It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

VOTE... ATS Policy of NO Wikipedia Sources permited on ATS ( yes or no )

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
We're all adults here.

This is ATS, a public forum where people convene to share opinions, make statements, stand on soapboxes and discuss 'facts'. No 'facts' on ATS are guaranteed, nor held in such an esteem by any circles that I know of. The proposal is that we should censor a website, Wikipedia, that provides collected information also not stated as fact, but merely gives knowledge in a concise format as factual as possible. Doing this, on ATS, where it shares the same perks, as not being held to the fire for factual integrity. This is not an official institution of knowledge.

The problem here, is you're putting too much weight on a public forum. The key to being the 'adult', is that you take on the responsibility, for yourself, to discern what you think is fact, and what is not. If you find something to be particularly false, then research it further if you must, and if you desire, take on the further responsibility of educating the other people on the public forum. That's how it works.




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Agreed 100 percent! No Wikipedia allowed!



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
We're all adults here.

This is ATS, a public forum where people convene to share opinions, make statements, stand on soapboxes and discuss 'facts'. No 'facts' on ATS are guaranteed, nor held in such an esteem by any circles that I know of. The proposal is that we should censor a website, Wikipedia, that provides collected information also not stated as fact, but merely gives knowledge in a concise format as factual as possible. Doing this, on ATS, where it shares the same perks, as not being held to the fire for factual integrity. This is not an official institution of knowledge.

The problem here, is you're putting too much weight on a public forum. The key to being the 'adult', is that you take on the responsibility, for yourself, to discern what you think is fact, and what is not. If you find something to be particularly false, then research it further if you must, and if you desire, take on the further responsibility of educating the other people on the public forum. That's how it works.



Cool... Thanks for that, but -- credibility is an issue here. Sooo, everything you just said is fairly out of the window.

First, you're assuming that we are all indeed adults here...

Which we are not. There are teenagers on here too, last time I checked, they weren't adults. There is no age gates, and as such... you are going to have an overwhelming amount of people in their teens on this site.

Furthermore, again... See my ammendment.

Wikipages with no sources should be banned. Period. There is no quesition of authenticity, we know it's fraud... so to let it proport is nonsense.

However, Wikipages with cited sources that can be independantly verified... sure, allow them.

We do discuss facts here. We wouldn't discuss pakistan if it was a phony story. See how that works? Everyone here doesn't want to waste time with non factual stories.... Yes this is a conspiracy website first and formost... but every good conspiracy has sources.... The conspiracy cannot have no lining. 9/11 happened, we have the 9/11 conspiracy because there is actual proof that spits in the face of the official story. This doesn't mean speculation is out of order.... this just means for the actual topic to exist, here, on ATS... people have to have more than just a hunch.

You get my drift?

People with pure hunches go to below top secret.... you know, Chit Chat. Other threads that have facts to back them up, but with the evidence being skeptical, they go to a forum known as "Skunkworks."

So if you want to post in U.S. Politics, you better have sources for what you are talking about, or you will be head hunted and possibly modded out, depending on how that situation transpires...

This process, takes ATS back a step. A really big one. It's one that makes ATS a feux news source, rather than one people could use to prove to people that it's not some big happy place in the world.

Nobody likes unsourcable threads in these topics... so to allow them is a bit silly no?

Again.

My position, is Wiki pages with sources should be allowed. Wiki pages with NO SOURCES, should be banned, or posted in an appropriate forum... Like Skunk Works, or Belowtopsecret.

Kthanksbai.

P.S.

I don't propose they censor anybody. I just propose they move sourceless topics to a forum that suits them. I think banning NON SOURCABLE Claims from the serious adult like forum sections is perfectly fine.

I don't see how it's censoring anything, it's just redirecting it to a place where it's not surrounded by things that people expect to be fact. This is to avoid confusion. We don't need bunk stuff next to stuff that is very real. There are subforums for that sort of thing.

Skunk Works, BelowTopSecret, The general Chit Chat forum. Don't bring your sensationalist claims to the serious forums.... It does nobody any good, and again... this is not CENSORING anything.

You aren't stopping them from making the topic, you are just forcing them to make the topic in a forum full of topics like it. It's a form of catagorizing, like any other sub forum on ATS.

If you go to ALIENS/UFO forum, and start talking about flouride, without linking it to aliens, it will be moved/banned. That's not censorship, it's redirection to a more appropriate forum.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I vote Yes to Wikipedia sources.

I think it is dangerous to ban or exclude any information source. People need to discern for themselves the validity of the information presented. Once you begin limiting sources, the snowball will just continue to roll, because there is always someone who dislikes a source for one reason or another.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BearTruth
I vote Yes to Wikipedia sources.

I think it is dangerous to ban or exclude any information source. People need to discern for themselves the validity of the information presented. Once you begin limiting sources, the snowball will just continue to roll, because there is always someone who dislikes a source for one reason or another.


See my post, and tell me how it's limiting anything.

A website that has no source, doesn't count as a source... Ever, anywhere... to anybody -- who isn't naive. So moving a thread linking a wikipedia page with no sources, is not limiting a source.

Wikipedia WITH sources (you know... if there are sources in the "sources" field at the bottom, should be allowed. And the ones that aren't, shouldn't be censored, but MOVED to an appropriate subforum... Like Skunkworks, or Chit Chat (BTS.)

That isn't limiting or censoring anything, it's just keeping the opinions seperated from the facts, so there can be no confusion.

This isn't baby sitting either... this is simple catagorial logic.

ATS isn't just ATS, it's BTS too. Below Top Secret, where people have normal conversations, and talk about conspiracy that is made up, or have no support.


ATS has 68 forums. BTS has 30. So ATS hosts 98 forums. And we only propose to ban wiki pages with no sources from being posted in any of the "Higher ATS" forums that aren't Skunkworks. (67 of the 98.)

Some how, this is being rediculous, limiting, and censoring -- though... when it's not, it's clearly a matter of catagory and what belongs where.

Shouldn't an alternative media site still be credible? I thought that's why we all like ATS, because it was a mostly credible environment where REAL learning can happen.

I guess you guys want there to be stupid people, confused... believing in hoaxes, so you feel better about yourself though....

Quite narcissistic of you... really, I'm proud of you.

FOR FREEDOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!



You do a disservice to your fellow ATSers, and you scoff in the face of education and endorse a sea of disinformation...

ATS's motto is to deny ignorance, so for them to allow ignorant topics to be posted next to the serious respected topics is a little wacko to me...

And for you to say, that the individual should judge weather the information is credible, is true to a point. When something is obviously not credible, why allow it to linger next to all the credible threads....?

This hurts the integrity of ATS, and again... NO BANNING except for repeat offenses, MOVE them to an appropriate subforum.

Hell make a new one, called "Unsourced."

Bam, problem solved.

P.S.

I'm actually quite puzzled there is no "Unsourced" forum already... surely I can't be the first person to think of it... no?
edit on 28-5-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
If we're voting I think it would be dumb to not allow Wiki sources.

If you wanted a simple yes or no ATS isn't the home for you.

Wiki is regulated, monitored, and checked. Every year it grows and becomes better sourced. If there is any debate or source information is lacking it says so clearly on the page. Plus all facts have a source. If they don't you should be aware of that or look for your own facts.

To me this argument is ridiculous. Only peer reviewed scientific journals (reputable ones) would be any better as we all know MSM and even government web-sites are prone to twisting to their agenda or for better ratings. Even the peer reviewed scientific journals are often subjected to whatever prejudice is currently popular in their community.

Ultimately no source is perfect and only through your own filter of logic and reason does any source hold any merit.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I would vote yes to allow it ..but I think it shouldn't be the only reliable source of reference to any single reasearch topic ..lets say yer researching about a historical even like St Patricks Day .. ok i'd include wiki as one resource and then also go an get a few other sources .. I was told long time ago by a college professor to never rely on the intenet as way to get information .. not everyting on the internet is reliable .. so its a yes and no answer for me .. good luck



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Wikipedia is not a source, it is a collection of sources. So I vote yes...

Just because anyone can modify a wiki page it doesn't mean that modifcation isn't double checked by administration and other people when wiki is used as a source. Usually it is pretty hard for unsupported/unsourced data to remain on a wiki page for too long. So fears of wiki being a bad source are unfounded.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye


the opinion of mine (predictably) is NO ats should NOT censor ANYTHING beyond legally necessary,


So your vote is actually YES - - leave wiki sources allowed??

Mine is yes - allow wiki.

There's a lo of very good stuff on wiki - and even if you don't like the articles sometimes the references are of the highest quality.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Serafine
 


Yes wiki sources, its simple to read, a fantastic format and 99% of the time is backed up by more sources

I think people who are against wiki are typical people that believe the conspiracy theory of 9/11 should have been the official story for example lol

Wikipedia changed the internet and accessibly of information, its brilliant and should be respected.

If you can challenge wiki with sources and facts, you welcome to do it.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by Serafine
 


Yes wiki sources, its simple to read, a fantastic format and 99% of the time is backed up by more sources

I think people who are against wiki are typical people that believe the conspiracy theory of 9/11 should have been the official story for example lol

Wikipedia changed the internet and accessibly of information, its brilliant and should be respected.

If you can challenge wiki with sources and facts, you welcome to do it.

Honestly I read things on WIKI all the time that make me laugh...theres even a rumour about my own family on there that is totally false and I know it to be 100 percent false as I'm a member of it...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by inanna1234

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by Serafine
 


Yes wiki sources, its simple to read, a fantastic format and 99% of the time is backed up by more sources

I think people who are against wiki are typical people that believe the conspiracy theory of 9/11 should have been the official story for example lol

Wikipedia changed the internet and accessibly of information, its brilliant and should be respected.

If you can challenge wiki with sources and facts, you welcome to do it.

Honestly I read things on WIKI all the time that make me laugh...theres even a rumour about my own family on there that is totally false and I know it to be 100 percent false as I'm a member of it...


Well then its your responsibility to go correct, that is, if you got anything to back up your claims.

Just like its the responsibility of scientists, mathematicians, biologists and astronomers etc



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
If you can't be bothered to cross check information wiki's inaccuracies will be the least of your worries while on ATS.
Why does everyone always blame the site they got fooled by instead of blaming themselves for being fooled in the first place?Yes to wiki, censor nothing.
edit on 28-5-2011 by thatonedude because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Forget Wiki - 99% of which is accurate and a good basic primer on a huge variety of things that most people can't be bothered to learn about at school these days - how about banning youtube videos?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I think it all depends on what context it's being used in.

If someone offers a Wikipedia article in a neutral context, then I think that is perfectly acceptable.

However, I'm against people using Wikipedia to back up a point or as the basis of an argument. The onus should be on the poster who is making an argument to provide properly sourced information, not on the reader to check and verify the source.

There is also the intellectual dishonesty aspect. Intellectual dishonesty is one of my pet peeves, and Wikipedia provides a perfect cover for those who are intentionally using misleading or ambiguous information to further their view-point. Yes, people can check sources, but everyone knows that probably 90%+ of people won't.


Here are a number of problems I have with Wikipedia as a reputable and accurate source of information:

Bad sources. Some of the sources linked are, quite frankly, laughable. While it's up to the viewer to discern whether a source is valid or not, sometimes you get linked to so many dud websites and documents that it becomes preferable to find a more professional and accurate source of information.

Subject matter. The article on my home city, for example, is pretty accurate and reasonably well referenced. However, some articles on sports teams regularly get vandalised by rival fans. False information and a focus on negative facts are regularly shown on these pages.

Opinion over fact. So many articles are pretty much opinion pieces with a mere smattering of facts at convenient junctures. Sometimes you'll get paragraph after paragraph of what is just opinion or loosely interpreted facts until something is actually referenced.

Sneaking in unverified information that is not in the referenced source. Similar to the above, this is an all too common practice where people will make three or four claims in a section and then the referenced link will only back up one or two of these.

References in foreign languages. If you are looking at the English version of Wikipedia, for example, and you want to check out a claim that is made, then you sometimes get linked to a website in a foreign language. This may be fine to a polyglot, but not everyone can speak half a dozen languages. I imagine this problem is far worse for non-English speaking users.

The amateur nature of the articles. Most articles don't hold up to professionally and academically accepted standards. Whether it be the format, wording or just the conveying of information, then most articles are sadly lacking. Sometimes it's a struggle to understand what the contributor is even attempting to articulate.

Heavy slanting towards recent events. Many articles are ridiculously slanted towards events of the past 5-10 years. This creates a completely disproportionate view of the overall subject matter in question, with un-newsworthy recent information creating a false impression of a subject which may span over hundreds or thousands of years.


edit on 28-5-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
I have read stuff about South Africa and the border war in encyclopedia Britanica that have been wrong... Therefore I move that any form of information except from alternative news sites, blogs and youtube be removed... Note sarcasm

Americans (who are the utter majority of this site) don't believe official articles from the American government... So how do you define a proper respectable source except for your aunty and your mother?

Lol this is crazy
edit on 28-5-2011 by kykweer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I'm not going to vote, but I'm going to say this...

If you come at an argument or debate with one source only for your claims, you are in a difficult position.

I will also say this - the "wiki is editable by anyone, and therefore is not reliable" argument is used by people who want to get a cheap pop at a poster while trying to discredit them - usually when the person making that particular argument has no real substance to their claim.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
All sources are equally valid. Being as anyone can edit Wiki and that I've noticed pages get removed altogether, I would suggest monitoring Wiki and other user edit sources and personal blogs is pretty much meat and potatoes to conspiracy theorists.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Serafine
 


No, if your researching something on WP just go to WP;s source. It will be a better starting point for diligent fact checkers than WP




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join