The mystery of the missing Wikipedia page

Originally posted by WolfofWar
"iexplore.exe" is the main executable of the Internet Explorer browser from Mircosoft. It is considered a part of the Windows operating system. Check the security settings for this program to minimize the risk when you are surfing.

Seems that it is a normal executable for explorer, but malware can replace it and place it in a different location to act as a trojan.

WHEW! That was nerve-racking! I wanted to post STOP! DON'T DELETE! but didn't want to jump the gun repeating something until I finished reading the last post (then I could jump the gun). SO - glad nobody deleted iexplorer.exe, and you can have more than one instance running at a time - multiple tabs will appear as multiple processes (AnVir Task Manager Pro is a really good program for monitoring processes, services, etc.).

Back on the Wiki - I've done a LITTLE Wiki editing, but it's been awhile. I'd be happy to write some material - except that my ATS knowledge is extremely limited. I can certainly edit for clarity, replace "peacock" and "weasel" words, find sources, etc., but I wouldn't be comfortable charging forward in anything else without somebody's guidance. (Never could find the Wired article, though).

Perhaps we could start using the discussion or talk pages on the Wiki (keeping in mind that it is public)? I started a discussion page for the ATS Wiki (rather, made the first post to it). Clink on the "Discussion" tab, then the "Edit" tab. There's allot of stuff in this thread worth noting, but it does get a little dizzying (and it's not easily organized - it's a thread, after all).

One thought would be to include a short "who is" (very short), when mentioning authors, founders, etc., or maybe even "notable members include" (with permission, of course). Other entries could include info about the media broadcasts or the ongoing research and how it contributes to the "pool of knowledge"....

Nevertheless, here are a few links I thought might help "validate" ATS as worthy:
www.wired.com...
(along with the HAARP Report) foia.abovetopsecret.com...
www.examiner.com...

It does appear hackerjohn23 has some issues with the ATS. I think this was already mentioned, but he hit the Encyclopedia Dramatica too(from Raspberry Rush's 'talk' page):

hackerjohn23 - have you banned him yet if you need a reason look at the history for encyclopediadramatica.com... if you want to that is idc |RubySea| user | talk | contribs 11:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh no you did not not i look through them today after i got up and well they are ok |RubySea| user | talk | contribs 19:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting find - searching for Wiki pages that link to Abovetopsecret.com returns 25 results - pretty interesting, I thought:
en.wikipedia.org...:Search/Abovetopsecrets.com
Since ATS is apparently considered a valid, reputable source to use as a reference for some rather high profile issues, I don't see how ATS itself can be regarded as insignificant - maybe that's worth noting too?

PS - WolfofWar, will you be my friend?

edit: last link can't deal with colon, so I guess copy/paste what's not linked

[edit on 8/14/10 by sjrily]

OK, checked back this evening and my post on the Wikipedia ATS discussion page was deleted by Wiki user Meco (a visit to this user’s page is interesting, scroll below “featured quote” pic en.wikipedia.org...:Meco ). I’ll assume because it didn’t contribute anything other than basically “This is a post.” Or – it wasn’t posted in the right place, in the right way or with the proper head tilt.

I haven’t figured it out yet, but I think the ATS article has been tagged as part of the WikiProject Websites (information technology portal), the WikiProject Alternative Views, and the WikiProject Paranormal (paranormal portal). On the WikiProject Alternative Views project page, however, the ATS article is not listed. Anyway, I tried another post under a new section “Linking Sources,” if anybody else wants to give it a try.

ATS clearly does not meet the criteria to be on Wikipedia, therefore, an ATS page should not be added to wikipedia.

8 days and counting and we still have a Wiki page.
Good job so far...How long before we get grandfathered in?

Ok, we have a deletion possibility.

By discussion comments of the wikipedia article, a member notes the lack of Wired and CNN references as cited in the article.

Can skilled searchers or long term members who were around back in 2006 remember it(wired)?

I quote in full the relevant texts, as wikipedia shares the same copyright moodel as ATS, Creative Commons which doesn't impose limits on copying.

I'm having trouble locating the Wired 2006 article. Any suggestions? (Sjrily (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

I have none, but it is a concern that the two most authoritative asserted sources to notability (Wired and CNN) cannot be adequately referenced. I also find this curious, and I believe that should these references be removed, which I believe would be appropriate the situation considered, the article would simply fail Wikipedia's notability requirements. __meco (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A 2006 article in Wired praised the skeptical and analytical analysis of the site,[citation needed] while a CNN television special attracted negative attention to the site while showing topics created by "9/11 truthers".[citation needed]

Maybe the thread should be renamed the "Mystery of the missing CNN and Wired Sources." It really is no mystery why we have no Wikipedia page anymore, but where the heck are these sources?

Something from 2006 should not be as hard to find and use as a source as it is. Surely the owners must remember it in some detail. (Who wouldnt remember mentions in the MSM of your "baby?") I am surprised they haven chimed in at all.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Yes, wired would be easiest.

CNN was apparently televised, harder to find.

Google implemented caption/subtitle generator in youtube videos, but google doesn't save them, many errors.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Except that both were added to the wiki page and then repeatedly removed.

Wired article

reply to post by WolfofWar


good.

confusion of dates. cited as 2006 but real link was from 2008.

and CNN? There were the mustang BP, and the 911 truthers refs.

Did the mustang report mention ATS?

reply to post by jjjtir


Unfortunately, the CNN mustang piece didn't mention ATS.

Also worth noting that the 2008 Wired article WolfofWar posted here doesn't actually say what the Wikipedia ATS page claims it says; it just mentions ATS as a site that believes something to be a hoax, but doesn't actually praise ATS.

It can probably still be used on the Wiki page, but the claim might have to be changed.

Hello everyone !

Long time reader, first time poster, I decided to add a CNN reference to the wikipedia article but was denied this possibility by the website, because you have to wait 4 days and make 10 edits on Wikipedia before you are able to modify articles classified as "Semi-protected". Why is the Above Top Secret wikipedia page classified like that ? That's a good question...

Anyway, here is the link that I wanted to add to the wikipedia article concerning ATS :

edition.cnn.com...

I wanted to add something like that in the wikipedia ATS article, in order to reinforce the fact that ATS is known and meets the notability criteria wanted by Wikipedia :

"Sometimes despised by the mainstream media, ATS is nonetheless acknowledged as a fairly representative outlet for a certain community"... or something along those lines, and certainly better written (sorry if my english is unperfect, this is not my native language).

I don't know if this link is strong enough in order to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, but at least it is a direct mention of ATS by a well known media outlet.

reply to post by americandingbat


What the article does say is actually better in one sense than mere "praise." It basically identifies us as a popular site for the paranormal, and identifies us as a source for breaking news regarding the same.

But I think you are right, the problem may be that what we are claiming it says deviates too far from what it actually says.

Edit to add, Great find Ook33! Every little bit helps!

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by americandingbat

I believe that the piece mentioned Mark's name...which could be relevant...not sure if it was the full name though...

becuase Wikipedia doesn't like occult created fan page.

Wikipedia is a bizarre site. All of the administrators are complete psychopaths. It definitely has CIA front written all over it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ummmmmmmmmmm, did I miss something here? That looks like it's about ATS to me. No conspiracy here.

Originally posted by Nosred
en.wikipedia.org...

Ummmmmmmmmmm, did I miss something here? That looks like it's about ATS to me. No conspiracy here.

Yeah it looks like you missed the entire thread where they managed to get ATS back on wikipedia...

A little reading goes a long way.It's not the wisest thing to respond only to the OP in a 13 page topic without reading any other responses.

reply to post by havenvideo


Sorry, I just read the OP and posted. I didn't read the entire thread.

Wikipedia has experienced systemic subversion/hijacking by pro-establishment pseudoskeptics. The site has not been used as anything other than a podium for said group's disinformation for some time. (Estimate of at least three years, although it has grown gradually worse)

I can't remember the last time I looked at an article there about literally any non-mainstream topic, where reminders of said non-mainstream state were not at least very prominently issued at the top of the article, if not throughout it.

The article on Stanley Meyer was once a case in point, although it looks as though it has since been cleaned up; despite still containing subtle negative bias.

In short, I suspect that eventually, Wikipedia is likely to die or be rendered irrelevant, and I can hope that that will be the case. I have considered obtaining an account at Citizendium, which looks vaguely promising.