Difference between revisions of "Wikispooks:About"
(count #objects) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{HelpSection|image=Wikispooks logo.png}} | {{HelpSection|image=Wikispooks logo.png}} | ||
__NOCACHE__ | __NOCACHE__ | ||
| − | [[WikiSpooks:history|Started in 2010]], ''WikiSpooks'' is an open source encyclopedia and repository of [[document]]s about [[deep politics]]. It currently | + | '''[[WikiSpooks:history|Started in 2010]], ''WikiSpooks'' is an open source encyclopedia and repository of [[document]]s about [[deep politics]].'''<br/> |
| + | It currently has {{#ask: [[Has objectClass::Document]]|format=count}} third party documents and {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} content pages or its own, providing information on {{#ask: [[Has objectClass::Person]]|format=count}} [[people]], {{#ask: [[Has objectClass::Group]]|format=count}} [[group]]s and {{#ask: [[Has objectClass::Event]]|format=count}} [[event]]s. | ||
== Site Rationale == | == Site Rationale == | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
==What Is Wrong With Wikipedia?== | ==What Is Wrong With Wikipedia?== | ||
{{FA|Wikipedia/Problems}} | {{FA|Wikipedia/Problems}} | ||
| − | [[Wikipedia]] is good at what it does. However, its editorial policies guarantee a blind spot around matters of [[deep politics]], so information on such topics is superficial and fragmented at best and increasingly little more than a smokescreen. | + | [[Wikipedia]] is good at what it does. However, its editorial policies guarantee a blind spot around matters of [[deep politics]], so information on such topics is superficial and fragmented at best and increasingly little more than a smokescreen. Its adherence to the {{on}} as promulgated by [[establishment]]-friendly 'reliable sources' effectively mean that, to use an astrological metaphor, "''the sun must ''always'' be represented as revolving around the earth''".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei Wikipedia article - Heliocentrism]</ref> |
The "Gunpowder Plot" of 1605 in England is an example of how it is possible to marshal copious undisputed facts but nonetheless to underplay a plausible interpretation worthy of more attention. Popular perception of that event remains consonant with the official narrative that the good authorities were caught off-guard by a dastardly Popish conspiracy to blow up parliament whilst in session, and that the plot was uncovered and foiled in the nick of time. Does that sound familiar? [[Wikipedia]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot article on The Gunpowder Plot of 1605] relegating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot#Accusations_of_state_conspiracy "accusations of state conspiracy"] to a single paragraph while the copious evidence of agent-provocateuring and facilitating by the authorities of the day are not even mentioned. | The "Gunpowder Plot" of 1605 in England is an example of how it is possible to marshal copious undisputed facts but nonetheless to underplay a plausible interpretation worthy of more attention. Popular perception of that event remains consonant with the official narrative that the good authorities were caught off-guard by a dastardly Popish conspiracy to blow up parliament whilst in session, and that the plot was uncovered and foiled in the nick of time. Does that sound familiar? [[Wikipedia]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot article on The Gunpowder Plot of 1605] relegating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot#Accusations_of_state_conspiracy "accusations of state conspiracy"] to a single paragraph while the copious evidence of agent-provocateuring and facilitating by the authorities of the day are not even mentioned. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 20: | ||
== Any Other Questions? == | == Any Other Questions? == | ||
{{FA|WikiSpooks:FAQ}} | {{FA|WikiSpooks:FAQ}} | ||
| − | WikiSpooks has an {{WSLink|FAQ}} | + | WikiSpooks has an {{WSLink|FAQ}} to answer common queries and a {{WSLink|glossary}} that explains some of the specialist language used and should also give you some idea of the type of material you can find here. If you have further questions, {{WSLink|contact}} a site administrator. |
== Acknowledgements == | == Acknowledgements == | ||
Revision as of 10:06, 22 May 2015
Started in 2010, WikiSpooks is an open source encyclopedia and repository of documents about deep politics.
It currently has 2252 third party documents and 32,921 content pages or its own, providing information on 13414 people, 4896 groups and 1353 events.
Contents
Site Rationale
- Full article: Wikispooks:Site Rationale
- Full article: Wikispooks:Site Rationale
WikiSpooks combines user-submitted information from third parties with a collaborative space for the joint exploration of events, opinions and theories not generally explored in corporate media and as such, not tolerated in Wikipedia. Since official narratives sometimes change, it follows that they are not always correct. WikiSpooks provides a venue for users interested in exploring such lines of research. Most of the content here is post-WW2. Analysis of historical events from earlier times is however welcome, especially when it sheds light on the hidden purposes and practices of contemporary deep politics.
Editorial Policy
- Full article: WikiSpooks:Editorial Policy
- Full article: WikiSpooks:Editorial Policy
The fundamental premise of WikiSpooks' editorial policy is that authority opposes anything which it perceives as a threat, generally successfully because of the greater resources which authority can bring to bear. This power imbalance becomes especially acute where matters of deep politics are involved. For more on this, see Media Lens, a media-monitoring website.[1] Wikispooks therefore does not aim for a (status quo friendly) Neutral Point of View[2] and noting that newspapers and broadcasters can and do lie with impunity, it does not assume endorsement of evidence by the commercially-controlled media to be a reliable indication of its veracity.
What Is Wrong With Wikipedia?
- Full article:
Wikipedia/Problems
- Full article:
Wikipedia is good at what it does. However, its editorial policies guarantee a blind spot around matters of deep politics, so information on such topics is superficial and fragmented at best and increasingly little more than a smokescreen. Its adherence to the official narrative as promulgated by establishment-friendly 'reliable sources' effectively mean that, to use an astrological metaphor, "the sun must always be represented as revolving around the earth".[3]
The "Gunpowder Plot" of 1605 in England is an example of how it is possible to marshal copious undisputed facts but nonetheless to underplay a plausible interpretation worthy of more attention. Popular perception of that event remains consonant with the official narrative that the good authorities were caught off-guard by a dastardly Popish conspiracy to blow up parliament whilst in session, and that the plot was uncovered and foiled in the nick of time. Does that sound familiar? Wikipedia's article on The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 relegating "accusations of state conspiracy" to a single paragraph while the copious evidence of agent-provocateuring and facilitating by the authorities of the day are not even mentioned.
Any Other Questions?
- Full article: WikiSpooks:FAQ
- Full article: WikiSpooks:FAQ
WikiSpooks has an FAQ to answer common queries and a glossary that explains some of the specialist language used and should also give you some idea of the type of material you can find here. If you have further questions, contact a site administrator.
Acknowledgements
- Full article: WikiSpooks:Acknowledgments
- Full article: WikiSpooks:Acknowledgments
The site uses the MediaWiki software[4] developed for Wikipedia. It is inspired and informed by several other open source collaborative projects, including Cryptome, Wikileaks, The Deep Politics Forum, SpinProfiles, SourceWatch and last but not least, that keeper of the official narrative on the internet, Wikipedia.
References
| ||||||
|
