Why No Entry For ATS On WikiPedia?, page 1

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Thats because Tinwiki exists.

Yep...TinWiki is ATS.
From the header at TinWiki:

tinWiki.orG
Sponsored by AboveTopSecret.com

Check out the TinWiki button at the top-middle of your screen.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by chissler
I may be wrong, but I believe we had one and it was removed because of ATS naysayers going out of their way to use the page to attack us.

Hi,

I don't know any details, but the log of vandalization set on this wikipedia webpage (quoted below, for ease of reference) suggests that there was an abovetopsecret.com webpage on wikipedia at some point and that it was vandalized several times.

I wonder if ATS requested the deletion of an ATS webpage on wikipedia because of repeated vandalization??

If so, it may be a waste of effort to create another entry for ATS on wikipedia.

It may best to find out from one of the Moderators first...

194.46.236.42 -- vandalized Abovetopsecret.com, different IP, but same person as 194.46.240.162
194.46.240.162 -- vandalized Abovetopsecret.com
216.167.153.146 -- vandalized Abovetopsecret.com with nazi references as part of a petty personal vendetta

All the best,

Isaac

[edit on 24-5-2008 by IsaacKoi]

reply to post by chissler

---

Really?

That's quite an extreme approach to dealing with something you disagree with.

People actually vandalize the wiki entry?

Blimey - I'm just trying to imagine how obsessed a person would have to be, to do that.

The old saying is right:
"There's nothing as strange as folk"

Originally posted by Springer
I remember seeing something about a debate that (probably started by a disgruntled banned ex member) the site didn't rate a Wiki article...

I've found a relevant record of the debate on wikipedia - see below.

It seems to be the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Abovetopsecret.com

Someone from the site claims 40,000-odd registered members, but link:-site: on Google presents only a dozen or so hits, mostly deep inside discussion boards, and the only Google News hit is a press release from the site. Unless the claim to notability can be independently verified, I'd say its webcruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

More info now I can get Alexa to work: Alexa rank 14,925, 100-odd sites linking in, mostly personal homepages by the loooks of it. - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Promotion/adv for website. ERcheck 20:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OTOH they are the leading disscussion board for conspirocy theories on the web.Geni 05:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So they say. And this is a leading conpiracy to delete it form Wikipedia. Run! I can hear the black helicopters coming! - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Simply creating a new entry on Wikipedia which quotes the stats page of ATS would not help - independently verified claims to fame are needed.

Indeed, adding stats provided by ATS without giving any independent source would probably result in the same thing happening again.

Is there somewhere on ATS that gives collates independent claims to fame, including press reports, TV coverage, independently verified statistics etc etc??

Or perhaps the Three Amigos or their media people have already collated such material as part of compiling an information pack for the press and/or potential investors??

I've looked on the Tinwiki and found an entry on it relating to Abovetopsecret.com, but it is not the sort of entry that would be appreciated on Wikipedia since it is more akin to information for members than information about Abovetopsecret.com.

There is a page on Wikipedia explaining the "notability" requirement. It includes the following:

Notability requires objective evidence

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage.

It is notable that the same Wikipedia page includes the following:

subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence

All the best,

Isaac

[edit on 25-5-2008 by IsaacKoi]

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by chissler

---

Really?

That's quite an extreme approach to dealing with something you disagree with.

People actually vandalize the wiki entry?

Blimey - I'm just trying to imagine how obsessed a person would have to be, to do that.

The old saying is right:
"There's nothing as strange as folk"

It's nuts! You would think there would be a way of keeping the data locked and non-editable by just any average joe. I'm curious now if the cause of the vandalism was someone simply editing it or someone doing something illegal.

But I do think it's a good idea even if it just has some brief historical facts and data about the site, etc... This is a pretty important, pretty big sub-culture on the net. (One of the biggest of it's kind anywhere). And it's not on wikipedia?

-ChriS


[edit on 25-5-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by IsaacKoi

---

Is there somewhere on ATS that gives collates independent claims to fame, including press reports, TV coverage, independently verified statistics etc etc??

The codes for Google Analytic (urchin) can be found on each ATS page. Would that be enough for independent confirmation?

I wonder if the soon to be publish, Above Top Secret: Uncover the Mysteries of the Digital Age would be enough to establish ATS's Notability.

Even Project Serpo has it's own entry. ATS' role in the whole affair isn't mentioned on the wiki article, except negatively in the footnote. (psyops!) The Tinwiki article is more informative.

I've noticed that Black Vault doesn't have an entry either. (conspiracy forum #2, I think) Maybe it's just in the nature of these forums that disgruntled ex-members thrash their old boards. Some do it on Coast 2 Coast, others, with access to less of an audience, start their own blog or vandalize ATS's wiki entry.


[edit on 25/5/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by BlasteR

It's nuts! You would think there would be a way of keeping the data locked and non-editable by just any average joe. I'm curious now if the cause of the vandalism was someone simply editing it or someone doing something illegal.

Well, there is a way to keep the data locked and non-editable, but, doing that would make it not a "Wiki."

And Alexa now has a site ranking that would surely support our claim to fame. We would just have to be certain not to post any figures that could NOT be verified by an outside source.

Details about ATS from Alexa, (which I used because that is the site the Wikipedia folks used to check us.)

www.alexa.com...

There is also the data from Quantcast, which we display at the bottom of the page, if it is objective enough for the Wikipedia folks.

www.quantcast.com...


Edit to add;

Google also offers some tools that ATS owners/administrators could use to provide verifiable, (and presumably trustworthy) evidence of our traffic from Google itself.

www.google.com...

[edit on 25-5-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

[edit on 25-5-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Alxandro

---

Make an entry yourself,thats what Wiki is about,ANYONE can make entries,hats why we can't use it at the college level.

[edit on 5/25/2008 by jkrog08]