Systematic bias against 9/11 Truth Movement on Wikipedia

There is an obvious systematic bias in the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' on Wikipedia which should be embarrassing to anyone who values a neutral point of view. Witness the articles Conspiracy theory which devotes its content to a condescending analysis of various examples of Conspiracism; List of alleged conspiracy theories (only just retitled 'list of conspiracy theories' since this criticism was leveled at it) which conflates alleged conspiracies with conspiracy theories but does not include alleged conspiracies which have been proven true; and Conspiracy (crime) which does not mention specific conspiracy allegations. The allegation of conspiracy is presented as 'theory' on Wikipedia. But 'conspiracy theory' is presented as wild speculation. On the other hand 'conspiracy' is presented as a legal standard with no case history. Where is the Wikipedia article on proved conspiracies? Where is the Wikipedia article on factually-based allegations of conspiracy? None of the existing articles that I am aware of presents a neutral point of view on either of these topics.

In which article, for example, should we include references to the San Diego citizens Grand Jury investigation and allegations of conspiracy regarding the crimes of September 11, 2001? The September 11, 2001 attacks article will doubtless not take it because it is 'conspiracy theory'. It does not belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories because it is not a 'theory' in the sense of a wild speculation, but a court proceeding. Does this topic deserve a whole article of its own with no reference in any other article? That seems misleading. In fact so do the other two previous articles just mentioned when considering that a factual analysis does not belong in either place.

For further discussion see

Keep a close watch on the articles mentioned here because they may receive some superficial patches in the very near future.

Counter-Spin Watchdog Activism

Good job finding this and pointing it out, thank you.

I will pay more attention to it now and when I'm savvy enough with the material I will contribute and lend a watchful eye.

Time consuming,

... but it still works if need be.

Wikipedia has two noticeable hiccups; first, the ability for paid contributors to get in, get to know, and get their way. Second, the systemic tendencies of its largest population of contributors, those being mostly young white males with more computer life than real life.

Thus Wikipedia can not avoid exhibiting some type and form of slant . The bastards who further manipulate wikipedia, know this and build their advantage upon it further.

At best, but really time consuming, a deeper reader can look back through time in the history section of either main article space or talk/discussion pages. Supposedly, as it is only widely believed (but not true), the history pages retain each and every exchange ever had, each and every edit and edit attempt. So reading backwards through this dynamic activity, an attentive reader should notice distinct patterns.

For the time being, it is not easy for Winston Smith to make sweeping and extensive modifications of the complete history, but it can be done on the first level and in limited strikes. Seeing this done can be a real shocker when witnessed first hand. All I'm saying is, if a person wants to try what I'm talking about, just keep an open mind ABOUT ALL THINGS.

Take a read through the history pages and pay attention to at least tow things... who's making what arguments... and how they are making them.

Now you should now have at least two good categories of intel; Some screen names with, or without their own history. And a collection of argumentation styles, including blatant but effective sophistry, often employed at Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Wikipedia has less of a strangle-hold on politics, Bush, 7/7 and 9/11 (fiction NOR truth), than it does over science itself. The more egregious wikfuckery, again just my opinion, is its powerful manipulating dominance used to prevent and stifle information that could induce or provoke thought challenging to the mainstream.

The story of Plasma Cosmology Theory vs. The Big Bang Fact... might be a decent enough example of what I allege.

It completely angers and

It completely angers and disgusts me that we have such a discriminating and biased resource that misleads our people. What's the point of calling yourself an Encyclopedia if really you reflect more of an editorial column in a gossip magazine? Who's to prove the conspiracy of a crime committed on 9/11 is NOT true? Conspiracy Theorists. I think we're the normal ones. Anyone who can buy into such an absurd story of events put out by the government officials is the conspiracy theorist. There are two theories here, and like David Ray Griffin stated best, it's not the theory you believe that makes you a conspiracy theorist. It's the people who are behind telling each story. Who do you believe? Your fellow people? Or the government who has been caught lying over and over again to it's people. Oh yeah, why are we at war again?

It's all about numbers. If

It's all about numbers. If we had only 10 people to agree to post on there daily, we could move things forward. As it is, 99% of the people on here find it more interesting to debate colleagues on 911blogger and have fun than to fight the battle with the right-wingers and CIA in control of wikipedia.

but some would argue

That those ten people might better spend their time holdiong up signs and distributing pamphlets in public. Everyone can contribute something to the cause, and the best thing one can contribute does often depend on where one is located. People near large population centers should take it straight to the poeple. People in isolated areas might well do best using the internet in various ways. I agree though that while dialogue is essential, anyone who spends ALL their time on sites like this one (911B) is doing little to help the cause, and in fcat possibly doing more harm than good.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Fully agree

I've been thinking of editing the Wikipedia article on WTC 7. It would indeed help if there were some kind of a community of 9/11 Truth editors that would support each other. Could this be implemented in the activism section?

Reactionary responses to San Diego Grand Jury

Here is a response on the "September 11, 2001 attacks" talk page to the San Diego Grand Jury:

"Holy shit, I just read the "Citizens Grand Jury" article, and I got that bad ole feeling -- the same one I got when I first read about the Khmer Rouge's "Peoples Tribunals". The 9/11 CT'ers aren't just stupid, they're dangerous -- we haven't seen propaganda like that in the U.S. since the days of Uncle Joe. It's chilling. MortonDevonshire Yo · 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"

So citizens are dangerous for accusing the government, but the government whom they accuse is not dangerous at all? This twisted reasoning reminds me of the notion that suggesting the government may have been involved in 9/11 is "hate speech." What then is the act of killing 3000 people for political purposes?

Wikipedia is a failed concept

It is controlled by wiki-nazis and others. Ideally, it was a good idea, though. But human nature killed it long ago.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent

9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)