Wikipedia erases "Above Top Secret" entry, for "lack of notability"

a reply to: WilsonWilson

The short answer to that is pretty much do what you want with them, they are indicative of nothing that you have any control over and for me, stars are entirely pointless - though flags less so (in the absense of a "views" count).

I still give SnF's out though, folk give them to me so i feel that i need to return the favour when i see something that made me smile, laugh, learn or nod in agreement - if only out of politeness.

I stopped giving a flip about Wikipedia when the wiki community decided they knew more about Neil Tyson than he did himself. Not that I really like NDT that much...

After reading on, I had to delete my post as my theory is incorrect due to time and date.

My apologies.

Wikipedia ignored ATS because it deems its web page content is not notable, i.e., is never cited by reliable, mainstream sources. Whilst this is perfectly true, it is totally irrelevant as a criterion for real truth (as opposed to the lies and half truths promoted by the media and academic establishment). Wikipedia refers only to the type of information that can be found in the mainstream media and in books approved by the academic establishment because it reinforces its lies, dogmas and prejudices. If the web content has not attracted the notice of reliable sources (i.e., defenders of orthodoxy), it does not matter to Wikipedia one iota how amazing, revelatory or accurate the information on a website may be; it will simply ignore it if mainstream sources has not discussed it. Wikipedia is in effect a gatekeeper that, under the pretence of maintaining high standards with "reliable" sources, ignores or censors ("edits") anything that does not fit the paradigm of bourgeoise society, as promulgated by the mainstream media.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: swanne

I do find that strange, but then i sometimes wonder quite how active this place really is.

Sure, we have "lots" of regular faces and folk who pop in and out; but considering how many visitors pass through here each day most threads still only get 10-50 flags and i do wonder if that is indicative of most visitors and members only showing cursory interest during their visits. I'd be interested to see a "views" list for threads, as well as flags.

I still find it a pointless thing,to take "us" of Wikipedia.

Actually a very good point. Example: Someone post a thread and people take the time to reply to said thread and the Op does not even give them a star for their time as a sign of recognition that their reply was even read. I wonder sometimes if this sight has people jealous of others with more stars or flags.. Geez 10 million stars would not buy someone a cup of coffee in the real world..

I always star people in my threads unless they are being a jerk as a form of thank you... I am also a stealth Flag giver if a thread brings up something I have not heard or considered.. There are many supposedly trusted sights like Snopes where if the truth were known they would just be considered another funded propaganda outlet on some subjects

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Looks like ATS isn't as mainstream as some of the old gripers like to claim.

Yah, gee, where did all the scientific minds go?

a reply to: intrptr

Is this supposed to be some sort of barb directed against me? Because it doesn't make any sense in context to what I said originally.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is this supposed to be some sort of barb directed against me?

Without being to obvious thats exactly why the site is losing credibility, right away people go on the defensive, taking things to personal and turning it into a personal attack.

Your original comment was an insult, by the way. "The old gripers" one.

a reply to: intrptr

So are you one of those gripers who complain about ATS going mainstream?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

So are you one of those gripers who complain about ATS going mainstream?

You just did it again.

I merely asked where did all the members go that used to teach us stuff about the world, instead of focusing on the poster?

ETA: They just got tired of the barely caged ridicule.

Now prove me right. Focus on me instead of what I'm saying.

a reply to: intrptr

So is that a yes? I'm just trying to figure out why you are taking offense to something that was said to no one in particular.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was trying to address the thread, not you.

But illustrated my point, thank you.

We now return you to the search for truth.

a reply to: intrptr

The reason I focused on you is because that original statement is silly. There are tons of scientific minds on ATS. In fact, I'd say that the rational types outnumber irrational types at this point since you don't see NEARLY as many far out there conspiracies as you used to. The scientific types have dissected them all and shown them to be nonsense.

I've learned much about reality and the way things work on this site thanks to the scientific minded people.

a reply to: swanne

Ban Wikipedia from ATS for the same reasons?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: swanne

Looks like ATS isn't as mainstream as some of the old gripers like to claim.

Fair enough, but there are much less notable random entries in Wikipedia, from people to places.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I'm not a moderator for Wikipedia, so that reasoning isn't really going to work on me. Giving examples or speaking about things that are lesser known that are still on Wikipedia isn't really a valid point anyways. For all you know, those articles are under review to be removed as well. Not to mention, if ATS WERE mainstream like some like to complain about, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

originally posted by: Expat888
Were above being ranked by mindless masses incapable of thinking for themselves and questioning authority .. we dont need their stinking rating or approval ..

Just gotta say the obvious here, I thought it obvious most of us don't care what the mainstream think.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Boeing777
WikiShilldia. What else is there to say?

I find Wikipedia one of the worst sources of information out there.

Ever since I found out it is crowd edited and their "editors" put in false information regularly, I won't and don't use it for information.

Although I have to admit that I have "sourced" it a handful of times, for youngsters who refuse to believe what I say and I wanted "fast" proof that the ignorant will always take as truth, Wikipedia.

Why bother to care about Wiki?

I'll tell you that I have seen memes generated here on ATS appear shortly on talk radio. I think ATS is show prep for many talk radio people. Then when our memes are important they move on beyond talk radio. ATS is way more influential than one would think.

Absolutely!!!;

We are "the vocal minority"!!!

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: WilsonWilson

The short answer to that is pretty much do what you want with them, they are indicative of nothing that you have any control over and for me, stars are entirely pointless - though flags less so (in the absense of a "views" count).

I still give SnF's out though, folk give them to me so i feel that i need to return the favour when i see something that made me smile, laugh, learn or nod in agreement - if only out of politeness.

They are a reason to stop and read when scrolling through the endless text that ATS has commited to the internet.

A road side billboard as it were.

"Last gas station for 200 miles" in the middle of death valley.

a reply to: johnwick

From my own perspective i disagree, but i think i'm dragging the thread off topic already and we all treat such things in our own manner