PDA

View Full Version : Peter Presland & Wikispooks: congratulations



Paul Rigby
05-20-2010, 08:11 PM
http://wikispooks.com/wiki/WikiSpooks:About#Site_Purpose

Are there any instructions for those of those of us who've never read a set in our lives?

Joking aside, well done,

Paul

Magda Hassan
05-20-2010, 10:27 PM
Yes, congratulations Peter! I know you've put an awful lot of work in setting it all up. It will serve a good purpose in bring a bit of light and sunshine to some dark and nefarious activities. :fight:We'll put it in the Research Tools board and make it a sticky of it in Black Ops as well.

Peter Presland
05-21-2010, 06:21 AM
Thanks Paul and Magda

On Paul's help request - briefly:

Search for any term in the top search box. If it does not produce a page fitting what you have in mind, simply click on the red coloured term you searched on that appears in the search results following 'Create this page' and create it yourself. Like anything else the page creation/editing process can seem intimidating at first but frankly it is less complex than using MS Word or similar. There is also comprehensive help available in the linked help files.

The thing about authoring for a wiki is that you have to have a pretty thick skin because anyone else can come along and edit your masterpiece. Some find this hard to deal with and it clearly attracts vandals, spammer, those with an agenda - spooks?? and the like; but all changes are easily patrolled and reversed. If such edits are clearly malicious or counter to clearly stated policy, the culprit will be blocked from editing by a sysop (currently just your truly but volunteers welcome).

It is intended as a reference source, NOT a discussion board

I don't really expect it to take off and I'm relaxed about it really. Learned a lot about dedicated server management and wiki software too. I just intend to keep plugging away at it as my Winston Smith way of dealing with the Orwellian world we now inhabit.

Funny thing is that I've started it at a time when I'm beginning to lean to the view that there is probably not much time left for this sort of thing to be of general use, because epoch-defining upheavals to the established order are probably much closer than our normal everyday 'consensus trance' allows for.

Still, It's therapy and if it pulls some 'Authoritatives' chains so much the better.

Ed Jewett
05-21-2010, 08:19 AM
Bravo, Peter. I'll dispense with all of the appropriate emoticons and simply say "thanks", "well done", and the like.

As there is so much, even in this limited topical area, that occupies our time and energy, it might be useful for some kind of mechanism, internally or perhaps here, that can keep bystanders, lurkers and occasionals all apprised about what's going on, what's hot, what is needed, what is actively being developed, etc. For someone like myself, for example, I would not want to get just peripherally involved because too many cooks spoil the broth, nor would I necessarily be beneficial in making any kind of mediocre contribution to a topic I knew little about or had little interest in. On the other hand, a simple system could be devised that would kept a large body of antennae alert to the site's specific energy and topical focus. It might also be a moot point for me since I am American, but perhaps not.

Again, thanks and well done.

Peter Presland
05-21-2010, 09:15 AM
Bravo, Peter. I'll dispense with all of the appropriate emoticons and simply say "thanks", "well done", and the like.

Thanks Ed One thing I want to stress is that I don't see WikiSpooks as being in any kind of competition with DPF. It's not a suitable platform for threaded discussions anyway. It is intended as a reference in similar fashion to Wikipedia and so is also relatively unsuitable for dealing with breaking/developing news.

All that said, I appreciate there are only so many hours in the day such that major time commitments to one site will detract from contributions to another - which explains the decline in my own DPF posting rate lately.

Also, don't bother about 'being American'. I know the stuff on WikiSpooks so far is somewhat UK biased, but that's just me. It is real therapy for me to simply pull the chains of our insufferably arrogant, pompous, deeply corrupt Establishment, so I tend to concentrate on things UK so-to-speak. However, IMHO, the US State is really where it's all at when it comes to mid-20th century and beyond Deep State stuff. Despite all the dumbing down and the inanities of popular US political culture, it seems to me that there is more serious knowledge and understanding of Deep Politics among dissident Americans than almost anywhere else. I know much of my own education is owed to them.

So do what you can is what I say.

Helen Reyes
05-24-2010, 02:59 PM
Well done! How can I help?

It probably doesn't matter at all, but I was thinking your logo should be more spook-like, maybe some logo based on the Shadow or some spooky looking man in black with black fedora.

Peter Presland
05-24-2010, 03:41 PM
Well done! How can I help?

It probably doesn't matter at all, but I was thinking your logo should be more spook-like, maybe some logo based on the Shadow or some spooky looking man in black with black fedora.

Thanks Helen.

On the logo; you may well be right but I've already spent an age on it. Considered deep dark pools with ripples, some good 'black-hole' images and some cartoon/comical stuff too. Frankly the comical stuff seemed a bit out of place for what is intended as a serious subject - though I accept that satire is one of the most potent weapons against established power. Also, mucking about with colour on the Mediawiki platform is not a simple matter, so that a tint of blue was ultimately the best bet from a 'don't make-work' standpoint.

The upshot? - the logo will have to do for now.

On how to help: ANY help will be well received. No instructions really. All the rules are fairly clearly spelled out. What's needed is some good solid aggregation of the main Deep Political issues in good articles with copious links - all done with a presumption against 'the official narrative'. Original in depth stuff on lesser know/more recent issues also needed - as is absolutely anything that fits the description of 'reference material on Deep Political issues'. Involvement by others pre-disposed to support for the project has already produced very valuable feedback and changes. I'm working on an automated category tree page right now which will make navigation and finding things a bit easier - and reveal all the gaping holes too.

Assuming the site starts to attract serious traffic, it will also need additional reliable sysops/admins too; but I'm still feeling my way a bit right now and in no hurry - glitches keep appearing and I'd rather get them all ironed out before going ballistic.

Actually received 3 anonymous u/ls today - about the beaching of the SS Independence - full of toxic/radio-active waste on the beach at Alang India last year - already public domain though and from a site already publishing them so anonymity hardly needed. Not sure what I'll do with them yet.

The site has delivered over 48,000 page loads in May - just over 30,000 of them since Cryptome ran a piece on it on Sunday! So, you never know.

Why not just create an account, have a potter around and put a few things up yourself?

Helen Reyes
05-24-2010, 05:42 PM
Actually received 3 anonymous u/ls today - about the beaching of the SS Independence - full of toxic/radio-active waste on the beach at Alang India last year - already public domain though and from a site already publishing them so anonymity hardly needed. Not sure what I'll do with them yet.

The site has delivered over 48,000 page loads in May - just over 30,000 of them since Cryptome ran a piece on it on Sunday! So, you never know.

Why not just create an account, have a potter around and put a few things up yourself?

OK I did! I saw the u/l files earlier and the cryptome item, figured it was sending traffic your way. I guess I'll try to read through the rules and About and Help stuff. One thing, I might be wrong about this, but I think the word "wiki" predates Wikipedia and they absconded with it, I think it was around about the same time I started seeing CSV trees (I think "CSV") for collaborative coding projects.

I can only really picture doing fairly obscure items on wikispooks, because there are so many experts on things like JFK and so many other topics and I know so little compared. I guess I can always edit the English-language copy if there are errors, that sort of thing.

Looking forward to it.

Myra Bronstein
05-28-2010, 06:37 AM
Congratulations Peter. WikiSpooks really is impressive. Thanks for putting so much time and energy into the causes you believe in.

Myra Bronstein
05-28-2010, 06:43 AM
...
On the logo; you may well be right but I've already spent an age on it. ...

I'm awestruck by your logo 'cause it's so excellent. Good clean simple logos are brutally hard to do.

What application did you use for it Peter? Photoshop? Illustrator?

Wow, you even created a good quality favicon with it. Also super hard to do. Kudos.

Peter Presland
05-28-2010, 07:58 AM
...
On the logo; you may well be right but I've already spent an age on it. ...

I'm awestruck by your logo 'cause it's so excellent. Good clean simple logos are brutally hard to do.

What application did you use for it Peter? Photoshop? Illustrator?

Wow, you even created a good quality favicon with it. Also super hard to do. Kudos.
Thanks Myra

I did the logo with Gimp - that's an open source alternative to Photoshop, It has the usual open-source rough edges compared to comparable commercial offerings but very full-featured nonetheless.

A brief update on WikSpooks:

We've had just just over 6,000 unique visitors (ie IP addresses) to date. Taking into account those who do not have their own IP address, that probably equates to around 4,500-5,000 individual people. Only 20 registrations though and hardly anything by way of contributions/article edits etc. + the usual slurping bots and persistent regular attempts at unauthorised root access to the server. Still - a lot learned.

It's become obvious that separate servers are required for Mail/uploads and the site itself - security and other techie considerations being the drivers. So the next week or so will taken up with rehashing all that and implementing an Authoritative SSL facility for anonymous uploads and anyone who has a need to access the main site over an encrypted connection.

Then I intend to get down to the serious business of fleshing out the framework and getting some solid stuff up - always remembering it is intended as a reference site rather than a news aggregation or discussion site.

The site will remain open throughout and anyone with anything interesting to upload or contribute by way of authoring an article or copy/pasting reference documents (ie solid reference stuff already out there on this that or the other blog) - please feel free. There is masses of stuff like that already on DPF and I intend to make copious use of it (duly credited and linked of course) when I can get to concentrate on content.

Helen Reyes
05-29-2010, 06:05 PM
The logo is fine, I was just being silly. A classical black trenchcoated spook would not make a usuable favicon I'm sure.

I'm sort of unsure where to jump in. I thought about maybe authoring something on Fred Lee Crisman or fleshing out the Pearl Harbour stub/stump, but should I begin where the OTHER wiki leaves off, or develop original content, or ... or just plunge in and put something, anything, up there?

Peter Presland
05-29-2010, 07:18 PM
I'm sort of unsure where to jump in. I thought about maybe authoring something on Fred Lee Crisman or fleshing out the Pearl Harbour stub/stump, but should I begin where the OTHER wiki leaves off, or develop original content, or ... or just plunge in and put something, anything, up there?
Helen

Those are exactly the questions I wrestle with. I have to admit that some of the Wikipedia stuff is excellent. There's no precise pattern that I can discern. What I DO know is, when it comes to anything connected with 'The War on Terror', 9/11, Iraq and anything closely connected with recent/current military intelligence and political developments, Wikipedia can be relied upon to echo the official narrative. They will always contain a 'conspiracy theories' section but - well enough said. No point in trying to edit the obvious stuff either because after a couple of attempts and edit reversals, you'll be warned off on pain of being blocked. Same applies to JFK, MLK and the other high profile historical stuff. The official narrative rules and there's simply no point trying to edit some sense into those articles - you will be labelled a conspiraloon and banned.

But, some of the older stuff can be very useful and surprisingly establishment-hostile (apparently anyway). That is particularly the case where hitherto secret files have been de-classified or leaked. Operation Northwoods is a good case in point - as are the MKULTRA related articles.

I started by hoovering up Wikipedia pages. They can simply be exported by category then imported into WikiSpooks. The problem with that approach is that they are full of dozens of templates some of which call other templates such that the tedium and difficulty of an already difficult editing process is compounded by having to cope with literally hundreds (sometimes thousands) of bits of redundant wiki-mark-up syntax. I've abandoned that approach completely after wasting a lot of time on it and having to install an entirely fresh database and do the export/import thing in reverse. That is NOT going to happen again!

I now tend to put up stubs with a brief intro, invite others to flesh it out with a template message, and add links to corresponding Wikipedia and other stuff - especially good solid deep politics stuff and there's plenty of it around.

Right now I'm concentrating on getting a good logical category structure in place so that a single click displays the entire category tree beneath the one chosen - very quick way of finding almost anything when its done.

I'll jump in and categorize any floating content properly so don't worry about simply searching for a phrase that you judge describes your proposed article well and, if its not there, simply click the resulting red link and create it.

I think the potentially most confusing thing about posting new stuff is the distinction between articles and documents. Documents can be in any form whatever so long as they are relevant to the site and/or a standard article. They are for copy-and-paste exercises, duly linked and credited, from existing good stuff elsewhere. They are NOT intended to be edited but rather to be internal site reference documents for the main articles. I already have a list of hundreds I intend to put up and categorise.

So, Pearl Harbour or Fred Lee Crisman - or whatever. Just go for it.

Helen Reyes
05-29-2010, 08:31 PM
OK I'll give it a try. I was thinking Crisman because I noticed someone wanted to delete the wikipedia entry for him, and it seems like the article has withered over the years from being informative to being bare-bones, although that might be a purely subjective impression, I didn't bother checking revision history. I'm not sure I can do him justice, but I might be able to get the facts right at least. With Pearl Harbor I wouldn't know where to begin, and would probably begin with PURPLE and MAGIC intercepts and "let it be" vs. "make it so" false-flag theories targetting FDR. Hmm. I'll sleep on it, thanks for the advice.

Peter Presland
06-12-2010, 10:05 AM
A brief update:

Thanks to Helen for the Fred Lee Crisman page.

As of this morning the site has a total of 1,104 articles documents and files posted. Many of the files remain uncategorised; many of the pages need extra work - most of them lots of it.

I haven't done any more site promotion because I'm acutely aware of a host of security-related and software enhancement things that need attention - ALL of them distracting and time-consuming - and I am immersed in trying to get a reasonably comprehensive category-tree framework plus substantial content up - even if only in outline.

The 'Spooks' 'Israel Lobby' and 'Northern Ireland' categories (accessible from the left hand 'category tree' (http://wikispooks.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Category_Tree) menu option) are particularly well populated - though all need masses of additional input. The whole thing to date makes me realise what a mammoth task it will be to do an 'alternative' encyclopedia of Deep Events justice. I certainly won't be able to on my own either. Still, time-enough for approaches to disgruntled Wikipedia editors when it has (if it gets??) a bit more credibility eh?

It currently averages just over 300 unique visitors per day equating to 4000-5000 page loads - which of course means that its content is effectively hidden from the lumpen masses and therefore probably of little interest to you know who - yet anyway. Googlebot and other greedy slurping bots are constantly trawling though it and account for over 10% of bandwidth consumed - I'd love to figure out a way of charging them :hmpf:

Right now I still intend to just keep plugging away and maybe give it a proper launch/push when the inclination to do so strikes.

Anyone with documents that would sit well on the site, please let me know and I'll see to it.

Peter Presland
07-31-2010, 01:03 PM
I've begun to get some serious traffic on wikispooks.

I still haven't promoted it seriously but, having put up quite a few quality pieces recently, it seems to be spawning linkages all by itself.

David Guyatt has given me the OK to put up all his "Deep Black Lies" stuff. Wikifying it is a big job but I intend to crack on with it next week.

If anyone has documents in text MS Word or pretty well any other format that they judge to be worthwhile reference material in the Deep politics arena, please let me know. The Wiki-text markup editing curve is a bit steep for the first few articles but I reckon I'm pretty adept at it now and so am quite happy to wikify anything worthwhile that would otherwise not make it.

For info - the articles producing the most traffic on Wikispooks this past 2 weeks - some of which DPF will not have seen - In decending order of page reads:


Cheonan sinking (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Cheonan_sinking) - it links to a document by Stephen Gowans which really is a MUST READ on the issue.
How I Got Arrested and Abused at the G20 in Toronto (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:How_I_Got_Arrested_and_Abused_at_the_G20_ in_Toronto) - Lots of embedded video and pics with this - an amazing piece
Tim Spicer (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Tim_Spicer) - I'm a bit suspicious of this. Masses of traffic over a couple of days, all from the UK. I'm awaiting a letter from Schillings over the Craig Murray part :)
The Ola Tunander article (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Democratic_State_v_Deep_State) - over 300 downloads !!

Lots of other pdf's posted and categorised too - though most are probably already up here somewhere.

A couple of serious attempts at vandalism but I caught them straight away and they helped in continuing to screw down my Apache and VPS security

The entire site is now available over an encrypted SSL connection too.

All in all I think we have the embyo of a serious worthwhile reference - cum- whisteblower site in the making.

Malcolm Pryce
08-01-2010, 11:34 AM
I think you may have come up with something rather special here, Peter. Initially I wasnít sure what role this Wikispooks site was meant to play but Iíve just read the page on the sinking of the Cheonan and it hit me straight away: the fact-based, impersonal, encyclopaedia type approach with maps and links and no axes being ground...itís exactly what the subject is crying out for. Itís so easy for the mainstream media to dismiss us as wild-eyed ranters, but presenting the evidence like this gives it an authority that demands to be taken seriously. I loved the page you link to in which the guy demolishes the claim about the Ďpanel of International expertsí. It would be great if the site develops into a central authority where such propaganda is routinely exposed. Well done!

Peter Presland
08-02-2010, 05:23 PM
I think you may have come up with something rather special here, Peter. Initially I wasnít sure what role this Wikispooks site was meant to play but Iíve just read the page on the sinking of the Cheonan and it hit me straight away: the fact-based, impersonal, encyclopaedia type approach with maps and links and no axes being ground...itís exactly what the subject is crying out for. Itís so easy for the mainstream media to dismiss us as wild-eyed ranters, but presenting the evidence like this gives it an authority that demands to be taken seriously. I loved the page you link to in which the guy demolishes the claim about the Ďpanel of International expertsí. It would be great if the site develops into a central authority where such propaganda is routinely exposed. Well done!
Thanks Malcolm. The original idea was to emulate WikiPedia, but with an editorial policy that maintained a rigorous presumption AGAINST authority. That and to focus on the subject areas most affected by that 'Authority bias' - namely deep political issues - because WikiPedia remains a pretty impressive resource on pretty much everything else.

Not sure it will work out that way though because, whilst I've got about 60 registered users to date, only a handful have contributed anything serious as yet and you can't compile a bloody encyclopaedia all on your own.

Still, it's therapy, and I've learned (am still learning) one hell of a lot about Linux / Apache server management and security hardening too.

I'm toying with the idea of concentrating article production on critiques of corresponding WikiPedia ones where the official narrative bias is outrageous and obvious. It would give the appearance of overt confrontation with them which could produce a bit of interest; trouble with that approach is that it would immediately relegate the site to the fenced off loony-fringe corner, with the rest of the 'alternative' stuff.

We'll see how it goes as-is - for a while anyway