Though, sadly, it doesn't appear to have lasted very long
I did manage to catch sight of the entry before it was deleted but I didn’t have enough time to make my own edit or contribution
The reason I saw given for the entry’s impending deletion was that the article didn’t indicate how important ‘Common Purpose’ was
So, that’s something to bear in mind whenever using Wikipedia as a resource. Only important stuff gets in there...
(edit: The entry for CP on Wikipedia appears to be back up now - thanks Tony)
I’ve linked and referred people to Wikipedia a lot over the last few years and, even though I’ll probably continue to do so in a limited way, I’m going to consciously cut down on my implied support for what is increasingly turning out to be a bag of old shite
My 'favourite' recent example of Wikipedia’s shiteness is its entry on the anthrax attacks that took place immediately after 9/11. Anyone who has read around the subject will be aware that the anthrax in question came from a US military lab and that the FBI investigation into the attacks dropped off the media radar rather quickly once the source of the anthrax was established. Anyone doing some reading will also be aware that a guy called Philip Zack has one or two questions to answer about the goings on in that particular lab
"Death to Zionist-loving American Pigs!! Yours Sincerely, A. Muslim ( PS If undelivered please return to Fort Detrick, Maryland) "And yet, for some reason, Dr Phil doesn’t get a single mention anywhere at all in Wikipedia’s copious entry on the anthrax attacks
That’s one example. I have plenty of others
…as does the guy behind the software which traces Wikipedia edits that got so much publicity a couple months ago
Given all that it seems only fair that Wikipedia’s entry on Operation Mockingbird (the name given to the Central Intelligence Agency operation to influence domestic and foreign media) is currently itself under threat of the axe...
If Winston Smith were a real person he'd feel right at home with WikipediaBecause, as we all know, in spite of all those ex-spooks who claim that 90%+ of intelligence operations are about planting information rather than gathering intelligence, our intelligence services wouldn’t dream of covertly influencing the media in any way at all
.
14 comments:
Funny, I was thinking the other day hpw good it would be if all you Conspiraloon pros were to get in there and start seriously writing Wikipedia.
They only save articles which are properly referenced in the real world. I'm certain you lot could do that. Well actually, just one of you would do a very effective job.
Just the other day I found that 'Polaroid Type 55' is now an orphaned page on Wikipedia, which is damnable, really, but I don't have time at the mome nt to do the linkeages.
But near-obsolete film formats are not quite such serious matters.
From what I've seen, a coherent argument from a contributor always gets stuff kept, fsvo 'always', obv.
Go on, I know you want to..!
I tried editing David de Rothschild's page the other day but the moderators didn't appear to like my changes - I can't think why!
@b
From what I've seen, a coherent argument from a contributor always gets stuff kept
...kicking myself for not getting on the case sooner
@anon
DMdR is trying to save the Planet because he loves us all and must be protected from snarky comments at all costs
particularly on a site someone from his extended family could conceivably have helped pay for
@brendadada
unfortunately, i've read of many examples of good, cited work being added to wikipedia, only to be deleted shortly thereafter for no apparent reason.
this being the internet, i should be able to link to some examples, but i didn't bother bookmarking any of it. but it certainly is a common story, at least from what i've seen.
one example that does come to mind is a 911 researcher who made a significant, very coherent and extremely well cited contribution to the osama bin laden video tapes article, only to have the changes deleted without reason.
i just spent 20 minutes looking for that story and couldn't find it. in theory it should be in the history of the wiki entry, but i've wasted enough time as it is.
is it just me, or is google search significantly more useless than it used to be?
it's not just you
Sorry to piss on the Common Purpose parade, but I'll see your 'Common Purpose' and raise you a 'new commentariat' laden Henry Jackson Society.
Stef, if you haven't seen it already, read thisby Kurt Nimmo
@ant
The Henry Jackson Society does have an undeleted Wikipedia entry so it must be really important
...and colossi of humanitarian thought and Universal Love such as Michael Gove, Denis MacShane, Richard Perle and William Kristol endorse it so it can't be insane at all
@rw
I haven't
ta
ou might find the Wayback Server useful to trace that deleted article:
It was in the months after 9-11 atrocity and the anthrax attacks, that an excellent lady friend passed me the link to voxfux's "STRANGER THAN FICTION"
- AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF 9-11 AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM
By: Dr. Albert D. Pastore Phd, and helped my thin smokescreen finally disperse.
See the right hand pane of http://www.voxfux.com/
That was a pioneer of 9-11 'truth' reports, and still a classic, even after 5 years. The anthrax attacks were covered in that essay, (middle) fingering Zack and it was almost an exclusive!
Vox has another story right at the botton of his front page...
http://tinyurl.com/35m8k7 which has at its centre, the person they tried to frame; Dr. Steven Hatfill to let Zack get away with it.
Hatfill has benefited from this seemingly false anthrax accusation to the point where his rotten work as been overshadowed. Give this a read and you'll find Hatfill is no angel either.
VOX(fux) NYC used to have a wikipage. I saw it about a year ago. At the time, there was a warning there that it was in danger of deletion for what I'm pretty sure was "lack of relevence"
Yeah., I mean who cares about all this Bush cocaine pedophillia assassinations / Zionist cabal running most of the mindsets on the planet. Relevance huh.
P.S. Steve Watson (Prisonplanet fame) reported about a month or so ago about some dude fishing for 9-11 related wiki content and this dude deleted of edited them.
Sadly I haven;t the time to do wiki pages especially as they will come under attack. Best to stick to good sites like J7, the ant, our blogs and other actual news sites, where we have the maximum chance of mainitaining editorial control.
Criticism of wikipedia misses the point. Wikipedia has arisen because of a knowledge vacuum. Unless one has an Athens account, access to information that comprises our common knowledge base is effectively (in both senses of the word) prohibited. This is particularly wrong since we are the beneficial owners of the knowledge.
That is normal when so many people get together...
Wikipedia is complete cock.
I tried to edit the entry for the charlatan founder of a Punjabi messianic cult at the periphery of Islam that I was ignorantly part of - you know the one - Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
I was honest, impartial, met all the wonkypedia guidelines in fact, but my edits were repeatedly trashed by the prick who gatekeeps the entry.
I realised that the same must be true of much of the tosh on there, so now I wonder who is actually running this 21st Century incarnation of MiniTrue....after all...search on just about anybody who was anybody and the first entry that comes up is wackypissia
Post a Comment