Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
I wonder why this is. They often objectively get historical facts wrong when it comes to occult subjects. Is it religious people editing or just a lack of interest to make wikipedia pages? What explanation do you have?
And what wrong things have you seen on wikipedia in the occult?
By and large I find it a good resource for fact-checking information on the occult. I hate it when people make claims that aren't historically correct or outright hokey; I also use it a lot to learn more about names and concepts author just mention in passing without explaining them, and I've always found the info to be correct. Sometimes I wish some Wiki entries gave more detail, in other cases they're too long and intricate but you get that in printed encyclopaedias too.
What I really like is that the footnotes always directly link to those old encyclopedias etc on archive.org I found some very interesting books that way
I wonder why this is. They often objectively get historical facts wrong when it comes to occult subjects. Is it religious people editing or just a lack of interest to make wikipedia pages? What explanation do you have?
And what wrong things have you seen on wikipedia in the occult?
I usually do not find the articles to be wrong per say but limited on the whole of the subject. I never expect to learn the entirety of a specific subject from Wikipedia. I do expect to be a bit more inclined to look for more of a broader range on a topic, as Yazata has already stated.
in the occult vampire sector, like the wiki site from belanger, o9a, aset ka, temple of seth and many others, fake truth is set up. i wondered why too. most seem to attack church for that shit, but no. most of the time it is unwise followers who do that. thinking its cool to kill cause a soulgroep is different or liking to say how powerful they are by creating turmoil.
I wonder why this is. They often objectively get historical facts wrong when it comes to occult subjects. Is it religious people editing or just a lack of interest to make wikipedia pages? What explanation do you have?
And what wrong things have you seen on wikipedia in the occult?
It's probably because Wikipedia is able to be edited by literally everyone, and a lot of what people think they know is all too often wrong - especially with this particular subject, where more tosh has been spouted than just about any other subject I can think of, with the possible exceptions of Archaeology (dating pre-800BC in particular) and Cosmology/Theoretical Physics (the last 100 years should be wiped out and forgotten, and we should begin again with a sensible theory of what Stars & Gravity really are are and take things from there)
It entirely depends on who is writing the article. If you have the time and energy, you can make it better. Wikipedia is meant to give an overview of a subject for those unfamiliar and give pointers and sources for further research- that's really all an encyclopedia is supposed to do. There are some subjects that are inevitably distorted by a simplified overview, despite the summarizer's best intentions, so of course no one should take these articles as a source.
I use it for a lot of quick reference look-ups mostly. Even if an article is somewhat short there's often some decent follow up links. Like some other opinions here I don't find so much wrong info as too little or limited. My main question is "What happens when the information touches too closely on something Sensitive"? Who will intervene to edit/censer or flat out delete something?
I've found it to usually be pretty accurate when it comes to esoteric and occult content. Of course it's usually horribly biased or plain wrong when it comes to political subjects or things pertaining to WWII or the American Civil war, but on most subjects Wikipedia isn't a bad resource to use as a starting point to get a general understanding of something before diving deeper into the weeds about it.
The main trick is to understand that it's a community written encyclopedia and while the writers are supposed to cite their sources, sometimes those sources aren't always reliable, or the writers will actively avoid using a specific source if it contradicts what they want the article to say.
, and they go around specifically targeting anything they deem woo-woo, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, "problematic," etc. and edit it with the plain vanilla materialist cynical "skeptic" bias in mind.
I can't find it, but I heard a couple on a podcast once, and the same group genuinely thinks they're some noble defenders of knowledge or whatever by doing tons of subjective judgements day in, day out.
WikiPedia is often wrong because its moderated by Leftist women who lack critical thinking skills to dissect and disseminate information (much like reddit). Any good info on the occult you can't find in the normal web, you have to go to the Tor browser and navigate the dark web to find anything with any substance. For example, Margareta Rhoda wrote a book in 1889 on Romani Oracle, you can't find any reference to her nor her book (it is more of a diary thats a how-to manual) because of two reasons. A) Romani are very secretive people and B) actual witch craft practices goes against the main stream narrative. The Catholic church for example controls the vast majority of information on the occult.
You can buy the Romani Oracle 1889 on the dark web, in PDF format, there is a shit ton of dark shit in this book. It not only goes into deep description on the How-To aspect of it but illustrates just how fucking dark and gross the occult truly is.
WikiPedia is often wrong because its moderated by Leftist women who lack critical thinking skills to dissect and disseminate information (much like reddit)... ...The.Catholic church for example controls the vast majority of information on the occult.
1. I used to be a editor for wikipedia, they do not allow source materials (such as dark web links), nor actual printed books which controdict information they have posted. The only info allowed to be added is A) mainstream (recognized by governments, the public, etc) and B) more recently anything that fits the lefts narrative. 2. in regards to my comments on leftist women, the charlie kirk situation is just one, Wikipedia illustrated him as a far right white national, when I edited it and corrected it, they then changed it back (so I went public with it) and then they changed it. My editorial powers were stripped because I was "pushing a far right agenda and abusing power" by correcting the fact he was not a far right nationalist and was a conservative speaker. the dialog between me and the mods went back and forth for a while and "i'm a femminist and he's anti woman" and "he hates black women" statements were thrown by them without any evidence to support such a claim.
I've appealed my termination of editorial powers (I've been editing there for over 4 yrs now) never once had anyone had issue with my editing.
1. I used to be a editor for wikipedia, they do not allow source materials (such as dark web links), nor actual printed books which controdict information they have posted. The only info allowed to be added is A) mainstream (recognized by governments, the public, etc) and B) more recently anything that fits the lefts narrative. 2. in regards to my comments on leftist women, the charlie kirk situation is just one, Wikipedia illustrated him as a far right white national, when I edited it and corrected it, they then changed it back (so I went public with it) and then they changed it. My editorial powers were stripped because I was "pushing a far right agenda and abusing power" by correcting the fact he was not a far right nationalist and was a conservative speaker. the dialog between me and the mods went back and forth for a while and "i'm a femminist and he's anti woman" and "he hates black women" statements were thrown by them without any evidence to support such a claim.
I've appealed my termination of editorial powers (I've been editing there for over 4 yrs now) never once had anyone had issue with my editing.
I appreciate your tale, good to reveal the can of worms when there is one. I appreciate that. No Idea if Wiki is governed only by leftist women, though I'm doubtful. Policitcs issue makes sense for sure.
Don't know myself much about dark-web, but free speech is slowly migrating there because of laws being slowly pushed on white-web. I'm happy to have this forum, that is fine and safe enough. Can't deny my interest in what kind of occult you mention, but that is topic for separate thread.
It usually isn't my first source but once I get around to it after looking up stuff it generally seems fairly accurate and sourced for what it contains.
Removes errors as they appear.
The informational cautions for research from Transmetropolitan, as they apply, remain steady.
I think we should stay focussed on Wiki entries on the occult, given that Wikipedia has over seven million entries in English and many more in other languages on a multitude of subjects, most of which don't lend themselves to any political bias, e.g. chemistry, classic cars or mathematics.
I for one value Wikipedia's sceptical stance towards the occult. If there's no scientific proof for this or that phenomenon, I want it to say so and would be disappointed if it would sit on the fence and go "Some say… while others say…) - if I chose to believe in the phenomenon concerned, I want to take this dearth of scientific evidence into account whenever I form my own opinion regarding a subject. Being a sceptic myself, I'd like to know if there was any textual evidence for claims concerning ancient Egyptian knowledge, for example, because I'd feel duped by any author who made up such a claim out of whole cloth, and I HATE looking like a credulous fool.
All in all, I think Wikipedia is a good starting point for research on the occult, even if its only about names and dates.
Oh, Wikipedia and the occult is basically a masterclass in getting it mostly wrong while pretending to be objective. You’ve got religious editors with agendas, casual editors who think tarot is a history book, and everyone else shrugging because ‘magic’ isn’t exactly STEM. Crowley gets called a ‘satanist’ (he wasn’t), Chaos Magick is dismissed as ‘anything goes’ (hardly), Wicca is boiled down to ‘nature worship’ (ignore the God and Goddess at your peril), and Odin is just a ‘war god and wise guy’ (forget his psychopomp and seiðr stuff). Some pages read more like fanfiction than scholarship—but at least it’s entertaining! There's a reason you can't list it as a source in school.
Yes, TOR is the browser, you need to access the "dark web". Then when accessing it, Then you would need to know where it is you are planning to go. Now I do not know if this forum here allows dark links to be posted or not? as I do believe one of the rules was no links or adverts. but learning how to navigate it is not that difficult. 1 it is not illegal in the US to access the "dark web", it is illegal to access it and attempt to commit a crime (buy drugs, guns, etc.) all TOR web addresses end in .onion you can get on google/facebook/etc through tor and in regular internet you can utilize google gemini to provide you with some safe starter web addresses to navigate your way through.
It usually isn't my first source but once I get around to it after looking up stuff it generally seems fairly accurate and sourced for what it contains.
Removes errors as they appear.
The informational cautions for research from Transmetropolitan, as they apply, remain steady.
yes, thats because wikipedia use to utilize editors such as myself before going all "lets get rid of anyone who does not follow wokeness and thinks trans women (MTF) are actually women and not men" BS. I'm gay, I know what homosexuality is, and the looney toons BS that is stirring up because of the politcal atmosphere over in wikipedia is insane.
I would argue up until 2020, there was no major issue with wikipedia for the most party. Since 2020, they have been cutting editors out (the dark web forums are full of fellow editors complaining (Rightfully so of course)). One of the clear signs of this, for me at least, was everytime someone was removed, the new person arriving would pop in discussion and immediately introduce themselves, their pronouns, sexuality, etc. Then ask for your pronouns, leaving you (unless your willing to give in to that insanity) in a rut because if you do not state your pronouns, they file a complaint.
for a while there I have been able navigate the troubled waters over there for sometime, until the charlie kirk incident, which seems to be the last straw for them. Now of course I have appealed the termination and as of yet, have not received a reply. So does wikipedia offer accurate information, yes it can, but again it is restricted on what information it can provided not only by government regulations but the higher ups as well.
take Christopher columbus for example, originally, wikipedia illustrated him as the man who discovered America, etc etc. Now they focus more on "evil deeds" conributed to him, while neglecting the good. this was an editorial battle that ensued till the beginning of 2023, then it illustrates both in some context while focusing more on the "evil" conducted by him. However, when you research people like Munsa Musa (the main page on him), they removed the historical facts he enslaved thousands of people during his pigrimage to Mecca as well as pretty much all the evil he did. When the intially had the information there.
Or how about the fact Wikipedia defines trans woman as women. Or the fact they illustrate "gay panic defense" where they illustrate a person who attacks or murders a trans woman as being a heterosexual man attacking a heterosexual trans woman. When in fact, a trans-woman is not heterosexual if they are in a relationship with or attempting to with the man who assaulted them. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to the same sex. Gender is not a factor in homosexuality (I know, I'm gay and have a masters in biology). two people of the same sex, having sex, is gay sex. Yet wikipedia argues its heterosexual. Leftist BS, I am in no way arguing there is anything wrong with gay sex or someone being with a trans person, simply illustrating what the facts are.
simply put there are hundreds of changes going on, underneath our noses to literally erase certain aspects of history. So in my opinion, Wikipedia cannot be trusted.
