2000 Mules and Wikipedia
I have, by way of an experiment, just googled “2000 mules”.
Unsurprisingly, the first hit I got was the Wikipedia entry, which begins: “2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D’Souza that falsely alleges Democratically-aligned individuals, or “mules,” were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election”. Naturally, I strongly disagree, for reasons my recent blog “Roe v Wade and 2000 Mules” argued but, if I had my way, would replace “falsely alleges” with “commendably proves”.
Those who follow my blogs might note I often include the statement “According to Wikipedia” and follow it up with including some of the pertinent accompanying blurb from the Wikipedia entry about the subject I am blogging about. I do so for two reasons: firstly, Wikipedia often comes up trumps providing an apt introduction to my subject and, secondly, Wikipedia is so biased, especially toward my fellow deplorables (as the above entry illustrates), I can partly deflect accusations of deferring only to sources that happen to support my point of view, when discussing something controversial.
I should add that Wikipedia is not alone in dismissing the 2000 mules story. Mainstream media, who we would hope to report fairly (but a long time ago I realised they do do not) have either ignored or consigned what the film claims as fake news. Sadly, this includes the BBC, once my number one go to source for news reporting, even to the point, given their Ukraine coverage, of coming to the view when it comes to what they report, that the opposite might be the case. As for social media, my number one source, Facebook, have recently slammed a disinformation notice on me when I plugged the film.
I am making a salutary point, I know, and I don’t take pleasure in doing so, but if truth is (and it should be) our mantra, then we need to be wary when it comes to where we go to find it. Knowledge is power, so the old adage goes, and, like any honest journalist of which there appears to be a dearth, Wikipedia has the ability of empowering the masses (and has done so successfully) by making freely available knowledge on a mega number of different subjects. The shame is it often lies, but it also adds to the fun, and opens up subjects for the serious researcher to dig deeper and thus get to the truth. “2000 mules” is a case in hand; if the claims of the film are true (as I believe is the case), the implications are monumental.
JRB Publications 
Re-blogged with footnote:
“Much as I greatly admire and have blogged on this exceptional investigation, I have just one itsy-witsy wee proviso – and I’m not competent to comment on legal matters so do correct me if I’m mistaken – BUT the recordings and geo-tracking are circumstantial evidence not hard iron-clad proof, which is the actual voting documentation posted in many suspicious circumstance has itself yet to be found and forensically examined.”
For those of us who have been following the allegations of election fraud from the outset the film is powerful confirmation and yes I agree its finding could be deemed circumstantial evidence albeit backing up a lot of what we who have been following already know. But the main thrust of my article is how Wikipedia can so blatantly lie (ref “falsely alleges”) along with the BBC and Facebook.
I’ve just read this article, by googling why Wikipedia was so biased against “2000 Mules”. This arrival confirmed I wasn’t mistaken in reading total accusations of falsities.
Thank you for putting this article out. It assured me that the facts and/or points reached in the film were pretty solid for the most part and I was angry to see opinion in Wikipedia, rather than just statements of and about the film.
Sorry, misprint. My comment is suppose to read “article” NOT arrival.