Should Wikipedia matter?

As someone belabored, truthers haven't been able to even add a link to a WTC 7 collapse video to Wikipedia's WTC 7 article, and I decided to try to do something about it. Here's Wikipedia's WTC 7 page:

Interestingly, the WTC 7 article has been selected as

"a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria." (see the discussion page)

Anyway, I added this to the section entitled "Collapse":

There are numerous resources for viewing the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the Internet, including [ Google Video].

I also added a link to a Google video of WTC 7's collapse to the External Links section.

Finally, to test the waters, I added NIST's statement that "No steel was recovered from WTC 7" to a relevant section.

All the changes were quickly reverted by different users. When I responded by undoing some of the reverts (and arguing that users should be encouraged to view videos of this major building disaster), I was directed to Wikipedia's "three revert rule" policy, based on which an editor can be blocked if he or she makes more than three reverts during a 24-hour period.

So, a number of Wikipedia editors seem to be collaborating in an effort to prevent the addition of anything that might challenge the official story, at least in the case of the WTC 7 article (and that is easy to see by reading the article). Obviously, one or two truthers are not going to be able to change this. Many more would be needed. The question that needs to be asked, of course, is: Is it worth the effort? How much reader traffic does a typical 9/11 article from Wikipedia get?

Be this as it may, if someone knows of a WTC 7 collapse video that does not infringe on any copyrights etc, I'd appreciate a link. All advice regarding conflict resolution etc. on Wikipedia would also be helpful.

it shouldnt matter but sadly

it shouldnt matter but sadly it still does. people use Google all the time. go to Google and type in something or someone random. what usually comes up on the first page? Wikipedia. theres a reason so many professionals(NewsCorp,the CIA,foreign governments etc.) have been caught tampering there. they have influence. so i think its worth trying to counter the trolls there and commend you for it. you've seen the prisonplanet articles on the Wikipedia trolls right?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Joining forces

Yes, I read the PrisonPlanet article.

If Wikipedia does matter, what about organizing a group of editors that attempts to make the most important 9/11 articles more neutral?

Even a group consisting of half a dozen active people could make a difference.

The article on WTC 7 is absolutely one that needs our attention.

Ideas? Anyone willing to help?

While it is important and it does matter

as long as is the first site that comes up on a Google search I don't think we should worry about it too much. I have to wonder how much longer that will be the case, though.

After reading about the antics on Wikipedia I don't think we'll have any luck getting a fair or even neutral article from them.

You can always keep trying.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Modus operandi

"After reading about the antics on Wikipedia I don't think we'll have any luck getting a fair or even neutral article from them."

WE should not expect a neutral article from THEM.

What is certain is that it's no use trying to change the article in isolation, but together and in coordination. I don't think there are so many trolls there. However, they work efficiently together.

Why are you giving Wikipedia

Why are you giving Wikipedia your time and credibility?

Wikipedia is a standard now.

Imagine this: Wikipedia *has* to say the truth.

But in a time when most people are dreadfully deceived, the truth is easily confused with "what most people believe"

VESA, I think your approach is EXCELLENT!

There is no law that says that everything in Wikipedia has to make sense. CONTRADICTORY statements are allowed. It boils down to:

1) It is amply publicised and common knowledge that....
(but it is contradicted by)
2) this fact.

We should insert more facts (2) into Wikipedia FOR SURE.

The truth.......

Since 9/11, whatever follows such vague statements as : "Some people say that.........", has also become equivalent with the truth.

As long as a medium has some sort of tie/connection to someone who has a vested interest in the contents of the message this medium conveys, one should take for granted that the message is a misrepresentation. Newspapers, television, radio, movies, blog sites and other internet sites are ALL the same. It just depends on who they serve. What is for damn sure is that the ones that serve "the common man" are few and far in between.

Cheney Is A Dick

Wikipedia is a failed concept

It should always be referred to as the "Evil Wikipedia".

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein