PDA

View Full Version : Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op



Ed Jewett
07-06-2010, 10:44 PM
Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op
By Jim Fetzer
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Jul 6, 2010, 00:22

Email this article (?subject=Wikipedia%20as%20a%209%2F11%20disinforma tion%20op&body=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinejournal.com%2Fartman%2Fpub lish%2Farticle_6078.shtml)
Printer friendly page (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_6078.shtml)
MADISON, Wisconsin -- When I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org/), a loose affiliation of experts and scholars with diverse backgrounds, including faculty in the humanities, the natural sciences, the social sciences, engineers, pilots, and citizens concerned to learn the truth about 9/11 in December 2005, I invited Steve Jones, a professor of physics at BYU, to be my co-chair. The society took off like a rocket and soon had more than 300 members divided in four categories, full members, associate members, student members, and society associates.
Some were rather prominent, including:
Morgan Reynolds, Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, the former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis;

Wayne Madsen, former officer in the US Navy, consultant to the National Security Agency, senior fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and today a noted investigative journalist and editor of Wayne Madsen Reports;

Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. ?Star Wars? Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, a former Air Force Lt. Colonel with 101 combat missions and former Florida congressional candidate;

Lloyd DeMause, distinguished scholar and Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psycho-historical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory, who would soon withdraw;

Andreas Von Buelow, former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years; and,

Webster Tarpley, a Princeton graduate and Fulbright Scholar, who is the co-author (with Anton Chaltkin) of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, and of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA.
It was a great success from the beginning, probably in part because one co-chairman represented the natural science and the other the humanities, in which I had already published (http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Ejfetzer/) 20 books in the philosophy of science and on the foundations of computer science, AI and cognitive science, as well as editing three books on the assassination of JFK and co-authoring another on the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone. By the end of June 2006, articles about 9/11 had grown in number from a flat line to the point where mainstream journalists were attempting to trivialize the movement.
Perhaps the highlight of that year for the Society was an event that was sponsored by Alex Jones in Los Angeles, ?The American Scholars Conference,? which took place from 24-25 June 2006 at the Sheraton Downtown. On my way in to the hotel, I was called by a producer for ?Hannity & Colmes,? who told me they wanted to feature me as a guest to learn what Scholars had discovered about 9/11. It would turn out that that was not the case, where they really wanted to use me as a prop for an attack on courses in colleges that dealt with 9/11. What they didn?t understand was that, while I often talked about 9/11 in my courses, I had no course on 9/11, which enabled me to take control of the program (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08va1i6LYPc), much to the dismay of Ollie North, sitting in for Sean.
The conference drew more than 1,200 from around the world and was regarded as a great success. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/260606hugesuccess.htm) Perhaps the most important event that occurred there -- from both the point of view of Scholars but also for the public -- was a five-person panel discussion held on Sunday, where 4 members of Scholars -- Steve Jones, Bob Bowman, Webster Tarpley, and I -- spoke while Alex Jones moderated. It was during this panel that I presented my ?Top 10 Reasons the Hijackers are Fake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gtqAr241%7C).? But what made a difference is that C-Span was there to record the panel discussion, which it would broadcast at least seven times subsequently at decent times, which appears to have broken the glass-ceiling -- an implicit state of discourse -- that had previously inhibited the public from discussion of 9/11. It was therefore, in my opinion, a significant cultural event (http://www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4258946892514662399).
?Hannity & Colmes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Jm8gzrgM8)? would feature me again as well as Bill O?Reilly on ?The Factor,? while I was making many radio appearances, which are archived under ?Past Events? on the Scholars web site. But my concerns about Steve?s fixation on thermite as the key to understanding the ?collapse? (http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html) of the Twin Towers was growing, especially as I became more and more familiar with the work of Dr. Judy Wood (http://www.drjudywood.com/), a former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson. Judy has a background in applied physics, in structural engineering, and in materials engineering science, which are precisely the academic disciplines that are most relevant to understanding what happened to the World Trade Center on 9/11. When I interviewed her on my radio program during a visit to Tucson on 11 November 2006 and expressed keen interest in her approach, I experienced immediate feedback that was negative. No one seemed happy about it.
Most of Steve?s fans, alas, do not understand that the adequacy of any theory about the destruction of the WTC can only demonstrate its superiority in comparison with alternative theories. Steve himself has fostered the impression (http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-manipulation-of-the-911-1) that it is possible to evaluate a single theory independent of its alternatives, which is not the method of science. Science proceeds in four stages, from PUZZLEMENT to SPECULATION on to ADAPTATION (of hypotheses to evidence) and then, when the evidence has ?settled down? and points in the same direction, to EXPLANATION. In order to insure that the true theory is not excluded from scratch, it is indispensable to the success of science that every alternative explanation be considered -- from thermite with conventional explosives to mini-nukes to lasers, masers, and plasmoids. As I have also explained (http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/an-analysis-of-the-wtc-on-911), I am not committed to which is the right explanation but to the need for their study.
December was a fateful month for Scholars. Most students of 9/11 are unaware that a faction favoring Jones appropriated the membership list and conduct a fake poll, which they insisted showed that most of the members disapproved of the manner which I had been running the society. I believe this was largely motivated by my removing Steve from supervising the forum after an odd incident in which a post being submitted by Rick Siegel was deleted, when Steve would not tell me who had deleted it. They subsequently froze the web site and forced me to create a new one at 911scholars.org, even though I had been the only person to post any articles on st911.0rg from its conception. The history of these events (http://911scholars.org/FetzerRespondsJones.html) has been archived on the new site. At the same time this faction was busy demonizing me, I flew to Athens to appear on a 3 ? hour television program about 9/11, which was being hosted by the leading investigative journalist in Greece, and being broadcast worldwide (http://911blogger.com/node/5222) by satellite.
When I turned to the Wiki article on ?9/11 Truth Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement),? therefore, I suppose I should not have been surprised that it read as though it were frozen in time since late 2006/early 2007. It stated that I was ?advocating? theories about the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear devices ?that were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule.? Except, of course, I was not ?advocating? those theories, but only advocating their study! In fact, insofar as they represent distinct explanations of how it might have been done, it would have been inconsistent on its face for anyone to have been advocating them both, much less a professional philosopher who had spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning in college and university courses. I was also astonished to learn that I had been banished from the 9/11 movement for my alleged offenses, to wit:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (CURRENT)

The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][94]

Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer -- such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers -- were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule. By December 2006, Jones and several others set up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.[95] The original members took a vote on which group to join and the majority voted to move to the new group.[96] By 2007, James Fetzer had been openly rejected by the 9/11 Truth Movement, banned from and criticized on popular forums[97][98][99][100] and no longer invited to public 9/11 events.
All in all, this was both historically inaccurate and seriously misleading. I had not only been flown to Athens to appear on an historic television broadcast in 2006 but I had organized the first conference sponsored by Scholars in Madison in 2007 (http://sites.google.com/site/911newworldorderfiles/notesfrom911conferenceinmadisonwi2007), edited its first book and produced its first DVD. In 2008, I would be flown to Buenos Aires to present three lectures on 9/11 and one on JFK, which received quite considerable coverage in the press, including two articles (http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&iPub=109367&id=235352&dis=1&sec=1) in TELAM (http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&dis=1&sec=1&idPub=109367&id=235361&idnota=234361), the official press service of the Republic of Argentina. In 2009, I was flown back to Buenos Aires for a major event on 9/11 held at The National Library (http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jim-fetzer-on-911-at-the?xg_source=activity), with more than 200 in attendance and six or seven television cameras. And in 2010, I have organized a symposium being held at Friends House in London (http://rediscover911.com/DWT/DebunkingWT.htm) with Kevin Barrett and Gilad Atzmon, where Ken O?Keefe, hero of the Israeli assault on the Miva Marmara, is Master of Ceremonies.
The claim I was no longer being invited to domestic 9/11 events was equally false. I had not only presented a lecture on the moral, religious, and political dimensions of 9/11 in Chicago in 2006 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-86777198889612837&q=Jim+Fetzer%2C+Chicago&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1), but debated Mark Roberts on ?Hardfire,? a cable television program, in April 2007 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330), a program that has often been rebroadcast; presented a lecture on how the media manipulates 9/11 at Cooper Union in New York in 2007 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8857832629715387909&q=Jim+Fetzer%2C+Cooper+Union&total=20&start=10&num=10&so=10&type+search&plindex=4) and another on 9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda during a Ron Paul ?Freedom Rally? before the Capitol in Washington, D.C. on 15 April 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdApVIeRN7U). In 2009, I was invited to Portland by the 9/11 group there (to present talks on 9/11 and JFK) -- and to Seattle by the 9/11 group there, where they are archived on my blog (http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html). This is not to mention talks at the University of Wisconsin Madison and UW Milwaukee and a host of other presentation -- TV, radio, lectures -- which are listed under ?Past Events? (http://twilightpines.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=47) on Scholars.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice has many accomplishments, but why should I be the whipping boy? So I tried to make the section on Scholars for 9/11 Truth truthful:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (PROPOSED)

The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][94] Fetzer, a philosopher of science of considerable academic distinction,[95] encouraged the study of a broad range of alternative theories, which eventually led to conflicts with Jones, who was propunding the use of an incendiary called ?thermite? as holding the key to understanding the ?collapse? of the Twin Towers, which Fetzer found unconvincing as a complete explanation of the towers conversion into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.[96]

As a philosopher, Fetzer took a ?big tent? approach and encouraged the study of alternative explanations, such as mini-nukes, lasers, masers, and plasmoids. Those close to Jones regarded some of the theories whose study was advocated by Fetzer -- such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers -- as insufficiently supported by evidence and exposing the group to ridicule. In December 2006, Jones and Fetzer separated in the midst of considerable tension.[97] The new (Jones) group calls itself Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Both groups focus on the use of the scientific method, but there are differences in emphasis.[98][99] Fetzer has continued to advocate the study of a broad range of alternative theories, especially in the new Scholars forum.[100]

In spite of the controversy, Fetzer has continued his efforts[101] and organized the first Scholars conference, ?The Science and Politics of 9/11,? in Madison in 2007 and published the first book from Scholars and its first DVD. [102] [103] He was invited to Buenos Aires for lectures on 9/11 and JFK in 2008.[104][105] In 2009, he was flown back to Buenos Aires and presented the principal lecture during ?The International Conference for 9/11 Truth and Justice? held at The National Library on September 11th.[106] While Fetzer remains controversial for his willingness to consider hypotheses and theories about the destruction of the World Trade Center and the possibility of video fakery on 9/11,[107][108][109][110][111] he has replied to his critics on various occasions[112][113] and continues to make presentations, including a symposium in London on the ?war on terror,? where he will be addressing whether wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified by 9/11.[114]
My revision was deleted within minutes, which telegraphed that Wiki was not going to allow me to fix the record. I waited a day and tried again, where my attempts to correct factual inaccuracies and historical blunders were rejected again and thereby confirmed it. Because the editors have my revisions, moreover, which are thoroughly supported, they know that what they have about Scholars on this page is inaccurate and misleading. No doubt, many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement regard me as controversial (http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html), but most of them do not know my views. Some of the attacks on me have been reprehensible and I have publicly responded to them more than once (http://www.911scholars.org/Fetzer_9Feb2006.html).
But my complaint is not with those in the movement who are trying to subvert the search for truth (http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html) but the role of Wiki in these activities. No one who has read what I have explained here or has checked the citations I have provided can seriously doubt that the Wiki discussion about Scholars for 9/11 Truth is historically inaccurate and seriously misleading. The only reason for keeping such rubbish on its pages would appear to be to trash one of the few in the movement who understands the nature of scientific inquiry and why it is essential to finding the truth about the events of 9/11.
Reading further through the Wiki entry, I discovered another caricature of my views:
Internal critique (CURRENT)

While there is general agreement within the movement that individuals within the United States government (but not necessarily the government as a whole) are responsible for the attacks, alternative theories differ about what may have happened.[3] There have been a number of articles and responses written by members critiquing the methods and theories of other members, often in a scholarly format, as in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[119][citation needed]

While Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice states that they advocate the use of the scientific method and civil research activities over public debate,[120] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement#cite_note-119) Jim Fetzer?s group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has said that the scientific method is unnecessary and that any imaginable theory is worthy of advocating to the public. For example, reporting on a conference involving Fetzer?s group, a Madison Times article stated: ?By Sunday the conference had covered weather control, weapons from space, and the idea that the planes that struck the towers never existed at all.?[121]
No one with any understanding of the nature of science, much less a professional philosopher of science whose 29th book, The Place of Probability in Science (2010), has just appeared, would adopt such a stance. There seems to be confusion in the minds of some of my critics between the stages of Speculation and of Explanation in the evaluation of alternative theories (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm). It is indispensable that, when confronted with a puzzling phenomenon that does not fit within our background assumptions, all of the alternative possibilities be elaborated for consideration and evaluation. Taken as stated here, the position attributed to me is simply absurd, since it would commit me to every available explanation -- thermite & conventional explosives and mini-nukes and lasers and masers and plasmoids! The disinfo agents thus appear to have gone a bridge too far in their efforts to discredit me. So I have also proposed this revision:
Internal critique (PROPOSED)

While there is general agreement within the movement that individuals within the United States government (but not necessarily the government as a whole) are responsible for the attacks, alternative theories differ about what may have happened.[3] There have been a number of articles and responses written by members critiquing the methods and theories of other members, often in a scholarly format, as in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[124][citation needed]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth no less than Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice advocates the use scientific method as fundamental to research on 9/11.[125] As a profession philosopher of science with substantial publications,[126] Fetzer has emphasized that science can only proceed by considering a full range of alternative hypotheses.[127] No theory can be established without demonstrating that its explanatory power is greater than that of its alternatives.[128]

During the first Scholars conference, ?The Science and Politics of 9/11,? held in Madison in 2007, a wide range of alternative hypotheses were discussed. [129] A Madison Times article, whose author did not appear to have a scientific background, caught something of the flavor of the debate when it reported, ?By Sunday the conference had covered weather control, weapons from space, and the idea that the planes that struck the towers never existed at all.?[130]
Now I freely admit that the only advantages of my revisions of the Wiki article on ?9/11 Truth Movement? is that they are true and more accurate and complete than those they would replace, if they had been allowed to stand. That, of course, was in doubt, since I have experienced many difficulties in the past simply in maintaining my own entry in Wiki, where, because I have introduced corrections to mistakes in earlier versions of my own entry, it has been cited for a ?lack of objectivity? and a possible violation of Wiki?s standards of neutrality in spite of copious documentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer). Indeed, within two hours of posting these revisions, the page was reverted to the earlier version. Since Wiki?s editors have my revisions and the documentation that supports them, they know the information about Scholars and me is seriously and irredeemably flawed. I naively thought misleading the public was not Wiki?s goal.
Perhaps some may suppose that, even though I have many accomplishments to my name as my vita displays (http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Ejfetzer/), perhaps I am not very good at dealing with conspiracies. I would recommend testing that opinion by reviewing my work (with Jim Marrs) on the photo fakery used to frame Oswald (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16224), the assassinations of JFK and RFK (http://www.voltairenet.org/article165721.html), and the distinction between conspiracies and conspiracism (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6047.shtml). Or go to OpEdNews and enter my name. Pick a subject you know well and compare what I have had to say about it. The Wiki strategy is simple. By smearing some of the best qualified analytic minds in the movement, 9/11 Truth will become befuddled and factionalized. After all, the only way to resolve complex controversies is to confront them and sort them out. But if you can marginalize those who have the background and ability to carry out that challenging task, the vast majority of ?truthers? will never know the difference. Indeed, attacking me because I am dealing with controversial aspects of 9/11 is a bit unreal. Most Americans already think challenging the official account is controversial!
So where do we stand? Wiki pretends to objectivity that it does not respect. Even by its own standard of verifiability, my revisions satisfy that criterion, while what it publishes does not. It has no citation for its fantastic allegation, ?Jim Fetzer?s group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement#Scholars_for_9.2F11_Truth), has said that the scientific method is unnecessary and that any imaginable theory is worthy of advocating to the public,? for the simple reason that it is not true. The very idea that a professional philosopher of science would take such a stand is absurd. So Wiki must be aware that it is making assertions that it knows to be false with the intention of misleading its readers. And since that is the case, as has been demonstrated here, Wiki is functioning as a disinfo op in relation to 9/11. Surely a publication that bills itself as ?an encyclopedia? should do its best to insure the accuracy and completeness of its entries. Based upon my experience, there appears to be a political agenda that overrides those concerns.
James H. Fetzer is also the editor of assassinationscience.com and the co-editor of assassinationresearch.com. He has a blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com (http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/).
Copyright 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor (editor@onlinejournal.com)

Peter Lemkin
07-07-2010, 05:12 AM
Wiki is acting as a disinfo op on all the major assassinations, covert ops and false flag ops. The public is free to edit it as long as it doesn't challenge the Grand Mythos....for which they have censors employed....citing 'balance'.....

One example:
See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign
By John Borland
08.14.07


CalTech graduate student Virgil Griffith built a search tool that traces IP addresses of those who make Wikipedia changes.
Photo: Jake Appelbaum

On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the computer used to make the edits.

In this case, the changes came from an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself. And it is far from an isolated case. A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations.

Wikipedia Scanner -- the brainchild of Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith -- offers users a searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of internet IP addresses.

Inspired by news last year that Congress members' offices had been editing their own entries, Griffith says he got curious, and wanted to know whether big companies and other organizations were doing things in a similarly self-interested vein.

"Everything's better if you do it on a huge scale, and automate it," he says with a grin.

This database is possible thanks to a combination of Wikipedia policies and (mostly) publicly available information.

The online encyclopedia allows anyone to make edits, but keeps detailed logs of all these changes. Users who are logged in are tracked only by their user name, but anonymous changes leave a public record of their IP address.

Share Your Sleuthing!

Cornered any companies polishing up their Wikipedia entries? Spotted any government spooks rewriting history? Try Virgil Griffith's Wikipedia Scanner yourself, then submit your finds and vote on other readers' discoveries here.

The organization also allows downloads of the complete Wikipedia, including records of all these changes.

Griffith thus downloaded the entire encyclopedia, isolating the XML-based records of anonymous changes and IP addresses. He then correlated those IP addresses with public net-address lookup services such as ARIN, as well as private domain-name data provided by IP2Location.com.

The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's net address has made.

Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material.

Voting-machine company Diebold provides a good example of the latter, with someone at the company's IP address apparently deleting long paragraphs detailing the security industry's concerns over the integrity of their voting machines, and information about the company's CEO's fund-raising for President Bush.

The text, deleted in November 2005, was quickly restored by another Wikipedia contributor, who advised the anonymous editor, "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."

A Diebold Election Systems spokesman said he'd look into the matter but could not comment by press time.

Wal-Mart has a series of relatively small changes in 2005 that that burnish the company's image on its own entry while often leaving criticism in, changing a line that its wages are less than other retail stores to a note that it pays nearly double the minimum wage, for example. Another leaves activist criticism on community impact intact, while citing a "definitive" study showing Wal-Mart raised the total number of jobs in a community.

As has been previously reported, politician's offices are heavy users of the system. Former Montana Sen. Conrad Burns' office, for example, apparently changed one critical paragraph headed "A controversial voice" to "A voice for farmers," with predictably image-friendly content following it.

Perhaps interestingly, many of the most apparently self-interested changes come from before 2006, when news of the Congressional offices' edits reached the headlines. This may indicate a growing sophistication with the workings of Wikipedia over time, or even the rise of corporate Wikipedia policies.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales told Wired News he was aware of the new service, but needed time to experiment with it before commenting.

The vast majority of changes are fairly innocuous, however. Employees at the CIA's net address, for example, have been busy -- but with little that would indicate their place of apparent employment, or a particular bias.

One entry on "Black September in Jordan" contains wholesale additions, with specific details that read like a popular history book or an eyewitness' memoir.

Many more are simple copy edits, or additions to local town entries or school histories. One CIA entry deals with the details of lyrics sung in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode.

Griffith says he launched the project hoping to find scandals, particularly at obvious targets such as companies like Halliburton. But there's a more practical goal, too: By exposing the anonymous edits that companies such as drugs and big pharmaceutical companies make in entries that affect their businesses, it could help experts check up on the changes and make sure they're accurate, he says.

For now, he has just scratched the surface of the database of millions of entries. But he's putting it online so others can look too.

The nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, did not respond to e-mail and telephone inquiries Monday.

-----------------------------------
Were [Are] We Controlled.....?!?!?!?!:bandit:

NB - WikiWatcher can be found here http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich_rnd345/scanner_final/

Peter Presland
07-07-2010, 06:46 PM
The precise chapter and verse run-down on Jim Fetzer's 9/11 Wikipedia experience are new to me. However, the principles they illustrate are VERY familiar. As Peter L says, when it comes to the major Deep State issues, the Wikipedia set up is designed - at the very minimum - to ensure that orthodoxy and the official narrative prevails. Diebold and the Deep Capture naked Short selling sagas are good illustrations of how the censorship operates.

I've had dozens of instances over the past few years where my edits were reversed; followed by warnings to desist or else. All justified by reference to the Wikipedia editing-rule definitions known as 'Neutral point of view' and 'Notability of sources'.

I got so pissed with it that I started WikiSpooks. Not that I expect WikiSpooks to get anywhere close to either the coverage or readership of Wikipedia; it's just that, on the real Deep State issues where Wikipedia is indeed an effective disinfo operation, editing rules that impose a presumption AGAINST authority are what is needed for them to have any chance of getting to the nub of the matter so-to-speak. So that is what I've done:

Clear editorial rules that make copious reference to their Wikipedia counterparts and largely invert them are imposed. Anyone who makes persistent efforts to bias articles in favour of 'the official narrative' will be treated in the exactly same manner as Wikipedia dissidents.


Editorial policy (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/WikiSpooks:Editorial_Policy)
Project rationale (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/WikiSpooks:Site_Rationale)

All the site really needs now is for a few of those dissidents to stop banging their heads against the Wikipedia brick wall and try a bit of WikiSpooking instead. ;)

I've even refrained from putting up anything much on 911 to date (just a category skeleton and a bit of stuff on WT7 (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11_WTC_Building_7_Collapse)) in hopes that Jim - or someone as knowledgeable - will chip in a bit. The subject is so big and serious that I really would like to get it right.

Peter Lemkin
07-07-2010, 09:47 PM
The precise chapter and verse run-down on Jim Fetzer's 9/11 Wikipedia experience are new to me. However, the principles they illustrate are VERY familiar. As Peter L says, when it comes to the major Deep State issues, the Wikipedia set up is designed - at the very minimum - to ensure that orthodoxy and the official narrative prevails. Diebold and the Deep Capture naked Short selling sagas are good illustrations of how the censorship operates.

I've had dozens of instances over the past few years where my edits were reversed; followed by warnings to desist or else. All justified by reference to the Wikipedia editing-rule definitions known as 'Neutral point of view' and 'Notability of sources'.

I got so pissed with it that I started WikiSpooks. Not that I expect WikiSpooks to get anywhere close to either the coverage or readership of Wikipedia; it's just that, on the real Deep State issues where Wikipedia is indeed an effective disinfo operation, editing rules that impose a presumption AGAINST authority are what is needed for them to have any chance of getting to the nub of the matter so-to-speak. So that is what I've done:

Clear editorial rules that make copious reference to their Wikipedia counterparts and largely invert them are imposed. Anyone who makes persistent efforts to bias articles in favour of 'the official narrative' will be treated in the exactly same manner as Wikipedia dissidents.


Editorial policy (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/WikiSpooks:Editorial_Policy)
Project rationale (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/WikiSpooks:Site_Rationale)

All the site really needs now is for a few of those dissidents to stop banging their heads against the Wikipedia brick wall and try a bit of WikiSpooking instead. ;)

I've even refrained from putting up anything much on 911 to date (just a category skeleton and a bit of stuff on WT7 (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11_WTC_Building_7_Collapse)) in hopes that Jim - or someone as knowledgeable - will chip in a bit. The subject is so big and serious that I really would like to get it right.

Looks great! That name will keep many away and attract exactly those you don't want a la Wikileaks!....when I have some time and energy I'll gladly lend some effort on things I know of....likely in the Fall.

Magda Hassan
07-08-2010, 03:29 PM
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76993086)Wikipedia Scanner (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/) is your friend.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76993086) by Anonymous Dept. of Homeland Security deleting all of "9/11 Conspiracy Theories".


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=76993086