Wikipedia - The Memory Hole?

A

Aeron

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
862
Reaction score
0
Location
Travelling North of the Wake
Wikipedia often has some of the most pathetic and even offensive articles that have been stagnant for some time. They haven't been deleted or improved in ages. Spelling mistakes and original research (more like biased opinions) abound. But they're still there. So they can't use their "poor content" abolition policy as an excuse for doing the following.

(For interest's sake, here's a page on wiki's deletion policy as well as an article on it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages

States that wiki's admins can permanently delete pages as they see fit.

http://news.cnet.com/To-delete-Wikipedia-entry-or-not-to-delete/2100-1025_3-6149264.html

Recently I have noted three entries deleted from Wikipedia without a trace. I have viewed these pages before and can attest to them being pages of quality, with references and sources and with decent copy editing and pages which, to my knowledge, do not violate any of their policies. The deleted pages are on:

The Naked Capitalist, a controversial book written some time ago, the tin-hatters loved it but neither the book nor the page contained material that would warrant its deletion. Poof. Gone.

Descent into Slavery, the most comprehensive, factual book ever written (albeit by a bit of a loon) regarding the "Illuminati" conspiracy, stating that the apparent "occultists" who wanted to further Satan's goals on earth were not sorcerers but merely bankers that control some of the largest banks and corporations in the world. Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Du Pont, etc. Poof. Gone.

Glen Agliotti, our favourite conspirator in the Brett Kebble case and apparent drug baron in hometown South Africa. Poof. Gone.

The entries on these three topics were deleted for no apparent reason. Note, the page of Glenn and Naked Capitalist are still hyperlinked (dead links) in the Wikipedia pages of Jackie Selebi and writer Cleon Skousen respectively. Descent into Slavery's links on other pages have been deleted.

There is no Wikipedia notice that says "this page was deleted for the following reason:..." They simply delete it.

The page on Glen Agliotti really shocked me. I was reading the page some time ago when I accidentally closed my browser. Instead of reopening the page through my history, I googled it again and the entry was gone. In the space of ten minutes, the entry vanished.

This happened a few months ago but only when I googled The Naked Capitalist for its wiki entry earlier today did I notice it was also gone. I checked Descent into Slavery because I knew its content was highly controversial and conspiratorial and found it had followed the other two pages down the chute.

Why the hell have these pages been deleted? Because these pages dealt with conspiratorial or controversial topics? Because its admins are growing superiority complexes and choosing to delete selectively?

*Note: I have checked the deleted archives of Wikipedia, Deletionpedia, and the articles in question are not there.

Wikipedia, the free, unbiased encyclopedia of the world? I hope they have a good reason for these actions. More than that, I hope someone can prove that I'm dreaming this up and that some mistake has been made.

This is not right.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why people still insist on controlling information! FFS, we are in the age of the internet, we are reading more and all these types of actions are becoming more blatant.

I've been reading more and more cases of these "disputes" on what's fact and what should be reported. If the contributors are based on a broad representation of our society, then it seems we are all too ready to censor ourselves!!

I really love the idea of wikis but the implementation thus far really sucks!

Who are these so-called Editors and who owns Wikipeadia?
 
Last edited:
Control of information is bad, but seriously, what do you want us to do about it? Channel some feng shue at the admin of wiki ? Besides, seems like those entries fell into a certain category, that applied a limited amount of fact and reason. Of course you may not agree that the articles are totally devoid of proof, fact or logic, but if you feel so strongly about it, take it up with wiki, because we here certainly can not have them reinstated.
 
Ok. I understand for something like this there needs to be a good deal of integrity but it just seems like completely removing the page is a bit too drastic.

One can't even see the old page to make up their own minds.

I use Wikipeadia as a springboard to new information. If I am still interested in the topic, I will then corroborate what I have read with my own sources.

At the end of the day, those books still exist (and so does Agliotti, if he hasn peeved too many people :p). And while the articles may have been biased, removing all traces can't do much except antagonise those who interested in finding out more.
 
I have noticed information disappearing in general off the net, not just wiki.

Recently when I read controversial websites I also archive them offline, because they might disappear after a while.

The other pattern I have noticed is that educational information is all but free these days, almost 99% of the time when I'm doing research, the articles are in a pay for database.

A few years ago, much of that information was freely available.

I'm not into conspiracy theories, but as an experienced user it does seem to me that somehow some group of people take the flow of information very seriousely and do make efforts to have 'offensive material' removed where they can.

I am also relying more on news from non US/UK sources, and no longer rely on my Google news selections, I now read translated German, Russian, Japanese and some other countries for news.

I am becoming increasingly wary of disinformation, indoctrination and a general lack of real and honest news that flow from the US global media machine, including television.

Looking at history it has always been easy for mainstream society to have a veil put over their eyes, it happened to the Germans, and it happened to South Africans, and it recently happened in the US. (obvious examples)

I do believe that the information must flow and that we the people are responsible for that, if we take an apathetic attitude, we will lose the bit of
control and input we do have.

Television has become a very regulated media output, the same is happening on the mainstream web, but fortunately the vastness of the web and the location of databases in 'safe' locations ensure that no ONE country or group of people will ever be able to fully control the flow of information.

Countries can of course limit what/where their citizens surf, which is already happening, the reasons will be: for national defense or to prevent fraud and scams.

The regulation of the internet is on the agenda of many governments, sometimes to control information, sometimes because they're looking for a way to somehow tax or make money off the users.

For the first time in current history, people all over the world are united and
conversing with each other without needing consent from their governments,
this has taken control (of information/disinformation) away from governments in general.

It is good to view this topic as serious, to keep an open mind, freedom of speech and the right to information are very important issues and each of us should strive to be a watchdog - it is a worthy cause.
 
Agreed! Its rough that one has to go thru so many lengths to get unfiltered information.
I feel a bit of comfort in knowing that atleast the internet is growing much faster than it can be controlled.

If Wikipeadia is choosing this stance on information it should not be long too till some disgruntled ex-editors come up with a more free flowing form information sharing(Deletionpedia already seems to be an example of this).
 
Folks, let's try our best not to turn this into a tin-foil thread. This is by far the most perverse control of information from a Western source that I have ever seen and I would like it to get some mainstream attention.

Before someone asks, I research old wealthy bloodlines and royal families for interest's sake and because I'm a history nut, not because I like tin foil.

Wikipedia is the most viewed research/informational webpage on the Web, by far. And now they are abusing their position to ensure certain information does not reach the general public.

Deletionpedia is a complete joke. I searched all the items mentioned below on Deletionpedia and they have no logs whatsoever of them.

Beneath are some more things I've found that have been deleted in articles last edited in July/August 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_family

The Joel family, a group of British-South Africans who made billions and billions at the mines in South Africa who were in competition with Rhodes, have recently lost four of their memebers on the list. I can attest to researching them on wikipedia and having read through their articles. As above, they were of excellent quality with diverse sources.

• Jack Barnato Joel (1862-1940), mining magnate, Chairman of Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Company Ltd (from 1931), Thoroughbred racehorse owner/breeder married to Olivie Coulson Sopwith (d. 1937), daughter of Thomas Sopwith.
• Jim Joel (1895-1992), businessman, philanthropist, Thoroughbred racehorse owner/breeder
• Solomon Joel (1865-1931), mining, brewing and railway magnate
• Stanhope Henry Joel (1903-1973), businessman, Thoroughbred racehorse owner/breeder
• Woolf Joel (1863-1898), South African mining magnate
• Dudley Joel (1904-1941), businessman, politician, WWII naval officer

You don't delete a family of billionaires off wikipedia.

Those above in BOLD are entries removed from wikipedia. The non-bold are the remnants.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont_family

The DuPont family, who the Guiness Book of World records estimated at having $ 150 billion net worth in 1995, owners of DuPont chemicals company, recently lost all these entries:

• Alexis Irénée du Pont (1816-1857) [3]
• Alexis Irénée du Pont, Jr. (1843-1904) [4]
• Alexis Irénée du Pont, III 1869-1921
• Benjamin Franklin du Pont (1964 - ) founder of yet2.com
• Eleuthère Irénée du Pont, II (1829-1877
• Eugene du Pont, Jr
• Henry du Pont (1812-1889)
• Lammot du Pont, II (1880- )
• Maximillian Hobson du Pont (1985- )
• Pierre du Pont III (1911-1988)
• Reynolds du Pont (1918- ).
• William du Pont (1855-1928
• Robert du Pont III (1963-)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phipps_family

The Phipps family, arguably the richest American family not in the spotlight like the Waltons and Bill Gates, lost most of their entries. Henry Phipps, the patriarch of the family, was Andrew Carnegie's business partner in the Carnegie Steel Company, the largest steel company in history.

This list is copied verbatim from the Wiki, with bold text indicating the deleted entries.

• Henry Phipps (1839-1930)
• John Shaffer Phipps (1874-1958)
• Henry Carnegie Phipps (1879-1953)
• Gladys Mills Phipps (1883-1970)
• Amy Phipps Guest (1876-1959)
• Lillian Bostwick Phipps (1906-1987)
• Ogden Phipps (1908-2002)
• Barbara Phipps Janney (1911-1987)
• Ogden Mills Phipps (b. 1940)
• Cynthia Phipps (1945-2007)
• Stuart Symington Janney III (b. 1948)
• Esmond Bradley Martin (1915-2002)
• Serina Martin Sanchez (b. 1948)
• Sandra Marie Phipps (b.1962)
• Andrew Eristoff (b. 1963)
• Carlos Esmond Sanchez, M.D. (b. 1976)
• Stephen Michael Phipps Breed (b. 1984)
• Christopher Sean Phipps Breed (b. 1987)
• Casandra Marie Martin (b. 1992)
• Brittany Ann Phipps
• Sheila Janney Williams
• Barbara Williams Horneffer
• Rufus McQueen Gibbs Williams
• Sheila Williams Fisher
• Richard Williams
• William C. Trimble III
Barbara Janney Trimble

This ought to give the the tinfoilers nightmares for a long time to come. For the rest of the world, I hope you realise the significance of this rampant deletion of famous people.
 
Aeron said:
Wikipedia often has some of the most pathetic and even offensive articles that have been stagnant for some time. They haven't been deleted or improved in ages. Spelling mistakes and original research (more like biased opinions) abound. But they're still there. So they can't use their "poor content" abolition policy as an excuse for doing the following.

(For interest's sake, here's a page on wiki's deletion policy as well as an article on it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy_on_permanent_deletion_of_pages

States that wiki's admins can permanently delete pages as they see fit.

http://news.cnet.com/To-delete-Wikipedia-entry-or-not-to-delete/2100-1025_3-6149264.html

Recently I have noted three entries deleted from Wikipedia without a trace. I have viewed these pages before and can attest to them being pages of quality, with references and sources and with decent copy editing and pages which, to my knowledge, do not violate any of their policies. The deleted pages are on:

The Naked Capitalist, a controversial book written some time ago, the tin-hatters loved it but neither the book nor the page contained material that would warrant its deletion. Poof. Gone.

Descent into Slavery, the most comprehensive, factual book ever written (albeit by a bit of a loon) regarding the "Illuminati" conspiracy, stating that the apparent "occultists" who wanted to further Satan's goals on earth were not sorcerers but merely bankers that control some of the largest banks and corporations in the world. Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Du Pont, etc. Poof. Gone.

Glen Agliotti, our favourite conspirator in the Brett Kebble case and apparent drug baron in hometown South Africa. Poof. Gone.

The entries on these three topics were deleted for no apparent reason. Note, the page of Glenn and Naked Capitalist are still hyperlinked (dead links) in the Wikipedia pages of Jackie Selebi and writer Cleon Skousen respectively. Descent into Slavery's links on other pages have been deleted.

There is no Wikipedia notice that says "this page was deleted for the following reason:..." They simply delete it.

The page on Glen Agliotti really shocked me. I was reading the page some time ago when I accidentally closed my browser. Instead of reopening the page through my history, I googled it again and the entry was gone. In the space of ten minutes, the entry vanished.

This happened a few months ago but only when I googled The Naked Capitalist for its wiki entry earlier today did I notice it was also gone. I checked Descent into Slavery because I knew its content was highly controversial and conspiratorial and found it had followed the other two pages down the chute.

Why the hell have these pages been deleted? Because these pages dealt with conspiratorial or controversial topics? Because its admins are growing superiority complexes and choosing to delete selectively?

*Note: I have checked the deleted archives of Wikipedia, Deletionpedia, and the articles in question are not there.

Wikipedia, the free, unbiased encyclopedia of the world? I hope they have a good reason for these actions. More than that, I hope someone can prove that I'm dreaming this up and that some mistake has been made.

This is not right.
Click to expand...

Fascinating thread thanks....
 
I want to stab people in the eyes with a brick, when they quote the whole post and reply with a one liner, that adds nothing to the debate. As the above, why did you find it fascinating, what parts did you agree with, do you have other information to add or correct the OP..
 
Balstrome said:
I want to stab people in the eyes with a brick, when they quote the whole post and reply with a one liner, that adds nothing to the debate. As the above, why did you find it fascinating, what parts did you agree with, do you have other information to add or correct the OP..
Click to expand...

Yes...
:D
 
I have a question for any frequent wikipedia readers: Since when have "dead" links (links to pages that do not exist) been displayed in blood red? This must be a relatively new addition since I haven't noticed it before?

This is going from ridiculous to outrageous.

1. The Glen Grey Act has been removed. It was introduced by Cecil John Rhodes to move black people from their lands in order to mine them and make billions for himself and NMR.

http://www.sabinet.co.za/abstracts/sajeh/sajeh_v8_n2_a4.xml

2. The US Industrial Alcohol Company, the largest alcohol producing company in America, has been removed. Apparently it merged along with a few other giants to create Equistar Chemicals LP, which also happens to be excluded from Wikipedia.

3. Niger Oil Company, one of Cecil John Rhodes' and Charles Rudd's babies, is gone.

4. Zemdrain, a very well-known product from DuPont used in military structures and present on DuPont's website is GONE from Wikipedia.

http://www2.dupont.com/Zemdrain/en_US/

None of these things are in Deletionpedia. Wiki's code states that they always move deleted things to Deletionpedia.

I thought Wikipedia was there for anyone to contribute to FREE INFORMATION, not to create another monopoly on the most valuable resource on the planet: Information.

What is going on?
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia is a great place to get a good overview of most topics. Its not an authority... something it has never claimed to be.

Wikipedia from what I understand .. is the most accurate encyclopedia in the world. Well for the comparrison tests I saw.
 
Wikipedia is an incredible site. the information may sometimes be wrong, but that is what happens when you have users contributing their knowlege on a topic instead of an authority, who are also often wrong. so far all the information i've ever looked up on Wikipedia has been 100% accurate and often better than most websites.

i'd rather have an encyclopedia that is constantly changing and updating itself, FOR FREE, than a book that i'd have to pay for that also would NEVER hold as much information as Wikipedia. and until the day Wikipedia forces us to pay a subscription, they are going to be one of the best things that have ever happened to the internet :D

also, on not being an authority of things, i find that wikipedia cuts thru the sh** and gets to the point of most things. THEN it still provides links to other topics, and websites outside of wikipedia for MORE information. if an article is getting deleted, it's not becoz of censorship or conspiracies, it's will be becoz of the users updating that information. all we can do is ask Wikipedia.
 
The sad story is that students use Wikipedia as a reference in their studies, and then cannot understand why it is not accepted.
 
Wikipedia is a great site, make no mistake. I love that I have a hoarde of information all in one location. The problem is the fact that Wikipedia has done many things wrong. Firstly, it has driven out many of the smaller, independent information sites on the internet. Those sites are no longer visited because the entire world adds "wiki" to their Google search bar and goes straight to Wikipedia.

The other, much more disturbing thing, is that Wikipedia has moved the bulk of information away from difficult to control, independent informational sites, into one big pot that everyone depends on. And it is infinitely easier to regulate, ban or "memory hole" large amounts of information in a short period of time if it is all together in one place.

Look at Zemdrain for crying out loud. It's a product used in military application and its been deleted. It is not in Deletionpedia. Look at the tons of links I have provided.

What more is necessary for people to believe that something might be wrong with Wikipedia?

Power corrupts. And wikipedia has power over information.
 
Balstrome said:
I want to stab people in the eyes with a brick, when they quote the whole post and reply with a one liner, that adds nothing to the debate. As the above, why did you find it fascinating, what parts did you agree with, do you have other information to add or correct the OP..
Click to expand...


Only just seen this tart reply oops! Had you down as a fairly funny dude, so wassup you had a bad day? :erm: Being as how I'm a conspiracy theorist I was intrigued to find that all mention of Agliotti had been removed from wiki... Ive long asserted that all sorts of incriminating stuff gets cleaned off regularly... So ja I did find the post fascinating but more so, your ill temper... chill dude...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X