The mystery of the missing Wikipedia page

It's about internet "butthurtism", and Wikipedia has plenty of it.

There's plenty of it here too. If you don't believe it, say something that a mod doesn't personally agree with on ATS, only to have your account locked up in password reset hell for a few weeks, with no response from "ATS Business Office", or "three members of the Executive Staff" (after 5, no 6 tries at contacting someone about it). None, zip. "I'LL SHOW THAT GUY".

This will be proven even more true when this reply is deleted as "off topic content".

It happens. Mods whether on Wikipedia, or here... get their feelers hurt and have a rod planted firmly in their backsides about certain issues. It's childish considering these are the people who are supposed to maintain order. Saying it's a conspiracy when it's about ATS is like the pot calling the kettle black.

This thread is moronic. Who cares if ATS is on Wikipedia. As someone who works in the business it is very, very difficult to near impossible to get a web page listed on Wikipedia. They have very good reasons for limiting what gets posted there, honestly why does this even matter besides finding basic info like site creation date and history.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by wtfhuh]

reply to post by wtfhuh

This thread is moronic. Who cares if ATS is on Wikipedia. As someone who works in the business it is very, very difficult to near impossible to get a web page listed on Wikipedia.

Then why even bring your hate here, I for one feel ATS is more than worthy of it's own Wikipedia page, so move along if you've got nothing useful to contribute, of course much wont get done if you have that attitude.

honestly why does this even matter besides finding basic info like site creation date and history.

Well, I feel a lot of the information that resides on ATS should be known to as many people as possible. ATS is pretty popular...why not have a Wikipedia page?

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]

They call it "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," but in reality, a small group of people dictate everything that goes on the site. Wikipedia is a crappy website and a waste of time anyway.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

While I certainly see your point I do not agree with your definition.

As I see it the motto of ATS is about denial of ignorance.

i liked what else your post had to say about what denying ignorance means to you. i was merely pointing out that these words have other meanings, other synonyms.

what i shared was not my definition, rather a possible interpretation, supplied by an english thesaurus.

yes, other definitions exist, and what it means to the individual is up to what the individual wants their ATS experience and ATS relationships to be like.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


I really hope that post you linked is not true. I keep reading more and more things like that and it alarms me

Originally posted by rival
en.wikipedia.org...

2nd line

it is still up. ATS has a wikipedia page again.. but for how long?


i'm curious to see if it will last through the workweek.

will we still have an ATS page on wikipedia a week from today, or even after Monday? or is this a conspiracy?

Well, I feel a lot of the information that resides on ATS should be known to as many people as possible. ATS is pretty popular...why not have a Wikipedia page?

Let me spell it out for you. Having ATS on Wikipedia can be considering marketing. ATS makes a decent amount of revenue off it's traffic and ads, Wikipedia is not meant to be used for marketing.

reply to post by wtfhuh

Let me spell it out for you. Having ATS on Wikipedia can be considering marketing. ATS makes a decent amount of revenue off it's traffic and ads, Wikipedia is not meant to be used for marketing.

Yes, the ads are even over the top IMO, it can give the wrong impression if you ask me. In any case, I still feel a Wikipedia page would be super, I certainly don't feel they need more adverts, they need less on the website anyway...that's why I said, in my earlier post, I've been editing it a bit, and I'm trying to write what ATS is about and what goes on discussion wise, instead of trying to promote it.

EDIT: BTW, can anyone find that wired article referred to in the Wiki page, it seems almost non-existent, I can't find it anyway.

EDIT: Just made a little clarification.

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]

Well, the Wikipedia page WolfofWar created is still up and running.
Its ~bare-bones~ but is nicely put together.
So far so good

I'll bet the page stays up this time....

And if it does I think the OP and WolfofWar deserve an applause, and
a S@F.

...No make that two applauses, or applausi, or whatever the plural of
applause is...and a S@F.

reply to post by rival


If you are going to give Kudos dont forget all those (Chaos for example) who are filling out those bare bones in the necessary way to keep the page up and running. Just making a page is only a small fragment of the battle.

Although it still may fail if websites in general are not considered notable.

The article already has three warnings up like...

"This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2010)"

en.wikipedia.org...

I wouldnt give it much past Friday

reply to post by wtfhuh


So ATS somehow differs from other websites that make money that also have wikipedia articles.

ATS is in the top 2,000 U.S. views by Alexa. Most sites in the top 10,000 are listed on Wikipedia.

ATS has been a platform of appearances by notable scholarly alternative news people.

ATS has been on the news and has published (with the mustang story especially) research externally.


Again, if GameFAQS, a website where 13 year olds vote on who the hottest RPG character of all time is, qualifies to have an article, it seems a no brainer that ATS does. Yet, every attempt to create one, it seems, has been removed and concealed into the dark zone of Wiki-realm.

Why has ATS been removed, why has John Lear been removed? Who else has been removed.

Something smells rotten this way in Denmark.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


No worries, I was gunna say "what about me!" but I figured that was just about the lamest thing I could do...some one else has been doing some nice work as well...not sure who that is...probably the staff...

reply to post by Sabreblade

The article already has three warnings up like...
---
I wouldnt give it much past Friday

They were up near the very start...a fair bit has been done since then...

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Agreed.

I might take time later if the page stays up.

On a more permanent basis.

I just do not want to put hard work into something which might be destroyed.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Of course.

As I said to someone else, it is an abstract meaning, at best.

A dictionary definition at worst.

Some people see, understand, and think in abstract meanings.

Some people see, understand, and think in literal meanings.

I prefer to keep myself open enough to flow when needed.

This is something I respect about Wikipedia.

It can and will change as society grows or new understandings happen.

Something I see ATS akin to in many regards.

I was taught to be an in-the-box, out-of-the box, and smash the box and start over thinker.

While I certainly see the dilemma some face with Wikipedia being so overtly editable, it is a great jumping off point, to go find references from their website.

Where else can you find a general reference through neutrality which then gives you references for you to form your own opinion, other than ATS?

Wikipedia.

This is one of the greatest failings of putting the pages of the Bible together.

A lack of ability to flow and change with society as it was originally written.

The Bible was originally only passed down verbally because of this very precept.

That society does and will change and we as a society have to change with the flow.

Laws change due to arcane meanings and changed perception.

So do definitions.

But until recently you had to buy an entire new set of Encyclopedia Britannica every 5 years, due to new things being discovered, new definitions, and old concepts dieing due to the change of the fabric of society.

Ultimately though Wikipedia and the online environment will be the death of books.

Eventually.

And once that happens we will not only usher in only the online environment, but uploading information directly into our heads through the usage of synaptic nerve interfaces with your computer through the Wi-Fi systems.

And Johnny Mnemonic and The Matrix will not be fantasy.

But reality as we know it.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by rival


No applauses, stars or flags needed. What I put up was a rough, sloppy mess of a page. It's already been made much better by everybody on this thread.

It's a shame that Wiki will still remove it. John Lear's page was much nicer than this.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Sliadon
reply to post by AllseeingEYE

 

You could take the time to read the whopping two pages of thread before posting to realize that a member of ATS has stated they took it upon themselves to make the start of a page. But that would be asking too much of the average poster on ATS who feels the need to impulsively comment before seeing if their statement or question has already been answered.

Thanks for playing though.

-Sliadon

Calm down m8. I did read both pages, but I must have missed it.

reply to post by CaptainPicard


Yes, that's the page that WolfofWar started since he first authored this thread.

@WolfofWar -- might be worth asking a mod to edit your OP to add the info that you've made the page (nice job, btw)? That might help minimize people's confusion, and prevent any more attempts at making a new wiki page under alternative names like abovetopsecrets?

reply to post by AllseeingEYE

Calm down m8. I did read both pages, but I must have missed it.

Hey, at least you're not the only one who's done it, look above your post...and a few posts before that...and a few before that...and a few before that...and so on...

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]