Wikipedia ís Racist : What Africans need to know
Please read this article, this article already goes into detail :
Someone said that a dirty tap cannot produce clean water. Wikipedia has all kinds of democratic and good principles which drive and protect its content. None of them can really be flawed as articles of law. But what happens when the majority of the people on Wikipedia are male, Anglophone, American and White? Would they be so above all global issues to be trusted to represent the worldview of everyone? So academic their mere intellect would rise above any assertion of racism.
2025 ZIONIST UPDATE:
Let me show you how Wikipedia works. You need consensus,
But if they get the outcome they dont like, there is always:
Now let us look at all the other issues, such as the pandering to Jews and Israel.
WIKI GETS AWAY
Wikipedia gets away with racism for a few racism entries
- Africans as any marginalised and oppressed group do not have the resources to fight back
- Africans are seriously not united around these issues and often fight institutional racism in isolation as opposed to from an institutional stance, yet those fighting in isolation are fighting organized white racism.
- African people themselves are victims of centuries of White racism and more often than not either cannot identify this nuanced racism, or actually hold these racist attitudes to be true. Hence the ongoing usage of words like Black African and Negroid to discribe African people is not seen as racist.
- We live in a world where the dominant race class is white. They successfully control all media, they own Google. They own Hollywood. We are often hired to be in these circles, but we never own it. Our AHS and Assata sites are a pin drop in a sea of Whiteness. or best bet is to wait for CNN to decide if this story is newsworthy or not.
- African agency is suppressed.
- Africans are actively working against their own self-interest and like crabs in a barrel do not like to see other Africans gain recognition so will not unite and protect each other when attacked by White racism. It is ironic that being victims of White racism has created a community that often is complicit or ignorant about the very racism attacking them.
- White racism is so overwhelming what are you going to do try to dodge the police bullets or worry about White American editors on Wikipedia?
INCLUSION?
As a test, I just went to Wikipedia on an ip name and tried to get the word Negroid out of an article that referred to Africans as being Negroids. Guess what, an inclusive multicultural wiki had me reverted in seconds. So much for inclusion. Now if you get reverted this fast for correcting us being called Negroids do you think anyone will stick around to contribute? So let us start with the reality of African inclusion in Wikipedia. It is like a complaint line that just rings — it is a facade.
Because this is not a new problem but a very old one. There was a time when what was history was synonymous with what was white. Whenever we heard of any event in history it was through the lens of the European looking at the rest of creation. This is why Columbus “discovered” the New World. The world was New to Europeans and hence the world was New. When Europeans discovered a lake surrounded by African fishing there for 10,000 years it was called a European discovery. And we need to understand the Wikipedia experience as a direct descendant of this Eurocentrism. And we should not shy away from calling it Eurocentric because it is all Eurocentric, Wikipedia is just the latest iteration of a Eurocentric expression. And all its pretentious calls of inclusion do not change that. This is the genius of the new oppression, the illusion of inclusion. Like an all whites school saying they want to promote multiculturalism. but how comfortable would anyone fell being isolated and just playing token in Whiteman’s self-serving multiculturalism inclusion?
Then they say race does not matter. So basically a bunch of Zionist editing a Palestinian article also would not matter? GOP editing Obama’s article would not matter. What do Whites know about the African experience? Many nuances of African communities remain unknown to them. They are not living the African experiences they are not in African communities on African forums, in grass root or in Pan-African meetings.
GOOD BLACK SOURCES
They might quote Diop, but sometimes this is just box ticking to say “we are inclusive of the Black voice”. Sorry but Diop is not the only scholar we have. It is what they do with cinema once they have Spike and Fuqwa the black box is ticked and the ladder is kicked out. All references and opinions about film are either Lee or Fuquwa. Amazing trick. And it works because we are happy to see these two faces represented, even if 100 others are excluded.
NEGROIDS
Do you know Wikipedia still uses words like Negroid to describe Africans? The work of racists like Carlton Voon are presented almost like if these racist bigots have some authority. Oh but what about the work of Elijah Muhammad on the origins of the White race? Well, that is called racist Pseudo-history,
Negroid is right there on Wikipedia and way down at the bottom the criticism of the term used. And the bulk of the references are to other white authorities, again the African is excluded. If Negroids do exist all I want to know is what are their feeding and mating habits. Can they speak, or write, Can they create civilization?
The Negroid World still in Modern Usage
AFRICAN EDITORS ON WIKI
Most African editors leave. And when this pattern is raised their white peers always have a reason (outside of race) for this. A Somalia editor left and it was not because of race but some other reason. It is never because of the racist experience, even when editors say “Wikipedia is racist” this is ignored.
- The lack of diversity among the editors is not automatically an evidence of animosity by existing editors. Pete unseth (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC) (White editors appraisal of exclusion, he takes the most mild approach to racism on wikipedia).
I agree with this common-sense argument, Pete unseth. Still, do we have hard RS data ? Zezen (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC) (another White editor part of the clan that makes up their own reality. And we should not isolate these editors it is so widespread that we do not need to isolate to two white editors.
-
- Absolute BS. Black people have been hounded from this project for years. Ganging up on certain Black editors, stalking, canvassing and leaving nasty comments about them on certain talk pages in an effort to discredit them are just some of the strategies used. When they raise concerns in the relevant noticeboards, they are ganged upon by the White Wiki Clique in order to diminish their concerns and ridicule them. I have watched countless of great Black and African editors hounded from the project by the White Wiki clique – most of whom are from North America. Even new Black or African editors interested in the project and pushed aside and driven off the project. Asking for a biased and dubious statistics in order to play down the issue is just silly. Many great editors who have been working on African and Black projects which I’m interested in have left the project because of what they had to endure thanks to the white Eurocentrics POV here. This has been my biggest headache here, because we have lost several great editors knowledgeable about the subjects I’m interested in. Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding
- (this editors concerns are marginalized and brushed aside as a rant. Yet you can trace ediots like Inyaity and others and find the exact same treatment. Anyone with time to investigate this can see the evidence clear as day).
- Want to create an article about that “White Wiki Clique”? This is a serious question. I would be interested to know who’s in it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC) (editor mocking Senegambia”s experience)
Where editors are talked down to and their worldview mocked and trivalized as nonacademic. All editors making reference to Pan-African cities or authors have a COI (or conflict of interest). So you are not supposed to like Karenga or AHS if you edit on Wikipedia. Because that means you have a conflict of interest. To create an entry about an African film means you are part of that film crew. So if I was to now edit African Holocaust and put in this website that is a conflict of interest but why is it not there? AHS is over a decade old are we not notable enough considering we represent the African Holocaust and made so muc contributions to the topic? No– we are not. Instead ALL external links have been removed by White editors. Yet even if you were this does not prove conflict of interest– only the quality of your edits determines that. (well if you are white that is how it works).
RACISM ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA
What about people who hate Jews vs people who hate Africans? Part of this article is not to give you the answers but ask you to do your own research. To hate a Jew on Wikipedia is to be tagged to death. Yet the most racist Anti-African is not tagged to death or called a racist. The threshold of inclusion for this is so high no one can be called racist for being racist against Africans. Yet the Anti-Defamation used has liberal authority on Wikipedia so much so that you would think there was a partnership. It is the ADL that gets to determine what is and what isnt racism. Them and the Southern Poverty Law. Where are the African org that get to determine what is and isnt racism? So everywhere we see “according to the ADL Farrakahn is an antisemite”. But we do not see according to AHS Cecil Rhode is a racist.
EUROCENTRIC
Can a White person adequately evaluate their own work? If you answer yes then we have just deified whites as so powerful they are capable of not only capturing their own experience but knowing the experiences of all people on Earth. And also being the authorities of our experiences. In a nutshell this is what the word Eurocentric means. And what confuses some of us is we go to Wikipedia and read a good article on racism. But it is a good article to the exclusion of Africans. Brilliant summarized by using the odd quote from one or two while 90% of the rest of the content is the White voice. How is this? If you did not know better you would assume Africans do not publish books or articles to contribute to their own experience.
WHITES ON OUR EXPERIENCE
How is an article on Africa still almost exclusively quoting the opinions of Whites. Beyond truth or falsehood the question is how is it possible to speak of African anything and exclude so many African voices on our own reality. What is the name for the system that systematically excludes non-White voices? Is that not what all the anti-racist claim to be fighting for? Because why this is telling the world is that Whites are the representatives of everyone’s worldview. But then they tell us “race of contnent does not matter”” sure in a pure world that is true, the weight of the scholarship matters. Unfortunately in the real world race does matter. And you can see this by comparing the work of any conscious African vs that of their European peers. All of a sudden films like 500 Years Later vs Channel 4 version come to light. How come with the same back story such radically different works are produced? Whites are White and hold a worldview that minimizes their role in slavery where possible. You can read anyone of them and see that even the most radical of the lot still does not give slavery the treatment a conscious African would. And we have to use the word conscious in a legal framework before they start offering the likes of Henry Louis Gates and Appiah. They handpicked people like Gates and others because the worldview of Gates serves the Euocentric agenda. So let the record show that we are not discussing inclusion of any old African, but Africans with a strong authentic African worldview–like Malcolm X. On that note take a look at the whitewash operating on that article on Wikipedia. You would come away with a Malcolm X that lost his teeth after Mecca.
Are they so high above the human condition of bias that they can investigate themselves? So they create this democratic ideal space for getting perfect articles but all of them have a Eurocentric worldview then what outcome can we expect for the African story? Because what Wikipedia is that by its laws, articles can be edited by anyone so balance and the multicultural experience can be preserved. But reality shows African editors are intimidated and bullied by gangs of White self-interest groups which universally share the same attitude. So when voting on content or discussing content which voice is heard? Which edits get included, and which get excluded? Even moderate whites are not going to go out of their way to defend African self-interest? And what do White editor know about the African worldview? Except to be an arrogant tourist so bold to lecture Africans on issues like racism.
So when Wikipedia is forced to quote an African opinion, they go with the weakest one, the one from the person who poorly articulates reality or is impossible to ignore. They will never automatically add a new voice to the subject in the interest of diversity. And Wikipedia is masters of making us think that all Africans think the same. So as long as the editor of Essence weights in– that is the universal Black voice.
Can you trust Wikipedia? Hell to the no. But you can use it very effectively if you are a researcher or scholar. Or understand the politics of whitewashing. Wikipedia is a product of those who edit, by its very nature if the majority are White English speaking males how do you honestly expect it to produce accurate content regarding non-White people. Wikipedia uses terms like NPOV (Neutral Point of view) and Reliable Source as tools to exclude African content. They are liberals so they may include the work of certain Africans those which are impossible to denounce (Diop, etc) and those (the majority) which are their puppets or say what they want them to say (Gates, Appiah). So our site use to get used by some Africans on Wikipedia and the White majority esp the Jews did not like the site. They do not like African independent anything. now try as they wanted to they could not classify our site as pseudo history. So they called it polemic. But never have they debunked the work–NEVER. What they do is say ït is not a reliable source and hence do not have to consider it for anything–even if we said the Sun was hot. This is how White liberals operate to continue to marginalize authentic African history. They are gate keepers of knowledge and bastions of truth Universal administers of justice– So said the Lord GoD!
NPOV
Nuetral point of view. That wall that looks so nuetral that is used to block the African experience. Basically if it is African and indpendent then it cannot be used. But if Africans are marginalized and mainstream content with a black face or with a white face not representative then how will the authentic African voice be heard.
BLACK INCLUSION
We see references to Africans in Wiki, so what is the problem? Well who selects which Black voices are heard? The same ones published by who? So it is a series of White gate keepers that allow in some African voices, the ones so loud they cannot be ignored or the ones already acceptable to white establishments.
BLACK AGENDA IS POV PUSHING
Despite all the evidence that Wikipeida is yet another Eurocentric project it is interesting what those who seek to redress the imblanced are called. Trying to insert scholar Ivan Van Sertima into Wikipedia is called Afrocentric POV pushing. Including a reference from another site is called marketing that product. It is amazing how none of this applies to the majority of White ediots. If a Muslim is unhappy about the Islamophobic tone in an article that editor has a religious agenda. Destroying African history has never been an agenda Wikipedia has investigated and exposed–never in its history is there one example of an editor being accused of this and banned.
INSTITUTIONAL AND SYSTEMATIC RACISM
African Holocaust is not part of the White Establishment which includes The Grio and other complicit Black faced outlets which are not authentic voices of Africans. It therefore cannot be included in Wikipedia no matter how well researched the contnent. It does not matter how much insight we bring to a topic, it is Not notable.
They will have a page for Ivan Van Sertima–and that is it. No where are his opinions included in articles like Moors. Maybe Henry Louis Gates would be used to save face and avert any accusations of insitutional racism. And this is the game the White dominant society plays. They include some, in a tactic to exclude most. And it is a tactic of absolute minumu use. So they have an article on 500 years later, but not the director. None of the content from the film is used in any article about race. You can see Arab Slave trade, yet no link or ref to our Arab slave trade. Considering, per google search, that is the next dominant article on the topic with deep insight isent it strange that not even an external link is added? Why is that. On the article on Maafa or African Holocaust not one reference is given to the African Holocaust org, despite being the only online source by Africnas dedicated to that area of study. They would happily quote in lieu of any one but AHS. Let us look at why. Karenga spoke briefly on the AH but there is no content on it from him like this org. So between Karenga and AH, they go with a ref from only Karenga. It is strategic, the option of less consequence to them. It is a very smart way to marginalize Africans. If Karenga had a website with 1000s of articles they would never use it as a ref. they do this with the Nation of Islam. An entire article on Jews in Slavery yet not one direct ref to Nation of Islam–Why? It is better to list Jewish sites which speak about NOI than to link to NOI directly. Articles on Black homosexuality only include pro-gay sites. Despite the majority of African being not pro-gay you will not find any link to these non-gay sites. Do we need more examples? Because they all follow this pattern. Diop has a well written article, yet you will struggle to find a ref to diop in any other article.
Maafa article, do the test yourself. Go into the history of the Maafa article and look at it when African editors were more active on Wikipedia. It was full of references and useful content which represented what we know Maafa means. Look at it now. Just go and see, how all the pictures and content has been stripped year after year by racist after racist.
CONCLUSION
We can learn from Wikipedia, we can use Wikipedai but what African need is our own. The illusion of integration is another way of saying death sentence. Everytime we stop building our own, to correct their mess we are making them stronger and us weaker. This does not mean we should not organize and work together to balance their racism–we must. We should read the rules of Wikipedia and get active in making sure we protect our history. But greater than that, we must create our own! We are not free if we are always celebrating our history in someone elses house. How many African editors have made significant contributions to topics only now to return to those articles and seen them stripped bear. We cannot invest in Wikipedia because it is and will always be a mirror of White self-interest. As Eddie Grant said “You invite me to a war party–but me nah wanna go–Heard about the last one–thanks but no thanks–no”
