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...
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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… 🤦🏻♂️
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.
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...
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.
Videotaped confessions straight from the horses' mouth are 'disininformation', rofl.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"He made me look stupid! I'm not stupid! This must be disinformation! Probably Russian too! REEEEEEEEEEE"
How come they never talk about Chinese disinformation?
Or Israeli disinformation.
Wait, then the kickbacks would stop.
Something something lying eyes
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.
The most recent video, as far as I know, was a horny commie spilling his guts to another guy.
Stereotypes exist for a reason.
Can you sue wikifaggia for defamation or are they protected by the fact that “””””anyone””””” can edit articles?
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.
It'd make one helluva bit on their 'retracto' wall to make Wikimedia their bitch.
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.
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.
What's the citation from, the New York Times?
Here are the 12 with text excerpts removed.
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?
Wikipedia would edit it out "in good will" when the citations are discredited, or come up with more citations to justify keeping it.
damn that's a lot of jewish names
Media narrative laundering, in other words
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.
Wikipedia saying something is disinformation is all kinds of irony.
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… 🤦🏻♂️
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.
Wiki is a leftist shit hole. It's discredited by all universities and collages for a reason.
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.
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...
I don't think you're supposed to cite any encyclopedia as primary source material, especially at the college level.
Seems like libel...
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.
At this point, dis/misinformation is synonymous with "uncomfortably accurate".
It's time to shut down Wikipedia for defamation.
meaningless buzzword
Coming from Wikipedia, thats rich.