Wikipedia’s Quiet War: How Activists Are Rewriting History, One Deletion at a Time

#MalmGate

Where’s the first place you turn when you want to know about Nelson Mandela, the Cuban Missile Crisis, or who the third U.S. president was?

It’s not your local library. It’s Google. And what’s Google’s first suggestion for nearly every topic under the sun?

Wikipedia.

Try it yourself. Search for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Mandela. Early American presidents. You’ll find Wikipedia at the top, smiling down benignly as the final authority. Google has maintained a near-total monopoly on search for decades. Wikipedia, in turn, has become the front-facing oracle of recorded history.

Which raises a rather obvious question: if you were an intelligence agency, activist group, or foreign adversary — and you wished to shape narratives, nudge perceptions, or erase inconvenient facts — where would you begin?

Wikipedia, of course. If you weren’t trying to influence it, it would almost seem negligent.

And lately, we’ve been handed a masterclass in exactly how easy it is to twist reality with a few quiet keystrokes.

#MalmGate

Recently, the Wikipedia page for Harald Malmgren — a man who advised four U.S. Presidents, played pivotal roles during Cold War economic standoffs, and arguably helped prevent World War III — was deleted. Not just deleted, but reimagined.

He was repackaged, mid-mortem, as a mere “American writer and lobbyist.” A bureaucratic nobody.

This wasn’t a random accident. It came on the exact day Jesse Michels released a groundbreaking interview with Malmgren, filmed shortly before he sadly passed — a confessional in which Malmgren detailed decades of knowledge about secret UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena/UFOs) programs, government cover-ups, and the Presidents who knew.

In other words: inconvenient truth.

As Jesse Michels put it:

“Harald Malmgren’s Wikipedia page was successfully altered yesterday. He is now called ‘an American writer and lobbyist’: no longer a top presidential aide and diplomat who avoided WW3 (among other incredible accomplishments), just some random guy representing Japanese business interests in the U.S. and soliciting corporate clients using government connections. This is pure bullshit and obviously a reaction to our video, not some desire to get things right.”

Marik Von Rennenkampff, a columnist at The Hill and former Obama administration official, went even further:

“The historical profile of this brave man, who advised four U.S. presidents on matters of profound economic significance, was targeted for elimination by stealthy, unknown actors because he made a deathbed confession about UAP.

Let that sink in.”

Harald Malmgren’s Wikipedia profile shortly before it was "“re-designed'“.

And to what end? What do these changes actually do. Who reads them? Who cares? Well, they are incredibly important. AI and other LLM’s like ChatGPT, Grok and others use information from “trusted” sources to form answers for people. Fact Checkers use it, Community Notes use it. Thesis are written at universities using Wikipedia. Primary school homework resourced from Wikipedia. News reporters and investigative journalists researching a case, or forming a narrative, use Wikipedia and in the end, when time passes, like that, the legendary American hero is reduced to simply a supporter of Japanese whaling and a liar. Who lost his marbles shortly before he died and started seeing aliens.

And it’s not just Malmgren.

Christopher Mellon — former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and one of the highest-profile advocates for UAP transparency — has seen his Wikipedia page nominated for deletion. And as I write this, it’d gone.

Dr. Pippa Malmgren, economic advisor to President George W. Bush, too. Harald’s very own daughter, who also appeared in the American Alchemy exclusive.

Dr. Pippa Malmgren discussing this case on her X account.

Even Robert Bigelow, pioneer, aerospace entrepreneur and consciousness researcher, has had his reputation subtly sandblasted away — now labelled little more than a rich bloke obsessed with psychics and aliens.

The first search response to Robert Bigelow on Google.

The formula is simple: if you speak up on subjects the establishment doesn’t like — UFOs, consciousness research, the limits of government secrecy — you are quietly repositioned as a crank, a kook, a nobody.

In Wikipedia’s playground, perception is everything — and perception is cheap to buy.

So how does this happen?

Wikipedia sells itself as the ultimate open-source project: anyone can edit, anyone can propose a deletion, and “community consensus” wins. It sounds democratic, even utopian.

But in practice, a few dozen highly active editors make the decisions.

A consensus of 200 people on Wikipedia can outvote the consensus of millions outside it.

One such editor, operating under the name “Chetsford,” has been especially aggressive in nominating these high-profile UAP figures for deletion.

“Chetsford” is reportedly associated with the Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia, a group led by Susan Gerbic and dedicated to editing pages to reflect a strict materialist, debunking worldview.

This same Chetsford has had legal defense to keep their real-world identity secret. Why the need for anonymity if these are just casual, innocent edits?

It’s textbook information warfare — dressed up as ‘neutrality.’

As one observer put it:

“This weaponization of Wikipedia is information warfare in its rawest form, and the organized skeptics/debunker community is behind this… literally controlling what information the general public sees on the 7th most visited website in the world.”

Nothing flies in the face of democracy more than this.

This isn’t just about UFOs.

If Malmgren’s legacy can be memory-holed almost on the day dies, because it was inconvenient, what else is being rewritten?

What historical truths are being pre-emptively buried before we even know to look?

Today it’s UFO disclosure advocates.

Tomorrow it could be economic whistleblowers, dissident historians, scientists, politicians, anyone challenging entrenched interests.

Wikipedia’s defenders say their system is working.

The evidence suggests it’s being gamed.

We are witnessing, in slow motion, the weaponisation of our collective memory — with activists, not scholars, holding the pens.

If we don’t wake up now, we may soon find that the history our children learn is not history at all — but narrative, dressed as truth.

And by the time we notice, it may be too late.