's not even what entrapment is, either. Entrapment is coercing someone into committing a crime that they otherwise wouldn't have. For example, blackmail is entrapment if you use the threat of exposure to get them to commit other crimes.

In my experience, people who think that secretly recording someone doing something bad is "entrapment" tend to be teenagers with a very tenuous grasp of how the world works, or mentally ill adults. Not a coincidence that both of those groups dominate Wikipedia.

9
voidposter 9 points ago +9 / -0

"He made me look stupid! I'm not stupid! This must be disinformation! Probably Russian too! REEEEEEEEEEE"

1
when_we_win_remember 1 point ago +1 / -0

How come they never talk about Chinese disinformation?

2
TakenusernameA 2 points ago +2 / -0

Or Israeli disinformation.

Wait, then the kickbacks would stop.

1
Charliethebum 1 point ago +2 / -1

I mean truthishly every disinformation is russian

1
ApparentlyImAHeretic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Something something lying eyes

51
current_horror 51 points ago +51 / -0

Entrapment involves prompted behavior. A fed encouraging you to write a manifesto is entrapment. A horny commie spilling his guts to a pretty girl is not.

2
ajfofjakf 2 points ago +2 / -0

The most recent video, as far as I know, was a horny commie spilling his guts to another guy.

Stereotypes exist for a reason.

30
The_Gay_Deceiver 30 points ago +30 / -0

Can you sue wikifaggia for defamation or are they protected by the fact that “””””anyone””””” can edit articles?

20
TriangleGang 20 points ago +20 / -0

Not an expert on Section 230, but I wonder if Wikipedia might be treated differently than Twitter or Facebook.

Section 230 says that websites aren't the "publisher" of content posted by their users. This makes sense for a forum where a user posts under their own name without much/any oversight from the site itself.

Wikipedia isn't a forum, it presents itself as a crowd-sourced encyclopedia and does not make it clear which user contributed what content. Encyclopedias are inherently claiming the accuracy of their information-that's their whole purpose.

Here's an article that pretty much answers your question with "I don't know, probably not": https://www.cnet.com/culture/is-wikipedia-safe-from-libel-liability/

But here's wikipedia's own guidelines on libelous content where it acknowledges that such content may put it at legal risk: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel

Seems to me, the first step would be Project Veritas asking Wikipedia to remove the content. If it doesn't, they may have a case. Project Veritas has sued media outlets before, maybe they should roll the dice.

12
Erithal 12 points ago +12 / -0

It'd make one helluva bit on their 'retracto' wall to make Wikimedia their bitch.

3
AnotherSchwarzesMark 3 points ago +3 / -0

I would love this to become a snowball effect. There are so many lies on Wikipedia about anyone right of Mao. Imagine them being sued left and right for their slanderous BS. To this day the GG article is one of the worst they have ever made just as an example.

20
barwhack 20 points ago +20 / -0

Entrapment requires institutional authority; PV has none. And it requires induction to BEYOND; PV isn't inducing any future event at all, just a candid reveal of past events, with unperturbed intentions...

BS.

10
Honeypot02 [S] 10 points ago +10 / -0

That's actually an excellent point, and they've backed it up with 7 sources suggesting this has been a fight, and the brilliant minds of Wikipedia decided PV was, indeed, a law enforcement agency capable of prosecuting people.

Absolute idiots

15
JustHereForTheSalmon 15 points ago +15 / -0

What's the citation from, the New York Times?

38
Honeypot02 [S] 38 points ago +38 / -0

It’s a meta citation of 12 sources, ranging from daytime TV to academic research papers.

I hate Wikipedia so much. You start with this thing that’s clearly against their rules (an opinion in the sidebar which frankly has no intellectual standing), and then they back it up with opinion pieces and lock the page so no one else can edit it. And whether they follow the rules or not depends on where you stand in their popularity contest

9
FrozeInFear 9 points ago +9 / -0

Here are the 12 with text excerpts removed.

Goss, Brian Michael (March 12, 2018). "Veritable Flak Mill". Journalism Studies. 19 (4): 548–563. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1375388. ISSN 1461-670X. S2CID 149185981.
Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7. Retrieved March 19, 2021 – via Google Books.
Benkler, Yochai; Faris, Rob; Roberts, Hal (October 2018). "What Can Men Do Against Such Reckless Hate?". Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 358. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. OCLC 1045162158. Archived from the original on January 26, 2021. Retrieved January 29, 2021.
Kroeger, Brooke (August 31, 2012). "Watchdog". Undercover Reporting: The Truth About Deception. Northwestern University Press. pp. 249–254. ISBN 978-0-8101-2619-0. JSTOR j.ctt22727sf.17. Archived from the original on December 6, 2020. Retrieved November 7, 2020 – via JSTOR.
Czarnecki, Sean (January 19, 2018). "A guide to the 7 types of fake news from Storyful's new editor". PRWeek. Archived from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
Hellinger, Daniel C. (2019). "Globalization, Populism, Conspiracism". Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories in the Age of Trump. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 141–184. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98158-1_5. ISBN 978-3-319-98157-4. S2CID 158077533.
Cagé, Julia (February 11, 2021). "From Philanthropy to Democracy: Rethinking Governance and Funding of High-Quality News in the Digital Age". In Bernholz, Lucy; Landemore, Hélène; Reich, Rob (eds.). Digital Technology and Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/9780226748603-010 (inactive February 28, 2022). ISBN 978-0-226-74860-3. Retrieved March 27, 2021 – via Google Books.
Garcia-Camargo, Isabella; Stamos, Alex; Cryst, Elena; Bak-Coleman, Joe; Starbird, Kate; Schafer, Joey (September 29, 2020). "Project Veritas #BallotHarvesting Amplification". Election Integrity Partnership. Archived from the original on January 29, 2021. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
Astor, Maggie (September 29, 2020). "Project Veritas Video Was a 'Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,' Researchers Say". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 30, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
Arnold, Amanda (January 7, 2021). "5 People Are Dead Following Violent Siege at U.S. Capitol". The Cut. Archived from the original on January 27, 2021. Retrieved January 30, 2021.
Palmer, Scott (November 6, 2019). "ABC News anchor says Jeffrey Epstein exposé killed by Royal palace's threats". Newshub. Archived from the original on November 24, 2020. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
Wolfman-Arent, Avi (May 31, 2018). "N.J. lawmakers question teachers union on undercover videos". WHYY. Retrieved March 20, 2021.

14
Erithal 14 points ago +14 / -0

You know... I wonder what would happen if Veritas went after these articles, after snapshotting the Wikipedia page. They have a 'retracto' segment where they detail the retractions they've forced.

If these sources get retracted, could they then slam Wikipedia for libel?

8
lapalapa 8 points ago +8 / -0

Wikipedia would edit it out "in good will" when the citations are discredited, or come up with more citations to justify keeping it.

1
oilwellpauper 1 point ago +1 / -0

damn that's a lot of jewish names

4
Skeptic_Conservative 4 points ago +4 / -0

Media narrative laundering, in other words

2
when_we_win_remember 2 points ago +2 / -0

If Brittanica was an amalgamation of stuff that was written in books, Wikipedia is an amalgamation of the garbage that's written in the MSM. They even state No Original Research, so you can't use a first party source. You have to use some media outlet that's not on their blacklist.

1
Honeypot02 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I remember I once added something (not even controversial) with a WSJ source, and someone called the WSJ a “sh*t source”

13
nuggetpatrol 13 points ago +13 / -0

Wikipedia saying something is disinformation is all kinds of irony.

9
Honeypot02 [S] 9 points ago +10 / -1

Well the sad part is some stuff is good. All their scientific/math/etc articles are great, it’s just their political stuff is trash.

Like Allende starved people to death, stole homes from citizens and otherwise was an evil man for his short reign before being overthrown by the people/rest of the government, but his e Wikipedia article makes him look like a saint. All of South Africa’s problems are due to white people who haven’t held major offices in decades, and even though California and Hawaii have the highest rates of poverty in the nation, the wiki page on poverty suspiciously adjusts poverty against national averages right when it’s convenient so they don’t end up at the top of the list.

It’s all to misinform you

5
bamboozler1 5 points ago +5 / -0

Even geographical (i.e. city, town, landmark, place) pages in Australia are absolutely wild

Perhaps you’ve escaped that, for US cities, but, put it this way - if I’m looking for, say, the population growth rate of the City of Port Adelaide, I do not need to know about “the extermination of the traditional hunting grounds of the Kaurna people*, or, say, that “the City has a reputation for racist attacks and open discrimination”…

It is literally unreadable, now, for pages like that, which is thoroughly depressing…

Or, say, a bridge, over a river, where they change the name of both the bridge and the river because “the bridge is named after a raaaaaaacccciiist” and “the river should be called its (entirely made up, in the last decade) Indigenous name”…

That’s how bad it is, for Australian sites, man… 🤦🏻‍♂️

4
nuggetpatrol 4 points ago +4 / -0

In their eyes, they're not lying to you, they're just presenting data in a way that makes them look sparking clean, and data for the people they don't like as unwashed heretics who have to be guided.

7
Mpetey123 7 points ago +7 / -0

Ooooo fortifying it

12
borga 12 points ago +12 / -0

Entrapment, ironic. In another /c someone posted that a MD in Canada was being. suspended for Ivermectin treatments after an "undercover" Toronto Star reported it. I guess two can play the same game.

8
OmegaBird 8 points ago +8 / -0

Wiki is a leftist shit hole. It's discredited by all universities and collages for a reason.

8
Assassin47 8 points ago +8 / -0

Is it "discredited"? It certainly used to be considered a terrible source for research, at least 10 years ago, but I think that may have changed.

3
bamboozler1 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's "discredited" in the sense that you are not supposed to use it as primary source material, and will get marked down accordingly, if you attempt to do so (unless you're an international student, lololololol...).

It is not, however, discredited for its bias. Universities these days love bias in articles. It's their bread and butter, lol. They would just prefer you use biased articles couched in "academic language" (read: waffle), and shit that is generally too dense for a casual observer to be able to immediately tell that it is bullshit...

The "Bogdanoff phenomenon", if you will...

2
when_we_win_remember 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't think you're supposed to cite any encyclopedia as primary source material, especially at the college level.

8
barwhack 8 points ago +8 / -0

Seems like libel...

7
TriangleGang 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'm assuming they already know, but has anyone sent a link to the Wikipedia entry to Project Veritas itself? They are the type of people they would request the content be removed and just might choose to test Wikipedia's liability in court if they don't comply.

7
SolidSnakeOil 7 points ago +7 / -0

Fuck that part, the entire page is a hit piece.

5
LawNmowermaN 5 points ago +5 / -0

Even if we accept the specious premise that Veritas is misinformation - Veritas and its people do not hate me or give voice to those who do. Most lefty media and their people hate me and give voice to those who do, while lashing out against any retort. So fuck 'em. If you make it about teams and not about truth, I'll go with the team that doesn't hate me.

5
RoccoRatchet 5 points ago +5 / -0

At this point, dis/misinformation is synonymous with "uncomfortably accurate".

5
AbleistSL 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's time to shut down Wikipedia for defamation.

4
realerfunction 4 points ago +4 / -0

meaningless buzzword

2
TakenusernameA 2 points ago +2 / -0

Coming from Wikipedia, thats rich.