It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Davian
Wikipedia is full of lies and government propaganda.
Why not correct the obvious blatant lies and replace with solid sourced fact.
I know of several,
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by Davian
Wikipedia is full of lies and government propaganda.
care to list some of these lies or government propaganda? Unless....
Why not correct the obvious blatant lies and replace with solid sourced fact.
So show us some of these blatant lies....
I know of several,
So why not tell is then?
Starkiller88 is a single-purpose user obsessed with the failure/repeat of the Russian spacecraft Phobos-Grunt. His months-long disruptions escalated now to acussation of me being part of Anonymous hackers waging war against he. He is obviously a paranoid person with whom it is not worth trying to explain the 5 Pilars of Wikipedia. Now, if I may, I will return to my private space station, stroke my cat and relish on the destruction reaped by my minions at Anonymopus.
- BatteryIncluded, responding to Starkiller88's admitting on RfD that he concocted "Operation Phobos-Gone" in an attempt to get back at him.
Originally posted by bryansee
I can tell you there are many lies on Wikipedia.
1. The Arbitration Committee has never asked me to respond or even asked me a question. Newyorkbrad is an attorney, I believe. He should know that this is denial of due process.
2. There is a reasonable explanation. Someone said that I was evasive. I was never asked by ArbCom anything. A user asked me but they are not entitled to everything.
3. I am not responsible for the sockpuppets.
4. Wikipedia is harmed by this. Do you expect me to contribute more if abused by Wikipedia?
5. There are valid concerns raised by outsiders about Wikipedia which we Wikipedia insiders never seem to address. For example, several months ago, there was a discussion about possibly writing down what things administrators should never do. They seemed like sensible things. The user was prompted indefinitely blocked and his/her comments removed.
6. There is cabalism in Wikipedia. Maybe it's human nature. Unblocks are so controversial that now you know an administrator should never do it. Look at Ryulong. He's removed comments on ANI and blocked people indefinitely, nothing happened. I read somewhere that an ArbCom request for arbitration was filed against him and he reverted it, indefinitely blocked the user and ArbCom did nothing (they could say that they didn't know about it).
6a. This tendency for cabalism is demonstrated by my later blocks and unblocks. There was a consensus that they were correct. Look at the RFC and nobody could explain why they were wrong. That shows that they just didn't like unblocks and want to kill any administrator that does so.
7. I have no intention of contributing to Wikipedia again if this matter is not resolved. Making the 747 article into FA was serious work. Looking up references. Socks and trolls don't do this. They don't create articles like I have. There is a reason why I did not create these socks but why explain if ArbCom will not listen?
8. A few months ago, I saw a letter to the editor in a major technical publication about Wikipedia. It was unflattering. I have contacts with the editor. If this matter is not resolved, I plan to write a letter to the editor. This is not a threat but merely reporting unfair treatment and other things that happen in Wikipedia.
9. If ArbCom seriously will grant me a fair process and not just desysop without letting me respond, then I will respond. Otherwise, it's so time consuming to write a response. That's the ethical thing to do.
...
Yes. (Lying according to Woody). No ArbCom member contacted me by letter, phone, email, on Wikipedia, in person, or any other way.
...
Are you also going to desysop my other administratorship?
- Archtransit
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Why not just create your own A to Z of Proven Conspiratorial Activities site, and invite people to fill in the gaps? If you have a good vetting team and the right protocols in place, you can control every bit of information you receive, thereby ensuring to the best of your capabilities that your database isn't being corrupted.
Originally posted by aoxomoxoa
Ironic that Alex Jones' name was dropped when calling wikipedia "government propaganda".
To find the validity of internet information, simply look at the sources; wikipedia has every statement sourced by scientific papers, verified news reports, and experts on the subject presented. Infowars' sources are usually previous blog entries written on Infowars. When they have other sources linked, it is either Natural News, BIN, WND, or another opinion blog.
Anyone that believes wikipedia is government-controlled should provude evidence.
Originally posted by ThorsBrother
You will get nowhere with this, lets face it. I tried to change a footballers page on Wikipedia last year after moving to my club and it got changed back within an hour.
Has anyone thought of instead undertaking a massive task of creating a truthful and more in depth ATS version of Wikipedia?
Said website would obviously not have pages for How I Met Your Mother and things like that. But has a page dedicated to the pyramids and alternative theories to how the were created, JFK assasination, Freemasons ect ect.
I doubt it could be done without the whole sites support
originally posted by: bryansee
a reply to: tencap77
Indeed, tencap77. Last March, Wikimedia Foundation software developer Ryan Kaldari for four years, got accused for "sockpuppetry" (as what violenttorrent noted in the first post in this thread) after making his confession at an "Administrators noticeboard" on Wikipedia, and was defrocked of his administrator status. Thus, he became the second WMF employee in as many months to come under fire for breaking Wikipedia's own set of rules that govern good behavior on the site. Sarah Stierch was let go in January after she was discovered to have been taking money on the side to edit Wikipedia articles. I think these tight control over the rules the English Wikipedia community creates and worships comparable to an oppressive regime.
Truth to be told, Wikipedia is going to develop a program that, once installed on the computer, encrypts the hard drive contents, blocks access to the Internet and the computer, disables input devices connected to the computer, shuts down the infected system and accuses people behind them for breaking good behavior it "governs" over the Internet, much like ransomware and CryptoLocker. I think this is part of a plan by BatteryIncluded, and it may be called the "BatteryIncluded computer virus", the "Dennis Brown Virus", the "Stanistani/Zoloft computer Virus", and the "Boing! said Zebedee Virus". In addition, they would have signed a treaty with anti-virus and anti-malware vendors as well as IT communities such as Bleeping Computer, causing them to take any robust approach to any actions made therein that are aimed at Wikipedia itself.