Wikipedia = Wiki-peed-on-you

Wikipedia is no doubt an extremely useful tool for anyone interested in anything. However, since delving into ATS archives, and spending all together too much time on this website, I've noticed something extraordinarily strange about the internet encyclopedia.

Looking up UFO cases on wikipedia has turned out an interesting adventure. It came to my attention that Wikipedia likes to discredit certain UFO cases, using very elaborate words, sentences, key arguments to discount evidence that has been pooled from a great many sources. I've noted that cases that have been debunked here, on the ATS forums, have not been debunked on wikipedia, and furthermore, cases that are stamped as 'inconclusive' here at ATS are debunked on wikipedia. That's a rather large and strange coincidence.

One of the wiki's that in particular made me feel this way was the description of an author/archaeologist, Zachariah Sitchin, who has made a book series about Aliens on earth in pre-biblical times, with supporting evidence in archaeological finds from ancient civilizations. The planet Nibiru is one of the commonly known theories derived from Sitchins studies. Wikipedia make him seem like a crack nut.

As I haven't yet contrasting all the UFO files/cases ATS has to offer, with wiki, if anybody would care to help me in further pointing out Wiki's inadequacies, it'd be much appreciated. Of course if none join the fray I'll composite my own findings, although it'll take more time.

It's bad enough that Wiki peed on you, don't let it take a dump on your chest as well

Crabmeat,

Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia". It hosts, just like ATS, member generated content. We have the right to Edit almost any of the pages there add our own information (backed up by citations, references, etc. of course).

About Wikipedia

I, personally, don't think Wiki-peed-on-me..

Originally posted by Crabmeat

It's bad enough that Wiki peed on you, don't let it take a dump on your chest as well

Well, I happen to be a 'wiki freak' and probably rely on that site too much for my own good.

Wikipedia make[s] [people] seem like a crack nut[s].

I do notice the tendency of 'Wikipedia' to 'bury' controversial figures by a less than dignified end. This brings to mind Wilhelm Reich, who in his peerless belief in counteracting DOR (or Deadly Orgone) with his 'cloudbuster' and thereby encouraging much needed rain in drought-prone areas, met his demise to mental illness.

I hate that whenever I hear reports of how people who want to make a difference in the world are written off due to their lack of sanity.

Yeah, simply put, a lot of people hold different views on a lot of subjects than your average ATS user, and they've got the sources to back it up, and that's good enough for wiki mods. If you diagree with their content, find yourself some credible sources to cite and give it your best shot.