Wikipedia Wars
Very shortly after posting an entry in Wikipaedia on "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" it was tagged for speedy deletion as blatant adversting, despite being modelled after a pre-existing page about the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths"
I've appealed the deletion of "D 9/11 D" citing its importance in the debate and that it is modelled after a pre-existing Wiki page...
In a fit of vengeance, I then went and tagged "Debunking 9/11 Myths" for deletion on the same basis.
Loose Change and other wiki articles reference the "Debunking 911 myths" article, so it seemed only fair to have the Dr. Griffin rebuttal available too.
Perhaps more interest from others adding 911 content on Wiki will help... (?) !!!
If I could post screen shots here I would. If the pages haven't been deleted they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Debunking
- Romill's blog
- Login to post comments
Update
Both pages have been stripped bare, so they indicate less a point of view. Problems are:
1. Debunking 911 Myths still appears favoured by a bias.
2. Debunking 911 Debunking is slated to be DELETED unless content and references are added to the page in order to establish that it has enough RELEVANCE TO REMAIN ON WIKI. Well, does it?
If you think so, please add some links from other wiki articles to the Debunking 911 Debunking page, and some links within the article to where Debunking 911 Debunking has received attention of the media, and succinctly how it has relevance to the explanation of what happened on 911.
Words showing bias (i.e. "annihilated" Debunking 911 point by point will be deleted by Wiki editors and push them towards deleting the entire article.
Editing in Wiki is easy, there is a short learning curve but anyone can do it.
Wikipedia is a failed concept
That became clear long ago.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Forensic 9/11ologist
http://www.chico911truth.org/
R( \ )n P( \ )ul 2( \ )08 ==> A Woman's Right To Choose Is Sacrosanct!
Not "failed", just low bang for the bucking efforts required
Wiki is more a reflection of mainstream media, and a reporting of past events - so 911 Truth is at a disadvantage on both fronts.
However, it is also referenced by bloggers in arguing one thing or another, and for that I think it useful to at least ensure blatant OCT assertions not backed by facts are challenged and that 911 Truth when it has been verified is put into the "official" (sic) Wiki record ASAP.
If it's a choice between Wiki and hitting the streets distributing CD's or other direct action, go for direct action every time. Eventually Wiki will catch up anyway.
Another Thing:
On the Wikipedia article for "Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Collapse of the World Trade Center," it contains the following sentence:
"The controlled demolition hypothesis has been unambiguously rejected by mainstream investigators and by structural engineers."
There is no mention of ae911truth.org anywhere. This entry needs to be updated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_co...