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

actually...the thing about Hum is correct...

I mean... it's a big conspiracy theory website. It should have it's entry reflect that if it had an entry at all. No big loss - ATS is on Facebook - that's even weirder to me lol.

originally posted by: swanne
Surely this justification stands for Wikipedia's entry on Hum, a village somewhere in Croatia with population = 17:

just answered your own question. who cares what 17 people in the middle of no where think!

a reply to: swanne

Political.


Thanks for the heads-up.

Wikipedia always seemed to have a policy that favored the deletionists. It makes it diffiucult to make articles on anything, even if you could build lists of references. It's why I gave up on contributing any content there. (However some of the spinoff/independent wiki format sites are a lot more open though. A few articles/tutorials I wrote in Wikibooks - although now dated - still stand.)

For ATS, I probably wouldn't sweat it though. To make up for all that, we probably have our own dedicated Reddit subforum about our forums.

www.toptenz.net...

1. Toilet Paper Orientation
2. Penile Subincision
3. List of YouTube Celebrities
4. High Five
5. Fictional Last Words in Webcomics
6. Fictional Last Words in Video Games
7. Mathematical Joke
8. Character Mask
9. Lopadotemachoselachogaleokraniolei-psanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaome-litokatakechymenokichlepikossy-phophattoperisteralektryonopteke-phalliokigklope leio-lagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon
10. Barbie’s Careers

We don't even rate with Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleio lagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon ......... or Toilet Paper

Dang it all anyway!

a reply to: dr1234

Yes we are. I use wiki as a jump off. Each entry has a bibliography of sources so research can continue if you want more.

a reply to: swanne

When was the page created and when was it deleted? How many other websites or discussion boards could one find on Wikipedia?

There is always a sinking feeling that one day we will be shut down. One day soon if NSA is finished losing discussion deflection with some of the really knowledgeable and witty members...

Wikipedia? Oh, that website full of articles that universities won't accept as a cited reference?

a reply to: swanne

Maybe they were offended at how often their site is mentioned as not being a reliable source?



Since virtually anyone can edit the site, how dow e even know this wasn't a move by some rival site, that is jealous they aren't well known?

It's wiki, anyway, so who cares?

originally posted by: swanne
What say you ATS? Justified deletion, or political move?

I say your answer is right here in their entry for the ..

September 11 attacks -

"9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians."

en.wikipedia.org...

---

uuuuh huh.. sure, that is correct.

www.youtube.com...

---

It's scary to think that Wiki can become representative of the official knowledge of Earth far in the future.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: swanne
Since virtually anyone can edit the site, how dow e even know this wasn't a move by some rival site, that is jealous they aren't well known?

I think that is the illusion - that anyone can edit the site, and that it is a 'democratic' encyclopedia by the people for the people.

I don't think that is the truth. (I am not certain, but I think..) While you can join in on the conversation to construct the article, there are 'official' people, however they are selected, to dictate what the final article will be.

originally posted by: nOraKat

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: swanne
Since virtually anyone can edit the site, how dow e even know this wasn't a move by some rival site, that is jealous they aren't well known?

I think that is the illusion - that anyone can edit the site, and that it is a 'democratic' encyclopedia by the people for the people.

I don't think that is the truth. (I am not certain, but I think..) While you can join in on the conversation to construct the article, there are 'official' people, however they are selected, to dictate what the final article will be.

Well, I know I have personally edited this and that, when I found errors. Mainly something about a book or movie I knew well, but I was able to easily change articles. I witnessed once, over a period of 2-3 days, one article change literally more than half a dozen times, when the information contained was relevant to a current political issue. The last time I looked, half the good info i had contained was still gone, and much of what was there was ambiguous at best, and some was inaccurate. So, someone was doing a lot of editing. I am sure there are official people, but they don't catch everything, and a lot of bad info can and does slip through the cracks. Wiki can be alright to get a basic idea, but I would never trust any information that I couldn't verify elsewhere. The most I have used the site has been for anecdotes about mystery disappearances and that sort of thing, where the stories are already varied, and much is urban legend. It can be a nice jumping off point, but it's not as reliable as a real encyclopedia, by any means.

In this case, I never looked at the entry, as far as I can recall, but I suspect it wasn't as detailed or informative as maybe it could have been, and was perhaps looked at as treating this like a "news site", as opposed to a varied and layered and muli-topic discussion discussion forum. We discuss a lot of news, of course, and the subjects are varied and different, but maybe the entry didn't reflect the true nature of this site.

It's alright. ATS is a good site, overall. Always something interesting to read, a nice catch-all for news I often miss when browsing elsewhere, great opinions and experiences from all of the members, and something for almost any interest. Well, maybe not the curiosity-deficient, such as one relative of mine, but almost anyone! We don't need a wiki page. Lots of cool things I have looked for didn't have a page. Lots more have a virtually blank entry with no real information. We know who we are, and others do as well, to some extent. No entry means we are more "fringe", too, which, as far as I am concerned, is better for a conspiracy site!

Of course, we can treat this as a conspiracy against conspiracy sites, which it well could be, and get soe good discussion going!

It's the NSA and the Government. They control Wikipedia just like they control Facebook and Twitter. The NSA says delete, so Wiki deletes. Facebook took down Thomas Retterbush's 'Conspiracy Watch' Facebook page without notice. He had ove a million 'likes'. The U.S. Government will do anything to keep people from getting the truth. It's dangerous to be right when the Government is wrong.

I read a piece the other day that said that people who have died that don't have a wiki page written about them didn't have a soul.


How Reincarnation Works

"What about the many other “unfamous” personalities that were born on a given birthday, that do not appear on wikipedia?

In the case these personalities, their “will to survive” was not strong enough to allow their souls to be made known to a large audience or else their ability to “go with the flow” is not strong enough. These personalities are really derivatives of the originating, “famous” soul. They possess some of characteristics of the famous souls, but did not possess the the adequate “will to survive” or “go with the flow” attitude for them to be remembered for posterity. The amount of soul, and the amount of “will to survive”, is not distributed evenly, some souls such as Julius Ceasar for instance, would probably have a very strong “will to survive” associated with their soul. Whereas a cleaning person born on the same day, in the general case, would not."

Wikipedia is too self-important and their 'crowd' editors now decide who has been reincarnated.

a reply to: BurbGirl378

I dunno, while I understand your and totally respect your viewpoint I think it might have more to do with the rise of "crowd sourcing" entries that have shown and proven themselves to be dangerous for not only the individual and group psycho-spheres when in comes to fixation issue of certain nonproductive and pointless conspiracies and the rise of the militant social activist groups online who sometimes create cult-like worship and devotional adherence to dangerous iconic thought-scapes.

I mean, all these kids screaming about the 1% movement could have done an immeasurable amount of help in putting all that energy to use feeding, clothing and housing the homeless or caring for the elderly and bedridden. But no. That option never occurred to them because "fighting the man" is more important than planning and growing a community food garden or painting artistic expressions of discontent on canvas for sale or auction for worthy and real causes.

Dunno. I may be wrong, but then again....I may just be crazy.

As often as it has been said here that "Wikipedia is not a credible source." I see this as a passive aggressive move to get revenge.

Hell in away that even makes the site waay kooler.
often times I hit upon on breaking news events here before it it my news feeds.

a reply to: swanne

Good grief! I hope the NSA didn't get to Wikipedia.

Come to think of it, the only reason I see Wikipedia is because that's what Google wants me to use when I search something relatively common enough.

Wikipedia needs crowd sourced competitors in a race for the contract to compile the independently-networked entire-editing-history-viewable encyclopedia of the universe.