© Russian InsiderPiece on MH17 may as well have been written in Langley, Virginia.
On 15 August 2007, the BBC headlined
"Wikipedia Shows CIA Page Edits," and Jonathan Fildes reported that, "An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organizations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the
CIA was involved in editing entries."
I.e.: What the CIA doesn't like, they can (and do) eliminate or change. More recently, on 25 June 2015, an anonymous reddit poster, "moose,"
listed and linked directly to 18 different news reports, in such media as
New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Mirror, Guardian, and
Newsweek, reporting about wikipedia edits that were supplied not only by the CIA but by other U.S. Government offices, and by large corporations.
That person opened with a news report which implicated Wikipedia itself, "Wikipedia honcho caught in scandal quits, defends paid edits," in which Wikipedia's own corruption was discussed.
Most of the other news reports there concerned unpaid edits by employees at CIA, congressional and British parliamentary offices, the DCRI (French equivalent of the U.S. CIA), large corporations, self-interested individuals, and others.
One article even concerned a report that, "All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK) changed a Russian language version of a page listing civil aviation accidents to say that 'The plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers'."
Basically, wikipedia has been revealed to be a river of 'information' that's polluted by so many self-interested sources as to be no more reliable than, say:
"New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Mirror, Guardian, and
Newsweek."And that's not reliable at all. For example, everybody knew in 2002 and 2003 that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMD "Weapons of Mass Destruction," because they had read it in such 'news' sources as that. Consequently, even when wikipedia links to those sorts of articles, it can be propagating lies.
After all,
The New York Times and
Washington Post were stenographically 'reporting' the lies from the White House as if those lies were truths (not challenging them at all); so, the fame of a publisher has nothing to do with the honesty (the integrity and carefulness) of its 'news' reporting.
Stenographic 'news' reporting isn't news-reporting; it is propaganda, no matter how famous and respected the 'news' medium happens (unfortunately) to be. Some of the most unreliable 'news' media have top prestige.
Comment: Makes perfect sense. Ukraine's economy is in such a
great shaperuin and the country is obviouslyprosperousbroke enough that they can allow themselves to spend:lovehate Russia. Those bailout dollars must be spent on something, right?