The mystery of the missing Wikipedia page

To be honest i'm surprised worse things haven't happened so far. ATS is about as politically sensitive as it gets. Apart from WikiLeaks ...

We need to do a lot more as soon as possible because we don't know how long we are going to be able to discuss issues on sites like ATS.
We need to awaken as many people as we can before we lose the rest of our rights.

Visit the link in my signature if your willing to do your part.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by TechUnique]

[edit on 8-8-2010 by TechUnique]

Originally posted by WolfofWar
The page is already slathered with little Wiki warnings.


This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (August 2010)

That was rather quick. I just noticed, as was stated before on the thread, John Lear was also removed. Interesting considering he is pretty damn notable of a person.

It does appear that somebody is attempting to remove "alternative news" people and the like off Wiki.

Yea thats exactly it, "they" are trying to stop the word getting out.

It couldnt possibly be that the article doesn't meet the editorial guidelines for Wikipedia in anyway.

It seems like they want everyone who is involved or talks about any type of conspiracy, questions our system, or mentions anything about our new president they want to delete them. Out of sight out of mind and, to our lovely obama =/, he wants to go back to when no one asked questions. No one talked about the things that we are free to talk about now. He probably wants to change our liberty and constitution all together. burn us at the state for thoughts of evil lol

Originally posted by logicalthinking
In my opinion, wikileaks is working against the freedom of the internet. Our government will use this as a prime example as why to have censored internet. Is wikileaks a cia operation to limit the internet by realsing what seems to be not that important documents. We may think of them as great docs being released, but maybe they really arent.

The thread is about Wikipedia, not Wikileaks, and your logic on Wikileaks is thus;

Those who dare to be free

Are endangering our freedom.

So, I would ask you, what freedom could they be endangering if we are not free to enjoy freedom in the first place? If our "freedom" comes with necessary constraints, or boundaries, it isnt freedom, is it?

There is nothing more sticky as a trap than the illusion of freedom, and if the only thing Wikileaks accomplishes is to reveal our "freedom" for a myth, than they will do us a great service.

The only ones who will be upset by the discovery that our freedom is a myth are those who wanted to remain ignorant of the fact that they have been behind bars painted to look the like sky.

Those of us who truly value freedom will be grateful to have the bars pointed out.

Wow, I never noticed this before. Seems you are right. Considering the amount of traffic this web site gets, it should be a given that its included.

If I google on "conspiracy site" on google, this site is the second site in the list.

If I check the Conspiracy category at Xmarks, the site is number 2 behind Infowars.

And still, no mention on Wikipedia. Thats very interesting.

S&F for you.


[edit on 8-8-2010 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
If you are as big and noticable as WIKI is, then the government has already contacted you...

Google, Yahoo, probably WIKI, considering they already censor the news/media, this wouldn't even be that bad for them......


desperate times bring desperate measures....

gov = desperate for attention and control ???

and btw I'm not against government.....we need one.....just not a really controlling one.

Agreed.

Wholeheartedly in regards to them being contacted by Government.

I'm not necessarily against Government, I am against Government corruption.

While they walk hand in hand at times, they are two completely separate things.

It is a sad state of the world when Freedom of Speech is infringed upon by anyone.

Be it Government.

Or Wikipedia.

Or even ATS.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


That may very well be the problem exactly.

However, you have to take the good, with the bad.

If Wikipedia did not like the attention, negative, they should have balanced the submission more.

Sorry, if there is going to be an ATS Wikipedia page, it needs to represent all factions.

Not just the good.

The bad has to be fairly represented.

The Facts Of Life Intro


Neutrally.

And without malice.

Otherwise, Wikipedia is not being fair, and ATS is being falsely portrayed.

While I wholly respect ATS having their rights to a privately run website, Freedom of Speech, fair representation, and equality under law are more important.

At least to myself.

This is why people will see that I defend Government, just as much as I bitch about it.

As mentioned to the poster above this reply, I am not against Government.

I am against Government corruption.

The same goes in regards to Wikipedia and ATS.

Treat others fairly, give them a chance to do, say, or feel how they see through their perspectives.

Even if they need to pull their heads out of their ass.

Deny Ignorance.

reply to post by maskfan


Or "they" want the maker of the page to cite secondary sources to preserve the quality of Wikipedia and thus its reputation for being as reliable as some printed encyclopedias. Rather than makes claims, without support, support the claims.

You can take the criticism of the page as an attack, or you can look at them as if they were the red pen of your instructor teaching you how to write a well supported argument or paper and follow the advice.

Although if you DO actually follow the advice you are being given, and they allow the page to stay up when well supported, it will blow the "everyone is against ATS or conspiracy sites" conspiracy out of the water.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

If Wikipedia did not like the attention, negative, they should have balanced the submission more.

There is no "they" that is responsible for creating or balancing your submissions. It is OUR responsibility to do that, if we want an ATS page. If we fail to meet the burden of proof, and people point that out, the page can be taken down. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be full of nonsense. But "they" are not responsible for meeting the burden of proof. Whoever works on the page is.

Other individuals can just come along and say "you are providing no support" and if enough of them do, bye bye page.

Aren't they still trying to filter out websites like this one? Don't they want to try to remove all that type of stuff from mainstream media?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

They can point to ATS as a hate-group whether it is or not due to the content.

No, ATS is not a hate-group, it is a website designed to do one thing.

Deny Ignorance.

according to the motto "deny ignorance", some may interpret it as a hateful motto, if we pay attention to all the possible meanings of "deny ignorance"

according to my thesaurus, these two words have synonyms.

deny = ignore, *if we deny something exists we are ignoring it exists.
ignorance = innocence = like children.

so denying ignorance could be a phrase synonymous with:
ignore children .... which is promoting child neglect, isn't it?

______________________

but it is an interesting/noteworthy group of observations the op shares with us. s&f and thanks for sharing.

-et

Not only that but it's a stupid, pretentious motto that is a display of ignorance in it self.

You can't deny something as real as ignorance and you can't think you are free of ignorance on something to some extent to the point of considering using such a crappy motto that automatically puts yourself as the perfect all knowing being.

It's just plain stupidity, pretentiousness and ultra-ignorant to think otherwise.

When someone barks those two words in here they automatically give me reasons to dislike them for the simple reason that their ignorance reaches a level where they see themselves as all knowing... just laughable.

Besides I see a ATS page on Wikipedia here so I see no reason for this fuss
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Well, to an extent, you are correct.

However, Wikipedia governs the running, submissions, and or posting to its site.

Having been a former TinWiki submitter I do see it is the responsibility of those posting, to put the submissions into a neutral stance, however as well I see Wikipedia could have done more if the reasoning behind a closure of an ATS page was due to attacks by former ATS staff/members with grudges to hold and hack.

Anyone with an IP Address can submit to Wikipedia.

I have been both logged in to TinWiki to submit and not.

And as well corrected nonsense on Wikipedia while not being a submitter, officially.

I've been working on it for a little while now...adding sources, fixing grammatical errors, talking more about what the site does instead of trying to promote it and so on...but it seems to be looking better now...it's getting somewhere...I'm sure we must have a lot more members since you guys last tried making a wiki page...I'm sure we can put in the effort to help keep this one up...

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]

I just went to wikipedia and found this:

en.wikipedia.org...

There is a link to this site on that page, over on in the right column, also.

reply to post by fyrenza


OMG...are u serious? You must mean something other than I think you mean...because we've had a few people do this now...try reading the thread...

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


The do govern it, but they do not take it upon themselves to repair the posts of others. They dont do your research for you, your writing for you, etc. Thats the people who want the pages' job.

If we want a page, we need to make it, note the corrections or complaints, and address them. If we do not, the page will be taken down, not because they hate ATS, but because it does not meet the objectivity requirements.

Edit to add,

Good job, Chaos. Thats what needs to be done if the page is to remain up.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

en.wikipedia.org...

Here, I just created a new article, please rush in and add details. It will give credibility to our cause. Remember to remain informational and NOT express opinions.

reply to post by gagol


Does anyone even bother reading through threads here anymore?

Originally posted by thomas_
Not only that but it's a stupid, pretentious motto that is a display of ignorance in it self.

Thank you for not staying on the topic at hand.

You're showing you are a bandwagon jumper.

The topic is Wikipedia and a conspiracy against ATS.

Originally posted by thomas_
You can't deny something as real as ignorance and you can't think you are free of ignorance on something to some extent to the point of considering using such a crappy motto that automatically puts yourself as the perfect all knowing being.

You can deny anything if you want to.

And ignorance mean many things to many people.

It is at best an abstract idea, at worst a dictionary definition, not a conspiracy itself.

What Does ATS's Motto "Deny Ignorance" Mean To You?

If you want to actually debate ATS's motto with me instead of bandwagon jumping, there you go, the above thread is more appropriate, thank you.

Originally posted by thomas_
It's just plain stupidity, pretentiousness and ultra-ignorant to think otherwise.

Do you have anything to say in regards to the topic at hand?

Originally posted by thomas_
When someone barks those two words in here they automatically give me reasons to dislike them for the simple reason that their ignorance reaches a level where they see themselves as all knowing... just laughable.

Besides I see a ATS page on Wikipedia here so I see no reason for this fuss
en.wikipedia.org...

Great.

Bandwagon jumpers grate on my nerves so we're even.

No one "barked" the ATS motto at anyone.

I am not using a Drill Sergeant voice right now nor then when I posted that originally.

I posted it with deference to being smarter through denial of ignorance.

As with all of my posts within this thread my topic was on Wikipedia and and a potential conspiracy in regards to this website not having a page, and not a personal attack.

So, thankfully, due to knowing how this discussion should have gone, instead you trying to attack the ATS motto, or myself, I will thank you to get back on topic.

Instead of a lowball credibility attack.

reply to post by gagol


What are you trying to do? For christs sakes...can you people please read a thread...

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I agree, and when we do this, and it's still taken down, like John Lears article, we have to question why, and who is doing it.

I wish we could view the previous versions of the pages, to see how well constructed they were, but alas they were removed even from the history of the users that created them.