Wikepedia

[John Geraghty]

John has brought the topic of Wikepedia.org up before and I think something needs to be done about the pages on the warren commission, garrison investigation, lee harvey oswald and all matters relating to it. Would anyone like to help me to correct all of the severly biased inforamtion that somebody has put up there, im sure there are plenty of articles written online that could be used to give an accurate and truthful account of the assassination.

I volunteer to do the page on Lee Harvey Oswald, any takers on other pages?

John

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Os...#External_links

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Ok John.

As i'm already researching him, I'll take aim at Mr Jack Ruby.

[John Geraghty]

wouldnt you know it, as soon as i changed the information on Lee Harvey Oswald , a day later the EXACT same drivel as before that was posted is now back up. Im going to write up a detailed analysis of LHO, Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison, The Warren Commission and whenever it is changed back to its original form i shall change it back.

An example of the eye that watchers over.

john

[John Simkin]

wouldnt you know it, as soon as i changed the information on Lee Harvey Oswald , a day later the EXACT same drivel as before that was posted is now back up. Im going to write up a detailed analysis of LHO, Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison, The Warren Commission and whenever it is changed back to its original form i shall change it back.

My page on Operation Mockingbird is still there. However, there have been calls to have it "edited". One of the things that I have done is referenced my article. I think they will be more reluctant to remove it if it is referenced this way.

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

[John Geraghty]

John, do you think it is the site administration that has changed the content to its original form or is it someone who has edited my edit?

[John Simkin]

John, do you think it is the site administration that has changed the content to its original form or is it someone who has edited my edit?

Wikipedia has a team of volunteer editors. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, explains: “Anyone signed up can have a personal watch-list to keep an eye on a particular subject and the changes to it”. Therefore people like John McAdams and Dave Perry will be kept informed of any changes that take place on any JFK assassination related entries. I expect the CIA have got someone in place to moderate covert operation activities.

I think the best way of opposing this is to post academic style, referenced articles, onto Wikipedia. Use the Forum to post details of the original posting and your entry. Members can then see how this process works. You will then have a copy of your article that you can repost after it has been edited.

[Peter McGuire]

John, do you think it is the site administration that has changed the content to its original form or is it someone who has edited my edit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wikipedia has a team of volunteer editors. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, explains: “Anyone signed up can have a personal watch-list to keep an eye on a particular subject and the changes to it”. Therefore people like John McAdams and Dave Perry will be kept informed of any changes that take place on any JFK assassination related entries. I expect the CIA have got someone in place to moderate covert operation activities.

I think the best way of opposing this is to post academic style, referenced articles, onto Wikipedia. Use the Forum to post details of the original posting and your entry. Members can then see how this process works. You will then have a copy of your article that you can repost after it has been edited.

An article today on Wikipedia:

http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/pagenum/2

[Myra Bronstein]

wouldnt you know it, as soon as i changed the information on Lee Harvey Oswald , a day later the EXACT same drivel as before that was posted is now back up. Im going to write up a detailed analysis of LHO, Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison, The Warren Commission and whenever it is changed back to its original form i shall change it back.

An example of the eye that watchers over.

john

This is a great project John(s). Though I'm confused. John G. are you still looking for volunteers or are you doing the pages you listed on your own?

I'm eager to take a shot at this. I have had one experience trying to get the propaganda on Hugo Chavez changed, and as a result I admit that I'm skeptical that they'll let us dilute their propaganda. But we still gotta try.

Hm, perhaps we could keep building on this thread by posting the updates we submit, then the short and long term results. In addition to having copies of what we submit, as John S. advised, we'd have a journal of sorts. So for better or worse trends over time should become obvious.

[Shanet Clark]

wouldnt you know it, as soon as i changed the information on Lee Harvey Oswald , a day later the EXACT same drivel as before that was posted is now back up. Im going to write up a detailed analysis of LHO, Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison, The Warren Commission and whenever it is changed back to its original form i shall change it back.

An example of the eye that watchers over.

john

This is a great project John(s). Though I'm confused. John G. are you still looking for volunteers or are you doing the pages you listed on your own?

I'm eager to take a shot at this. I have had one experience trying to get the propaganda on Hugo Chavez changed, and as a result I admit that I'm skeptical that they'll let us dilute their propaganda. But we still gotta try.

Hm, perhaps we could keep building on this thread by posting the updates we submit, then the short and long term results. In addition to having copies of what we submit, as John S. advised, we'd have a journal of sorts. So for better or worse trends over time should become obvious.

Go to the JFK related articles and change it as you see fit for better accuracy/

[Myra Bronstein]

wouldnt you know it, as soon as i changed the information on Lee Harvey Oswald , a day later the EXACT same drivel as before that was posted is now back up. Im going to write up a detailed analysis of LHO, Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison, The Warren Commission and whenever it is changed back to its original form i shall change it back.

An example of the eye that watchers over.

john

This is a great project John(s). Though I'm confused. John G. are you still looking for volunteers or are you doing the pages you listed on your own?

I'm eager to take a shot at this. I have had one experience trying to get the propaganda on Hugo Chavez changed, and as a result I admit that I'm skeptical that they'll let us dilute their propaganda. But we still gotta try.

Hm, perhaps we could keep building on this thread by posting the updates we submit, then the short and long term results. In addition to having copies of what we submit, as John S. advised, we'd have a journal of sorts. So for better or worse trends over time should become obvious.

Go to the JFK related articles and change it as you see fit for better accuracy/

I wonder if that's the best approach.

That could result in 20 people covering one topic and 0 covering another.

Also, if my incredibly brilliant journal idea is implemented (the phrase "cold day in hell" comes to mind) then it'd be harder to maintain with the swarm approach.

[Jack White]

I suggest AS A TOPIC THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO CHANGE...

John Armstrong and his research into Harvey and Lee, simply outlining

John's research without expressing opinions.

Except for removing such an article in its entirety, it would be

difficult to change a synopsis about John and his book into something

else, because it would be factual, not opinion.

Jack

[William Kelly]

Isn't this just a big waste of time?

Why not just start a real page on LHO, or Ruby and make it the authorative site on the internet?

Doesn't this web site have an bio encyclopedia of important people?

Why not update that to the max instead of jerking around with the Winacrapers?

There's a need to retype to digial the thousands of pages of WC/HSCA docs, for anyone who has a lot of spare time and nothing to research.

Not to disuade anyone from keeping those guys honest, apparently a daily exercise, I think there's a lot of better things to do.

BK

[Jack White]

Isn't this just a big waste of time?

Why not just start a real page on LHO, or Ruby and make it the authorative site on the internet?

Doesn't this web site have an bio encyclopedia of important people?

Why not update that to the max instead of jerking around with the Winacrapers?

There's a need to retype to digial the thousands of pages of WC/HSCA docs, for anyone who has a lot of spare time and nothing to research.

Not to disuade anyone from keeping those guys honest, apparently a daily exercise, I think there's a lot of better things to do.

BK

Bill...as real estate agents will tell you, the three most important things in real estate

are LOCATION, LOCATION, AND LOCATION.

The point is that Wikipedia has the advantage of LOCATION. They are the site which

probably comes up FIRST on most subjects searched by the general public. So it is

important for, for instance, a student researching the assassination to get correct

information when they are led to Wiki by search engines. Researchers know where

to find accurate info; the general public depends on Wikipedia and McAdams.

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

Isn't this just a big waste of time?

Why not just start a real page on LHO, or Ruby and make it the authorative site on the internet?

Doesn't this web site have an bio encyclopedia of important people?

Why not update that to the max instead of jerking around with the Winacrapers?

There's a need to retype to digial the thousands of pages of WC/HSCA docs, for anyone who has a lot of spare time and nothing to research.

Not to disuade anyone from keeping those guys honest, apparently a daily exercise, I think there's a lot of better things to do.

BK

Well yeah, Spartacus is the authoritative site on JFK and more.

But the existence of a few good sites doesn't mean that we needn't fight internet propaganda.

Just like the existence of a few good books like "Someone Would Have Talked" and "Plausible Denial" doesn't mean we needn't fight propaganda (hi Bugliosi!) in the publishing world.

Wiki has a lot of traffic and is wrongly considered "authoritative" by the deluded demographic.

If they're gonna continue their right-wing ways we can at least try to change it and/or document it in this public forum if they refuse to be objective.

[Terry Mauro]

Isn't this just a big waste of time?

Why not just start a real page on LHO, or Ruby and make it the authorative site on the internet?

Doesn't this web site have an bio encyclopedia of important people?

Why not update that to the max instead of jerking around with the Winacrapers?

There's a need to retype to digial the thousands of pages of WC/HSCA docs, for anyone who has a lot of spare time and nothing to research.

Not to disuade anyone from keeping those guys honest, apparently a daily exercise, I think there's a lot of better things to do.

BK

Well yeah, Spartacus is the authoritative site on JFK and more.

But the existence of a few good sites doesn't mean that we needn't fight internet propaganda.

Just like the existence of a few good books like "Someone Would Have Talked" and "Plausible Denial" doesn't mean we needn't fight propaganda (hi Bugliosi!) in the publishing world.

Wiki has a lot of traffic and is wrongly considered "authoritative" by the deluded demographic.

If they're gonna continue their right-wing ways we can at least try to change it and/or document it in this public forum if they refuse to be objective.

****************************************************8

"Wiki has a lot of traffic and is wrongly considered "authoritative" by the deluded demographic. If they're gonna continue their right-wing ways we can at least try to change it and/or document it in this public forum if they refuse to be objective."

This is true, Myra. But, as B.K. explained, and as I concur, "not to dissuade anyone." You'd need a cast of editors to monitor Fakepedia 24/7 in order to stay on top of them. If there are a few good men/women with that kind of capacity for vigilance then, by all means, go for it. But, the fact remains, Fakepedia is a right-wing, conservative front, set up specifically for the spreading of disinfo/misinfo throughout the general populace, aka the sheeple, and the road to hell is known to have been paved with good intentions.

But, if any of you guys happen to have the time for this form of blanketed surveillance, then be my guest. Just remember to copy and paste every edit and correction, as J.S. suggested, as a means of documentation. Then, it can be held up to their faces, or the faces of any newcomers to their farcical excuse of an encyclopedia, just how many falsehoods are being plastered over the actual truth of the matter, by their supposedly intelligent group of high-school, home-schooled, cult- schooled, and religious fundamentalist-indoctrinated zealots working on their phony, inaccurate site.