University of Canberra Tells Kids to Trust Propaganda Tool Wikipedia

Academics paid by Google News Initiative, instruct parents, teachers and kids that Wikipedia is a valid pathway to 'Truth'. What could possibly go wrong?

Like so many institutions, the University of Canberra has its own fake fact-checking dept, the ambiguously named ‘News and Media Research Centre’. Inevitably, we can see some of it’s work is funded by the Google News Initiative to perform the NWO duties of the Censorship Industrial Complex (e.g. see Shellenberger’s affidavit on the subject here).

Reading through their Annual Report provides some interesting clues into how its staff comply with their financial partners’ agendas.

One of their ‘research’ outputs in 2022 was a ‘Workshop’ for teachers and parents to encourage their kids to use Wikipedia. Because in the New Normal it’s apparently fake news that Wikipedia is unreliable - that view is “wrong and outdated” according to the highly-intelligent critical-thinking academics at the University of Canberra. Here is a Free Pdf of the booklet accompanying the Workshop, published by this University. It is aimed at helping 9-11 year olds to fact check sources become indoctrinated, stating:

“The book presents version 1.0 of educational resources created to develop fact-checking best practice in children aged 9–11. It can be used by teachers and teacher-librarians in schools, by parents who want to discuss information literacy with their children, or by children on their own.”

The academics seem a little confused about the pitch of this booklet, which seems suitable for younger children in some places. Nevertheless, using propaganda strategies to conflate and discredit, they cleverly squash a ‘lesson’ about how great Wikipedia is, between a lesson on ‘Is the Earth Flat?’ and ‘Street Sandwich’ (i.e. if you don’t know what it is, don’t eat it).

Contents

1. Is the Earth flat?

2. Is Wikipedia reliable?

3. Street sandwich

4. Why you so mad? (sic)

5. Red cars

6. Garage dragon

Would a 9 year old find this lesson valuable?

Looking at the ‘Wikipedia’ lesson, we can see immediately who likely funded them to write this stuff. There is no warning about the conflicts of interest, algorithms or surveillance at Alphabet, nor the censorship of certain websites.

Extract from the kids booklet - at least they admit Google ‘tracks’ (but what does that mean to a 9 year old?). And WHY is Wikipedia ‘often in the top results’?

When I spoke to some young teenagers over the holidays recently, and asked them about Google. They all agreed they only used Google (on their phones) and assumed that when a warning appeared that “this site is unsafe” or similar, that was a genuine notice that they accepted without question. Only one of the boys had enough curiosity to ask me for more details of why this may NOT be true. Are there any teachers out there teaching this common sense yet?

Going back to this booklet, the summary of the lesson is very clear:

And t let’s look at the Notes to the Teachers within the booklet, for those who might have misgivings about the Trolls who are paid to edit Wikipedia, to defame, discredit and delegitimize anyone who speaks out with counter-narrative views:

Propaganda message to teachers: Listen to us we are the experts, not you. Trust Wikipedia and the AI Bots for factual information, heed the ‘Warning Banners’.

In case you aren’t fully aware of the multiple ways that Wikipedia controls the narrative, I highly recommend the work of Emeritus Prof

Norman Fenton

who has written extensively along with his colleagues at Queen Mary University about these fake fact-checkers which promote the propaganda:

How Wikipedia defames and delegitimizes anybody raising concerns against the WHO narrative on Covid

The University of Canberra are deeply involved in controlling the narratives of the WEF and WHO. For instance, in a 2023 report entitled “COVID-19: Australian news and misinformation longitudinal study” you may have expected even a half-hearted attempt by the (captured) authors to define the concept of ‘misinformation’? I’m sure the project’s funders (Google) would have helped in that endeavour?

But upon reading through the Report, it would seem that the authors have assumed that misinformation is anything that the Government or WHO say it is. Regardless of the scientific evidence. Embarrassing, eh? For instance, when collecting data from the Australian public, they asked them (pg. 135):

The mind boggles as to the quizzical looks and puzzled responses this ambiguous question likely produced from the participants: if they 'know or suspect' something is ‘false’ or ‘misleading’ - is that an accurate measurement of whether it actually IS 'false or misleading'? According to these academics, yes!

Do these participants’ interpretations of misinformation have any bearing on what others might interpret as ‘false or misleading’? I don't think so!

‘References’ listed at the end of this report include articles from the Huffington Post, The Conversation and Wired, alongside unpublished research reports from their own dept. Good job! One of the Adjunct Members of the Canberra News and Media Research Centre is the CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Initiative. That suspicious Censorship Industrial Complex entity that began in 2019 - coincidence you understand ;)

Extract from the University of Canberra’s News and Media Research Centre’s Annual Report.

As the quality of academic ‘research’ spirals down the plug-hole, there must be more and more students thinking ‘what am I paying for'?’ and ‘what am I doing here anyway?’. I feel your pain. The irony is particularly clear in the introduction to this recent Covid ‘misinformation’ propaganda piece:

To counter foreign interference, the information resilience and skills of the Australian public must be increased in a manner that restores trust in public institutions. We define three key resilience principles – non-partisanship, speed, and transparency. We present an information literacy research program conducted in four Canberra schools in 2022, and outline an ongoing research program to develop tools to map the health of online information environments. These research projects implement our three resilience principles and could inform information literacy and information health campaigns and initiatives that will make the Australian public more resilient.

The contrast between public opinion and the authors’ apparent aims to ‘restore trust’ and present ‘transparency’ couldn’t be more apparent. As is increasingly the case - the opposite is true.

There is however, some hope on the horizon, as parallel communities set-up new learning environments, including, for instance in Europe, this ‘University’, which isn’t captured and where Free Speech is welcomed.

In conclusion, a plea to teachers and parents, please ignore the University of Canberra’s instructions. Ditch Google and Wikipedia. Choose instead Books and Freedom.

Change can’t come soon enough in the education sector…