PDA

View Full Version : Great sources of truth/info on Wikipedia



vacuum
9th July 2011, 02:51 AM
While doing a little bit of browsing around on Wikipedia, I've found what seems to be a goldmine of information on all of the different topics which are generally strongly suppressed.

The organization and availability of these topics stem from the obsessive and compulsive tendency from these skeptics to edit every controversial topic to reflect the status quo, even if they are only experts in a few of the topics. What they do is create lists of controversial topics which need "special attention" to allow them to more effectively keep them in line with the status quo. By creating such lists, they are highlighting all controversial topics which they are fighting against, inadvertently creating highly condensed lists of everything currently being suppressed.

What we'd like to do in this thread is create a list of their lists. By linking what I'll refer to as their "tactical disinfo" topic lists here, we may very well capture a large portion of all suppressed knowledge.

The goal is to have all the conspiracies you think are important to be contained somewhere in the lists we link to. By doing so, we'll know that we've captured most of their tactical disinfo areas here which will naturally net everything which we don't yet know of.

Here's what I found:

Articles attracting pseudoscientific edits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/Articles_attracting_pseudoscientific_edits/publicwatchlist

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternative,_speculative_and_disputed_theo ries

List of articles related to quackery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism/List_of_articles_related_to_quackery

List of controversial issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues

Perhaps it would also be prudent to save copies of these pages as text files from time to time in case they catch on to what we're doing. The important thing in these pages are not the articles themselves, which they actively edit, but the keywords which can be used to search for independent pages on the web.

A lot of times you can find these lists by

Searching for something you currently know to be suppressed.
Clicking on the "Discussion" tab at the top of the wiki page.
Looking for special "projects" like wiki skeptics project or similar, usually in the headers above the discussion page.
In these wiki "projects" look at the talk/discussion pages for the lists which the skeptics/wikipedian editors create to help organize themselves.


It should also be noted that the discussion pages on the individual controversial topic pages will many times show gripes people have with what is not on the page, giving you additional keywords to search for.

vacuum
9th July 2011, 03:08 AM
One thing I'd like to mention is that the real truth will not be found in any specific "quack" article itself (because it really could be bs), but in the similarities and recurring themes that these articles share. The likelihood of all crackpots, who are completely isolated and coming up with off the wall, random ideas, in their mother's basement, trailer parks, or wherever they may be, would somehow present recurring ideas is nil. It is presumed these are not well-read, highly cultured, individuals in general. Therefore, we can deduct that if there are recurring ideas here, they carry a strong chance of being true because they are from independent sources.

Status quo ideas on the other hand may or may not be true. They are not from independent sources, but rather from institutions who pass ideas from individual to individual, from generation to generation. Correlation of status quo ideas from various sources is therefore not proof of their truth. Correlation of recurring ideas from individuals who've been isolated from society, however, can be a good form of proof.

Shami-Amourae
9th July 2011, 04:33 AM
Here's an article covering Amygdalin (Vitamin B-17), one of the cures for cancer.

Notice how short the main article is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin

And notice how much longer the Discussion part is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amygdalin

Conclusion: There's an active coverup going on.