The mystery of the missing Wikipedia page

Originally posted by circuitsports
Some people are being ridiculous - Wikipedia is run by a bunch of volunteers who get to do as they see fit. The paid people look over all of it but 1 page or another is not worth too much time.

The most likely thing is that whatever existed before was met with editor criticism and now the ats pages are put under scrutiny as they do keep a a list of old pages for moderation purposes.

I have seen alot of things that aren't fair per say that's not a conspiracy by "they" but some mods interpretation of the TOS, that's all.

You have to admit alot of crazy stuff is post here "dragonfly's are not real" comes up pretty high on google vids listing for instance.

I am on that video that was done by 4chan. well, not me...but a post I made on that thread.

funny thing is, even with how crazy the premise of the thread was, we found some possible truth behind it, as dragonfiles HAVE been used for spying purposes. There are pictures of the devices.

Originally posted by undo
i can't find a link to the CNN video that was listed to contain ATS, on the wiki entry alistair was complaining about. was it originally linked in the entry? cause i can't find what he claims is missing. the cnn link he references just goes to wiki's cnn page not the video itself

That is what the complaint was about, the link should go directly to a video talking about ATS. Going to the CNN video front page isnt good enough.

reply to post by maskfan


Even if it did link directly to the CNN coverage of the mustang thing, it wouldn't belong there. As far as I remember, they didn't actually mention AboveTopSecret or Springer in the segment. The video itself didn't support the assertion that ATS broke the story first, even if we know that's true.

reply to post by smurfy


Ah, my apologies. I thought you were talking about the "References" section, not the "External Links" section.

reply to post by americandingbat


no it was a reference to ATS regarding 9-11 truthers which was broadcast on CNN. not mustang.

reply to post by undo


Maybe I owe another apology and should just back out of the discussion now, but if you mean the edit that was commented like this:

03:52, 9 August 2010 AlistairMcMillan (talk | contribs) (6,527 bytes) (→In the news: Skimmed through CNN video and didn't see any mention of Above Top Secret.) (undo)

then it referred to the CNN segment on the Mustangs. I don't think anyone has been able to find a link for the "9/11 truthers" segment yet.

Specifically, the text that Alistair removed in that edit read:

In early 2010 ATS's uncovering of the BP Mustang horse scandal gained media attention on CNN.

and included a link to CNN.


edit to add link to that edit:
edit comparison at Wikipedia

[edit on 8/9/2010 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat


lol i'm so confused! well i guess i need to re-read it then, cause i was originally of the belief that it was the mustang thing, then i read something else that made it sound like it was the 9-11 thing. where's a mod when ya need one?

I would like to add that I am pretty sure I saw a reference to ATS in a National Geographic last year. It was an article talking about the Yellowstone incident. I don't get the magazine myself; I was reading it in a doctor's office. It sticks out in my mind because I was very shocked by it and showed it to people. Of course, it could have been a statement I construed as a reference to ATS without actually naming the site. I can't remember exactly.

I'm not sure how one would go about finding it other than actually having received it in the mail. I don't think they put all their stuff online. I'll keep looking to see if I can find it, but if someone has the actual magazine, it couldn't hurt to look.

AlistairMcMillan does seem to have some kind of agenda. He makes edits but then slams the wiki page.

Here's his latest tirade.

21:48, 9 August 2010 AlistairMcMillan (talk | contribs) (6,335 bytes) (→External links: Tidied Youtube link. Removed link to subsection of ATS site. Please don't add multiple links to the same site, even if you are linking to subsections.)

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by smurfy

 

Ah, my apologies. I thought you were talking about the "References" section, not the "External Links" section.

But that's the rub, way back when I put in an external link, it was removed by an editor as an undue link as there were enough links already, in fact there were only the "bare bones" links. So okay, "Mea Culpa" no real argument on the face of it. I then referenced a few other Wiki pages on a same subject and found at least one, that had almost as many "external links" as direct "reference links" and they had been there for yonks. Those references and links alluded to a high profile person although the subject matter was the same, just different people. When I pointed that out to the editor, he removed all those links bar a couple, and that is the way that page stands today. The thing is though, my posted link on Wiki at the time could just as well have been introduced by reference in the body of the post and the editor would well have known that, and could have advised me at that point in time, but he didn't.

You will actually see this quite often, which depend upon knowing a lot of wiki worthy sites or topics. Mainly it comes down to a small group of people who target new articles or pages on Wikipedia or sometimes staff manifest some illusory vendetta against recent additions. They have a sort of unwarranted rage at times to new additions for unknown reasons.

I've forgotten the names of many of the pages that i have seen or heard of being banned temporarily or permanently from Wikipedia but it does happen often. The new article submission is basically run like a totalitarian regime if the staff group or staff member doesn't like the topic or the user who generated it you'll find it deleted and the user eventually banned for their creations.

The only real way around it is to make the articles fool-poof against their own T&C so they cannot remove the article. This is one of many reasons i quit supporting Wikipedia with articles it got tedious with the drama created by the staff and their appointed editors iron will.

Currently there are two large exclamation marks at the top of the page saying;

This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization.

en.wikipedia.org...

I see lots of references gives. it seems wikipedia has so many rules it it almost impossible to follow them.

I read lots of stuff on wikipedia I don't feel there are enough citations or references for, yet no one has notations on those pages.. The article they have on Wikipedia itself is loaded with them. I'd love to edit that page and tell them all the things i find that are wrong with the page.
en.wikipedia.org...

I feel wikipedia very biased and their own wikipedia article should reflect this and all the other negative stuff about wikipedia.

Fair is fair.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


That is pretty much how the official staff rolls at that "site" the editors are instructed in such a way as to appear as an absolute tyrant to those who create articles which make Wikipedia look bad or go against the ideals or opinions of the staff or editors.

That is why their T&C is so restrictive, not to prevent biased articles and the like but to prevent the average person providing applicable content that may go against the site owners values or ideals or opinions. Wikipedia is not now nor has ever been about free user generated content they wanted to make a business through advertising and partnerships through prominent articles which funnel more traffic to websites who would gain an increase in unique monthly views from their inclusion on Wikipedia.

If you research through Google about discussions regarding deletions from Wikipedia or biased editors and staff you will find a lot of good info. Remember though some discussions may be false so bear that in mind and take your research with a grain of salt and use your own logic to determine if it seems legit.

Just to let everyone know, I'm the user named voyager78906. thought I'd declare war on this idiot.

EDIT:

I think some one is also posting attacks on our members. This is from the currant version of ATS. I'm editing the page now, but here is what it said:

ATS Wiki Page

The last part of the contents page has an attack on William One Sac

[edit on 10-8-2010 by BSG75]

You really need to stop doing that.

You are only going to get your account banned and encourage them to delete the page. If you want to contribute, contribute, dont just delete the warnings fix the issues that cause them.

reply to post by maskfan


egads, the person edited into the thing that sometimes ats posts a picture of a dead useless member at the top of the page and that currently it is william one ball. : /

that's not a useful criticism of ATS, in fact, it's ugly

[edit on 10-8-2010 by undo]

Obviously get rid of the blatant vandalism. I meant he has to stop removing the warnings being placed up by the wikipedia admin.

They seem to be happy enough with leaving the page up, if it gets built properly as it seems everyone wants the page to stay up play ball thats all im saying.

Once the page is up properly you can request it to be locked from random edits so its doesnt get vandalised.

I think its been abused. the read is not too factual or pleasant so please take a look for yourselves. I would imagine that it will be removed again soon.

I do not think that editing it every 5 seconds will do it any chance of staying up.

Just my opinion. Anyway why is someone changing the content? Who are they against? ATS or its members Or both? Its hard to judge from the text.

reply to post by maskfan


Apart from the disgusting comment about the tribute to William One Sac on the ATS logo, there is another one about George Knapp:

George Knobhead of Coast To Coast AM welcomed Above Top Secret's Mark Walberg as a guest[5] on Friday May 28th, 2010 to discuss alternative news and conspiracies from the Above Top Secret website

Wikipedia link

This is quite disturbing ...

reply to post by undo
Looks like they banned hackerjohn23 that was making all of those edits.