Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 31-05-2010, 05:55 PM   #1
plutoslaugh
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5
Default Wikipaedia 9-11 articles kept bias - help needed

Hi,

A number of people I know have been trying to remove political bias to some 9-11 related articles over the last few days. The idea is to not add content to the articles to convince people to any type of conspiracy. It is more to remove the bias tone of many elements of the articles.
One editor, Arthur Rubin, appears to be renowned on the internet for his bullying of editors on the wikipaedia. Having already admitted he thinks all of the information surrounding the events of 911 are lies etc, he is preventing edits to these pages.

Unfortunately, MANY people use wikipaedia as their main source of information. Please sign up for an editors account and track the changes to 911 related articles. It is easy to do. With several people arguing that the articles need to be neutral, his bias can be countered by numbers of people.
plutoslaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-05-2010, 05:56 PM   #2
plutoslaugh
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5
Default

Some articles this is occurring on can be found here@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archite...for_9/11_Truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(film)
plutoslaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-05-2010, 07:38 PM   #3
kappy0405
Senior Member
 
kappy0405's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicagoland, Illinois
Posts: 7,367
Default

wikipedia is a disaster. The entries on the New World Order are laughable. A user named 'Loremaster' trolls every page making reference to the NWO and keeps it locked into his own biased viewpoint. He probably works for the Pentagon or something.. :P
kappy0405 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2011, 12:38 AM   #4
loremaster
Junior Member
 
loremaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Confidential
Posts: 25
Default Reply to senior member kappy0405

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappy0405 View Post
wikipedia is a disaster. The entries on the New World Order are laughable. A user named 'Loremaster' trolls every page making reference to the NWO and keeps it locked into his own biased viewpoint. He probably works for the Pentagon or something.. :P
Since I am the user named Loremaster, this rant was brought to my attention and I will take the time to reply to it.

1. Although , the fact that articles do not give undue weight to your pet doesn't mean it is a "disaster". Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

2. Having invested a lot of time and energy in editing Wikipedia's article on to make sure that it is the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, scholars) who is interested in the subject, I would actually like to know why you consider it "laughable". IF your criticism is constructive, you would be surprised to discover how open I am to improving the article to take it into account.

3. Since a "troll" is a person who, through willful action, attempts to disrupt a community or garner attention and controversy through provocative messages, I resent the accusation that I engage in "trolling" on Wikipedia. On the contrary, I simply watch over some articles related to New World Order conspiracy theory to make sure they remain neutral and present the scholarly consensus on their respective subjects. As for my "biased point of view", I cannot deny that I hold the point of view of a rational skeptic concerned with the spread of "counterknowledge". However, I always try to be fair and accurate when reporting a point of view I disagree with before debunking it, which ironically sometimes gets me in trouble with extreme skeptics!

4. For the record: I have never worked, and probably will never work, for any branch, department or agency of the U.S. government. I'm just a doctoral student in political sciences and an informal member of the Skeptics Society. The fact that you would automatically speculate that I work for the Pentagon (or whatever institution inspires your loathing) without any shred of evidence not only makes me laugh but proves to me that conspiracy theorists such as you are in fact paranoid...

Last edited by loremaster; 25-01-2011 at 07:23 PM.
loremaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2011, 01:08 AM   #5
macgyver1968
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,750
Default

Wow...someone just got served a hot steaming cup of Ownage!
macgyver1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2011, 03:35 AM   #6
rexmgt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 39th parallel
Posts: 154
Default

LOL yeah, if the mainstream media ("reliable sources") don't talk about it wikipedia "admins" won't allow it in their article.
i'd suggest you read the discussion on the NWO conspiracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ne...notable_people

The loremaster refuses to include Phillip's quote about how he wants to infect the masses to reduce the population.

Thankfully many of the users aren't buying into their bullshit. They lost 49000 editors in nov 2009.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8379566.stm

Last edited by rexmgt; 25-01-2011 at 03:55 AM.
rexmgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2011, 05:23 AM   #7
loremaster
Junior Member
 
loremaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Confidential
Posts: 25
Wink A reply to senior member Rexmgt

Quote:
Originally Posted by rexmgt View Post
LOL yeah, if the mainstream media ("reliable sources") don't talk about it wikipedia "admins" won't allow it in their article.
According to , when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are considered to be more reliable sources than mainstream news organizations.

That being said, I am extremely critical of the corporate media but I'm sure the reasonable people among you would much prefer reading an encyclopedic article on a that is based on mainstream sources rather than a fringe blog by some crackopt who believes the Earth is flat.

Quote:
i'd suggest you read the discussion on the NWO conspiracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ne...notable_people

The loremaster refuses to include Phillip's quote about how he wants to infect the masses to reduce the population.
Yes I did because Wikipedia policies and guidelines require that we find a reliable source that states conspiracy theorists believe Prince Phillip's comments are proof of the population-control agenda of people plotting on behalf of the New World Order. Otherwise, the relevance of these comments to the article has not been established.

Even someone who believes that Phillip is an agent of the New World Order can agree that Wikipedia has to have some basic rules otherwise it will become a tabloid-like mess.

Quote:
Thankfully many of the users aren't buying into their bullshit. They lost 49000 editors in nov 2009.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8379566.stm
If those 49000 editors had been all the trolls and vandals still plaguing Wikipedia, I would be the first one to say: Good riddance!

Last edited by loremaster; 25-01-2011 at 06:54 AM.
loremaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 AM.