Wikipedia is probably attacked by Millions who'd like to manipulate it or use it to libel someone or post spam every day. So they have people working around the clock trying to tell the difference between legitimate information and site manipulation. This is no conspiracy against you personally, its just the way Wiki works. Why dont you tell us the information that was deleted?

A wise man once said to me:
"Don't believe anything you see,hear or read.-believe in yourself"

That is a good starting point for the internet,TV,newspapers etc.

Unfortunately for you, the information you tried to add to an article was probably biased in some respect of inaccurate, or even lacking a source of the information. Wikipedia is very strict on having accurate information only.

Wikipedia is moderated yes. It is not controlled by media at all, in fact alot of the people who run the site are people who embrace free software and freedom of speech.

To think if wikipedia were completely unmoderated and anyone could write anything... i can only start to imagine the nonsense some people would write.

Originally posted by ProudBird

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??

Not mistaken. What you said is correct, and I hope GEL doesnt mind me answering for her here.

Wikipedia is a secondary source, a collection of primary sources. Primary sources are the only sources allowed when citing during a research paper in college or university. The sources are not suspect, but the user generated collection may be at times.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
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?

edit on February 5th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

You know, I have often wondered about why some of the academia hates Wikipedia so much. I mean, when I write some academic work, I am allowed to refer to a single source, but not to Wikipedia. (I can refer to a single article in Encyclopaedia Britannica, in which the chances are just about as being wrong as an entry in Wikipedia). In my mind both are the same. I never, refer to a single source, but try to find as many other sources to the same articles I reference to as possible. The same applies to Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia to be a convenient starting point, and if I need to know more, follow from there. Before Wikipedia, I often used EB as a starting point. Of course, in some more technical issues, EB is a total void, whereas Wikipedia more often than not has an article in it.

Hmm, thinking about it, it might be the way Wiki is written. In EB I know who the authors of the article is, but not in Wiki. But of course, if you use the wikipedia entry as the starting point for your research, that doesn't really matter.

I find it interesting that the OP has repeatedly been asked to supply the article name and has been sidesteppingthe request each time, yet at the same time is asking people to effectively vandalize the content of Wikipedia.

I hate to say it, but this really does feel like a troll to me.

Wiki is for leads only..not offical research.
Sometimes they do good work, sometimes they are off.


I keep putting under president bush that he is a reptilian alien (fact!) and they keep removing it. Wiki is clearly a government psyops tool to give 60% truth and cover the real truth...else they would have it right there at the top
Former President GW Bush. Reptilian Annunaki from the draconian system.


aka: your negative facts about someone may not be facts at all verses just nutty conspiracy drivel. Not to say it was, but due to lacking further understanding of what exactly was removed, it is generally assumed it was removed for a fairly routine and sensible reason.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Wiki is for leads only..not offical research.
Sometimes they do good work, sometimes they are off.


I keep putting under president bush that he is a reptilian alien (fact!) and they keep removing it. Wiki is clearly a government psyops tool to give 60% truth and cover the real truth...else they would have it right there at the top
Former President GW Bush. Reptilian Annunaki from the draconian system.


aka: your negative facts about someone may not be facts at all verses just nutty conspiracy drivel. Not to say it was, but due to lacking further understanding of what exactly was removed, it is generally assumed it was removed for a fairly routine and sensible reason.

ha ha ha a reptilian alien...
site me as a reference. i'll back you up.

-subfab

I think it all depends on what you are looking for on wiki. There is a lot of good medical information on wiki. Just gotta know what is good and what is crap I guess, just like anywhere else on the net.

Originally posted by Darkblade71
I think it all depends on what you are looking for on wiki. There is a lot of good medical information on wiki. Just gotta know what is good and what is crap I guess, just like anywhere else on the net.

very true....finding info on wiki is great, but you should always back it up with additional sources such as journals, etc.....just not good to use it as a singular source of info.....IMO....

First off it would be good to note that wikipedia was never 'controlled' by the masses as the masses obviously lacks access to pc's as half of the people on earth eating are still are not sure how many, if any, meals they will be able to afford per week. The small fraction of the other half that have both pc's, access to the internet and free time&energy to do the research required to contribute i would certainly not trust to use anything but primary sources given just how badly those are already compromised.

While i have not actively participated in creating content for wikipedia i think the result speaks for itself, as many critical evaluations have shown, and that given the restrictions required to keep vandals&idiots out it really is more than i and millions of other original critics did and could have expected.

As a previous contributor pointed out if the material&information is not suited for sharing on ATS what on earth gave the author of this thread the idea that it would be acceptable for 'primary-source-only' wikipedia?

Stellar

My guess is the OP edited a post on Wiki with information that's blatantly wrong. But of course he's welcome to prove me wrong by telling us what he posted

i've suspected this for months.
another way for the government to keep us dumbed down.