So... as this is r/conspiracy: Who benefits from changing the content of the "moral panic" page on Wikipedia?

Oh... so "both sides". What are the two sides?

Hmm... so not an actual conspiracy: nothing is being subverted but a single page is being edited, it involves two vaguely/poorly defined sides, and no one benefits.

Not sure why you didn't post this at r/mildlynotveryinteresting

Sometimes changing a page is more effective then a book!

Can you give an example?

Well, I'm certainly willing to consider future threads by you to be weakly thought out and contain no proof. And such threads, when subjected to the barest whiff of intellectual rigor will get your pussy in a twist. Anyway, if you can't handle the questions maybe you should get out of the conspiracy kitchen (as you're not much of a chef).

So, no conspiracy. This is basically a manufactured moral panic over a page about moral panic.

Hmm. If I understand you (and r/conspiracy in general) correctly: asking questions is a form of derailment.

Cripes. You're quite the intellectually dishonest little scamp, aren't you?

Oh... you're a mind reader.

Anyway, did you notice that you started your thread by mentioning that you've always been interested in moral panic and then manufactured a moral panic over the moral panic page? Was this done in a transparent attempt to buttress your first paragraph? Sort of a self-fulfilling paragraphecy?

I knew I was right (based on how you reacted to my questions). Thanks for being gracious enough to admit that you manufactured the whole thing.

Well, if it asks for a citation make sure to scream at the page loudly.

Yes but your not going to like it.......Test Your Awareness

If you think it's not related then your not ready!

From reading the new description, I'd say the "bad guys." The segment on human trafficking is the giveaway.

To my eyes, it's where the far right and far left converge. They don't wan't the Salem Witch Trials on that page because it suggests a "witch hunt" of men.

So the "bad guys" aren't actually effective as the "burn the witch" picture is still at the top of the page.

The page is a clusterfuck.

Changing history is important because it eliminate precedence and makes it impossible to follow a chain of events that are linked. Important for families that might have a PR issue they want to suppress.

The purity movement was also edited. When I first researched it named families such as the rockerfellers as making their wealth off of cheap child slave labor. A few years later I went back and that was gone and I could no longer the name of the families that were enriching themselves off of child labor. Another one was researching Caligula and Nero, apparently neither were lunatics and actually effective leaders all of a sudden.

i wonder if wayback machine would show the old versions. I am going to try that this week.

Wikipedia keeps the history of each article, just a few clicks away. At least that’s what I thought.

I think you hit on something really good there, regarding the definition shift, itself. Thank you.

It is, to me, a wonderful example of how terms have been coopted to flip the script on who is victim and who is villain.

As most social scripts go, the villain is (as it turns out) the public, you and I. Believers of this script are made by sharing with them that it isn't the system's fault that it is destroying the world through industrious actions that serve multiple unpublished agendas.

Rather, according to the script, it is the people's faults for not recycling, or not caring, or for consuming irresponsibly. Says the pusher, to the addict.

Drink responsibly. Because you can't sue us.

Hehe, there it is. Nice.

WE HAPPY FEW

When it comes to story it's "1984" the game or this is your life while you're not distracted....basically I'm saying all good stories rework the truth & it's the familiarity that grabs us!

The story will be the last thing added but you can play a sandbox version of the game with the mechanics as its an early access game......as of now i would not buy into it.

Yes i use filesharing to keep up on things that might be worth funding....it has a sandbox survival style gameplay but needs serious work done to make it worth my time.

It has serious potential do as the populace is split like the hunger games & as wacky as a whole city of people drinking the koolade!

Looking at the history of the article is didn't appear like the Britannia one.

Each line is a version of the article on a certain date&time. If you select a range of articles, then click compare revision to show the changes to that article in that tie period. Checking many version of the article over several years I could not find the 'witch hunt' in the Britiannia article.

I'm not sure what's going on, but I've seen it contain more errors lately. Maybe I'm just more knowledgeable than I used to be though.

I remember when they kept deleting certain entries over and over, I can't remember them now, I think the North American Union wiki entry had a habit of disappearing completely

There are discussion pages and history revisions on Wikipedia, I'mma check the discussions tab to see if anyone knows why the Salem Witch Trials were removed.

I'm looking through revisions and I don't even see the Salem Witch Trials, I'm hitting 2004 and 2008 to see if it was there in July of those years. When was the last time you saw it?

But the talk page doesn't say anything of revisions about the With Trials either. I'm not really seeing an flamewar in the talk page either, it's kinda bland, no insults or any real drama.

Maybe you're just getting the Brittanica version mixed in with the Wikipedia version?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moral_panic&type=revision&diff=777369834&oldid=776477090

Here is a time when someone merged a bunch of "Public Health" moral panics under one header. And I think the Blue Whale Game section got removed?

That's like the strangest part so far.

I've noticed a few other changes as well. Read a bunch of stuff. Then I want to read up on it again and it's no where to be found.

When any source of information is wide-open to revision or the information it provides can be altered or deleted due to legal threats or bullying without bothering to differentiate whether those complaints would actually stand up in court before deciding to edit or delete it or not, you're not going to have a very reliable or particularly accurate source of information, especially on any important and highly charged or contentious issues.

What, pray tell, is the difference between "moral panic" and "moral outrage' or "moral indignation"?

According to this it seems that "moral panic" is something that has been deliberately cultivated by false, exaggerated, sensationalized, or misleading information to promote someone else's particular political or social agenda and goad the public into accepting or even insisting on it, when they otherwise wouldn't have. An agenda that actually isn't in their best interests, but rather based on exploiting them, instead.

But what of real "moral indignation" or any public outrage that is based on and driven by very real, confirmed, and completely accurate and unvarnished facts that are absolutely true and genuinely horrific, deeply disturbing, and bound to outrage the sensibilities of any normal and well adjusted person that's informed about them?

If the belief that there is a widespread abduction of children by predatory paedophiles, or that the ritual abuse of women and children by satanic cults actually exists and goes on, or that the War on Drugs and other public health issues don't actually serve the public's best interests but other and very different ones at their expense... who's agenda could sensationalizing or exaggerating any of the information related to those any more than it already and quite naturally possibly serve?

And who would even make such a claim if it wasn't to actually shield pedophile rings and satanic cults from the public being more aware of the fact that they do exist and people have to be vigilant and remain conscious of conscious of that especially in regards to the safety of children and young adolescents.

I have observed various edits on wiki myself..... either to romanticize certain stories, or more usually offering multiple versions or interpretations of something to blur the meaning. Lots of suggestive links to lead people on a narrative or "wikihole" intentionally... tho its usually fun and informative for me so I can't really say its a bad thing.

I've seen stuff like this before and not just with Wikipedia. Once a few years ago I was having an online debate about the history of midwifery. I used wikipedia citations to make a lot of my side of the argument. Within 2 days every reference I used was gone.

Another time I was having a debate about these girls only charities for African countries because they're supposedly left out of education. I cited statistics from all the countries involved that showed that most African countries have better gender parity in their education systems than the US does (they're all roughly 50/50 with females actually getting more advanced degrees). That info is now very difficult to find on the internet.

When it comes to story it's "1984" the game or this is your life while you're not distracted....basically I'm saying all good stories rework the truth & it's the familiarity that grabs us!

Wikipedia keeps the history of each article, just a few clicks away. At least that’s what I thought.

Yes but your not going to like it.......Test Your Awareness

If you think it's not related then your not ready!