WIKIPEDIA No Longer Controlled by the Masses. Just Another Controlled Media Outlet.

WIKIPEDIA IN NO LONGER AN UNTAINTED SOURCE OF INFORMATION CONTROLLED BY ALL. I recently put information on wikipedia and it was removed. Factual information was removed because it was about someone powerful. It was not removed straight away: they had to see it first: but when noticed it was there, it was gone. That same information can no longer can be put on wikipedia. Wikipedia is now just another source of information controlled like any other by the same people. The free encyclopedia of wiki has now gone. What an insidious act to control an encyclopedia: maybe this was the point all along (GET US HOOKED ON WIKI, AND THEN USE IT TO FEED US THE INFORMATION THEY WANT). THIS IS A SAD DAY INDEED.

reply to post by s12345


I'll just take your word for it then.

reply to post by s12345


I'm sure the word would get out the day no one can update a Wikipedia page.

You don't need to: try adding in formation of a factual but negative nature to anyone important; wiki will remove it . A completely free media allows negative factual information about people and subjects and wiki does not. It has turned itself into advertising.
REMEMBER A PAGE CAN BE UPDATED AS LONG AS THE INFORMATION IS NOT NEGATIVE AND ABOUT A POWERFUL PERSON.

Good god man! Didja have to yell??!?! lol

The title caps was an insult to my eyes! I am blind!!


Where's the proof?

reply to post by s12345


Was the information you posted backed by facts?

Do you have a link to the Wikipedia page? So that we might view the edit history and discussions of the page in question. You haven't given us enough information to really judge the situation.

Like I said the proof is easy: alter a page in a factual negative way about someone powerful.If you do this it will be removed probably after at most a day.

THE PROOF OF THE PUDDING IS IN THE EATING: DO AS THE ABOVE AND YOU WILL SEE THE RESULTS.

reply to post by s12345

Can you link to the removed post? Which famous person was it? Was there already an article present on this person? So many questions, so little info.

Yes well, you can't just go post anything about anyone.... Could get you in lots of trouble for slander and things like that. I mean if you were to go post a wiki about Bush or Obama being the antichrist.... Yeah, that would be deleted....I can see that.

It is a filter most likely.

So what did you post about who and what got lost???

reply to post by s12345

I think you will find many/most wiki articles have owners who jealously guard changes to their article, even when full of spelling errors, factually incorrect info, et al. Wikipedia is NOT a freely editable encyclopedia, just to be clear. I laugh at their pathetic attempts to raise funds from the populace.
ETA New articles and changes go through a sort of vetting process from what I understand. If they don't like/agree with your article it is flagged for deletion and then they (multiple editors) vote on that decision.

Person: famous ex-spy.
Information: death threat on the persons life with this information from many sources.
You can perhaps see why I am unwilling to go any further.

I have however added information to other people and the same pattern.

Other information I have done this many times. Take the wikipedia entry on any powerful person,eg Richard Branson, add factual negative information and see it removed.
Another person I have not tried research a president, Any. Add changes factual but negative and see them removed.

Perhaps it started to be freely editable but gave way to life and politics

Originally posted by s12345
Person: famous ex-spy.

Which person?

Information: death threat on the persons life with this information from many sources.

Which sources?

You can perhaps see why I am unwilling to go any further.

You would have put it on wikipedia but not divulge the info on ATS? Why not? There are many among us here that update wikipedia and add info on a regular basis, perhaps if enough people add the info after it was removed, it can be hashed out on the talk pages over there instead of here, but again I ask, Why not share the info here?

I think the real reason that info may be removed is that there are certain people who own a cult of pesonality and have many, many fans that either dont believe or dont want other to read the info that you have. And then it is deleted.

But why not bring the info to our table?

Originally posted by s12345
Person: famous ex-spy.
Information: death threat on the persons life with this information from many sources.
You can perhaps see why I am unwilling to go any further.

[/edit by]

If you cannot back up your claim with any sources then, yes, it will be removed. You can't just post the "truth" without having a link or book to cite as your source. Sorry, but if you have none of these things then it was right of Wiki to remove your post. They have strict standards which I, for one, am glad are enforced.

Wiki is not a legimate source for anything.

I, a student, am never ever EVER allowed to use it as a source.

I can go in and delete/post anything...it is USER generated, not Media generated.

So um yeah...what is the issue here?

I agree with youdidntseeme, its laughable at best that you would be willing to put something on Wikipedia but not another public forum such as this.

[snip]

seriously why so much capslock in this thread....
i have went deaf in my eyes

reply to post by s12345


Well if you are unwilling to go any farther, then why on earth would you post it on wiki???????

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I find this interesting.....

Wiki is not a legimate source for anything.

I, a student, am never ever EVER allowed to use it as a source.

Given that "Wikipedia" is 'user-generated' in a sense....as is ATS.....can it be a fact that "ALL" of the sources to Wikipedia are automatically "suspect"???

For all its faults (perceived or otherwise), "Wikipedia" is, usually, a valid "go-to" source for many things. Since MUCH of the data and information there is sourced, and acknowledged as factual. It is the rare occasion when some attempt to "alter" information....and those attempts are 'vetted' by a very critical on-line community who take care to spot those attempts......

AM I mistaken??