Myra Bronstein Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 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. You're probably right Terry. And given that I've experienced first-hand the apparent fact that attempts to get some balance in a Wiki page go nowhere, I suppose it'd be a big ol' time sink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 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. **************************************************** "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. You're probably right Terry. And given that I've experienced first-hand the apparent fact that attempts to get some balance in a Wiki page go nowhere, I suppose it'd be a big ol' time sink. **************************************************** "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 Winacrappers? There's a need to re-type to digital the thousands of pages of WC/HSCA docs, for anyone who has a lot of spare time and nothing to research." I think B.K. makes some valid points for focusing on beefing up this web site's bio encyclopedia, and digitizing the WC/HSCA docs. If I had that kind of free time I'd jump on it. As it stands now, running between 3 places of employment leaves me next to nothing in the way of free time, and the housework ends up suffering from it in the interim, as a result. And, I'm off to vacuum now, so good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 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 Bad news for Wiki; good news for truth: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9501 "Scandal hits Wikipedia, Fake professor in Wikipedia storm" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I almost never go to Wikipeidia, but on my notion of lark, I decided to see if they could find a way to warp the batting statistics of the St. Louis Cardinal currently known as Allen Craig, and compare their objectivity re his bullets to one or a baker's dozen in Dallas. What I discovered was that there now seems to be A RATING PAGE for each subject. You need to have an account in order to rate the pages. It might be interesting to see how much gravity weighs on them scales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 The LHO wikipedia article has been rated at most, by 118 registered wikipedia users. The LHO article has had more than 104,000 page views in the last 30 days. Wikipedia is what it is, a source where links leading to other sources of information can be quickly obtained. Each wikipedia article is a result at any given moment, of the status of the "input" of dueling POV's of editors, (mostly ordinary members of the public, enabled by their support from agenda driven, wikipedia administrators and hyper editors, and hidden monied, political, and ideological influences). Almost 3500 page views per day of the rather narrow subject matter of Lee Harvey Oswald, nearly 5000 views per day of the article on the Assassination of President Kennedy, but you seldom go to wikipedia, Nathaniel? You urge us all to get the word out, the truth out, but when it comes to one of the most prominent places on the internet, with top search engine placement, you elected to take your ball and go home? It seems most of the members here have similarly reacted to wikipedia. Do you react the same way to the challenges of google search results manipulation? Why aren't we all working in coordination to attempt to get what we can to "stick" in wikipedia articles? Why are we not making the changes in those articles that we are able to effect, and accepting patiently, only for the time being, the changes we attempt which do not "stick"? Your post hints of hand wringing, and it is almost all I see in reaction to wikipedia posted by members of this forum. You posted that maybe wikipedia is changing. The new article ratings seem irrelevant window dressing, IMO. Wikipedia is probably not going to change, but it will continue to be a bully pulpit. I have had some success making edits that stick in wikipedia articles. I can share my opinion of why an edit will or will not have a high potential to remain in an article. I can advise how far you can risk pushing an edit you would like to make. I can try to present the lay of the land about high profile wikipedia articles. If an article is in the top 100 in attracting page views, and it has several hundred "watchers" who receive notification of any new edit of the article, and it is known that the article is a matter of pride of accomplishment of a prominent administrator, what potential is there, realistically, to make an edit of the article that amounts to a major change of the slant of the article? As in any other competition, you have to pick your shots. Can we please accept that wikipedia is probably not going to become an easier place to present the facts and the POV we want to read in the articles there, that wikipedia articles are going to continue to achieve high google placement, and that we have to change our attitudes and wikipedia editing approaches because it is possible to make edits that stick if we educate ourselves about how to do it in a methodical, patient, and relentless way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I was recently approached by a senior editor at Wikipedia asking me to contribute to their website. I replied: "I have tried editing some pages at Wikipedia when I noticed mistakes but they were usually reversed. Someone had written an entry for me (taken from my own online biography and other sources). This was then taken down. I got the impression that Wikipedia was hostile to Spartacus Educational (maybe they did not like the fact that I started the site in September 1997)." He then wrote a rather detailed reply: "It can be trying getting rolling at Wikipedia, but it goes pretty smoothly once you are. Be sure that you edit as a "signed in" editor, not as an anonymous IP editor - a huge percentage of vandalism comes from anonymous IP editors, so that work is typically watched extremely closely and treated poorly. Once signed in editors have 12 edits over 3 days, the level of scrutiny drops. It also helps to have a user page attached to your name that indicates you are serious about the Wikipedia project -- that works as a scarecrow against the anti-vandalism people. As for Spartacus, there are a small circle of people involved with quality control work that do not like Spartacus Educational. I got in a fight with one of them recently who was running around deleting footnotes to the site (in violation of policy). I've found your site generally accurate (in the same way that Wikipedia is generally accurate) and think their concern is grossly misplaced. The issue relates to the Wikipedia concept of "reliable sources" versus "blog posts." I don't think your date of origin or any notion of "competition" has anything to do with it -- more like a handful of anal-retentive types object because they don't see the published sources of your information showing. Your own page coming down probably related to a lack of "third party sources." The rule of thumb is that a topic needs to have published, independent coverage in 3 or more places. Even though your own personal biography was accurate, it would not count towards notability since it originated with you. However, if three newspapers did pieces on you or your site, a biography could be written using your web site in part that could be defended from a notability challenge." I do not have the time to spend time edited Wikipedia pages but I agree with Tom, if you do have the time it might be worth spending it on Wikipedia. It is the place where most people get their information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 " The LHO wikipedia article has been rated at most, by 118 registered wikipedia users. The LHO article has had more than 104,000 page views in the last 30 days. Wikipedia is what it is, a source where links leading to other sources of information can be quickly obtained. Each wikipedia article is a result at any given moment, of the status of the "input" of dueling POV's of editors, (mostly ordinary members of the public, enabled by their support from agenda driven, wikipedia administrators and hyper editors, and hidden monied, political, and ideological influences). Almost 3500 page views per day of the rather narrow subject matter of Lee Harvey Oswald, nearly 5000 views per day of the article on the Assassination of President Kennedy, but you seldom go to wikipedia, Nathaniel? You urge us all to get the word out, the truth out, but when it comes to one of the most prominent places on the internet, with top search engine placement, you elected to take your ball and go home? It seems most of the members here have similarly reacted to wikipedia. Do you react the same way to the challenges of google search results manipulation? Why aren't we all working in coordination to attempt to get what we can to "stick" in wikipedia articles? Why are we not making the changes in those articles that we are able to effect, and accepting patiently, only for the time being, the changes we attempt which do not "stick"? Your post hints of hand wringing, and it is almost all I see in reaction to wikipedia posted by members of this forum. You posted that maybe wikipedia is changing. The new article ratings seem irrelevant window dressing, IMO. Wikipedia is probably not going to change, but it will continue to be a bully pulpit." ---- I object to this post as it has caused me cognitive dissonance or whatever that stuff is that causes thinking. Mods pleased be advised of this grievous Breach of Trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Nathaniel, it would give me great pleasure to edit anything you propose into any wikipedia article you select, or to advise you as to why I don't think you stand a snowball's chance in hell of making your edit stick. After you suggest an edit, I will post an example of how far you can push the change you want to make, depending on the competition to shape a given wikipedia article. I don't think it is all that time consuming to have an impact on wikipedia. It is an effort similar to any political endeavor. It is the art of the possible. Be subtle, be patient, settle for something instead on nothing at all, build incrementally on what you have been able to make stick in the family of wikipedia articles related to a subject area. I notice the talk in this thread about coordinating the editing effort has gone on for more than six years. I invite all members who haven't had any use for wikipedia to post their suggested edits in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Tom, Why do you think that extremely labor-intensive efforts to gain a moveable beach-head are better than the alternative strategy of a coordinated effort to delegitimate Wikepedia as a source on the JFK assassination and related CIA media ops? You raise a provocative question pointedly, but the answer does not seem as obvious to me. There are some pretty pyrrhic beach-heads out there. I might be convinced otherwise in this case, but, more generally, it seems to me that anyone who wants to change media has got to switch strategies. The time for merely offering "alternative media" is over, because it has been proven a clearly ineffective strategy. All it does is take pressure off the only media big enough to matter, and they get away with even worse lies. These lies--alone-- shape elections and their corresponding wars. The time has come for a new strategy of creating a political cost for the corporate liars by doing stuff which calls into question their legitimacy before the eyeballs still watching them. Edited July 6, 2012 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Ah the CIApedi...I mean Wikipedia? (ongoing, inside joke at breakfornews forums lol). This topic's subtsance is not surprising in the least. With the traffic Wiki gets, information would have to be controlled and any truthful, logical alternative explanations from the "gospel" that is accepted via "received wisdom mantras" is considered "conspiracy theory". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 A couple of observations I find interesting. : I detect no background pattern of edits, but it seems there is a result of the imprint in relevant wikipedia articles of the name Priscilla McMillan Johnson nearly disappearing except in footnotes and other supporting references.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marina_Oswald_Porter&diff=prev&oldid=378553748 *''[[Marina and Lee]]'', by Priscilla Johnson McMillan (→See also: removed "Marina and Lee"/no article) The wikipedia member who removed the long included reference to Priscilla's book in the Marina Oswald article, was banned soon after for other reasons. The section of the Marina article has remained the same for more than two years.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2tuntony Priscilla gets more "play" in the wikipedia Ruth Paine article than she does in either Oswald's or Marina's articles : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Paine#JFK_Assassination.....Ruth wrote to Marina incessantly, with letters that took an almost desperate tone, but received no response except for a Christmas card. They met briefly in 1964 but afterwards they would never see each other again. Paine heard news about Marina through author Priscilla Johnson McMillan until McMillan’s relationship with Marina broke off in the early 1980s. ..... Priscilla's name is only mentioned in "Notes" and in "Further Reading" in supporting references at the bottom of the Wikipedia article on Lee Harvey Oswald: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Notes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Further_reading There is no wikipedia bio article on Priscilla Johnson McMillan, nor articles on any of her books, which was the "no article" excuse posted to explain the deletion of the long standing mention of her book, "Marina and Lee" in the wikipedia bio article of Marina. On a related topic, although it was impossible to achieve any major compromise from wikipedia's Gamaliel and his sentinels who keep the Oswald wikipedia article locked down, as far as making the first sentences in the article actually balanced and informative; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald ".....was, according to four government investigations,[n 1] the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy, ...." This concession to tireless demands for accuracy was permitted to be edited in at the bottom of the section, resulting in a rather odd and contradictory paragraph, in total.: "....In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, firing three shots, a conclusion also reached by prior investigations carried out by the FBI and Dallas Police Department, yet rejected by much of the U.S. public over the years.[1] In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that Oswald fired the shots which killed Kennedy, but differed from previous investigations in concluding he 'probably' did not act alone." After a debate of more than year's length, and pleas from several wikipedia members, the change directly above was permitted, instead of this non-change, change.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald/Archive_10#Lead_.28again.29_.28again.29 .......... Gamaliel's proposal Investigations by the FBI, Dallas Police Department, and the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations later, using disputed acoustic evidence, concluded that Oswald assassinated Kennedy as part of a conspiracy, but did not definitively identify any other conspirators. The Kennedy assassination has spawned numerous conspiracy theories regarding Oswald's participation and guilt which have taken hold in the popular imagination. Thoughts? Gamaliel (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC) ...and it seems David Lifton is attempting to influence how the wikipedia bio on him should read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandonTR and is demanding the identity of a wikipedia member who Lifton says has been editing the Lifton bio article. I found this because the same member did many edits of the Oswald article to, IMO, improve the accuracy and balance of the Oswald article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourselfWikipedia has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your concern, as well as many users willing to help, and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page, or place {{adminhelp}} on your user talk page. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost entirely operated by volunteers, and impolite behavior, even if entirely understandable, will often be less effective. See below for how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Based on the policy directions above, this is the proper place for the subject of a bio article to post comments : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Lifton Ironically these are the edits of the user David Lifton is objection to, the changes resulting from the edits are displayed on the right: (Links to the edits by the member David Lifton posted a challenge to are chronologically displayed, oldest is first.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lifton&diff=492256632&oldid=481101890 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lifton&diff=492321211&oldid=492256632 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lifton&diff=492321574&oldid=492321211 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lifton&diff=492321929&oldid=492321574 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lifton&diff=492322323&oldid=prev http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lifton&diff=492323889&oldid=492322323 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lifton&diff=492471895&oldid=492323889 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lifton&diff=492472339&oldid=492471895 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lifton&diff=492911247&oldid=492690903 (The edits seem supportive of David Lifton and show no signs the issues Lifton posted objections to on that members "talk" page.) I happened to check the wikipedia bio of John Connally this week, and lo and behold.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Connally#Kennedy_assassination ....The ten-month investigation by the Warren Commission of 1963–1964, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of 1977–1978, and other government investigations concluded that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald and that no one else was involved. ...." This 30 May, 2012, edit by an unidentified internet user (I.P. 92.15.156.88) who did not log in as a member, edited this phrase in to the sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Connally&diff=next&oldid=494401090 ".....and other government investigations concluded that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone..." On the same day, the article was edited again, from a similar I.P. #, to read : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Connally&diff=next&oldid=495171376 ".....and other government investigations concluded that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald ..." And little more than a month ago, on 17 August, 2012, a related, unidentified internet user (judging by the logging of I.P. 92.15.156.12 on the 17 August edit) swooped in for "the kill," and made the edit as it still appears in the Connally article today.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Connally&diff=next&oldid=507626503 ".....and other government investigations concluded that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald and that no one else was involved...." The 30 May edit and the quick reversion may have been a 'warm up" for the 17 August "and that no one else was involved...." edit of the John Connally article. Researching these happenings on wikipedia demonstrates that not only are there logged names of administrators and member editors making edits of articles related to the Kennedy Assassination, but there are also deliberately cloaked "actors" at work who are patient and who have an agenda that narrows the details so as to narrowly adhere to official doctrine. It is a game. Minor changes have successfully been made in the intro paragraph of the Oswald article resulting in more balance than the former, "four government investigations by 1964 concluded that Oswald.....," and, as can be read after the altered sentence in the Connally article, the information edited in describing the role of Virginia Hale and linking to the wikipedia article on her son, Robert Hale, is a counter action to the efforts of the Mockingbird enforcers. Nothing to see here, move along, folks, vs. OH YES THERE IS SOMETHING TO SEE HERE, AND PLENTY TO QUESTION AND STUDY IN DEPTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 " The LHO wikipedia article has been rated at most, by 118 registered wikipedia users. The LHO article has had more than 104,000 page views in the last 30 days. Wikipedia is what it is, a source where links leading to other sources of information can be quickly obtained. Each wikipedia article is a result at any given moment, of the status of the "input" of dueling POV's of editors, (mostly ordinary members of the public, enabled by their support from agenda driven, wikipedia administrators and hyper editors, and hidden monied, political, and ideological influences). Almost 3500 page views per day of the rather narrow subject matter of Lee Harvey Oswald, nearly 5000 views per day of the article on the Assassination of President Kennedy, but you seldom go to wikipedia, Nathaniel? You urge us all to get the word out, the truth out, but when it comes to one of the most prominent places on the internet, with top search engine placement, you elected to take your ball and go home? It seems most of the members here have similarly reacted to wikipedia. Do you react the same way to the challenges of google search results manipulation? Why aren't we all working in coordination to attempt to get what we can to "stick" in wikipedia articles? Why are we not making the changes in those articles that we are able to effect, and accepting patiently, only for the time being, the changes we attempt which do not "stick"? Your post hints of hand wringing, and it is almost all I see in reaction to wikipedia posted by members of this forum. You posted that maybe wikipedia is changing. The new article ratings seem irrelevant window dressing, IMO. Wikipedia is probably not going to change, but it will continue to be a bully pulpit." ---- I object to this post as it has caused me cognitive dissonance or whatever that stuff is that causes thinking. Mods pleased be advised of this grievous Breach of Trust. Wikipedia? Take the ball and go home is the best stratedy. It is a rigged game over there where the Big Lie is that the users are allowed to make edits, when they obviously are not on critical political entries. It is a disinfo operation propping up lies about the JFK assassination and you are wasting your time playing a rigged game. The best option is to post elsewhere and tell people what a bunch of lies Wikipedia is in relation to the JFK assassination where they let 3-4 "lone nutters" produce the propaganda and disinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now