| |
|
  |
 On Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 'Edit Wars' - New York Times |
|
|
| carbuncle |
 Mon 12th September 2011, 1:58pm
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544
|
In a nutshell, this piece touches on the fact that WP's 9/11 article avoids mentioning the various theories about 9/11 and does not link to WP's 9/11 conspiracies article. Newyorkbrad gets a quote or two. I looked at the JFK article to see if the same were true there. It links to Assassination of John F. Kennedy which directly mentions the "conspiracy theories" in the lede, and has a short section on the theories which directs readers to the main article John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Likewise, Death of Marilyn Monroe mentions "conspiracy theories" in the lede and actually starts with a section entitled "Allegations of conspiracy". I also checked Moon landing and was not surprised to find that it covers and links to Moon landing conspiracy theories. The Monroe article contains this unsourced gem: QUOTE Reportedly, Richard M. Nixon was in Los Angeles on Aug. 4, the day Monroe died. His staff claimed he was in San Francisco for the entire day and could not have been in Brentwood to kill Monroe. It was a run-in with a Monroe fanatic that made me realise how dysfunctional WP is (and that Marilyn Monroe and WP are both magnets for disturbed people). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Forward! |
Mon 12th September 2011, 9:59pm
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue 30th Aug 2011, 9:44pm
From: European Superstate
Member No.: 64,431
|
I read this article too. t the very least, surely, a link would be appropriate in the 'see also' section!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
Wed 14th September 2011, 7:53am
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(Forward! @ Mon 12th September 2011, 9:59pm) 
I read this article too. t the very least, surely, a link would be appropriate in the 'see also' section!
If you want to see the reactions to this article, check the article talk page, Jimbo's talk page, this week's Signpost, and the talk page of several of the involved editors, such as MONGO. |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
Wed 14th September 2011, 10:41pm
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,824
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 14th September 2011, 3:53am) QUOTE(Forward! @ Mon 12th September 2011, 9:59pm)
I read this article too. t the very least, surely, a link would be appropriate in the 'see also' section!
If you want to see the reactions to this article, check the article talk page, Jimbo's talk page, this week's Signpost, and the talk page of several of the involved editors, such as MONGO. Yes, I've seen the GAR with the yelling and screaming by MONGO (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, Tom harrison (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, A Quest For Knowledge (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, Malleus Fatuorum (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, John (T-C-L-K-R-D)
(wasn't he Guinnog?), and more. Saw MONGO tear into HJ Mitchell (T-C-L-K-R-D)
for removing his Rollback. Saw Cla and Tom Harrison fight over the 9/11 template. I even thought of using my wiki-gnome account to try to calm MONGO down, but he's in such a state that even his supporters are having trouble with him. Jimbo should make a Real Housewives (T-H-L-K-D) spin-off called "The Real Editors of English Wikipedia." He'd make a killing in profit. As silly and stupid as conspiracy theories are, denying their existence only makes conspiracy nuts think there really is a conspiracy. You can't escape conspiracy theories. JFK conspiracy theories have been going on since he died and Wikipedia acknowledges their existence in the main assassination article. I would probably object to any conspiracy theory section if the "reliable sources" come only from the nuts themselves and lacks any criticism from experts, government officials, media investigations, etc. Acknowledging that there are conspiracies does not take away from the facts. National Geographic tested the 9/11 conspiracy theories and proved they were bupkis, for crying out loud. If National Geographic is trying to counter these theories, they must have a rather large following. Britannica, however, does not seem to give any mention of 9-11 conspiracy theories that I see. Very tricky situation.  |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
Wed 14th September 2011, 10:56pm
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 14th September 2011, 3:41pm) Jimbo should make a Real Housewives (T-H-L-K-D) spin-off called "The Real Editors of English Wikipedia." He'd make a killing in profit. I seriously doubt that. Reality shows are only successful if they involve beautiful people, especially beautiful people abusing themselves and each other. Name one "beautiful" Wikipedia admin. (Other than Carbuncle, I spose.) QUOTE I would probably object to any conspiracy theory section if the "reliable sources" come only from the nuts themselves and lacks any criticism from experts, government officials, media investigations, etc. Acknowledging that there are conspiracies does not take away from the facts. Yes, but the point is, people use Wikipedia articles as blogs, to post their paranoid ravings. If the subject is popular or reasonably famous, ravings appear and disappear "because the Wiki Way works!" However....if the article is obscure or ignored, the ravings can sit for years unchallenged. So the "Wiki Way" fails. Frequently. Death of Marilyn Monroe is the textbook example  , but such garbage is posted and removed (and reposted, and re-removed, and re-re-posted) all over the wiki-place. This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 14th September 2011, 11:02pm |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
Thu 15th September 2011, 1:01am
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 14th September 2011, 10:41pm) Britannica, however, does not seem to give any mention of 9-11 conspiracy theories that I see. Very tricky situation. I tried to tell those guys several months ago that it would cause them more trouble than it was worth to keep mention of the conspiracy theories out of the article. Not only did they ignore me, they then went way too far by trying to completely erase all mention of them, down to the link in the See Also. I keep trying to tell Wikipedia editors that, because it is the "'pedia that anyone can edit", that they are fighting a losing battle if they try to keep mention of fringe or alternative theories out of articles. Whether its 9/11, global warming, or Bin Laden's death, there are enough people out there who believe in these conspiracies to expect that there should be mention of them in WP. It will save everyone a lot of time and stress just to make a brief mention of the theories (using acceptable sourcing, of course). Otherwise, what you'll have are guys like MONGO and Tom Harrison spending all their time watching these articles desperately, and ultimately futilely, revert warring like crazy to keep the articles in "their" version. The reason that MONGO lost rollback privileges was because he was revert warring from his Blackberry. Does he check it every five minutes? Good grief. Just mention the theories and get on with your lives. If you want to have an article that doesn't mention them, then start your own, restricted wiki like Conservapedia. This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 15th September 2011, 1:02am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
