rigorousintuition.ca

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proven_conspiracies:

"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
You may share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Please improve the article if possible, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion."

add this to the list-to-be-deleted.

it clearly reads:

This article was nominated for deletion on December 21, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Seems like an annual issue...

[quote="dqueue"
Seems like an annual issue...[/quote]

No JFK?
No RFK?
No MLK?
No TWA800?
No 9/11?

All proven inside jobs.

I inferred the problem was that Wikipedia was slated to delete a "proven conspiracy" page, a topic which seemed to have come up on Wikipedia in December, 2005. Yet after discussion in 2005, the page stayed a year ago.

While, I don't discount the probability that those events you listed were conspiracies, I don't believe they've yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, neither in a court of law, nor in the court of public opinion.

What a coincidence! I long ago marked Wikipedia for deletion as any benchmark and resource of credible information. In the world of information sources Wikipedia is the proverbial piss in the watering hole. That place is a stronghold of intel disinfo passed on as accredited information.

The Omega Man wrote:What a coincidence! I long ago marked Wikipedia for deletion as any benchmark and resource of credible information. In the world of information sources Wikipedia is the proverbial piss in the watering hole. That place is a stronghold of intel disinfo passed on as accredited information.

I agree, TOM. Wikipedia is usually ok for 'safe' info that is no threat to TPTB but has been infiltrated by disinfo pros on lots of stuff.

And for that, it is an interesting psy-ops weathervane.

The real problem with wikipedia is it's edited by the sort of people who would spend their time editing wikipedia!

orz wrote:The real problem with wikipedia is it's edited by the sort of people who would spend their time editing wikipedia!

Ah, the 'Groucho filter.'

"I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member." lol.

Wikipedia sends me f*ing insane. I've spent a year or so trying to get one single alteration to their "Satanic Ritual Abuse" page without effect. Any change is just silently reverted. Any explanation in the discussion page is ignored.

Take a look at their entries on "false memories", "recovered memories" - anything about paedophilia and abuse - any ritual abuse case, in particular - and it's choked up with FMSF propaganda. The entry on the Amirault ritual abuse case claims it was a false conviction despite the fact that the guy's sentence was upheld by two courts and he spent 18 years in jail. Ditto for the Peter Ellis ritual abuse conviction. Meanwhile, Michael Aquino gets to write his own entry in violation of Wikipedia's rules to the quiet, rapturous applause of his acolytes.

Wikipedia is not just patrolled by self-righteous undergrads who wrote a term paper on false memories and think they are god. There are people with vested interests who are controlling content and f*ing with survivors in the process.

Biaothanatoi, it's Wikipedia, just another weapon in the failed infowar psy-ops used against the citizenry. What does one expect to see when they open the lid of a toilet? Your information and resources are best spent and rewarded in forums that prize free-speech and open knowledge. Trying to get info into the Wikipedia propaganda matrix is just casting pearls amongst swine.
Long Live R.I.!!

I think the whole endeavour is flawed. You can't "democratise" knowledge, because there is no direct relationship between the common answer and the correct one.

WikiP takes it to another step - the most obsessive/persistent contributor always wins. It's saturated with the False Memory and Man-Boy Love crowd.

Take a look at their Parental Alienation Syndromeentry, which is a non-existent diagnostic category invented by a "volunteer psychiatrist" who believed that sexually abusing children was good for evolution, because it produced "hyper-sexual" adults who would spread their seed far and wide. PAS is used by fathers who are accused of sexual abuse by their children to claim that the mother "coerced" the child into making the accusation. And guess which side this article takes?

Exactly. It's not longer about who's most intelligent or most factually correct, but who's most insane. Either totally obsessed with their subject, or far worse and more common, obsessed with the idea of wikipedia and the pedantic rules of the site.

It's worse than DailyKos. All you need is about 40 motivated assholes or paid PR flacks working in concert and you can foist whatever disinfo or block any true info you want.

Weirdos! They seemed to really have removed it. From what I remember the list was fairly good with references to MKULTRA, Gulf of Tonkin, and the Tuskegee Experiment. About the only thing that wasn't proven was the USS Liberty (which was still obviously a very real conspiracy). The person who complained most likely was one of those "I've never heard about it so it must not be true" people.