We are excited to announce the pre-launch of White Rose Intelligence, a research and intelligence firm continuing the important work we've started during the COVID-19 crisis. Over the course of the next few weeks, we will be migrating pages from the COVID Truth Initiative to the new White Rose Wiki.
Welcome to the COVID Truth Initiative. This is a project designed to document and present reliable, verifiable evidence to build a robust knowledgebase and understanding of the COVID-19 crisis.
Some examples of people who will find this Wiki useful are lawyers, researchers, journalists, academics, writers, doctors, activists and lawmakers who require high-quality citations for publication or legal action. Moreover, it is the hope of our team that members of the general public will find this resource useful for understanding the long, complicated story that is COVID-19.
Our team of volunteers collect documents and media as they appear on the Internet and create backups through various internet archive services, as well as digital and physical backups. All documents are sourced, stored and cited according to all proper ethical guidelines and laws. As items are processed, relevant information is added to articles organized into the hierarchical library of topics, which themselves are fluid and organic as we allow the evidence to fill out the bigger picture.
It is our policy not to dismiss any source based solely on preconceived notions that may or may not be reflected in the larger zeitgeist. The reason we want to make this very clear is that psychological influence plays a significant role in the COVID-19 crisis - for better or worse - and it would be naive to assume any one person or group is the "most informed". It's reasonable to assume that if there were a culprit behind a given misdeed and they identified a journalist or political rival who sought to blow the whistle on that culprit, it stands to reason that the culprit would be eager to smear, defame or otherwise attempt to shatter public confidence in that potential whistleblower.
Another consideration is the fact that if you believe strongly in your side of an argument, you should have no problem at all with an individual expressing their opposing view. After all, if you are confident you have the facts and understand the topic at hand, you should welcome to opportunity to explain why you're right. If you are, it will become self-evident based on the substance of your argument and the evidence presented.
On the other hand, if one side of the argument insists on censorship, deplatforming or "cancelling" those who disagree with them, you've likely identified a person or establishment that knows they're wrong and is scared others will discover this too.