Wikipedia erases "Above Top Secret" entry, for "lack of notability"

originally posted by: Ironhawke
I stopped giving a flip about Wikipedia when the wiki community decided they knew more about Neil Tyson than he did himself. Not that I really like NDT that much...

I love the guy, but we disagree on everything.

Yet agree wiki is garbage....

Middle ground achieved

originally posted by: micpsi
Wikipedia ignored ATS because it deems its web page content is not notable, i.e., is never cited by reliable, mainstream sources. Whilst this is perfectly true, it is totally irrelevant as a criterion for real truth (as opposed to the lies and half truths promoted by the media and academic establishment). Wikipedia refers only to the type of information that can be found in the mainstream media and in books approved by the academic establishment because it reinforces its lies, dogmas and prejudices. If the web content has not attracted the notice of reliable sources (i.e., defenders of orthodoxy), it does not matter to Wikipedia one iota how amazing, revelatory or accurate the information on a website may be; it will simply ignore it if mainstream sources has not discussed it. Wikipedia is in effect a gatekeeper that, under the pretence of maintaining high standards with "reliable" sources, ignores or censors ("edits") anything that does not fit the paradigm of bourgeoise society, as promulgated by the mainstream media.

I couldn't agree more.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was trying to address the thread, not you.

But illustrated my point, thank you.

We now return you to the search for truth.

"The search for truth"....

If that isn't ATS incarnate I don't know what is!!!!;;

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Ironhawke
I stopped giving a flip about Wikipedia when the wiki community decided they knew more about Neil Tyson than he did himself. Not that I really like NDT that much...

I love the guy, but we disagree on everything.

Yet agree wiki is garbage....

Middle ground achieved

Were you ever on The Black vault, with their "nemesis" system? Think I found mine...

It's very telling that the vast majority of responses to this action are along the lines of "Screw you, Wiki." This shows a lack of introspection that is one of the serious issues on this site. You are blaming the messenger here. Why aren't you asking WHY ATS was de-listed? I have been saying for years now how ATS thinks it is much more important than it is. I have pointed out the inflated statistics more than once and, I suppose, it's time to go through that issue once again, but the basic issue is that to the rest of the world, ATS is a "cranky conspiracy site" without much credibility.

Does that mean everything here is invalid? Of course not. But it does mean that the catch-all nature of the site, which throws Chemtrails in with UFOs and reptilians, cannot really be trusted as a definitive source of news. It lacks credibility, a profit-making venture that asks for donations. Blaming Wiki is easy. So is calling them "shills," one of the definitions of which is those who use ad hominem attacks, of which that is one. With logic such as this, no wonder Wiki delisted ATS.

It's kind of the same issue with the recent "promotion" of this site of Greg Hansen, supposedly a whistle blower for the NSA and someone ATS is determined to help "get the word out." Turns out the guy never was an NSA employee, but worked for more than one Beltway Bandit and has some serious issues with his former employers because he says he was mistreated on account of not getting "severance pay." (Severance Pay? You didn't know that was in the Bill of Rights, did you?) And his reaction to people looking into his background and pointing this out? Basically to STFU.

And THIS is the new Hero of ATS? Shades of John Lear's soul catcher on the Moon! And ironically, some of the people chastised by Hansen for speaking up are doing the exact same thing Hansen did to them in criticizing Wiki.

Payback's a bitch.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I'm not a moderator for Wikipedia, so that reasoning isn't really going to work on me. Giving examples or speaking about things that are lesser known that are still on Wikipedia isn't really a valid point anyways. For all you know, those articles are under review to be removed as well. Not to mention, if ATS WERE mainstream like some like to complain about, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

Sure, those articles may be under review too..

However, "mainstream" shouldn't be the way in which something is qualified for Wikipedia. If you mean it has a minimum reach in numbers, popularity, or influence, then sure. "Mainstream" unfortunately often denotes more than that, such as more commercial or common/traditional perspective. If there is a bar for "notability," then sure. But many alternative things are "notable," from well known books to well known bands, etc. As far as websites, ATS has some reach and notability, arguably enough to be in Wikipedia.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Gemwolf

People who say Wikipedia is not a reliable source, don't know how to use Wikipedia properly.

To clarify, it serves as a good starting point.

And I should say as well, those that use it as a be all and end all, are also not using it properly either..

When RUSSIA can EDIT ITS OWN PAGE and FALSIFY INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE A CLUE TO WIKIPEDIAS VERACITY AS A LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF CORRECT INFORMATION.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yes that is what I meant as far as the word "mainstream" was used. Sorry for being vague though.

Here is Wiki's rationale:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Above Top Secret

Fails GNG - promotional/vanity article. This article about the conspiracy theory message board Above Top Secret (ATS) has 28 references, of which, 16 are to the site abovetopsecret.com itself, 4 are back to Wikipedia, and the substance of the rest are to conspiracy blogs like illuminatirex.com and members.fortunecity.com/groom51. One RS ref to WIRED and another to Scientific American contain only passing and incidental mentions to specific posts on ATS. Several other references to RS sources don't actually mention ATS at all (e.g. a citation to MSNBC in a paragraph mentioning that the Terri Schiavo case was discussed in ATS is used simply to source the fact Terri Schiavo died). We have placed a verification tag on this article for the last 4 years and it has not improved in that time. A thorough search for RS finds nothing of the substance or breadth that would justify this message board's inclusion (note there are numerous references to the unrelated book titled "Above Top Secret" from which this message board takes its name but has no direct relationship). BlueSalix (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete; if a topic has little coverage by independent sources, and it's in WP:FRINGE territory, then it's impossible for us to maintain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. It should be noted that much of the article is WP:OR, based on nothing beyond contributors' own analysis of the website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the reasoning is pretty solid. They left the article open for 4 years and it was never made into a reliable article. Wikipedia also puts forth a good argument for why ATS isn't that notable.

It's a tough cookie to swallow, but the truth usually is. Deny ignorance. We don't make as big as an impact on the internet as we think we do.

a reply to: yuppa

Are you talking about this?

Because clearly Russia was exposed here. Though in any case, Russia isn't the only one to have done this.

If the Russian government has indeed edited the page it will be far from the first time that politically or commercially embarrassing Wikipedia updates have been exposed.

In 2006 United States Congressional staff were found to have edited articles about members of Congress, Microsoft once offered an engineer money to update articles on two competing standards, PR firm Bell Pottinger tweaked articles about its clients and, in 2012, MPs were discovered to have asked their staff to remove criticism about them.

I think people are reading waaay to much into it. The fact that there is, or isn't a Wiki page about any topic is hardly telling about anything. The Wiki article was pretty iffy to begin with. And years ago it was so pathetic that SkepticOverlord requested that they take it down (or something like that - it was years ago, I can't remember the exact details). So as with many Wiki articles it was hardly worth the read. And Wiki Admins have their moods and whims just like many social sites/

Something else to consider is that GLP - that according to their statistics are about ten times the size of ATS - doesn't have a Wikipage either. As a matter of fact it's quite interesting, but not really telling, to see which Internet forums are notable enough to deserve a Wiki page. (Scientology anyone?)

ATS does however still have a Uncyclopedia as well as another very dramatic Wiki parody page, which I will not link to, because the page breaks about every T&C in the book. Whatever that amounts to.

Well, maybe we should ban evidence that comes from Wikipedia then. Half the time the evidence is messed up anyway. You can find articles that contradict each other completely listed on Wiki. I usually read both sides then research which opinion is correct.

If our society is not chock completely full of hypocrites at every strata! I have read way too much obscure minutiae and uncloaked bias in Wikipedia entries to buy their explanation. They are a glorified digital propaganda RAG. They probably even believe in their own integrity!

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, maybe we should ban evidence that comes from Wikipedia then. Half the time the evidence is messed up anyway. You can find articles that contradict each other completely listed on Wiki. I usually read both sides then research which opinion is correct.

Soon we will see all wikipedia pages completely 404-ed by themselves for contradictory references from wikipedia.

Was that page not just getting trashed by fools that got banned

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: KawRider9

The old phrase, "you can't handle the truth" comes to mind here.

Piss on Wiki!

The temptation to boycott Wikipedia does suddenly rise upon seeing such a low blow.

As the Doctor would say to Robin Hood,

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

Are you talking about this?

Because clearly Russia was exposed here. Though in any case, Russia isn't the only one to have done this.

If the Russian government has indeed edited the page it will be far from the first time that politically or commercially embarrassing Wikipedia updates have been exposed.

In 2006 United States Congressional staff were found to have edited articles about members of Congress, Microsoft once offered an engineer money to update articles on two competing standards, PR firm Bell Pottinger tweaked articles about its clients and, in 2012, MPs were discovered to have asked their staff to remove criticism about them.

Oh well I should had said ALL governments but remember russia getting caught UPGRADING the SU-25 too to fit its narrative.

I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. WikiPedia has been notorious for deleting pages about websites for a long time, often deeming those pages to be "advertising."

I never paid much attention to it for that reason; I anticipated it would eventually go away.

originally posted by: Ironhawke
I stopped giving a flip about Wikipedia when the wiki community decided they knew more about Neil Tyson than he did himself. Not that I really like NDT that much...

I don't know who Neil Tyson is, but I do know that there is incorrect information about myself on it. Nothing Earth shattering, but factually incorrect nevertheless.

a reply to: KawRider9

"you can't handle the truth"